iving union of heart with"--Mr. Vaughan meant
"identity of morals with"--he should have said so: but he should
have borne in mind that all the great evangelicals have meant much
more than this by those words; that on the whole, instead of
considering--as he seems to do, and we do--the moral and the
spiritual as identical, they have put them in antithesis to each
other, and looked down upon "mere morality" just because it did not
seem to them to involve that supernatural, transcendental, "mystic"
element which they considered that they found in Scripture. From
Luther to Owen and Baxter, from them to Wesley, Cecil, and Venn,
Newton, Bridges, the great evangelical authorities would (not very
clearly or consistently, for they were but poor metaphysicians, but
honestly and earnestly) have accepted some modified form of the
Mystic's theory, even to the "discerning in particular thoughts,
frames, impulses, and inward witnessings, immediate communications
from heaven." Surely Mr. Vaughan must be aware that the majority of
"vital Christians" on this ground are among his mystic offenders; and
that those who deny such possibilities are but too liable to be
stigmatised as "Pelagians," and "Rationalists." His friend Atherton
is bound to show cause why those names are not to be applied to him,
as he is bound to show what he means by "living union with Christ,"
and why he complains of the Mystic for desiring "participation in the
Divine nature." If he does so, he only desires what the New
Testament formally, and word for word, promises him; whatsoever be
the meaning of the term, he is not to be blamed for using it. Mr.
Vaughan cannot have forgotten the many expressions, both of St. Paul
and St. John, which do at first sight go far to justify the Mystic,
though they are but seldom heard, and more seldom boldly commented
on, in modern pulpits--of Christ being formed in men, dwelling in
men; of God dwelling in man and man in God; of Christ being the life
of men; of men living, and moving, and having their being in God; and
many another passage. If these be mere metaphors let the fact be
stated, with due reason for it. But there is no sin or shame in
interpreting them in that literal and realist sense in which they
seem at first sight to have been written. The first duty of a
scholar who sets before himself to investigate the phenomena of
"Mysticism" so called, should be to answer these questions: Can
there be a direct communica