I am not so ignorant of the temper and tendency of the age in which I
live, as either to be unprepared for the _sort_ of remarks which the
literal interpretation of the Evangelist will call forth, or to
attempt an answer to them. Visionary ravings, obsolete whimsies,
transcendental trash, and the like, I leave to pass at the price
current among those who are willing to receive abusive phrases as
substitutes for argument. Should any suborner of anonymous criticism
have engaged some literary bravo or buffoon beforehand, to vilify this
work, as in former instances, I would give a friendly hint to the
operative critic that he may compile an excellent article for the
occasion, and with very little trouble, out of Warburton's tract on
Grace and the Spirit, and the Preface to the same. There is, however,
one objection which will so often be heard from men, whose talents and
reputed moderation must give a weight to their words, that I owe it
both to my own character and to the interests of my readers, not to
leave it unnoticed. The charge will probably be worded in this
way:--There is nothing new in all this! (_as if novelty were any merit
in questions of Revealed Religion!_) It is _Mysticism_, all taken out
of William Law, after he had lost his senses, poor man! in brooding
over the visions of a delirious German cobbler, Jacob Behmen.
Of poor Jacob Behmen I have delivered my sentiments at large in
another work. Those who have condescended to look into his writings
must know, that his characteristic errors are; first, the mistaking
the accidents and peculiarities of his own over-wrought mind for
realities and modes of thinking common to all minds: and secondly, the
confusion of nature, that is, the active powers communicated to
matter, with God the Creator. And if the same persons have done more
than merely looked into the present volume, they must have seen, that
to eradicate, and, if possible, to preclude both the one and the
other stands prominent among its avowed objects.[156]
Of William Law's works I am acquainted with the "Serious Call;" and
besides this I remember to have read a small tract on Prayer, if I
mistake not, as I easily may, it being at least six-and-twenty
years[157] since I saw it. He may in this or in other tracts have
quoted the same passages from the fourth Gospel as I have done. But
surely this affords no presumption that my conclusions are the same
with his; still less, that they are drawn from the same premisses: and
least of all, that they were adopted from his writings. Whether Law
has used the phrase, assimilation by faith, I know not; but I know
that I should expose myself to a just charge of an idle parade of my
reading, if I recapitulated the tenth part of the authors, ancient,
and modern, Romish and Reformed, from Law to Clemens Alexandrinus and
Irenæus, in whose works the same phrase occurs in the same sense. And
after all, on such a subject how worse than childish is the whole
dispute!
Is the fourth Gospel authentic? And is the interpretation I have
given, true or false? These are the only questions which a wise man
would put, or a Christian be anxious to answer. I not only believe it
to be the true sense of the texts; but I assert that it is the only
true, rational, and even _tolerable_ sense. And this position alone I
conceive myself interested in defending. I have studied with an open
and fearless spirit the attempts of sundry learned critics of the
Continent, to invalidate the authenticity of this Gospel, before and
since Eichhorn's Vindication. The result has been a clearer assurance
and (as far as this was possible) a yet deeper conviction of the
genuineness of _all_ the writings, which the Church has attributed to
this Apostle. That those, who have formed an opposite conclusion,
should object to the use of expressions which they had ranked among
the most obvious marks of spuriousness, follows as a matter of course.
But that men, who with a clear and cloudless assent receive the sixth
chapter of this Gospel as a faithful, nay, _inspired_ record of an
actual discourse, should take offence at the repetition of words which
the Redeemer himself, in the perfect foreknowledge that they would
confirm the disbelieving, alienate the unsteadfast, and transcend the
present capacity even of his own Elect, had chosen as the _most_
appropriate; and which, after the most decisive proofs, that they
_were_ misinterpreted by the greater number of his hearers, and not
understood by any, he nevertheless repeated with stronger emphasis and
_without comment_ as the _only_ appropriate symbols of the great truth
he was declaring, and to realize which εγενετο σαρξ;[158]--that in
their own discourses these men should hang back from all express
reference to these words, as if they were afraid or ashamed of them,
though the earliest recorded ceremonies and liturgical forms of the
primitive Church are absolutely inexplicable, except in connexion with
this discourse, and with the _mysterious_ and _spiritual_, not
allegorical and merely ethical, import of the same; and though this
import is solemnly and in the most unequivocal terms asserted and
taught by their own Church, even in her Catechism, or compendium of
doctrines necessary for all her members;--_this_ I may, perhaps,
_understand_; but _this_ I am not able to vindicate or excuse.
There is, however, one opprobrious phrase which it may be profitable
for my younger readers that I should explain, namely, Mysticism. And
for this purpose I will quote a sentence or two from a Dialogue which,
had my prescribed limits permitted, I should have attached to the
present work; but which with an Essay on the Church, as instituted by
Christ, and as an establishment of the State, and a series of letters
on the right and the superstitious use and estimation of the Bible,
will appear in a small volume by themselves, should the reception
given to the present volume encourage or permit the publication.[159]