Was Samuel Rutherford A Mystic?

By Robert Arnold

Friedrich von Hügel identified the three elements of religion as the institutional, the speculative, and the mystical. [1] Examples of institutional and speculative religion abound in Scotland, but historically, the classification of “mystic” has not been associated with Scottish theologians. However, Samuel Rutherford’s (1600-1661) poetic descriptions of Christ led Agnes Machar, in 1886, to publish an article entitled “A Scottish Mystic.” She concluded that Rutherford was “one of the most remarkable of truly [sic] spiritual mystics, whose burning words have awakened many a sleeping soul to its glorious inheritance in Christ Jesus.” [2] This article was the first to apply the label of “mystic” to Rutherford, but since then various authors have followed suit. Adam Philip characterized Rutherford as a man “with mystical longings.” [3] Biographer Robert Gilmour depicted Rutherford as one of Scotland’s “greatest scholastics and greatest mystics in one,” [4] and, as recently as 2005, Alison Searle classified Rutherford as a “Scottish Covenanter and mystic.” [5]

These descriptions prompt the question, “Was Rutherford a mystic?” This investigation will focus first on Rutherford’s Letters. While in Aberdeen, the High Commission forced Rutherford to assume a solitary, somewhat ascetic lifestyle, and his letters were his only contact with the outside world for months at a time. Significantly, this ascetic lifestyle was not a personal choice, but political events thrust it upon him. He spent only two years in isolation, but wrote a majority of his correspondence during this time. Consequently, the letters from Aberdeen may not accurately represent the entire man; they were indicative of only a brief period in his life. To compensate, this investigation will also examine Rutherford’s other works, many of which were written post-exile. In particular, this study will examine treatises that either described Rutherford’s view of the Christian life, or expressed antagonism toward sects that held to mystical theology. [6] If Rutherford was a mystic, he was a Christian mystic and reflected Protestant, Calvinistic theology. He affirmed Chalcedonian Trinitarianism and acknowledged the divinity and humanity of Christ. [7] Moreover, he anathematized heterodox sects and foreign religions as idolatrous. Therefore, this investigation will remain within the bounds of Christianity, despite the fact that many religions have mystics. By determining whether Rutherford was a mystic, we will gain insight into a man who was instrumental in the emerging Presbyterian Church and who left an enduring ecclesiastical, political, and theological legacy throughout the English-speaking world.

A Definition Of Mysticism

The terms mysticism and mystic have proven notoriously difficult to define. Evelyn Underhill attempted to define mysticism as “the art of union with Reality. The mystic is a person who has attained that union in greater or less degree; or who aims at and believes in such attainment.” [8] Underhill’s definition emphasized “union” but noticeably omitted a reference to the divine, instead substituting the word “reality.” Conversely, Bernard McGinn included a reference to the divine while, at the same time, providing a much richer perspective by separating mysticism into three headings.

Rather than trying to define mysticism (any simple definition of such a complex and controversial phenomenon seems utopian), I prefer to give a sense of how I understand the term by discussing it under three headings: mysticism as a part or element of religion; mysticism as a process or way of life; and mysticism as an attempt to express a direct consciousness of the presence of God. [9]

McGinn recognized a horizontal dimension “as a part or element of religion,” a personal dimension “as a process or way of life,” and a vertical dimension “as an attempt to express direct consciousness of the presence of God.” Further, he explained that many definitions stressed “some form of union with God, particularly a union of absorption of identity in which the individual personality is lost.” He argued that these definitions were too narrow, omitting too many mystics, and instead suggested that the term “presence” was a “more central and a more useful category for grasping the unifying note in the varieties of Christian mysticism.” [10]

A third author, Geraldine Hodgson, wrote about mysticism on the British Isles and concluded that a main characteristic was the “love” between the devotee and God. “However voluminous the elucidations, or elaborate the illustrations, must it not all come at last to some such simple phrase as direct communication, in an atmosphere of love, between the human spirit and its divine Source?” [11] Mystics often employed the language of the Song of Songs, which was a sensual language based upon the marriage metaphor, to express this love. Thus, Hodgson highlighted the emotional passion behind mysticism, a dimension not emphasized by the earlier definitions.

All three definitions emphasize different characteristics, but none is comprehensive in scope. Consequently, we must realize that a brief definition is necessary but inadequate because it will emphasize only two or three of the manifold aspects of Christian mysticism. While realizing the limitations, for the purpose of this investigation, mysticism is a contemplative process or lifestyle that involves heightened levels of spiritual experience through a perceived divine presence, intense love, and spiritual insight. [12] Likewise, mystics sought to experience the divine presence in order to understand mysteries that were incomprehensible through the natural means of observation and empirical reasoning.

Rutherford’s Works

Rutherford was painfully aware of life’s mysteries, but at the same time he had a burning desire to know God intimately. He used the term “mystery” to describe aspects of the Christian life he could not explain. Sometimes he used the term to describe a moral or spiritual lesson learned during a difficult experience or ordeal. [13] At other times, he described the love of Christ as a “mystery.” [14] Most often, however, Rutherford used the phrase “mystical Christ” to refer to the churches of Ireland, Scotland, and England. [15] The church was “mystical” because the saints of God were united mystically to Christ and to each other; while the saints suffered, they corporately yearned for the day when this union would become an earthly reality. [16]

Nevertheless, a man who used terms like “mystery” and “mystical” was not automatically a mystic. It is necessary, for this reason, to establish criteria as a standard to examine Rutherford’s works. Four elements of mysticism will serve as these criteria: 1) a mystical process with clearly delineated steps; 2) a mystical union with the divine “presence”; 3) a mystical darkness and feelings of abandonment; and 4) a mystical insight or special revelation, which was usually accompanied by mystical ecstasy. [17]

The Mystical Process

The Mystical Process, or “Mystical Way,” is the first element of mysticism that will serve as a criterion. The mystical process involved a process or lifestyle with specific steps or stages, and the mystic strictly adhered to the process. By doing so, he transcended the earthly plane to draw near to the divine. Neo-platonic dualism, especially received through the Greek philosopher Plotinus, was a formative influence; Plotinus drew sharp distinctions between the physical and spiritual realms. [18] Supposedly, mystics bridged the gap through contemplation and self-abnegation. The number of steps or stages varied, [19] but at a minimum, “the Mystic Way—the ladder of perfection or scale perfectionis—has been divided into three stages: the purgative life, the illuminative life, and the unitive or contemplative life.” [20] Purgation involved separation from sin and worldly impediments. Illumination involved a heightened form of knowledge or insight inaccessible through empirical observation or human reason. Union with the Divine is the final stage where “Thou castest thyself in an infinite sea of goodness, that more easily drowns and happily swallows thee up than the ocean does a drop of water.” [21]

In contrast to mystics, Rutherford embraced the Protestant doctrine of sanctification, a process whereby all Christians develop or mature in Christ. Rutherford rejected the Roman Catholic notion that sanctification was contingent upon works such as the sacraments, sexual renunciation, an ascetic lifestyle, or legalism. Sanctification was a work of the Spirit and the instrument of the Spirit was the Word of God. In his catechism, Rutherford defined sanctification as “the work of God’s Spirit by the Word, putting in us the life of Christ and renewing all the power of our soul.” [22] Through the Word, the Spirit vivifies and divinely empowers the elect. The Holy Spirit, however, also had another instrument at His disposal, the instrument of human suffering. According to Rutherford, suffering was a tool used by God to purify believers, but in contrast to mystical practices, the Christian did not choose affliction voluntarily; instead, the Spirit thrusts it upon him. Suffering brings spiritual growth. After an extended struggle with personal affliction, Rutherford was able to write to Lady Kenmure that “[t]here is a nick in Christianity, to the which whosoever cometh, they see and feel more than others can do.” [23] He repeated this claim often and believed that the sanctification process would guide him to even more lofty heights. [24]

The Mystical Union

The mystical union is the second element that will serve as a criterion. [25] Defining union is almost as difficult as defining mysticism or mystic. Mystical union was the final stage and ultimate goal of mysticism. In a medieval English document, The Cloud of Unknowing, the anonymous author attempted to describe this union with the Divine.

It is only by his mercy and without any merit of yours that you are made a god in grace, united with him in spirit without any division between you, both here and in the happiness of heaven without end. So though you are one with him in grace, you are yet far beneath him in nature. [26]

This was a description of the theological concept of theosis or deification. The mystical union was a state of existence where the mystic became god-like, perfectly united with the Divine, yet remaining distinct from the divine nature or essence. Despite mystical descriptions like this one, McGinn warned that any definition that emphasized “absorption of identity in which the individual personality is lost” is too narrow. [27] Evelyn Underhill, however, noted that often there was an aspect of deification or divination involved, where the personality of the mystic disappeared as he journeyed “beyond the reach of the senses” and was enveloped by the Divine. She observed that “Teresa of Avila went so far as to declare that she had achieved union with the Divine Essence.” [28]

Rutherford anathematized any form of union that involved participation in the divine essence (ousia). He attributed this heresy to Henry Nicholas, the founder of the Family of Love, who claimed to be “Godded” or “Christed.”29 Second Peter 1:4 promises Christians that they were “partakers of the divine nature.” Rutherford was aware that sects such as the Swenckfeldians and Familists misinterpreted this passage, so he corrected their mistake. He wrote:

Now to be a partaker of the divine nature is to partake of the graces and created goodnesses and anointing of the Spirit, otherwise the essence and nature of God in us should be subject to change. [30]

A primary tenet of Christianity was divine immutability. Rutherford opposed the deification of Swenckfeldians and Familists because they implied that the essence and nature of God was changeable. Consequently, when he spoke of the believer’s union with Christ, he never confused the personality or essence of Christ with the personality or essence of the elect. No matter how intimate the communion, Rutherford continuously stressed the eternal distinction. A barrier between Christ the Creator and His creations exists for all eternity. [31]

Like the mystics, Rutherford used the metaphor of steps, but, unlike the mystics, God took the steps through Christ on behalf of humanity.

I know that God is casten (if I may speak so) in a sweet mould, and lovely image, in the person of that heavenly jewel, the Man-Christ, and that the steps of the steep ascent and stairs to the Godhead is the flesh of Christ, the New and Living Way; there is footing for faith in that curious Ark of the humanity, wherein dwelleth the Godhead, married upon our humanity. [32]

Rutherford mixed metaphors but he was referring to the incarnation. Christ was the “ascent,” the “stairs,” the “new and living Way,” and the “ark of humanity.” Believers do not ascend to God, but God descended and dwelt among men through the incarnation of Christ. Strickland rightly observed that

[w]e must note the distinction he [Rutherford] draws between grace and the essence of divinity in order to avoid any concept of union with God that might imply the absolute deification, or conversely, annihilation of humanity. While stressing that our participation in the divine nature is a real thing, he [Rutherford] is clear that this does not mean that we are united ‘to Christ with the same union that Christ’s humanity on earth was with His Godhead.’ [33]

In contrast to most mystics, Rutherford was confident that a union with Christ was an automatic and present reality. Unification was at the point of salvation through the indwelling Holy Spirit. Sanctification was the process and glorification was the goal. Glorification was a heightened state of unification, but it, too, was a work of the Spirit. Glorification was impossible as long as the believer was living in a corrupt, fleshly body.

In his writings, Rutherford affirmed Christ’s presence or union with the elect in at least three ways. First, the union had a physical dimension. When Christ took on human flesh through the incarnation, the human race vicariously participated in a union of humanity and divinity. Christ, in His earthly body, was subject to weaknesses of the flesh and yet remained fully divine. He ascended into heaven after the resurrection in His glorified human form. [34] He sits at the right hand of God, as a man, mediating with the Father on humanity’s behalf. At the same time, He dwells as God in men, mediating with humanity on the Father’s behalf.

Second, the union had a legal or covenantal dimension. Christ was the second Adam and appointed to the federal headship of God’s elect, through which He assumed all the obligations of the covenant. [35] Rutherford used many metaphors to explain this aspect of the divine presence, but his most vivid metaphors were in nuptial terms. Christ is the Husband and Bridegroom of the church; believers are His bride both corporately and individually. [36]

Third, the union had a spiritual dimension. Believers are incorporated into the Body of Christ through the work of Christ. This union, however, is more than just the vicarious substitution (where God forensically forgave sin and imputed righteousness); it involves a work of the Holy Spirit. [37] The Spirit consists of the same essence as the Father and the Son. Through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, humanity is the house and temple of God, and the Spirit makes available all the communicable qualities of the other members of the Godhead. [38]

Again, from Rutherford’s perspective this union with Christ was not an ontological union with God’s essence. Rutherford acknowledged the eternal distinction, but there was unification, and his goal was to experience that union more fully. He longed for God to infuse him with His communicable qualities, such as holiness, righteousness, and love. This became a reality as the Holy Spirit drew a believer’s thoughts, emotions, and will into harmony with the divine will.

Mystical Darkness And Spiritual Abandonment

Mystical darkness, or spiritual abandonment, is the third element of mysticism that will serve as a criterion. In this aspect, Rutherford is most like the mystics. Rutherford’s communion with Christ did not commonly bring lasting assurance but doubts and insecurity. The Christian mystic Saint John of the Cross called this the “dark night of the soul.” [39] Feelings included confusion, helplessness, and a sense of abandonment. “The clarity of the mind’s judgment seems to fade, and life runs for a time, and perhaps for a long time, in a maze of doubt and uncertainty which to an observer and to a reader bear a strong superficial resemblance to the phases of psychological illness.” [40] Rutherford’s experiences of communion with Christ were usually brief and sporadic. Once time had passed, despair replaced his joy. During these feelings of abandonment he would question “[i]f Christ and I did ever shake hands together in earnest,” which was his way of questioning his salvation. [41] Sometimes, in an attempt to explain the source of his misery, he attributed his suffering to a struggle against demonic forces. [42] At other times, he identified Christ as the source of despair, because He had been “abandoned” by God. [43] When God abandoned Rutherford, it was for one of two reasons: to drive him into a deeper dependence upon Christ or to make him more Christ-like through participation in the Lord’s suffering. [44] Often an external crisis such as the exile to Aberdeen, persecution,45 or family illness triggered Rutherford’s spiritual crises. He viewed tribulation as chastisement for previous sins [46] and reoccurring guilt was a common ingredient to his suffering.47 He did not publicly confess his sins, but he warned younger men against the “follies” and “sins of youth.” [48]

Rutherford struggled with depression throughout his life, but during his exile in Aberdeen his turmoil was most intense; nevertheless, despite the pessimistic overtones, Rutherford viewed his struggles as an essential part of the sanctification process. [49] God was purifying him through earthly trials to remove the sin and dross of his life.

Mystical Enlightenment And Special Revelation

Spiritual enlightenment and special revelations is the fourth element of mysticism that will serve as a criterion. Rutherford’s theory of inspiration is crucial to any investigation concerning spiritual knowledge and understanding. He measured all theology by Scripture, and the Bible served as the sole source of faith and practice. The Scriptures were “infallible” and “inerrant”; [50] he drew no distinction between the two terms and they were synonymous. The Word of God was authoritative because the Holy Spirit was the author. The “pen-men” of canonical Scripture were passive instruments or “organs,” and therefore, Scripture was the voice of God. Rutherford went as far as to use the term “dictation” to describe the process of inspiration. [51] Consequently, Rutherford openly attacked any mystical sect that undermined Scripture’s authority by claiming divine authority from other sources.

Among mystics, ecstasy often accompanied mystical insight or higher levels of spiritual attainment. Once again, McGinn warned that altered states of consciousness did not necessarily constitute the essence of mysticism. [52] It did nonetheless play a large role. There was scant evidence that Rutherford experienced any extra-biblical inspiration, auditory and visual revelations, premonitions, or the ecstasy that so often accompanied mysticism. Additionally, he did not dwell on negative descriptions of the divine, the glorifying of abstractions, and other usual accompaniments of mysticism in the technical sense. [53]

Conclusion

I began by asserting that historically, the classification of mystic has not been associated with Scottish theologians. This does not mean, however, that Rutherford was the only Scotsman to be a candidate for mysticism. Henry Scougal, a contemporary of Rutherford’s from Aberdeen University, had much to say about the “mystical union” and the “divine life.” [54] His small pamphlet, The Life of God in the Soul of Man, left an indelible mark on future theologians such as Whitefield and Wesley. [55] In the same way, Robert Leighton, the Archbishop of Glasgow, emphasized the “mystical way” in his Rules and Instructions for a Holy Life. Leighton taught a disciplined life whereby believers could achieve perfect union with God. [56] Like Rutherford, Scougal and Leighton may not fit the criteria as mystics, but their works reveal that Rutherford’s writing style and perspective were not unique.

In answer to the question of whether Rutherford was a mystic, evidence shows that the term does not accurately represent Rutherford. He had a relationship with Christ so intimate and vivid that, at times, it was nearly tangible. Nevertheless, after examining Rutherford’s works, we must agree with Clifford Button, “We have seen enough, however, of the man, and of the theological, religious, and political influences that surround him, to make us expect that if we find him to be a mystic it will be a mysticism of a kind different from that of the grand mystics.” [57] Likewise, John Coffee suggested, “Mysticism is perhaps not the best term to apply to Rutherford,” [58] and he warned, “The term ‘mysticism’ needs to be used with care.” [59] Finally, biographer Kingsley Rendell stated, “Patently we must conclude that Rutherford’s mysticism was not the experience we usually associate with the word, not self-absorption in his own individual experience, but the union with Christ which is the right of every Christian.” [60] Rutherford’s poetic descriptions were devotional reflections of intense spiritual piety. Rutherford may have displayed certain similarities, but his works did not reflect enough important elements of mysticism to include Rutherford among the mystics.

Notes

1. Friedrick von Hügel, The Mystical Element of Religion: as Studied in the St. Catherin of Genao and Her Friends (London: J.M Dent and Sons, 1923), 1:50.
2. Agnes Maule Machar, “A Scottish Mystic,” Andover Review 6, 34 (Oct 1886): 379-395.
3. Adam Philip, The Devotional Literature of Scotland (London: James Clarke & Co., 1920), 117. In the first quarter of the twentieth century, various Scottish and British authors perpetuated Machar’s label and classified Rutherford as a mystic. Additional references include Hector Macpherson, The Covenanters under Persecution: a study of their religion and ethical thought (Edinburgh: W. F. Henderson, 1923), 67; and William Henry Martyn B. Reid, The Holy Spirit and the Mystics (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1925), 197.
4. Robert Gilmour, Samuel Rutherford: A Study Biographical and Somewhat Critical (Edinburgh: Oliphant & Co., 1904), 23.
5. Alison Searle, “The Biblical and Imaginative Interiority of Samuel Rutherford,” The Dalhousie Review 85, 2 (Summer 2005): 308.
6. One treatise that addressed heterodoxy was: A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist, opening the Secrets of the Familisme and Antinomianisme in the Antichristian Doctrine of John Saltmarsh, and Will. Del., the present preachers of the Army now in England, and of Robert Town, Tob. Crisp, H. Denne, Eaton, and others. In which is revealed the rise and spring of Antinomians, Familists, Libertines, Swenckfeldians, Enthysiasts. The minde of Luther a most professed opposer of Antinomians, is cleared, and diverse considerable points of the Law and the Gospel, of the Spirit and the Letter, of the two Covenants, of the nature of free grace, exercise under temptationes, mortification, justification, sanctification are discovered. In Two Parts. Any future references to this work will be abbreviated as: Samuel Rutherford, A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist (London: J.D & R.I. for Andrew Crooke, 1648), [facsimile copy on-line]; accessed 15 December 2005; retrieved from http://chadwyck.com ; Internet.
7. He acknowledged the Trinity when he wrote, “Ye are now yourself alone, but ye may have, for the seeking, three always in your company, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I trust they are near you.” Samuel Rutherford, “Letter XI,” in Letters of Samuel Rutherford, ed. Andrew Bonar (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1664, repr. 2006), 52. In addition, he acknowledged the incarnation, “Oh, if men would draw the curtains, and look into the inner side of the ark, and behold how the fullness of the Godhead, dwelleth in Him bodily.” Rutherford, “Letter LXXXVII,” 185.
8. Evelyn Underhill, Practical Mysticism (London: J.M. Dent and Sons, 1948), 8.
9. Bernard McGinn, The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mysticism, vol. 1, The Foundations of Mysticism (New York: Crossroads Publishing, 1991), xv–xvi.
10. Ibid., xvi–xvii.
11. Geraldine E. Hodgson, English Mysticism (London: Morehouse Publishing, 1922), 10.
12. This definition attempts to integrate elements from all three definitions, but it too is susceptible to legitimate criticism. For example, Roman Catholics have tended to stress contemplation and mystery; thus, one Catholic defined mystical theology as “an incommunicable and inexpressible knowledge and love of God or of religious truth received in the spirit without precedent effort or reasoning.” The other three definitions only allude to divine mystery. M. D. Knowles, The Nature of Mysticism, ed. Joannes M. T. Barton, Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism (New York: Hawthorn Books, 1966), 13.
13. “I behooved to come to Aberdeen to learn a new mystery in Christ, that His promise is better to be believed than his looks, and that the devil can cause Christ’s gloom to speak a lie to a weak man.” Rutherford, “Letter XCIX,” 206-207. He also wrote, “It hath pleased his holy Majesty to take me from the pulpit, and teach me many things, in my exile and prison, that were mysteries to me before.” Rutherford, “Letter CLVII,” 288.
14. “His [Christ’s] love is a mystery to the world. I would not have believed that there was so much in Christ as there is. ‘Come and see’ maketh Christ to be known in his excellency and glory.” Rutherford, “Letter LXIX,” 148.
15. “And what if your mourning continue till mystical Christ (in Ireland and Britain) and ye laugh both together.” Rutherford, “Letter CCXCII,” 587. Other examples are in Letters CCXIV and CCXV.
16. “The saints are little pieces of mystical Christ, sick of love for union.” Samuel Rutherford, The Trial and Triumph of Faith or An Exposition of the History of Christ’s dispossessing of the daughter of the woman of Canaan. (London: Printed by John Fields, 1645), 6-7 [facsimile copy on-line]; accessed 23 March 2006; retrieved from http://chadwyck.com ; Internet. Future references will use the abbreviated title.
17. In addition to the motif of a “divine presence,” McGinn identified four additional characteristics in a separate article that were central in the history of Christian mysticism: “the role of Jesus in his humanity; the place of the ‘dark night,’ or the experience of the withdrawal of God; the relation of love and knowledge in the mystical life; and the connection between action and contemplation.” This was used to identify mystical criteria. Bernard McGinn, “English Mystics,” in Christian Spirituality: High Middle Ages and Reformation, ed. Jill Raitt (New York: The Crossroad Company, 1988), 195.
18. Geraldine E. Hodgson, English Mysticism (London: Morehouse Publishing, 1922), 55.
19. For example, the mystic John of Ruysbroeck, born in 1291, just south of Brussels, had seven steps. Jan Van Ruysbroeck, The Seven Steps of the Ladder of Spiritual Love, trans. F. Sherwood Taylor (London: Dacre Press, 1944), v–viii.
20. Michael Cox, Mysticism, The Direct Experience of God (Wellingborough, Northamptonshire: Aquiarian Press, 1983), 26. This is also explained in Geraldine E. Hodgson, English Mysticism (London: Morehouse Publishing, 1922), 81. Also discussed in the general reference material, Justo L. Gonzalez, Essential Theological Terms (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 118.
21. Robert Leighton, “Rules and Instructions for the Holy Life,” in The Life of God in the Soul of Man, by Henry Scougal (Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 1996), 154.
22. Samuel Rutherford, “Ane Catechisme Containing the Soume of Christian Religion,” in Catechisms of the Second Reformation, ed. A. F. Mitchell (London & Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 1886), 199.
23. Rutherford, “Letter LXX,” 151.
24. “He hath brought me to a nick and degree of communion with himself that I knew not before.” Rutherford, “Letter CXIII,” page 230.
25. You may recall from an earlier quote that McGinn suggested that an emphasis on the “presence” of God was a more appropriate term than “union” with God. He went on to explain: “When I speak of mysticism as involving an immediate consciousness of the presence of God I am trying to highlight a central claim that appears in almost all mystical texts.” McGinn, The Presence of God, xix.
26. Anon., The Cloud of Unknowing, ed. by James Walsh (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), 250.
27. “If we define mysticism in this sense, there are actually so few mystics in the history of Christianity that one wonders why Christians used the qualifier ‘mystical’ so often (from the late second century on) and eventually created the term ‘mysticism’ (first in French, ‘la mystique’) in the seventeenth century.” McGinn, The Presence of God, xvi.
28. Underhill, Practical Mysticism, 8.
29. Rutherford quoted Nicholas as saying, “God hath wrought a wonderful work on the earth, and raised up me, Henry Nicholas, the least among the holy ones of God, which lay altogether dead, and without breath and life among the dead, and made me alive through Christ, as also anointed me with his godly being; manned himself with me, and godded me with him to be a living tabernacle, or house, for his dwelling, and a seat of his Christ, the seed of David.” Samuel Rutherford, A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist, 179 [facsimile copy on-line]; accessed 15 December 2005; retrieved from http://chadwyck.com ; Internet.
30. Ibid., 16.
31. “And now I see he must be God, and I must be flesh.” Rutherford, “Letter LXXIII,” 156. “I pass from my (oh witless) summons: He is God, I see, and I am man.” “Letter LXXXIX,” 189. “He is not such a Lord and Master as I took Him to be; verily he is God, and I am dust and ashes.” “Letter XCIX,” 206.
32. Rutherford, “Letter CCCI,” 609.
33. David Strickland, “Union with Christ in the Theology of Samuel Rutherford: An Examination of his Doctrine of the Holy Spirit” (Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland. 1972), 60.
34. “We believe Christ died, and rose, and in our flesh is sitting at the right hand of God, and withal, that in a spiritual manner he dwells in us by faith, clothing a sinner in his whites of glory, and breathing, living, acting in him as in a Tabernacle, a redeemed and graced balance, which he will cast down, and raise up at the last day, and more then over-gold with finest purest gold; this is Christ in us, the hope of glory.” Samuel Rutherford, A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist, 227.
35. “Now God hath substituted in our room, and accepted His Son, the Mediator, for us and all that we can make.” Rutherford, “Letter LXXXV,” 180. “Think you not, dear sister, but our High Priest, our Jesus, the Master of requests, presents our bills of complaint to the great Lord Justice? Yea, I believe it, since He is our Advocate, and Daniel calls Him the Spokesman, whose hand presents all to the Father.” Rutherford, “Letter XII,” 54.
36. “Therefore, I commend Christ to you, as your last-living, and longest-living husband, and the staff of your old age. Let Him now have the rest of your days.” Rutherford, “Letter CXXXI,” 258.
37. To Marion McNaught he wrote, “Your body is the dwelling house of the Spirit; and therefore, for the love you carry to the sweet guest, give a due regard to his house of clay.” He went on to assure her, “Your life is hid with Christ in God, and therefore ye cannot be robbed of it.” Rutherford, “Letter XXVII,” 85-86.
38. “If any have the Spirit, he cannot want the influences of God. The Spirit is, as it were, all saving influences, and such as are void of the Spirit know not anything of saving influences; yea, the Father and the Son let out all their influences in and by the Spirit.” Samuel Rutherford, The Influences of the Life of Grace, or A Practical Treatise Concerning the way, manner, and means of having and improving spiritual dispositions, and quickening influence for Christ the Resurrection and the Life. (London: printed by T.C. for Andrew Crooke, 1658), 164 [facsimile copy on-line]; accessed 15 December 2005; retrieved from http://chadwyck.com ; Internet. Future references will use the abbreviated title.
39. Saint John of the Cross, “Dark Night of the Soul,” The Complete Works of Saint John of the Cross, vol. 2, trans. Allison E. Peers (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1964), iv.
40. Knowles, The Nature of Mysticism, 68.
41. “My sins prevail over me, and the terrors of their guiltiness. I am put often to ask, if Christ and I did ever shake hands together in earnest.” Rutherford, “Letter CLXVIII,” 315. At another point he lamented that, “I have been taken up to see the new land, the fair palace of the Lamb; and will Christ let me see heaven, to break my heart, and never give it to me.” Rutherford, “Letter XCII,” 195.
42. “I have been and am exceedingly cast down, and am fighting against a malicious devil, of whom I can win little ground” Rutherford, “Letter XVIIII,” 66.
43. “He [Christ] hath yoked me to work, to wrestle with Christ’s love; of longing wherewith I am sick, pained, fainting, and like to die because I cannot get Himself; which I think a strange sort of desertion.” Rutherford, “Letter CXIV,” 231.
44. “He figureth and portrayeth us to His own image, cutting away pieces of our ill and corruption. Lord cut, Lord carve, Lord wound, Lord do anything that may perfect Thy Father’s image in us, and make us meet for glory” Rutherford, “Letter CCLXXXII,” 547.
45. He lamented, “No face that hath not smiled upon me; only the indwellers of this town are dry, cold, and general. They consist of Papists, and men of Gallio’s metal, firm in no religion; and it is counted no wisdom here to countenance a confined and silenced prisoner.” Rutherford, “Letter CCV,” 402.
46. “The Almighty hath doubled his stripes upon me, for my wife is so sore tormented night and day, that I have wondered why the Lord tarrieth so long. My life is bitter to me, and I fear the Lord be my contrair party.” Rutherford “Letter VI,” 45.
47. “The old ashes of the sins of my youth are new fire of sorrow to me. I have seen the devil, as it were, dead and buried, and yet rise again, and be a worse devil then ever he was.” Rutherford, “Letter CLXXXI,” 349.
48. “I am sentenced with deprivation and confinement with the town of Aberdeen. But O my guiltiness, the follies of my youth, the neglect in my calling....” Rutherford, “Letter LXII,” 139. He also wrote, “My guiltiness and the sins of youth are come up against me, and they would come into the plea in my sufferings, as deserving causes in God’s justice.” Rutherford, “Letter CLXII,” 303.
49. “Think well of the visitation of your Lord; for I find one thing, which I saw not well before, that when the saints are under trials, and well humbled, little sins raise great cries and warshouts in the conscience; and in prosperity, conscience is a pope, to give dispensations, and let out and in, and give latitude and elbow room to our heart.” Rutherford, “Letter CXXXIII,” 260.
50. “I answer, the pen-men of Scripture when they did speak and write Scripture, were infallible, & de jure, & de facto, they could neither err actually, and by God’s will they were obligated not to err, and in that they were freer from error, than we are, who now succeed them to preach and write”; Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries, or, A Peaceable Plea for the Government of the Church of Scotland. (London: Printed by E. Griffin for Richard Whittaker and Andrew Crooke, 1644), 367 [facsimile copy on-line]; accessed 14 December 2005; retrieved from http://chadwyck.com ; Internet.
51. “For the Spirit is the Author creator and in the immediately inspired organs, the prophets and apostles, the pen-men, and the Spirit, devised and dictated the words, letters, and doctrine of the Old and New Testament.” Samuel Rutherford, A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist, 307 [facsimile copy on-line]; accessed 15 December 2005; retrieved from http://chadwyck.com ; Internet.
52. “The term mystical experience, consciously or unconsciously, also tends to place emphasis on special altered states—visions, locutions, raptures, and the like—which admittedly have played a large role in mysticism but which many mystics have insisted do not constitute the essence of the encounter with God.” McGinn, The Presence of God, xvii.
53. Button, “Scottish Mysticism in the Seventeenth Century,” 40.
54. “True religion is a union of the soul with God, a real participation of the Divine nature, the very image of God drawn upon our soul, or, in the apostle’s phrase, ‘it is Christ formed with us.’” Scougal, The Life of God in the Soul of Man, 41-42.
55. Packer, J. I, “Introduction” to ibid., 7.
56. Leighton wrote, “When thou perceiveth thyself thus knit to God, and thy soul more fast and joined nearer to him than to thine own body, then shalt thou know his everlasting, and incomprehensible, and ineffable goodness, and the true nobleness of thy soul that came from him, and was made to be reunited to him.” Leighton, “Rules and Instructions for the Holy Life,” 157.
57. Button, “Scottish Mysticism in the Seventeenth Century,” 40.
58. Ibid., 82.
59. John Coffee, Politics, Religion, and the British Revolution: The Mind of Samuel Rutherford (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1997), 95.
60. Kingsley G. Rendell, Samuel Rutherford: A New Biography of the Man and His Ministry (Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2003), 131.