{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_14596/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_14596","id":"gutenberg_14596","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14596","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Mysticism"],"text":"CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM\n\nThe Bampton Lectures, 1899\n\nConsidered in Eight Lectures Delivered before the University of Oxford\n\nby\n\nWILLIAM RALPH INGE, D.D.\nDean Of S. Paul's\n\nMethuen & Co. Ltd.\n36 Essex Street W.c.\nLondon\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nExtract\nFrom The Last Will And Testament\nOf The Late\nRev. John Bampton\nCanon Of Salisbury\n\n\n----\"I give and bequeath my Lands and Estates to the Chancellor,\nMasters, and Scholars of the University of Oxford for ever, to have\nand to hold all and singular the said Lands and Estates upon trust,\nand to the intents and purposes hereinafter mentioned; that is to say,\nI will and appoint that the Vice-Chancellor of the University of\nOxford for the time being shall take and receive all the rents,\nissues, and profits thereof, and (after all taxes, reparations, and\nnecessary deductions made) that he pay all the remainder to the\nendowment of eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, to be established for\never in the said University, and to be performed in the manner\nfollowing:\n\n\"I direct and appoint that upon the first Tuesday in Easter Term, a\nLecturer be yearly chosen by the Heads of Colleges only, and by no\nothers, in the room adjoining to the Printing-House, between the hours\nof ten in the morning and two in the afternoon, to preach eight\nDivinity Lecture Sermons, the year following, at St. Mary's in Oxford,\nbetween the commencement of the last month in Lent Term, and the end\nof the third week in Act Term.\n\n\"Also I direct and appoint, that the eight Divinity Lecture Sermons\nshall be preached upon either of the following Subjects--to confirm\nand establish the Christian Faith, and to confute all heretics and\nschismatics--upon the Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures--upon\nthe authority of the writings of the primitive Fathers, as to the\nfaith and practice of the primitive Church--upon the Divinity of our\nLord and Saviour Jesus Christ--upon the Divinity of the Holy\nGhost--upon the Articles of the Christian Faith, as comprehended in\nthe Apostles' and Nicene Creeds.\n\n\"Also I direct that thirty copies of the eight Divinity Lecture\nSermons shall be always printed within two months after they are\npreached; and one copy shall be given to the Chancellor of the\nUniversity, and one copy to the head of every College, and one copy to\nthe Mayor of the City of Oxford, and one copy to be put into the\nBodleian Library; and the expense of printing them shall be paid out\nof the revenue of the Land or Estates given for establishing the\nDivinity Lecture Sermons; and the Preacher shall not be paid, nor\nentitled to the revenue, before they are printed.\n\n\"Also I direct and appoint, that no person shall be qualified to\npreach the Divinity Lecture Sermons, unless he hath taken the degree\nof Master of Arts at least, in one of the two Universities of Oxford\nor Cambridge; and that the same person shall never preach the Divinity\nLecture Sermons twice.\"\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe first of the subjects which, according to the will of Canon\nBampton, are prescribed for the Lecturers upon his foundation, is the\nconfirmation and establishment of the Christian faith. This is the aim\nwhich I have kept in view in preparing this volume; and I should wish\nmy book to be judged as a contribution to apologetics, rather than as\na historical sketch of Christian Mysticism. I say this because I\ndecided, after some hesitation, to adopt a historical framework for\nthe Lectures, and this arrangement may cause my object to be\nmisunderstood. It seemed to me that the instructiveness of tracing the\ndevelopment and operation of mystical ideas, in the forms which they\nhave assumed as active forces in history, outweighed the disadvantage\nof appearing to waver between apology and narrative. A series of\nhistorical essays would, of course, have been quite unsuitable in the\nUniversity pulpit, and, moreover, I did not approach the subject from\nthat side. Until I began to prepare the Lectures, about a year and a\nhalf before they were delivered, my study of the mystical writers had\nbeen directed solely by my own intellectual and spiritual needs. I was\nattracted to them in the hope of finding in their writings a\nphilosophy and a rule of life which would satisfy my mind and\nconscience. In this I was not disappointed; and thinking that others\nmight perhaps profit by following the same path, I wished to put\ntogether and publish the results of my thought and reading. In such a\nscheme historical details are either out of place or of secondary\nvalue; and I hope this will be remembered by any historians who may\ntake the trouble to read my book.\n\nThe philosophical side of the subject is from my point of view of much\ngreater importance. I have done my best to acquire an adequate\nknowledge of those philosophies, both ancient and modern, which are\nmost akin to speculative Mysticism, and also to think out my own\nposition. I hope that I have succeeded in indicating my general\nstandpoint, and that what I have written may prove fairly consistent\nand intelligible; but I have felt keenly the disadvantage of having\nmissed the systematic training in metaphysics given by the Oxford\nschool of _Liter\u00e6 Humaniores_, and also the difficulty (perhaps I\nshould say the presumption) of addressing metaphysical arguments to an\naudience which included several eminent philosophers. I wish also that\nI had had time for a more thorough study of Fechner's works; for his\nsystem, so far as I understand it, seems to me to have a great\ninterest and value as a scheme of philosophical Mysticism which does\nnot clash with modern science.\n\nI have spoken with a plainness which will probably give offence of the\ndebased supernaturalism which usurps the name of Mysticism in Roman\nCatholic countries. I desire to insult no man's convictions; and it\nis for this reason that I have decided not to print my analysis of\nRibet's work (_La Mystique Divine, distingu\u00e9e des Contrefa\u00e7ons\ndiaboliques_. Nouvelle Edition, Paris, 1895, 3 vols.), which I\nintended to form an Appendix. It would have opened the eyes of some of\nmy readers to the irreconcilable antagonism between the Roman Church\nand science; but though I translated and summarised my author\nfaithfully, the result had all the appearance of a malicious travesty.\nI have therefore suppressed this Appendix; but with regard to Roman\nCatholic \"Mysticism\" there is no use in mincing matters. Those who\nfind edification in signs and wonders of this kind, and think that\nsuch \"supernatural phenomena,\" even if they were well authenticated\ninstead of being ridiculous fables, could possibly establish spiritual\ntruths, will find little or nothing to please or interest them in\nthese pages. But those who reverence Nature and Reason, and have no\nwish to hear of either of them being \"overruled\" or \"suspended,\" will,\nI hope, agree with me in valuing highly the later developments of\nmystical thought in Northern Europe.\n\nThere is another class of \"mystics\" with whom I have but little\nsympathy--the dabblers in occultism. \"Psychical research\" is, no\ndoubt, a perfectly legitimate science; but when its professors invite\nus to watch the breaking down of the middle wall of partition between\nmatter and spirit, they have, in my opinion, ceased to be scientific,\nand are in reality hankering after the beggarly elements of the later\nNeoplatonism.\n\nThe charge of \"pantheistic tendency\" will not, I hope, be brought\nagainst me without due consideration. I have tried to show how the\nJohannine Logos-doctrine, which is the basis of Christian Mysticism,\ndiffers from Asiatic Pantheism, from Acosmism, and from (one kind of)\nevolutionary Idealism. Of course, speculative Mysticism is nearer to\nPantheism than to Deism; but I think it is possible heartily to eschew\nDeism without falling into the opposite error.\n\nI have received much help from many kind friends; and though some of\nthem would not wish to be associated with all of my opinions, I cannot\ndeny myself the pleasure of thanking them by name. From my mother and\nother members of my family, and relations, especially Mr. W.W. How,\nFellow of Merton, I have received many useful suggestions. Three past\nor present colleagues have read and criticised parts of my work--the\nRev. H. Rashdall, now Fellow of New College; Mr. H.A. Prichard, now\nFellow of Trinity; and Mr. H.H. Williams, Fellow of Hertford. Mr. G.L.\nDickinson, Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, lent me an unpublished\ndissertation on Plotinus. The Rev. C. Bigg, D.D., whose Bampton\nLectures on the Christian Platonists are known all over Europe, did me\nthe kindness to read the whole of the eight Lectures, and so added to\nthe great debt which I owe to him for his books. The Rev. J.M. Heald,\nformerly Scholar of Trinity, Cambridge, lent me many books from his\nfine library, and by inquiring for me at Louvain enabled me to procure\nthe books on Mysticism which are now studied in Roman Catholic\nUniversities. The Rev. Dr. Lindsay, who has made a special study of\nthe German mystics, read my Lectures on that period, and wrote me a\nvery useful letter upon them. Miss G.H. Warrack of Edinburgh kindly\nallowed me to use her modernised version of Julian of Norwich.\n\nI have ventured to say in my last Lecture--and it is my earnest\nconviction--that a more general acquaintance with mystical theology\nand philosophy is very desirable in the interests of the English\nChurch at the present time. I am not one of those who think that the\npoints at issue between Anglo-Catholics and Anglo-Protestants are\ntrivial: history has always confirmed Aristotle's famous dictum about\nparties--[Greek: gignontai ai staseis ou peri mikr\u00f4n all' ek mikr\u00f4n,\nstasiazousi de peri megal\u00f4n]--but I do not so far despair of our\nChurch, or of Christianity, as to doubt that a reconciling principle\nmust and will be found. Those who do me the honour to read these\nLectures will see to what quarter I look for a mediator. A very short\nstudy would be sufficient to dispel some of the prejudices which still\nhang round the name of Mysticism--e.g., that its professors are\nunpractical dreamers, and that this type of religion is antagonistic\nto the English mind. As a matter of fact, all the great mystics have\nbeen energetic and influential, and their business capacity is\nspecially noted in a curiously large number of cases. For instance,\nPlotinus was often in request as a guardian and trustee; St. Bernard\nshowed great gifts as an organiser; St. Teresa, as a founder of\nconvents and administrator, gave evidence of extraordinary practical\nability; even St. Juan of the Cross displayed the same qualities; John\nSmith was an excellent bursar of his college; F\u00e9nelon ruled his\ndiocese extremely well; and Madame Guyon surprised those who had\ndealings with her by her great aptitude for affairs. Henry More was\noffered posts of high responsibility and dignity, but declined them.\nThe mystic is not as a rule ambitious, but I do not think he often\nshows incapacity for practical life, if he consents to mingle in it.\nAnd so far is it from being true that Great Britain has produced but\nfew mystics, that I am inclined to think the subject might be\nadequately studied from English writers alone. On the more\nintellectual side we have (without going back to Scotus Erigena) the\nCambridge Platonists, Law and Coleridge; of devotional mystics we have\nattractive examples in Hilton and Julian of Norwich; while in verse\nthe lofty idealism[1] and strong religious bent of our race have\nproduced a series of poet-mystics such as no other country can rival.\nIt has not been possible in these Lectures to do justice to George\nHerbert, Vaughan \"the Silurist,\" Quarles, Crashaw, and others, who\nhave all drunk of the same well. Let it suffice to say that the\nstudent who desires to master the history of Mysticism in Britain will\nfind plenty to occupy his time. But for the religious public in\ngeneral the most useful thing would be a judicious selection from the\nmystical writers of different times and countries. Those who are more\ninterested in the practical and devotional than the speculative side\nmay study with great profit some parts of St. Augustine, the sermons\nof Tauler, the _Theologia Germanica_, Hilton's _Scale of Perfection_,\nthe Life of Henry Suso, St. Francis de Sales and F\u00e9nelon, the Sermons\nof John Smith and Whichcote's _Aphorisms_, and the later works of\nWilliam Law, not forgetting the poets who have been mentioned. I can\nthink of no course of study more fitting for those who wish to revive\nin themselves and others the practical idealism of the primitive\nChurch, which gained for it its greatest triumphs.\n\nI conclude this Preface with a quotation from William Law on the value\nof the mystical writers. \"Writers like those I have mentioned,\" he\nsays in a letter to Dr. Trapp, \"there have been in all ages of the\nChurch, but as they served not the ends of popular learning, as they\nhelped no people to figure or preferment in the world, and were\nuseless to scholastic controversial writers, so they dropt out of\npublic uses, and were only known, or rather unknown, under the name of\nmystical writers, till at last some people have hardly heard of that\nvery name: though, if a man were to be told what is meant by a\nmystical divine, he must be told of something as heavenly, as great,\nas desirable, as if he was told what is meant by a real, regenerate,\nliving member of the mystical body of Christ; for they were thus\ncalled for no other reason than as Moses and the prophets, and the\nsaints of the Old Testament, may be called the spiritual Israel, or\nthe true mystical Jews. These writers began their office of teaching\nas John the Baptist did, after they had passed through every kind of\nmortification and self-denial, every kind of trial and purification,\nboth inward and outward. They were deeply learned in the mysteries of\nthe kingdom of God, not through the use of lexicons, or meditating\nupon critics, but because they had passed from death unto life. They\nhighly reverence and excellently direct the true use of everything\nthat is outward in religion; but, like the Psalmist's king's daughter,\nthey are all glorious within. They are truly sons of thunder, and sons\nof consolation; they break open the whited sepulchres; they awaken the\nheart, and show it its filth and rottenness of death: but they leave\nit not till the kingdom of heaven is raised up within it. If a man has\nno desire but to be of the spirit of the gospel, to obtain all that\nrenovation of life and spirit which alone can make him to be in Christ\na new creature, it is a great unhappiness to him to be unacquainted\nwith these writers, or to pass a day without reading something of what\nthey wrote.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: It is really time that we took to burning that travesty\nof the British character--the John Bull whom our comic papers\nrepresent \"guarding his pudding\"--instead of Guy Fawkes. Even in the\nnineteenth century, amid all the sordid materialism bred of commercial\nascendancy, this country has produced a richer crop of imaginative\nliterature than any other; and it is significant that, while in\nGermany philosophy is falling more and more into the hands of the\nempirical school, our own thinkers are nearly all staunch idealists.]\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\nLECTURE\n\n     I. General Characteristics of Mysticism\n\n    II. The Mystical Element in the Bible\n\n   III. Christian Platonism and Speculative Mysticism--(1) In the East\n\n    IV. Christian Platonism and Speculative Mysticism--(2) In the West\n\n     V. Practical and Devotional Mysticism\n\n    VI. Practical and Devotional Mysticism--_continued_\n\n   VII. Nature-Mysticism and Symbolism\n\n  VIII. Nature-Mysticism--_continued_\n\n        APPENDIX A. Definitions of \"Mysticism\" and \"Mystical Theology\"\n\n        APPENDIX B. The Greek Mysteries and Christian Mysticism\n\n        APPENDIX C. The Doctrine of Deification\n\n        APPENDIX D. The Mystical Interpretation of the Song of Solomon\n\n        INDEX\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE I\n\n\n[Greek: \"H\u00eamin de apodeikteon h\u00f4s ep' eutuchia t\u00ea megist\u00ea para The\u00f4n\nh\u00ea toiaut\u00ea mania didotai h\u00ea de d\u00ea apodeixis estai deinois men\napistos, sophois de pist\u00ea\"]\n\nPLATO, _Ph\u00e6drus_, p. 245.\n\n\n  \"_Thoas_. Es spricht kein Gott; es spricht dein eignes Herz.\n  _Iphigenia_. Sie reden nur durch unser Herz zu uns.\"\n\nGOETHE, _Iphigenie_.\n\n\n  \"Si notre vie est moins qu'une journ\u00e9e\n   En l'\u00e9ternel; si l'an qui fait le tour\n   Chasse nos jours sans espoir de retour;\n   Si p\u00e9rissable est toute chose n\u00e9e;\n   Que songes-tu, mon \u00e2me emprisonn\u00e9e?\n   Pourquoi te pla\u00eet l'obscur de notre jour,\n   Si, pour voler en un plus clair s\u00e9jour,\n   Tu as au dos l'aile bien empenn\u00e9e!\n   L\u00e0 est le bien que tout esprit d\u00e9sire,\n   L\u00e0, le repos ou tout le monde aspire,\n   L\u00e0 est l'amour, l\u00e0 le plaisir encore!\n   L\u00e0, \u00f4 mon \u00e2me, au plus haut ciel guid\u00e9e,\n   Tu y pourras reconna\u00eetre l'id\u00e9e\n   De la beaut\u00e9 qu'en ce monde j'adore!\"\n\nOLD POET.\n\n\n\nGENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MYSTICISM\n\n\"Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest\nwhat we shall be. We know that, if He shall be manifested, we shall be\nlike Him; for we shall see Him even as He is.\"--I JOHN iii. 2, 3.\n\n\nNo word in our language--not even \"Socialism\"--has been employed more\nloosely than \"Mysticism.\" Sometimes it is used as an equivalent for\nsymbolism or allegorism, sometimes for theosophy or occult science;\nand sometimes it merely suggests the mental state of a dreamer, or\nvague and fantastic opinions about God and the world. In Roman\nCatholic writers, \"mystical phenomena\" mean supernatural suspensions\nof physical law. Even those writers who have made a special study of\nthe subject, show by their definitions of the word how uncertain is\nits connotation.[2] It is therefore necessary that I should make clear\nat the outset what I understand by the term, and what aspects of\nreligious life and thought I intend to deal with in these Lectures.\n\nThe history of the _word_ begins in close connexion with the Greek\nmysteries.[3] A mystic [Greek: myst\u00eas] is one who has been, or is\nbeing, initiated into some esoteric knowledge of Divine things, about\nwhich he must keep his mouth shut ([Greek: myein]); or, possibly, he is\none whose _eyes_ are still shut, one who is not yet an [Greek:\nepopt\u00eas].[4] The word was taken over, with other technical terms of\nthe mysteries, by the Neoplatonists, who found in the existing\nmysteriosophy a discipline, worship, and rule of life congenial to\ntheir speculative views. But as the tendency towards quietism and\nintrospection increased among them, another derivation for \"Mysticism\"\nwas found--it was explained to mean deliberately shutting the eyes to\nall external things.[5] We shall see in the sequel how this later\nNeoplatonism passed almost entire into Christianity, and, while\nforming the basis of medi\u00e6val Mysticism, caused a false association to\ncling to the word even down to the Reformation.[6]\n\nThe phase of thought or feeling which we call Mysticism has its\norigin in that which is the raw material of all religion, and perhaps\nof all philosophy and art as well, namely, that dim consciousness of\nthe _beyond_, which is part of our nature as human beings. Men have\ngiven different names to these \"obstinate questionings of sense and\noutward things.\" We may call them, if we will, a sort of higher\ninstinct, perhaps an anticipation of the evolutionary process; or an\nextension of the frontier of consciousness; or, in religious language,\nthe voice of God speaking to us. Mysticism arises when we try to bring\nthis higher consciousness into relation with the other contents of our\nminds. Religious Mysticism may be defined as the attempt to realise\nthe presence of the living God in the soul and in nature, or, more\ngenerally, as _the attempt to realise, in thought and feeling, the\nimmanence of the temporal in the eternal, and of the eternal in the\ntemporal_. Our consciousness of the beyond is, I say, the raw material\nof all religion. But, being itself formless, it cannot be brought\ndirectly into relation with the forms of our thought. Accordingly, it\nhas to express itself by symbols, which are as it were the flesh and\nbones of ideas. It is the tendency of all symbols to petrify or\nevaporate, and either process is fatal to them. They soon repudiate\ntheir mystical origin, and forthwith lose their religious content.\nThen comes a return to the fresh springs of the inner life--a revival\nof spirituality in the midst of formalism or unbelief. This is the\nhistorical function of Mysticism--it appears as an independent active\nprinciple, the spirit of reformations and revivals. But since every\nactive principle must find for itself appropriate instruments,\nMysticism has developed a speculative and practical system of its\nown. As Goethe says, it is \"the scholastic of the heart, the dialectic\nof the feelings.\" In this way it becomes possible to consider it as a\ntype of religion, though it must always be remembered that in becoming\nsuch it has incorporated elements which do not belong to its inmost\nbeing.[7] As a type of religion, then, Mysticism seems to rest on the\nfollowing propositions or articles of faith:--\n\nFirst, _the soul_ (as well as the body) _can see and\nperceive_--[Greek: esti de psych\u00eas aisth\u00easis tis], as Proclus says.\nWe have an organ or faculty for the discernment of spiritual truth,\nwhich, in its proper sphere, is as much to be trusted as the organs of\nsensation in theirs.\n\nThe second proposition is that, since we can only know what is akin to\nourselves,[8] _man, in order to know God, must be a partaker of the\nDivine nature_. \"What we are, that we behold; and what we behold,\nthat we are,\" says Ruysbroek. The curious doctrine which we find in\nthe mystics of the Middle Ages, that there is at \"the apex of the\nmind\" a spark which is consubstantial with the uncreated ground of the\nDeity, is thus accounted for. We could not even begin to work out our\nown salvation if God were not already working in us. It is always \"in\nHis light\" that \"we see light.\" The doctrine has been felt to be a\nnecessary postulate by most philosophers who hold that knowledge of\nGod is possible to man. For instance, Krause says, \"From finite reason\nas finite we might possibly explain the thought of itself, but not the\nthought of something that is outside finite reasonable beings, far\nless the absolute idea, in its contents infinite, of God. To become\naware of God in knowledge we require certainly to make a freer use of\nour finite power of thought, but the thought of God itself is\nprimarily and essentially an eternal operation of the eternal\nrevelation of God to the finite mind.\" But though we are made in the\nimage of God, our _likeness_ to Him only exists potentially.[9] The\nDivine spark already shines within us, but it has to be searched for\nin the innermost depths of our personality, and its light diffused\nover our whole being.\n\nThis brings us to the third proposition--\"_Without holiness no man may\nsee the Lord_\"; or, as it is expressed positively in the Sermon on the\nMount, \"Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.\"\nSensuality and selfishness are absolute disqualifications for knowing\n\"the things of the Spirit of God.\" These fundamental doctrines are\nvery clearly laid down in the passage from St. John which I read as\nthe text of this Lecture. The filial relation to God is already\nclaimed, but the vision is inseparable from _likeness_ to Him, which\nis a hope, not a possession, and is only to be won by \"purifying\nourselves, even as He is pure.\"\n\nThere is one more fundamental doctrine which we must not omit.\nPurification removes the obstacles to our union with God, but our\nguide on the upward path, _the true hierophant of the mysteries of\nGod, is love_[10]. Love has been defined as \"interest in its highest\npower\";[11] while others have said that \"it is of the essence of love\nto be disinterested.\" The contradiction is merely a verbal one. The\ntwo definitions mark different starting-points, but the two \"ways of\nlove\" should bring us to the same goal. The possibility of\ndisinterested love, in the ordinary sense, ought never to have been\ncalled in question. \"Love is not love\" when it asks for a reward. Nor\nis the love of man to God any exception. He who tries to be holy in\norder to be happy will assuredly be neither. In the words of the\n_Theologia Germanica_, \"So long as a man seeketh his own highest good\n_because_ it is his, he will never find it.\" The mystics here are\nunanimous, though some, like St. Bernard, doubt whether perfect love\nof God can ever be attained, pure and without alloy, while we are in\nthis life.[12] The controversy between F\u00e9nelon and Bossuet on this\nsubject is well known, and few will deny that F\u00e9nelon was mainly in\nthe right. Certainly he had an easy task in justifying his statements\nfrom the writings of the saints. But we need not trouble ourselves\nwith the \"mystic paradox,\" that it would be better to be with Christ\nin hell than without Him in heaven--a statement which Thomas \u00e0 Kempis\nonce wrote and then erased in his manuscript. For wherever Christ is,\nthere is heaven: nor should we regard eternal happiness as anything\ndistinct from \"a true conjunction of the mind with God.[13]\" \"God is\nnot without or above law: He _could_ not make men either sinful or\nmiserable.[14]\" To believe otherwise is to suppose an irrational\nuniverse, the one thing which a rational man cannot believe in.\n\nThe mystic, as we have seen, makes it his life's aim to be transformed\ninto the likeness of Him in whose image he was created.[15] He loves\nto figure his path as a ladder reaching from earth to heaven, which\nmust be climbed step by step. This _scala perfectionis_ is generally\ndivided into three stages. The first is called the purgative life,\nthe second the illuminative, while the third, which is really the goal\nrather than a part of the journey, is called the unitive life, or\nstate of perfect contemplation.[16] We find, as we should expect, some\ndifferences in the classification, but this tripartite scheme is\ngenerally accepted.\n\nThe steps of the upward path constitute the ethical system, the rule\nof life, of the mystics. The first stage, the purgative life, we read\nin the _Theologia Germanica_, is brought about by contrition, by\nconfession, by hearty amendment; and this is the usual language in\ntreatises intended for monks. But it is really intended to include the\ncivic and social virtues in this stage.[17] They occupy the lowest\nplace, it is true; but this only means that they must be acquired by\nall, though all are not called to the higher flights of contemplation.\nTheir chief value, according to Plotinus, is to teach us the meaning\nof _order_ and _limitation_ ([Greek: taxis] and [Greek: peras]), which\nare qualities belonging to the Divine nature. This is a very valuable\nthought, for it contradicts that aberration of Mysticism which calls\nGod the Infinite, and thinks of Him as the Indefinite, dissolving all\ndistinctions in the abyss of bare indetermination. When Ewald says,\n\"the true mystic never withdraws himself wilfully from the business\nof life, no, not even from the smallest business,\" he is, at any rate,\nsaying nothing which conflicts with the principles of Mysticism.[18]\n\nThe purgative life necessarily includes self-discipline: does it\nnecessarily include what is commonly known as asceticism? It would be\neasy to answer that asceticism means nothing but _training_, as men\ntrain for a race, or more broadly still, that it means simply \"the\nacquisition of some greater power by practice.[19]\" But when people\nspeak of \"asceticism,\" they have in their minds such severe\n\"buffeting\" of the body as was practised by many ancient hermits and\nmedi\u00e6val monks. Is this an integral part of the mystic's \"upward\npath\"? We shall find reason to conclude that, while a certain degree\nof austere simplicity characterises the outward life of nearly all the\nmystics, and while an almost morbid desire to suffer is found in many\nof them, there is nothing in the system itself to encourage men to\nmaltreat their bodies. Mysticism enjoins a dying life, not a living\ndeath. Moreover, asceticism, when regarded as a virtue or duty in\nitself, tends to isolate us, and concentrates our attention on our\nseparate individuality. This is contrary to the spirit of Mysticism,\nwhich aims at realising unity and solidarity everywhere. Monkish\nasceticism (so far as it goes beyond the struggle to live unstained\nunder unnatural conditions) rests on a dualistic view of the world\nwhich does not belong to the essence of Mysticism. It infected all the\nreligious life of the Middle Ages, not Mysticism only.[20]\n\nThe second stage, the illuminative life, is the concentration of all\nthe faculties, will, intellect, and feeling, upon God. It differs from\nthe purgative life, not in having discarded good works, but in having\ncome to perform them, as F\u00e9nelon says, \"no longer as virtues,\" that is\nto say, willingly and almost spontaneously. The struggle is now\ntransferred to the inner life.\n\nThe last stage of the journey, in which the soul presses towards the\nmark, and gains the prize of its high calling, is the unitive or\ncontemplative life, in which man beholds God face to face, and is\njoined to Him. Complete union with God is the ideal limit of religion,\nthe attainment of which would be at once its consummation and\nannihilation. It is in the continual but unending approximation to it\nthat the life of religion subsists.[21] We must therefore beware of\nregarding the union as anything more than an infinite process, though,\nas its end is part of the eternal counsel of God, there is a sense in\nwhich it is already a fact, and not merely a thing desired. But the\nword deification holds a very large place in the writings of the\nFathers, and not only among those who have been called mystics. We\nfind it in Iren\u00e6us as well as in Clement, in Athanasius as well as in\nGregory of Nyssa. St. Augustine is no more afraid of \"deificari\" in\nLatin than Origen of [Greek: theopoieisthai] in Greek. The subject is\none of primary importance to anyone who wishes to understand mystical\ntheology; but it is difficult for us to enter into the minds of the\nancients who used these expressions, both because [Greek: theos] was a\nvery fluid concept in the early centuries, and because our notions of\n_personality_ are very different from those which were prevalent in\nantiquity. On this latter point I shall have more to say presently;\nbut the evidence for the belief in \"deification,\" and its continuance\nthrough the Middle Ages, is too voluminous to be given in the body of\nthese Lectures.[22] Let it suffice to say here that though such bold\nphrases as \"God became man, that we might become God,\" were\ncommonplaces of doctrinal theology at least till after Augustine, even\nClement and Origen protest strongly against the \"very impious\" heresy\nthat man is \"a part of God,\" or \"consubstantial with God.[23]\" The\nattribute of Divinity which was chiefly in the minds of the Greek\nFathers when they made these statements, was that of _imperishableness_.\n\nAs to the means by which this union is manifested to the\nconsciousness, there is no doubt that very many mystics believed in,\nand looked for, ecstatic revelations, trances, or visions. This,\nagain, is one of the crucial questions of Mysticism.\n\nEcstasy or vision begins when thought ceases, _to our consciousness_,\nto proceed from ourselves. It differs from dreaming, because the\nsubject is awake. It differs from hallucination, because there is no\norganic disturbance: it is, or claims to be, a temporary enhancement,\nnot a partial disintegration, of the mental faculties. Lastly, it\ndiffers from poetical inspiration, because the imagination is passive.\n\nThat perfectly sane people often experience such visions there is no\nmanner of doubt. St. Paul fell into a trance at his conversion, and\nagain at a later period, when he seemed to be caught up into the third\nheaven. The most sober and practical of the medi\u00e6val mystics speak of\nthem as common phenomena. And in modern times two of the sanest of our\npoets have recorded their experiences in words which may be worth\nquoting.\n\nWordsworth, in his well-known \"Lines composed above Tintern Abbey,\"\nspeaks of--\n\n\n                \"That serene and blessed mood,\n  In which ... the breath of this corporeal frame,\n  And even the motion of our human blood,\n  Almost suspended, we are laid asleep\n  In body, and become a living soul:\n  While with an eye made quiet by the power\n  Of harmony, and the deep power of joy,\n  We see into the life of things.\"\n\n\nAnd Tennyson says,[24] \"A kind of waking trance I have often had,\nquite from boyhood, when I have been all alone. This has generally\ncome upon me through repeating my own name two or three times to\nmyself silently, till all at once, out of the intensity of the\nconsciousness of individuality, the individual itself seemed to\ndissolve and fade away into boundless being: and this not a confused\nstate, but the clearest of the clearest, and the surest of the surest,\nthe weirdest of the weirdest, utterly beyond words, where death was an\nalmost laughable impossibility, the loss of personality (if so it\nwere) seeming no extinction, but the only true life.\"\n\nAdmitting, then, that these psychical phenomena actually occur, we\nhave to consider whether ecstasy and kindred states are an integral\npart of Mysticism. In attempting to answer this question, we shall\nfind it convenient to distinguish between the Neoplatonic vision of\nthe super-essential One, the Absolute, which Plotinus enjoyed several\ntimes, and Porphyry only once, and the visions and \"locutions\" which\nare reported in all times and places, especially where people have not\nbeen trained in scientific habits of thought and observation. The\nformer was held to be an exceedingly rare privilege, the culminating\npoint of the contemplative life. I shall speak of it in my third\nLecture; and shall there show that it belongs, not to the essence of\nMysticism, and still less to Christianity, but to the Asiatic leaven\nwhich was mixed with Alexandrian thought, and thence passed into\nCatholicism. As regards visions in general, they were no invention of\nthe mystics. They played a much more important part in the life of the\nearly Church than many ecclesiastical historians are willing to admit.\nTertullian, for instance, says calmly, \"The majority, almost, of men\nlearn God from visions.[25]\" Such implicit reliance was placed on the\nDivine authority of visions, that on one occasion an ignorant peasant\nand a married man was made Patriarch of Alexandria against his will,\nbecause his dying predecessor had a vision that the man who should\nbring him a present of grapes on the next day should be his successor!\nIn course of time visions became rarer among the laity, but continued\nfrequent among the monks and clergy. And so the class which furnished\nmost of the shining lights of Mysticism was that in which these\nexperiences were most common.\n\nBut we do not find that the masters of the spiritual life attached\nvery much importance to them, or often appealed to them as aids to\nfaith.[26] As a rule, visions were regarded as special rewards\nbestowed by the goodness of God on the struggling saint, and\nespecially on the beginner, to refresh him and strengthen him in the\nhour of need. Very earnest cautions were issued that no efforts must\nbe made to induce them artificially, and aspirants were exhorted\nneither to desire them, nor to feel pride in having seen them. The\nspiritual guides of the Middle Ages were well aware that such\nexperiences often come of disordered nerves and weakened digestion;\nthey believed also that they are sometimes delusions of Satan. Richard\nof St. Victor says, \"As Christ attested His transfiguration by the\npresence of Moses and Elias, so visions should not be believed unless\nthey have the authority of Scripture.\" Albertus Magnus tries to\nclassify them, and says that those which contain a sensuous element\nare always dangerous. Eckhart is still more cautious, and Tauler\nattaches little value to them. Avila, the Spanish mystic, says that\nonly those visions which minister to our spiritual necessities, and\nmake us _more humble_, are genuine. Self-induced visions inflate us\nwith pride, and do irreparable injury to health of mind and body.[27]\n\nIt hardly falls within my task to attempt to determine what these\nvisions really are. The subject is one upon which psychological and\nmedical science may some day throw more light. But this much I must\nsay, to make my own position clear: I regard these experiences as\nneither more nor less \"supernatural\" than other mental phenomena. Many\nof them are certainly pathological;[28] about others we may feel\ndoubts; but some have every right to be considered as real\nirradiations of the soul from the light that \"for ever shines,\" real\nnotes of the harmony that \"is in immortal souls.\" In illustration of\nthis, we may appeal to three places in the Bible where revelations of\nthe profoundest truths concerning the nature and counsels of God are\nrecorded to have been made during ecstatic visions. Moses at Mount\nHoreb heard, during the vision of the burning bush, a proclamation of\nGod as the \"I am\"--the Eternal who is exalted above time. Isaiah, in\nthe words \"Holy, Holy, Holy,\" perceived dimly the mystery of the\nTrinity. And St. Peter, in the vision of the sheet, learned that God\nis no respecter of persons or of nationalities. In such cases the\nhighest intuitions or revelations, which the soul can in its best\nmoments just receive, but cannot yet grasp or account for, make a\nlanguage for themselves, as it were, and claim the sanction of\nexternal authority, until the mind is elevated so far as to feel the\nauthority not less Divine, but no longer external. We may find fairly\nclose analogies in other forms of that \"Divine madness,\" which Plato\nsays is \"the source of the chiefest blessings granted to men\"--such as\nthe rapture of the poet, or (as Plato adds) of the lover.[29] And\neven the philosopher or man of science may be surprised into some such\nstate by a sudden realisation of the sublimity of his subject. So at\nleast Lacordaire believed when he wrote, \"All at once, as if by\nchance, the hair stands up, the breath is caught, the skin contracts,\nand a cold sword pierces to the very soul. It is the sublime which has\nmanifested itself![30]\" Even in cases where there is evident\nhallucination, e.g. when the visionary sees an angel or devil sitting\non his book, or feels an arrow thrust into his heart, there need be no\ninsanity. In periods when it is commonly believed that such things may\nand do happen, the imagination, instead of being corrected by\nexperience, is misled by it. Those who honestly expect to see miracles\nwill generally see them, without detriment either to their\ntruthfulness or sanity in other matters.\n\nThe mystic, then, is not, as such, a visionary; nor has he any interest\nin appealing to a faculty \"above reason,\" if reason is used in its\nproper sense, as the logic of the whole personality. The desire to find\nfor our highest intuitions an authority wholly external to reason and\nindependent of it,--a \"purely supernatural\" revelation,--has, as\nR\u00e9c\u00e9jac says, \"been the cause of the longest and the most dangerous of\nthe aberrations from which Mysticism has suffered.\" This kind of\nsupernaturalism is destructive of _unity_ in our ideas of God, the\nworld, and ourselves; and it casts a slur on the faculties which are the\nappointed organs of communication between God and man. A revelation\nabsolutely transcending reason is an absurdity: no such revelation could\never be made. In the striking phrase of Macarius, \"the human mind is the\nthrone of the Godhead.\" The supremacy of the reason is the favourite\ntheme of the Cambridge Platonists, two of whom, Whichcote and Culverwel,\nare never tired of quoting the text, \"The spirit of man is the candle of\nthe Lord.\" \"Sir, I oppose not rational to spiritual,\" writes Whichcote\nto Tuckney, \"for spiritual is most rational.\" And again, \"Reason is the\nDivine governor of man's life: it is the very voice of God.[31]\" What we\ncan and must transcend, if we would make any progress in Divine\nknowledge, is not reason, but that shallow rationalism which regards the\ndata on which we can reason as a fixed quantity, known to all, and which\nbases itself on a formal logic, utterly unsuited to a spiritual view of\nthings. Language can only furnish us with poor, misleading, and wholly\ninadequate images of spiritual facts; it supplies us with abstractions\nand metaphors, which do not really represent what we know or believe\nabout God and human personality. St. Paul calls attention to this\ninadequacy by a series of formal contradictions: \"I live, yet not I\";\n\"dying, and behold we live\"; \"when I am weak, then I am strong,\" and so\nforth; and we find exactly the same expedient in Plotinus, who is very\nfond of thus showing his contempt for the logic of identity. When,\ntherefore, Harnack says that \"Mysticism is nothing else than rationalism\napplied to a sphere above reason,\" he would have done better to say that\nit is \"reason applied to a sphere above rationalism.[32]\"\n\nFor Reason is still \"king.[33]\" Religion must not be a matter of\n_feeling_ only. St. John's command to \"try every spirit\" condemns all\nattempts to make emotion or inspiration independent of reason. Those\nwho thus blindly follow the inner light find it no \"candle of the\nLord,\" but an _ignis fatuus_; and the great mystics are well aware of\nthis. The fact is that the tendency to separate and half personify the\ndifferent faculties--intellect, will, feeling--is a mischievous one.\nOur object should be so to _unify_ our personality, that our eye may\nbe single, and our whole body full of light.\n\nWe have considered briefly the three stages of the mystic's upward\npath. The scheme of life therein set forth was no doubt determined\nempirically, and there is nothing to prevent the simplest and most\nunlettered saint from framing his conduct on these principles. Many of\nthe medi\u00e6val mystics had no taste for speculation or philosophy;[34]\nthey accepted on authority the entire body of Church dogma, and\ndevoted their whole attention to the perfecting of the spiritual life\nin the knowledge and love of God. But this cannot be said of the\nleaders. Christian Mysticism appears in history largely as an\nintellectual movement, the foster-child of Platonic idealism; and if\never, for a time, it forgot its early history, men were soon found to\nbring it back to \"its old loving nurse the Platonic philosophy.\" It\nwill be my task, in the third and fourth Lectures of this course, to\nshow how speculative Christian Mysticism grew out of Neoplatonism; but\nwe shall not be allowed to forget the Platonists even in the later\nLectures. \"The fire still burns on the altars of Plotinus,\" as\nEunapius said.\n\nMysticism is not itself a philosophy, any more than it is itself a\nreligion. On its intellectual side it has been called \"formless\nspeculation.[35]\" But until speculations or intuitions have entered\ninto the forms of our thought, they are not current coin even for the\nthinker. The part played by Mysticism in philosophy is parallel to the\npart played by it in religion. As in religion it appears in revolt\nagainst dry formalism and cold rationalism, so in philosophy it takes\nthe field against materialism and scepticism.[36] It is thus possible\nto speak of speculative Mysticism, and even to indicate certain\nidealistic lines of thought, which may without entire falsity be\ncalled the philosophy of Mysticism. In this introductory Lecture I\ncan, of course, only hint at these in the barest and most summary\nmanner. And it must be remembered that I have undertaken to-day to\ndelineate the general characteristics of Mysticism, not of Christian\nMysticism. I am trying, moreover, in this Lecture to confine myself to\nthose developments which I consider normal and genuine, excluding the\nnumerous aberrant types which we shall encounter in the course of our\nsurvey.\n\nThe real world, according to thinkers of this school, is created by\nthe thought and will of God, and exists in His mind. It is therefore\nspiritual, and above space and time, which are only the forms under\nwhich reality is set out as a process.\n\nWhen we try to represent to our minds the highest reality, the\nspiritual world, as distinguished from the world of appearance, we are\nobliged to form images; and we can hardly avoid choosing one of the\nfollowing three images. We may regard the spiritual world as endless\nduration opposed to transitoriness, as infinite extension opposed to\nlimitation in space, or as substance opposed to shadow. All these are,\nstrictly speaking, symbols or metaphors,[37] for we cannot regard any\nof them as literally true statements about the nature of reality; but\nthey are as near the truth as we can get in words. But when we think\nof time as a piece cut off from the beginning of eternity, so that\neternity is only in the future and not in the present; when we think\nof heaven as a place somewhere else, and therefore not here; when we\nthink of an upper ideal world which has sucked all the life out of\nthis, so that we now walk in a vain shadow,--then we are paying the\npenalty for our symbolical representative methods of thought, and must\ngo to philosophy to help us out of the doubts and difficulties in\nwhich our error has involved us. One test is infallible. Whatever view\nof reality deepens our sense of the tremendous issues of life in the\nworld wherein we move, is _for us_ nearer the truth than any view\nwhich diminishes that sense. The truth is revealed to us that we may\nhave _life_, and have it more abundantly.\n\nThe world as it is, is the world as God sees it, not as we see it. Our\nvision is distorted, not so much by the limitations of finitude, as by\nsin and ignorance. The more we can raise ourselves in the scale of\nbeing, the more will our ideas about God and the world correspond to\nthe reality. \"Such as men themselves are, such will God Himself seem\nto them to be,\" says John Smith, the English Platonist. Origen, too,\nsays that those whom Judas led to seize Jesus did not know who He was,\nfor the darkness of their own souls was projected on His features.[38]\nAnd Dante, in a very beautiful passage, says that he felt that he was\nrising into a higher circle, because he saw Beatrice's face becoming\nmore beautiful.[39]\n\nThis view of reality, as a vista which is opened gradually to the\neyes of the climber up the holy mount, is very near to the heart of\nMysticism. It rests on the faith that the ideal not only ought to be,\nbut _is_ the real. It has been applied by some, notably by that\nearnest but fantastic thinker, James Hinton, as offering a solution of\nthe problem of evil. We shall encounter attempts to deal with this\ngreat difficulty in several of the Christian mystics. The problem\namong the speculative writers was how to reconcile the Absolute of\nphilosophy, who is above all distinctions,[40] with the God of\nreligion, who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. They could not\nallow that evil has a substantial existence apart from God, for fear\nof being entangled in an insoluble Dualism. But if evil is derived\nfrom God, how can God be good? We shall find that the prevailing view\nwas that \"Evil has no substance.\" \"There is nothing,\" says Gregory of\nNyssa, \"which falls outside of the Divine nature, except moral evil\nalone. And this, we may say paradoxically, has its being in not-being.\nFor the genesis of moral evil is simply the privation of being.[41]\nThat which, properly speaking, exists, is the nature of the good.\" The\nDivine nature, in other words, is that which excludes nothing, and\ncontradicts nothing, except those attributes which are contrary to the\nnature of reality; it is that which harmonises everything except\ndiscord, which loves everything except hatred, verifies everything\nexcept falsehood, and beautifies everything except ugliness. Thus that\nwhich falls outside the notion of God, proves on examination to be\nnot merely unreal, but unreality as such. But the relation of evil to\nthe Absolute is not a religious problem. To our experience, evil\nexists as a positive force not subject to the law of God, though\nconstantly overruled and made an instrument of good. On this subject\nwe must say more later. Here I need only add that a sunny confidence\nin the ultimate triumph of good shines from the writings of most of\nthe mystics, especially, I think, in our own countrymen. The Cambridge\nPlatonists are all optimistic; and in the beautiful but little known\n_Revelations_ of Juliana of Norwich, we find in page after page the\nrefrain of \"All shall be well.\" \"Sin is behovable,[42] but all shall\nbe well, and all manner of thing shall be well.\"\n\nSince the universe is the thought and will of God expressed under the\nforms of time and space, everything in it reflects the nature of its\nCreator, though in different degrees. Erigena says finely, \"Every\nvisible and invisible creature is a theophany or appearance of God.\"\nThe purest mirror in the world is the highest of created things--the\nhuman soul unclouded by sin. And this brings us to a point at which\nMysticism falls asunder into two classes.\n\nThe question which divides them is this--In the higher stages of the\nspiritual life, shall we learn most of the nature of God by close,\nsympathetic, reverent observation of the world around us, including\nour fellow-men, or by sinking into the depths of our inner\nconsciousness, and aspiring after direct and constant communion with\nGod? Each method may claim the support of weighty names. The former,\nwhich will form the subject of my seventh and eighth Lectures, is very\nhappily described by Charles Kingsley in an early letter.[43] \"The\ngreat Mysticism,\" he says, \"is the belief which is becoming every day\nstronger with me, that all symmetrical natural objects ... are types\nof some spiritual truth or existence.... Everything seems to be full\nof God's reflex if we could but see it.... Oh, to see, if but for a\nmoment, the whole harmony of the great system! to hear once the music\nwhich the whole universe makes as it performs His bidding! When I feel\nthat sense of the mystery that is around me, I feel a gush of\nenthusiasm towards God, which seems its inseparable effect.\"\n\nOn the other side stand the majority of the earlier mystics. Believing\nthat God is \"closer to us than breathing, and nearer than hands and\nfeet,\" they are impatient of any intermediaries. \"We need not search\nfor His footprints in Nature, when we can behold His face in\nourselves,[44]\" is their answer to St. Augustine's fine expression\nthat all things bright and beautiful in the world are \"footprints of\nthe uncreated Wisdom.[45]\" Coleridge has expressed their feeling in\nhis \"Ode to Dejection\"--\n\n\n        \"It were a vain endeavour,\n         Though I should gaze for ever\n      On that green light that lingers in the West;\n      I may not hope from outward forms to win\n  The passion and the life whose fountains are within.\"\n\n\n\"Grace works from within outwards,\" says Ruysbroek, \"for God is nearer\nto us than our own faculties. Hence it cannot come from images and\nsensible forms.\" \"If thou wishest to search out the deep things of\nGod,\" says Richard of St. Victor, \"search out the depths of thine own\nspirit.\"\n\nThe truth is that there are two movements,--a _systole_ and _diastole_\nof the spiritual life,--an expansion and a concentration. The tendency\nhas generally been to emphasise one at the expense of the other; but\nthey must work together, for each is helpless without the other. As\nShakespeare says[46]--\n\n\n              \"Nor doth the eye itself,\n  That most pure spirit of sense, behold itself,\n  Not going from itself, but eye to eye opposed,\n  Salutes each other with each other's form:\n  For speculation turns not to itself\n  Till it hath travelled, and is mirrored there,\n  Where it may see itself.\"\n\n\nNature is dumb, and our own hearts are dumb, until they are allowed to\nspeak to each other. Then both will speak to us of God.\n\nSpeculative Mysticism has occupied itself largely with these two great\nsubjects--the immanence of God in nature, and the relation of human\npersonality to Divine. A few words must be said, before I conclude, on\nboth these matters.\n\nThe Unity of all existence is a fundamental doctrine of Mysticism. God\nis in all, and all is in God. \"His centre is everywhere, and His\ncircumference nowhere,\" as St. Bonaventura puts it. It is often argued\nthat this doctrine leads direct to Pantheism, and that speculative\nMysticism is always and necessarily pantheistic. This is, of course,\na question of primary importance. It is in the hope of dealing with it\nadequately that I have selected three writers who have been frequently\ncalled pantheists, for discussion in these Lectures. I mean Dionysius\nthe Areopagite, Scotus Erigena, and Eckhart. But it would be\nimpossible even to indicate my line of argument in the few minutes\nleft me this morning.\n\nThe mystics are much inclined to adopt, in a modified form, the old\nnotion of an _anima mundi_. When Erigena says, \"Be well assured that\nthe Word--the second Person of the Trinity--is the Nature of all\nthings,\" he means that the Logos is a cosmic principle, the\nPersonality of which the universe is the external expression or\nappearance.[47]\n\nWe are not now concerned with cosmological speculations, but the\nbearing of this theory on human personality is obvious. If the Son of\nGod is regarded as an all-embracing and all-pervading cosmic\nprinciple, the \"mystic union\" of the believer with Christ becomes\nsomething much closer than an ethical harmony of two mutually\nexclusive wills. The question which exercises the mystics is not\nwhether such a thing as fusion of personalities is possible, but\nwhether, when the soul has attained union with its Lord, it is any\nlonger conscious of a life distinct from that of the Word. We shall\nfind that some of the best mystics went astray on this point. They\nteach a real _substitution_ of the Divine for human nature, thus\ndepersonalising man, and running into great danger of a perilous\narrogance. The mistake is a fatal one even from the speculative side,\nfor it is only on the analogy of human personality that we can\nconceive of the perfect personality of God; and without personality\nthe universe falls to pieces. Personality is not only the strictest\nunity of which we have any experience; it is the fact which creates\nthe postulate of unity on which all philosophy is based.\n\nBut it is possible to save personality without regarding the human\nspirit as a monad, independent and sharply separated from other\nspirits. Distinction, not separation, is the mark of personality; but\nit is separation, not distinction, that forbids union. The error,\naccording to the mystic's psychology, is in regarding consciousness of\nself as the measure of personality. The depths of personality are\nunfathomable, as Heraclitus already knew;[48] the light of\nconsciousness only plays on the surface of the waters. Jean Paul\nRichter is a true exponent of this characteristic doctrine when he\nsays, \"We attribute far too small dimensions to the rich empire of\nourself, if we omit from it the unconscious region which resembles a\ngreat dark continent. The world which our memory peoples only\nreveals, in its revolution, a few luminous points at a time, while its\nimmense and teeming mass remains in shade.... We daily see the\nconscious passing into unconsciousness; and take no notice of the bass\naccompaniment which our fingers continue to play, while our attention\nis directed to fresh musical effects.[49]\" So far is it from being\ntrue that the self of our immediate consciousness is our true\npersonality, that we can only attain personality, as spiritual and\nrational beings, by passing beyond the limits which mark us off as\nseparate individuals. Separate individuality, we may say, is the bar\nwhich prevents us from realising our true privileges as persons.[50]\nAnd so the mystic interprets very literally that maxim of our Lord, in\nwhich many have found the fundamental secret of Christianity: \"He that\nwill save his life--his soul, his personality--shall lose it; and he\nthat will lose his life for My sake shall find it.\" The false self\nmust die--nay, must \"die daily,\" for the process is gradual, and there\nis no limit to it. It is a process of infinite _expansion_--of\nrealising new correspondences, new sympathies and affinities with the\nnot-ourselves, which affinities condition, and in conditioning\nconstitute, our true life as persons. The paradox is offensive only\nto formal logic. As a matter of experience, no one, I imagine, would\nmaintain that the man who has practically realised, to the fullest\npossible extent, the common life which he draws from his Creator, and\nshares with all other created beings,--so realised it, I mean, as to\ndraw from that consciousness all the influences which can play upon\nhim from outside,--has thereby dissipated and lost his personality,\nand become less of a person than another who has built a wall round\nhis individuality, and lived, as Plato says, the life of a\nshell-fish.[51]\n\nWe may arrive at the same conclusion by analysing that unconditioned\nsense of duty which we call _conscience_. This moral sense cannot be a\nfixed code implanted in our consciousness, for then we could not\nexplain either the variations of moral opinion, or the feeling of\n_obligation_ (as distinguished from necessity) which impels us to obey\nit. It cannot be the product of the existing moral code of society,\nfor then we could not explain either the genesis of that public\nopinion or the persistent revolt against its limitations which we\nfind in the greatest minds. The only hypothesis which explains the\nfacts is that in conscience we feel the motions of the universal\nReason which strives to convert the human organism into an organ of\nitself, a belief which is expressed in religious language by saying\nthat it is God who worketh in us both to will and to do of His good\npleasure.\n\nIf it be further asked, Which is our personality, the shifting _moi_\n(as F\u00e9nelon calls it), or the ideal self, the end or the developing\nstates? we must answer that it is both and neither, and that the root\nof mystical religion is in the conviction that it is at once both and\nneither.[52] The _moi_ strives to realise its end, but the end being\nan infinite one, no process can reach it. Those who have \"counted\nthemselves to have apprehended\" have thereby left the mystical faith;\nand those who from the notion of a _progressus ad infinitum_ come to\nthe pessimistic conclusion, are equally false to the mystical creed,\nwhich teaches us that we are already potentially what God intends us\nto become. The command, \"Be ye perfect,\" is, like all Divine commands,\nat the same time a promise.\n\nIt is stating the same paradox in another form to say that we can only\nachieve inner _unity_ by transcending mere individuality. The\nindependent, impervious self shows its unreality by being inwardly\ndiscordant. It is of no use to enlarge the circumference of our life,\nif the fixed centre is always the _ego_. There are, if I may press the\nmetaphor, other circles with other centres, in which we are vitally\ninvolved. And thus sympathy, or love, which is sympathy in its\nhighest power, is the great _atoner_, within as well as without. The\nold Pythagorean maxim, that \"a man must be _one_,[53]\" is echoed by\nall the mystics. He must be one as God is one, and the world is one;\nfor man is a microcosm, a living mirror of the universe. Here, once\nmore, we have a characteristic mystical doctrine, which is perhaps\nworked out most fully in the \"_Fons Vit\u00e6_\" of Avicebron (Ibn Gebirol),\na work which had great influence in the Middle Ages. The doctrine\njustifies the use of _analogy_ in matters of religion, and is of great\nimportance. One might almost dare to say that all conclusions about\nthe world above us which are _not_ based on the analogy of our own\nmental experiences, are either false or meaningless.\n\nThe idea of man as a microcosm was developed in two ways. Plotinus\nsaid that \"every man is double,\" meaning that one side of his soul is\nin contact with the intelligible, the other with the sensible world.\nHe is careful to explain that the doctrine of Divine Immanence does\nnot mean that God _divides_ Himself among the many individuals, but\nthat they partake of Him according to their degrees of receptivity, so\nthat each one is potentially in possession of all the fulness of God.\nProclus tries to explain how this can be. \"There are three sorts of\n_Wholes_--the first, anterior to the parts; the second, composed of\nthe parts; the third, knitting into one stuff the parts and the\nwhole.[54]\" In this third sense the whole resides in the parts, as\nwell as the parts in the whole. St. Augustine states the same doctrine\nin clearer language.[55] It will be seen at once how this doctrine\nencourages that class of Mysticism which bids us \"sink into the depths\nof our own souls\" in order to find God.\n\nThe other development of the theory that man is a microcosm is not\nless important and interesting. It is a favourite doctrine of the\nmystics that man, in his individual life, recapitulates the spiritual\nhistory of the race, in much the same way in which embryologists tell\nus that the unborn infant recapitulates the whole process of physical\nevolution. It follows that the Incarnation, the central fact of human\nhistory, must have its analogue in the experience of the individual.\nWe shall find that this doctrine of the birth of an infant Christ in\nthe soul is one of immense importance in the systems of Eckhart,\nTauler, and our Cambridge Platonists. It is a somewhat perilous\ndoctrine, as we shall see; but it is one which, I venture to think,\nhas a future as well as a past, for the progress of modern science has\ngreatly strengthened the analogies on which it rests. I shall show in\nmy next Lecture how strongly St. Paul felt its value.\n\nThis brief introduction will, I hope, have indicated the main\ncharacteristics of mystical theology and religion. It is a type which\nis as repulsive to some minds as it is attractive to others.\nColeridge has said that everyone is born a Platonist or an\nAristotelian, and one might perhaps adapt the epigram by saying that\neveryone is naturally either a mystic or a legalist. The\nclassification does, indeed, seem to correspond to a deep difference\nin human characters; it is doubtful whether a man could be found\nanywhere whom one could trust to hold the scales evenly between--let\nus say--F\u00e9nelon and Bossuet. The cleavage is much the same as that\nwhich causes the eternal strife between tradition and illumination,\nbetween priest and prophet, which has produced the deepest tragedies\nin human history, and will probably continue to do so while the world\nlasts. The legalist--with his conception of God as the righteous Judge\ndispensing rewards and punishments, the \"Great Taskmaster\" in whose\nvineyard we are ordered to labour; of the Gospel as \"the new law,\" and\nof the sanction of duty as a \"categorical imperative\"--will never find\nit easy to sympathise with those whose favourite words are St. John's\ntriad--light, life, and love, and who find these the most suitable\nnames to express what they know of the nature of God. But those to\nwhom the Fourth Gospel is the brightest jewel in the Bible, and who\ncan enter into the real spirit of St. Paul's teaching, will, I hope,\nbe able to take some interest in the historical development of ideas\nwhich in their Christian form are certainly built upon those parts of\nthe New Testament.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 2: See Appendix A for definitions of Mysticism and Mystical\nTheology.]\n\n[Footnote 3: See Appendix B for a discussion of the influence of the\nGreek mysteries upon Christian Mysticism.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Tholuck accepts the former derivation (cf. Suidas,\n[Greek: myst\u00earia ekl\u00eath\u00easan para to tous akouontas myein to stoma\nkai m\u00eadeni tauta ex\u00eageisthai]); Petersen, the latter. There is no\ndoubt that [Greek: my\u00easis] was opposed to [Greek: epopteia], and in\nthis sense denoted _incomplete_ initiation; but it was also made to\ninclude the whole process. The prevailing use of the adjective [Greek:\nmystikos] is of something seen \"through a glass darkly,\" some\nknowledge purposely wrapped up in symbols.]\n\n[Footnote 5: So Hesychius says, [Greek: Mystai, apo my\u00f4, myontes gar\ntas aisth\u00easeis kai ex\u00f4 t\u00f4n sarkik\u00f4n phrontid\u00f4n genomenoi, out\u00f4 tas\ntheias analampseis edechonto.] Plotinus and Proclus both use [Greek:\nmy\u00f4] of the \"closed eye\" of rapt contemplation.]\n\n[Footnote 6: I cannot agree with Lasson (in his book on Meister\nEckhart) that \"the connexion with the Greek mysteries throws no light\non the subject.\" No writer had more influence upon the growth of\nMysticism in the Church than Dionysius the Areopagite, whose main\nobject is to present Christianity in the light of a Platonic\nmysteriosophy. The same purpose is evident in Clement, and in other\nChristian Platonists between Clement and Dionysius. See Appendix B.]\n\n[Footnote 7: It should also be borne in mind that every historical\nexample of a mystical movement may be expected to exhibit\ncharacteristics which are determined by the particular forms of\nreligious deadness in opposition to which it arises. I think that it\nis generally easy to separate these secondary, accidental\ncharacteristics from those which are primary and integral, and that we\nshall then find that the underlying substance, which may be regarded\nas the essence of Mysticism as a type of religion, is strikingly\nuniform.]\n\n[Footnote 8: The analogy used by Plotinus (_Ennead_ i. 6. 9) was often\nquoted and imitated: \"Even as the eye could not behold the sun unless\nit were itself sunlike, so neither could the soul behold God if it\nwere not Godlike.\" Lotze (_Microcosmus_, and cf. _Metaphysics_, 1st\ned., p. 109) falls foul of Plotinus for this argument. \"The reality of\nthe external world is utterly severed from our senses. It is vain to\ncall the eye sunlike, as if it needed a special occult power to copy\nwhat it has itself produced: fruitless are all mystic efforts to\nrestore to the intuitions of sense, by means of a secret identity of\nmind with things, a reality outside ourselves.\" Whether the subjective\nidealism of this sentence is consistent with the subsequent dogmatic\nassertion that \"nature is animated throughout,\" it is not my province\nto determine. The latter doctrine is held by a large school of\nmystics: the acosmistic tendency of the former has had only too much\nattraction for mystics of another school.]\n\n[Footnote 9: This distinction is drawn by Origen, and accepted by all\nthe mystical writers.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Faith goes so closely hand in hand with love that the\nmystics seldom try to separate them, and indeed they need not be\nseparated. William Law's account of their operation is characteristic.\n\"When the seed of the new birth, called the inward man, has faith\nawakened in it, its faith is not a notion, but a real strong essential\nhunger, an attracting or magnetic desire of Christ, which as it\nproceeds from a seed of the Divine nature in us, so it attracts and\nunites with its like: it lays hold on Christ, puts on the Divine\nnature, and in a living and real manner grows powerful over all our\nsins, and effectually works out our salvation\" (_Grounds and Reasons\nof Christian Regeneration_).]\n\n[Footnote 11: R.L. Nettleship, _Remains_.]\n\n[Footnote 12: \"Nescio si a quoquam homine quartus (gradus) in hac vita\nperfecte apprehenditur, ut se scilicet diligat homo tantum propter\nDeum. Asserant hoc si qui experti sunt: mihi (fateor) impossibile\nvidetur\" (_De diligendo Deo_, xv.; _Epist_. xi. 8).]\n\n[Footnote 13: From a sermon by Smith, the Cambridge Platonist.\nPlotinus, too, says well, [Greek: ei tis allo eidos \u00eadon\u00eas peri ton\nspoudaion bion z\u00eatei, ou ton spoudaion bion z\u00eatei] (_Ennead_ i. 4.\n12).]\n\n[Footnote 14: From Smith's sermons.]\n\n[Footnote 15: Pindar's [Greek: genoio oios essi math\u00f4n] is a fine\nmystical maxim. (_Pyth._ 2. 131.)]\n\n[Footnote 16: Strictly, the unitive road (_via_) leads to the\ncontemplative life (_vita_). Cf. Benedict, xiv., _De Servorum Dei\nbeatific_., iii. 26, \"Perfecta h\u00e6c mystica unio reperitur regulariter\nin perfecto contemplativo qui in vita purgativa et illuminativa, id\nest meditativa, et contemplativa diu versatus, ex speciali Dei favore\nad infusam contemplativam evectus est.\" On the three ways, Suarez\nsays, \"Distinguere solent mystici tres vias, purgativam,\nilluminativam, et unitivam.\" Molinos was quite a heterodox mystic in\nteaching that there is but a \"unica via, scilicet interna,\" and this\nproposition was condemned by a Bull of Innocent XI.]\n\n[Footnote 17: In Plotinus the civic virtues _precede_ the cathartic;\nbut they are not, as with some perverse mystics, considered to lie\n_outside_ the path of ascent.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Tauler is careful to put social service on its true\nbasis. \"One can spin,\" he says, \"another can make shoes; and all these\nare gifts of the Holy Ghost. I tell you, if I were not a priest, I\nshould esteem it a great gift that I was able to make shoes, and would\ntry to make them so well as to be a pattern to all.\" In a later\nLecture I shall revert to the charge of indolent neglect of duties, so\noften preferred against the mystics.]\n\n[Footnote 19: R.L. Nettleship, _Remains_.]\n\n[Footnote 20: In a Roman Catholic manual I find: \"Non raro sub nomine\ntheologi\u00e6 mystic\u00e6 intelligitur etiam ascesis, sed immerito. Nam\nascesis consuetas tantum et tritas perfectionis semitas ostendit,\nmystica autem adhuc excellentiorem viam demonstrat.\" This is to\nidentify \"mystical theology\" with the higher rungs of the ladder. It\nhas been used in this curious manner from the Middle Ages. Ribet says,\n\"La mystique, comme science sp\u00e9ciale, fait partie de la th\u00e9ologie\nasc\u00e9tique\"; that part, namely, \"dans lequel l'homme est r\u00e9duit \u00e0 la\npassivit\u00e9 par l'action souveraine de Dieu.\" \"L'asc\u00e8se\" is defined as\n\"l'ascension de l'\u00e2me vers Dieu.\"]\n\n[Footnote 21: Cf. Professor W. Wallace's collected _Lectures and\nEssays_, p. 276.]\n\n[Footnote 22: See Appendix C on the Doctrine of Deification.]\n\n[Footnote 23: So F\u00e9nelon, after asserting the truth of mystical\n\"transformation,\" adds: \"It is false to say that transformation is a\ndeification of the real and natural soul, or a hypostatic union, or an\nunalterable conformity with God.\"]\n\n[Footnote 24: _Life of Tennyson_, vol. i. p. 320. The curious\nexperience, that the repetition of his own name induced a kind of\ntrance, is used by the poet in his beautiful mystical poem, \"The\nAncient Sage.\" It would, indeed, have been equally easy to illustrate\nthis topic from Wordsworth's prose and Tennyson's poetry.]\n\n[Footnote 25: See the very interesting note in Harnack, _History of\nDogma_, vol. i. p. 53.]\n\n[Footnote 26: The Abb\u00e9 Migne says truly, \"Ceux qui traitent les\nmystiques de visionnaires seraient fort \u00e9tonn\u00e9s de voir quel peu de\ncas ils font des visions en elles-m\u00e9mes.\" And St. Bonaventura says of\nvisions, \"Nec faciunt sanctum nec ostendunt: alioquin Balaam sanctus\nesset, _et asina_, qu\u00e6 vidit Angelum.\"]\n\n[Footnote 27: The following passage from St. Francis de Sales is much\nto the same effect as those referred to in the text: \"Les philosophes\nmesmes ont recogneu certaines esp\u00e8ces d'extases naturelles faictes par\nla v\u00e9h\u00e9mente application de l'esprit \u00e0 la consid\u00e9ration des choses\nrelev\u00e9es. Une marque de la bonne et sainete extase est qu'elle ne se\nprend ny attache jamais tant \u00e0 l'entendement qu'\u00e0 la volont\u00e9, laquelle\nelle esmeut, eschauffe, et remplit d'une puissante affection envers\nDieu; de mani\u00e8re que si l'extase est plus belle que bonne, plus\nlumineuse qu'affective, elle est grandement douteuse et digne de\nsoup\u00e7on.\"]\n\n[Footnote 28: Some of my readers may find satisfaction in the\nfollowing passage of Jeremy Taylor: \"Indeed, when persons have long\nbeen softened with the continual droppings of religion, and their\nspirits made timorous and apt for impression by the assiduity of\nprayer, and the continual dyings of mortification--the fancy, which is\na very great instrument of devotion, is kept continually warm, and in\na disposition and aptitude to take fire, and to flame out in great\nascents; and when they suffer transportations beyond the burdens and\nsupport of reason, they suffer they know not what, and call it what\nthey please.\" Henry More, too, says that those who would \"make their\nwhole nature desolate of all animal figurations whatever,\" find only\n\"a waste, silent solitude, and one uniform parchedness and vacuity.\nAnd yet, while a man fancies himself thus wholly Divine, he is not\naware how he is even then held down by his animal nature; and that it\nis nothing but the stillness and fixedness of melancholy that thus\nabuses him, instead of the true Divine principle.\"]\n\n[Footnote 29: Plato, _Ph\u00e6drus_, 244, 245; Ion, 534.]\n\n[Footnote 30: Lacordaire, _Conf\u00e9rences_, xxxvii.]\n\n[Footnote 31: Compare, too, the vigorous words of Henry More, the most\nmystical of the group: \"He that misbelieves and lays aside clear and\ncautious reason in things that fall under the discussion of reason,\nupon the pretence of hankering after some higher principle (which, a\nthousand to one, proves but the infatuation of melancholy, and a\nsuperstitious hallucination), is as ridiculous as if he would not use\nhis natural eyes about their proper object till the presence of some\nsupernatural light, or till he had got a pair of spectacles made of\nthe crystalline heaven, or of the _c\u00e6lum empyreum_, to hang upon his\nnose for him to look through.\"]\n\n[Footnote 32: There is, of course, a sense in which any strong feeling\nlifts us \"above reason.\" But this is using \"reason\" in a loose\nmanner.]\n\n[Footnote 33: [Greek: ho nous basileus], says Plotinus.]\n\n[Footnote 34: Roman Catholic writers can assert that \"la plupart des\ncontemplatifs \u00e9taient d\u00e9pourvus de toute culture litt\u00e9raire.\" But\ntheir notion of \"contemplation\" is the passive reception of\n\"supernatural favours,\"--on which subject more will be said in\nLectures IV. and VII.]\n\n[Footnote 35: \"Die Mystik ist formlose Speculation,\" Noack,\n_Christliche Mystik_, p. 18.]\n\n[Footnote 36: The Atomists, from Epicurus downwards, have been\nespecially odious to the mystics.]\n\n[Footnote 37: The theory that time is real, but not space, leads us\ninto grave difficulties. It is the root of the least satisfactory kind\nof evolutionary optimism, which forgets, in the first place, that the\nidea of perpetual progress in time is hopelessly at variance with what\nwe know of the destiny of the world; and, in the second place, that a\nmere _progressus_ is meaningless. Every created thing has its fixed\ngoal in the realisation of the idea which was immanent in it from the\nfirst.]\n\n[Footnote 38: Origen in _Matth._, Com. Series, 100; _Contra Celsum_,\nii. 64. Referred to by Bigg, _Christian Platonists of Alexandria_, p.\n191.]\n\n[Footnote 39: _Paradiso_ viii. 13--\n\n  \"Io non m'accorsi del salire in ella;\n   Ma d'esserv' entro mi fece assai fede\n   La donna mia ch'io vidi far pi\u00f9 bella.\" ]\n\n[Footnote 40: \"Deo nihil opponitur,\" says Erigena.]\n\n[Footnote 41: Compare Bradley, _Appearance and Reality_, where it is\nshown that the essential attributes of Reality are _harmony_ and\n_inclusiveness_.]\n\n[Footnote 42: I.e. \"necessary\" or \"expedient.\"]\n\n[Footnote 43: _Life_, vol. i. p. 55.]\n\n[Footnote 44: J. Smith, _Select Discourses_, v. So Bernard says (_De\nConsid._ v. I), \"quid opus est scalis tenenti iam solium?\"]\n\n[Footnote 45: Aug. _De Libero Arbitrio_, ii. 16, 17.]\n\n[Footnote 46: _Troilus and Cressida_, Act III. Scene 3.]\n\n[Footnote 47: This idea of the world as a living being is found in\nPlotinus: and Origen definitely teaches that \"as our body, while\nconsisting of many members, is yet an organism which is held together\nby one soul, so the universe is to be thought of as an immense living\nbeing which is upheld by the power and the Word of God.\" He also holds\nthat the sun and stars are spiritual beings. St. Augustine, too (_De\nCivitate Dei_, iv. 12, vii. 5), regards the universe as a living\norganism; and the doctrine reappears much later in Giordano Bruno.\nAccording to this theory, we are subsidiary members of an\nall-embracing organism, and there may be intermediate will-centres\nbetween our own and that of the universal Ego. Among modern systems,\nthat of Fechner is the one which seems to be most in accordance with\nthese speculations. He views life under the figure of a number of\nconcentric circles of consciousness, within an all-embracing circle\nwhich represents the consciousness of God.]\n\n[Footnote 48: [Greek: psuch\u00eas peirata ouk an exeuroio pasan\nepiporeuomenos hodon out\u00f4 bathyn logon echei], Frag. 71.]\n\n[Footnote 49: J.P. Richter, _Selina_. Compare, too, Lotze,\n_Microcosmus_: \"Within us lurks a world whose form we imperfectly\napprehend, and whose working, when in particular phases it comes under\nour notice, surprises us with foreshadowings of unknown depths in our\nbeing.\"]\n\n[Footnote 50: As Lotze says, \"The finite being does not contain in\nitself the conditions of its own existence.\" It must struggle to\nattain to complete personality; or rather, since personality belongs\nunconditionally only to God, to such a measure of personality as is\nallotted to us. Eternal life is nothing than the attainment of full\npersonality, a conscious existence in God.]\n\n[Footnote 51: J.A. Picton (_The Mystery of Matter_, p. 356) puts the\nmatter well: \"Mysticism consists in the spiritual realisation of a\ngrander and a boundless unity, that humbles all self-assertion by\ndissolving it in a wider glory. It does not follow that the sense of\nindividuality is necessarily weakened. But habitual contemplation of\nthe Divine unity impresses men with the feeling that individuality is\nphenomenal only. Hence the paradox of Mysticism. For apart from this\nphenomenal individuality, we should not know our own nothingness, and\npersonal life is good only through the bliss of being lost in God.\n[Rather, I should say, through the bliss of finding our true life,\nwhich is hid with Christ in God.] True religious worship doth not\nconsist in the acknowledgment of a greatness which is estimated by\ncomparison, but rather in the sense of a Being who surpasses all\ncomparison, because He gives to phenomenal existences the only reality\nthey can know. Hence the deepest religious feeling necessarily shrinks\nfrom thinking of God as a kind of gigantic Self amidst a host of minor\nselves. The very thought of such a thing is a mockery of the\nprofoundest devotion.\"]\n\n[Footnote 52: See, further, Appendix C, pp. 366-7.]\n\n[Footnote 53: [Greek: hena genesthai ton anthr\u00f4pon dei]: Pythagoras\nquoted by Clement. Cf. Plotinus, _Enn._ vi. 9. I, [Greek: kai hugieia\nde, hotan eis hen syntachth\u00ea to s\u00f4ma, kai kallos hotan h\u00ea tou henos ta\nmoria katasch\u00ea physis, kai aret\u00ea de psych\u00eas hotan eis hen kai eis mian\nhomologian hen\u00f4th\u00ea].]\n\n[Footnote 54: Proclus, _in Tim._ 83. 265.]\n\n[Footnote 55: Aug. _Ep._ 187. 19: \"Deus totus adesse rebus omnibus\npotest, _et singulis totus_, quamvis in quibus habitat habeant eum pro\nsu\u00e6 capacitatis diversitate, alii amplius, alii minus.\" More clearly\nstill, Bonaventura, _Itin. ment. ad Deum_, 5: \"Totum intra omnia, et\ntotum extra: ac per hoc est sph\u00e6ra intelligibilis, cuius centrum est\nubique, et circumferentia nusquam.\"]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE II\n\n\n[Greek: \"To eu z\u00ean edidaxen epiphaneis \u00f4s didaskalos, hina to aei\nz\u00ean husteron \u00f4s theos chor\u00eag\u00eas\u00ea.\"]\n\nCLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.\n\n\n   \"But souls that of His own good life partake\n    He loves as His own self: dear as His eye\n    They are to Him; He'll never them forsake:\n    When they shall die, then God Himself shall die:\n    They live, they live in blest eternity.\"\n\nHENRY MORE.\n\n\n   \"Amor Patris Filiique,\n    Par amborum, et utrique\n      Compar et consimilis:\n    Cuncta reples, cuncta foves,\n    Astra regis, coelum moves,\n      Permanens immobilis.\n\n    \"Te docente nil obscurum,\n    Te pr\u00e6sente nil impurum;\n      Sub tua pr\u00e6sentia\n    Gloriatur mens iucunda;\n    Per te l\u00e6ta, per te munda\n      Gaudet conscientia.\n\n    \"Consolator et fundator,\n    Habitator et amator\n      Cordium humilium;\n    Pelle mala, terge sordes,\n    Et discordes fac concordes,\n      Et affer pr\u00e6sidium.\"\n\nADAM OF ST. VICTOR\n\n\n\nTHE MYSTICAL ELEMENT IN THE BIBLE\n\n\"That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; to the end that ye,\nbeing rooted and grounded in love, may be strong to apprehend with all\nthe saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to\nknow the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled\nwith all the fulness of God.\"--EPH. iii. 17-19.\n\n\nThe task which now lies before me is to consider how far that type of\nreligion and religious philosophy, which I tried in my last Lecture to\ndepict in outline, is represented in and sanctioned by Holy Scripture.\nI shall devote most of my time to the New Testament, for we shall not\nfind very much to help us in the Old. The Jewish mind and character,\nin spite of its deeply religious bent, was alien to Mysticism. In the\nfirst place, the religion of Israel, passing from what has been called\nHenotheism--the worship of a national God--to true Monotheism, always\nmaintained a rigid notion of individuality, both human and Divine.\nEven prophecy, which is mystical in its essence, was in the early\nperiod conceived as unmystically as possible, Balaam is merely a\nmouthpiece of God; his message is external to his personality, which\nremains antagonistic to it. And, secondly, the Jewish doctrine of\nideas was different from the Platonic. The Jew believed that the\nworld, and the whole course of history, existed from all eternity in\nthe mind of God, but as an unrealised purpose, which was actualised by\ndegrees as the scroll of events was unfurled. There was no notion that\nthe visible was in any way inferior to the invisible, or lacking in\nreality. Even in its later phases, after it had been partially\nHellenised, Jewish idealism tended to crystallise as Chiliasm, or in\n\"Apocalypses,\" and not, like Platonism, in the dream of a perfect\nworld existing \"yonder.\" In fact, the Jewish view of the external\nworld was mainly that of na\u00efve realism, but strongly pervaded by\nbelief in an Almighty King and Judge. Moreover, the Jew had little\nsense of the Divine _in_ nature: it was the power of God _over_ nature\nwhich he was jealous to maintain. The majesty of the elemental forces\nwas extolled in order to magnify the greater power of Him who made and\ncould unmake them, and whom the heaven of heavens cannot contain. The\nweakness and insignificance of man, as contrasted with the tremendous\npower of God, is the reflection which the contemplation of nature\ngenerally produced in his mind. \"How can a man be just with God?\" asks\nJob; \"which removeth the mountains, and they know it not; when He\noverturneth them in His anger; which shaketh the earth out of her\nplace, and the pillars thereof tremble; which commandeth the sun, and\nit riseth not, and sealeth up the stars.... He is not a man, as I am,\nthat I should answer Him, that we should come together in judgment.\nThere is no daysman betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both.\"\nNor does the answer that came to Job out of the whirlwind give any\nhint of a \"daysman\" betwixt man and God, but only enlarges on the\npresumption of man's wishing to understand the counsels of the\nAlmighty. Absolute submission to a law which is entirely outside of us\nand beyond our comprehension, is the final lesson of the book.[56] The\nnation exhibited the merits and defects of this type. On the one hand,\nit showed a deep sense of the supremacy of the moral law, and of\npersonal responsibility; a stubborn independence and faith in its\nmission; and a strong national spirit, combined with vigorous\nindividuality; but with these virtues went a tendency to externalise\nboth religion and the ideal of well-being: the former became a matter\nof forms and ceremonies; the latter, of worldly possessions. It was\nonly after the collapse of the national polity that these ideals\nbecame transmuted and spiritualised. Those disasters, which at first\nseemed to indicate a hopeless estrangement between God and His people,\nwere the means of a deeper reconciliation. We can trace the process,\nfrom the old proverb that \"to see God is death,\" down to that\nremarkable passage in Jeremiah where the approaching advent, or rather\nrestoration, of spiritual religion, is announced with all the\nsolemnity due to so glorious a message. \"Behold, the days come, saith\nthe Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel,\nand with the house of Judah.... After those days, saith the Lord, I\nwill put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts;\nand I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall\nteach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother,\nsaying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know Me, from the least of\nthem unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord.[57]\" That this\nknowledge of God, and the assurance of blessedness which it brings, is\nthe reward of righteousness and purity, is the chief message of the\ngreat prophets and psalmists. \"Who among us shall dwell with the\ndevouring fire? Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? He\nthat walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth\nthe gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of\nbribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his\neyes from seeing evil, he shall dwell on high; his place of defence\nshall be the munitions of rocks: bread shall be given unto him; his\nwaters shall be sure. Thine eyes shall see the King in His beauty;\nthey shall behold the land that is very far off.[58]\"\n\nThis passage of Isaiah bears a very close resemblance to the 15th and\n24th Psalms; and there are many other psalms which have been dear to\nChristian mystics. In some of them we find the \"_amoris\ndesiderium_\"--the thirst of the soul for God--which is the\ncharacteristic note of mystical devotion; in others, that longing for\na safe refuge from the provoking of all men and the strife of tongues,\nwhich drove so many saints into the cloister. Many a solitary ascetic\nhas prayed in the words of the 73rd Psalm: \"Whom have I in heaven but\nThee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside Thee. My flesh\nand my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my\nportion for ever.\" And verses like, \"I will hearken what the Lord God\nwill say concerning me,\" have been only too attractive to quietists.\nOther familiar verses will occur to most of us. I will only add that\nthe warm faith and love which inspired these psalms is made more\nprecious by the reverence for _law_ which is part of the older\ninheritance of the Israelites.\n\nThere are many, I fear, to whom \"the mystical element in the Old\nTestament\" will suggest only the Cabbalistic lore of types and\nallegories which has been applied to all the canonical books, and with\nespecial persistency and boldness to the Song of Solomon. I shall give\nmy opinion upon this class of allegorism in the seventh Lecture of\nthis course, which will deal with symbolism as a branch of Mysticism.\nIt would be impossible to treat of it here without anticipating my\ndiscussion of a principle which has a much wider bearing than as a\nmethod of biblical exegesis. As to the Song of Solomon, its influence\nupon Christian Mysticism has been simply deplorable. A graceful\nromance in honour of true love was distorted into a precedent and\nsanction for giving way to hysterical emotions, in which sexual\nimagery was freely used to symbolise the relation between the soul and\nits Lord. Such aberrations are as alien to sane Mysticism as they are\nto sane exegesis.[59]\n\nIn Jewish writings of a later period, composed under Greek influence,\nwe find plenty of Platonism ready to pass into Mysticism. But the\nWisdom of Solomon does not fall within our subject, and what is\nnecessary to be said about Philo and Alexandria will be said in the\nnext Lecture. In the New Testament, it will be convenient to say a\nvery few words on the Synoptic Gospels first, and afterwards to\nconsider St. John and St. Paul, where we shall find most of our\nmaterial.\n\nThe first three Gospels are not written in the religious dialect of\nMysticism. It is all the more important to notice that the fundamental\ndoctrines on which the system (if we may call it a system) rests, are\nall found in them. The vision of God is promised in the Sermon on the\nMount, and promised only to those who are pure in heart. The\nindwelling presence of Christ, or of the Holy Spirit, is taught in\nseveral places; for instance--\"The kingdom of God is within you\";\n\"Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in\nthe midst of them\"; \"Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the\nworld.\" The unity of Christ and His members is implied by the words,\n\"Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these My brethren,\nye have done it unto Me.\" Lastly, the great law of the moral\nworld,--the law of gain through loss, of life through death,--which is\nthe corner-stone of mystical (and, many have said, of Christian)\nethics, is found in the Synoptists as well as in St. John. \"Whosoever\nshall seek to gain his life (or soul) shall lose it; but whosoever\nshall lose his life (or soul) shall preserve it.\"\n\nThe Gospel of St. John--the \"spiritual Gospel,\" as Clement already\ncalls it--is the charter of Christian Mysticism. Indeed, Christian\nMysticism, as I understand it, might almost be called Johannine\nChristianity; if it were not better to say that a Johannine\nChristianity is the ideal which the Christian mystic sets before\nhimself. For we cannot but feel that there are deeper truths in this\nwonderful Gospel than have yet become part of the religious\nconsciousness of mankind. Perhaps, as Origen says, no one can fully\nunderstand it who has not, like its author, lain upon the breast of\nJesus. We are on holy ground when we are dealing with St. John's\nGospel, and must step in fear and reverence. But though the breadth\nand depth and height of those sublime discourses are for those only\nwho can mount up with wings as eagles to the summits of the spiritual\nlife, so simple is the language and so large its scope, that even the\nwayfaring men, though fools, can hardly altogether err therein.\n\nLet us consider briefly, first, what we learn from this Gospel about\nthe nature of God, and then its teaching upon human salvation.\n\nThere are three notable expressions about God the Father in the Gospel\nand First Epistle of St. John: \"God is Love\"; \"God is Light\"; and \"God\nis Spirit.\" The form of the sentences teaches us that these three\nqualities belong so intimately to the nature of God that they usher us\ninto His immediate presence. We need not try to get behind them, or to\nrise above them into some more nebulous region in our search for the\nAbsolute. Love, Light, and Spirit are for us names of God Himself. And\nobserve that St. John does not, in applying these semi-abstract words\nto God, attenuate in the slightest degree His personality. God _is_\nLove, but He also exercises love. \"God so loved the world.\" And He is\nnot only the \"white radiance\" that \"for ever shines\"; He can \"draw\" us\nto Himself, and \"send\" His Son to bring us back to Him.\n\nThe word \"Logos\" does not occur in any of the discourses. The\nidentification of Christ with the \"Word\" or \"Reason\" of the\nphilosophers is St. John's own. But the statements in the prologue are\nall confirmed by our Lord's own words as reported by the evangelist.\nThese fall under two heads, those which deal with the relation of\nChrist to the Father, and those which deal with His relation to the\nworld. The pre-existence of Christ in glory at the right hand of God\nis proved by several declarations: \"What if ye shall see the Son of\nMan ascending where He was before?\" \"And now, O Father, glorify Me\nwith Thine own self, with the glory which I had with Thee before the\nworld was.\" His exaltation above time is shown by the solemn\nstatement, \"Before Abraham was, I am.\" And with regard to the world,\nwe find in St. John the very important doctrine, which has never made\nits way into popular theology, that the Word is not merely the\nInstrument in the original creation,--\"by (or through) Him all things\nwere made,\"--but the central Life, the Being in whom life existed and\nexists as an indestructible attribute, an underived prerogative,[60]\nthe Mind or Wisdom who upholds and animates the universe without being\nlost in it. This doctrine, which is implied in other parts of St.\nJohn, seems to be stated explicitly in the prologue, though the words\nhave been otherwise interpreted. \"That which has come into existence,\"\nsays St. John, \"was in Him life\" ([Greek: ho gegonen, en aut\u00f4 z\u00f4\u00ea\n\u00ean.]) That is to say, the Word is the timeless Life, of which the\ntemporal world is a manifestation. This doctrine was taught by many of\nthe Greek Fathers, as well as by Scotus Erigena and other speculative\nmystics. Even if, with the school of Antioch and most of the later\ncommentators, we transfer the words [Greek: ho gegonen] to the\npreceding sentence, the doctrine that Christ is the life as well as\nthe light of the world can be proved from St. John.[61] The world is\nthe poem of the Word to the glory of the Father: in it, and by means\nof it, He displays in time all the riches which God has eternally put\nwithin Him.\n\nIn St. John, as in mystical theology generally, the Incarnation,\nrather than the Cross, is the central fact of Christianity. \"The Word\nwas made flesh, and tabernacled among us,\" is for him the supreme\ndogma. And it follows necessarily from the Logos doctrine, that the\nIncarnation, and all that followed it, is regarded primarily as a\n_revelation_ of life and light and truth. \"That eternal life, which\nwas with the Father, has been _manifested_ unto us,\" is part of the\nopening sentence of the first Epistle.[62] \"This is the message which\nwe have heard of Him and announce unto you, that God is Light, and in\nHim is no darkness at all.\" In coming into the world, Christ \"came\nunto His own.\" He had, in a sense, only to show to them what was there\nalready: Esaias, long before, had \"seen His glory, and spoken of Him.\"\nThe mysterious estrangement, which had laid the world under the\ndominion of the Prince of darkness, had obscured but not quenched the\nlight which lighteth _every_ man--the inalienable prerogative of all\nwho derive their being from the Sun of Righteousness. This central\nLight is Christ, and Christ only. He alone is the Way, the Truth, the\nLife, the Door, the Living Bread, and the True Vine. He is at once the\nRevealer and the Revealed, the Guide and the Way, the Enlightener and\nthe Light. No man cometh unto the Father but by Him.\n\nThe teaching of this Gospel on the office of the Holy Spirit claims\nspecial attention in our present inquiry. The revelation of God in\nChrist was complete: there can be no question that St. John claims for\nChristianity the position of the one eternally true revelation. But\nwithout the gradual illumination of the Spirit it is partly\nunintelligible and partly unobserved.[63] The purpose of the\nIncarnation was to reveal God _the Father_: \"He that hath seen Me hath\nseen the Father.\" In these momentous words (it has been said) \"the\nidea of God receives an abiding embodiment, and the Father is brought\nfor ever within the reach of intelligent devotion.[64]\" The purpose of\nthe mission of the Comforter is to reveal _the Son_. He takes the\nplace of the ascended Christ on earth as a living and active principle\nin the hearts of Christians. His office it is to bring to remembrance\nthe teachings of Christ, and to help mankind gradually to understand\nthem. There were also many things, our Lord said, which could not be\nsaid at the time to His disciples, who were unable to bear them. These\nwere left to be communicated to future generations by the Holy Spirit.\nThe doctrine of development had never before received so clear an\nexpression; and few could venture to record it so clearly as St. John,\nwho could not be suspected of contemplating a time when the teachings\nof the human Christ might be superseded.\n\nLet us now turn to the human side of salvation, and trace the upward\npath of the Christian life as presented to us in this Gospel. First,\nthen, we have the doctrine of the new birth: \"Except a man be born\nanew (or, from above), he cannot see the kingdom of God.\" This is\nfurther explained as a being born \"of water and of the Spirit\"--words\nwhich are probably meant to remind us of the birth of the world-order\nout of chaos as described in Genesis, and also to suggest the two\nideas of purification and life. (Baptism, as a symbol of purification,\nwas, of course, already familiar to those who first heard the words.)\nThen we have a doctrine of _faith_ which is deeper than that of the\nSynoptists. The very expression [Greek: pisteuein eis], \"to believe\n_on_,\" common in St. John and rare elsewhere, shows that the word is\ntaking a new meaning. Faith, in St. John, is no longer regarded\nchiefly as a condition of supernatural favours; or, rather, the\nmountains which it can remove are no material obstructions. It is an\nact of the whole personality, a self-dedication to Christ. It must\nprecede knowledge: \"If any man willeth to do His will, he shall know\nof the teaching,\" is the promise. It is the \"_credo ut intelligam_\" of\nlater theology. The objection has been raised that St. John's teaching\nabout faith moves in a vicious circle. His appeal is to the inward\nwitness; and those who cannot hear this inward witness are informed\nthat they must first believe, which is just what they can find no\nreason for doing. But this criticism misses altogether the drift of\nSt. John's teaching. Faith, for him, is not the acceptance of a\nproposition upon evidence; still less is it the acceptance of a\nproposition in the teeth of evidence. It is, in the first instance,\nthe resolution \"to stand or fall by the noblest hypothesis\"; that is\n(may we not say?), to follow Christ wherever He may lead us. Faith\nbegins with an experiment, and ends with an experience.[65] \"He that\nbelieveth in Him hath the witness in himself\"; that is the\nverification which follows the venture. That even the power to make\nthe experiment is given from above; and that the experience is not\nmerely subjective, but an universal law which has had its supreme\nvindication in history,--these are two facts which we learn\nafterwards. The converse process, which begins with a critical\nexamination of documents, cannot establish what we really want to\nknow, however strong the evidence may be. In this sense, and in this\nonly, are Tennyson's words true, that \"nothing worthy proving can be\nproven, nor yet disproven.\"\n\nFaith, thus defined, is hardly distinguishable from that mixture of\nadmiration, hope, and love by which Wordsworth says that we live. Love\nespecially is intimately connected with faith. And as the Christian\nlife is to be considered as, above all things, a state of union with\nChrist, and of His members with one another, love of the brethren is\ninseparable from love of God. So intimate is this union, that hatred\ntowards any human being cannot exist in the same heart as love to God.\nThe mystical union is indeed rather a bond between Christ and the\nChurch, and between man and man as members of Christ, than between\nChrist and individual souls. Our Lord's prayer is \"that they all may\nbe one, even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also\nmay be one in us.\" The personal relation between the soul and Christ\nis not to be denied; but it can only be enjoyed when the person has\n\"come to himself\" as a member of a body. This involves an inward\ntransit from the false isolated self to the larger life of sympathy\nand love which alone makes us persons. Those who are thus living\naccording to their true nature are rewarded with an intense\nunshakeable conviction which makes them independent of external\nevidences. Like the blind man who was healed, they can say, \"One thing\nI know, that whereas I was blind, now I see.\" The words \"we know\" are\nrepeated again and again in the first Epistle, with an emphasis which\nleaves no room for doubt that the evangelist was willing to throw the\nmain weight of his belief on this inner assurance, and to attribute it\nwithout hesitation to the promised presence of the Comforter. We must\nobserve, however, that this knowledge or illumination is\n_progressive_. This is proved by the passages already quoted about the\nwork of the Holy Spirit. It is also implied by the words, \"This is\nlife eternal, that they should know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus\nChrist whom Thou hast sent.\" Eternal life is not [Greek: gn\u00f4sis],\nknowledge as a possession, but the state of acquiring knowledge\n([Greek: hina gign\u00f4sk\u00f4sin]). It is significant, I think, that St. John,\nwho is so fond of the verb \"to know,\" never uses the substantive\n[Greek: gn\u00f4sis].\n\nThe state of progressive unification, in which we receive \"grace upon\ngrace,\" as we learn more and more of the \"fulness\" of Christ, is\ncalled by the evangelist, in the verse just quoted and elsewhere,\n_eternal life_. This life is generally spoken of as a present\npossession rather than a future hope. \"He that believeth on the Son\n_hath_ everlasting life\"; \"he _is passed_ from death unto life\"; \"we\n_are_ in Him that is true, even Jesus Christ. This _is_ the true God,\nand eternal life.\" The evangelist is constantly trying to transport us\ninto that timeless region in which one day is as a thousand years, and\na thousand years as one day.\n\nSt. John's Mysticism is thus patent to all; it is stamped upon his\nvery style, and pervades all his teaching. Commentators who are in\nsympathy with this mode of thought have, as we might expect, made the\nmost of this element in the Fourth Gospel. Indeed, some of them, I\ncannot but think, have interpreted it so completely in the terms of\ntheir own idealism, that they have disregarded or explained away the\nvery important qualifications which distinguish the Johannine theology\nfrom some later mystical systems. Fichte, for example, claims St. John\nas a supporter of his system of subjective idealism (if that is a\ncorrect description of it), and is driven to some curious bits of\nexegesis in his attempt to justify this claim. And Reuss (to give one\nexample of his method) says that St. John cannot have used \"the last\nday\" in the ordinary sense, \"because mystical theology has nothing to\ndo with such a notion.[66]\" He means, I suppose, that the mystic, who\nlikes to speak of heaven as a state, and of eternal life as a present\npossession, has no business to talk about future judgment. I cannot\nhelp thinking that this is a very grave mistake. There is no doubt\nthat those who believe space and time to be only forms of our thought,\nmust regard the traditional eschatology as symbolical. We are not\nconcerned to maintain that there will be, literally, a great assize,\nholden at a date and place which could be announced if we knew it. If\nthat is all that Reuss means, perhaps he is right in saying that\n\"mystical theology has nothing to do with such a notion.\" But if he\nmeans that such expressions as those referred to in St. John, about\neternal life as something here and now, imply that judgment is now,\n_and therefore not in the future_, he is attributing to the\nevangelist, and to the whole array of religious thinkers who have used\nsimilar expressions, a view which is easy enough to understand, but\nwhich is destitute of any value, for it entirely fails to satisfy the\nreligious consciousness. The feeling of the contrast between what\nought to be and what is, is one of the deepest springs of faith in the\nunseen. It can only be ignored by shutting our eyes to half the facts\nof life. It is easy to say with Browning, \"God's in His heaven: all's\nright with the world,\" or with Emerson, that justice is not deferred,\nand that everyone gets exactly his deserts in this life; but it would\nrequire a robust confidence or a hard heart to maintain these\npropositions while standing among the ruins of an Armenian village, or\nby the deathbed of innocence betrayed. There is no doubt a sense in\nwhich it may be said that the ideal is the actual; but only when we\nhave risen in thought to a region above the antitheses of past,\npresent, and future, where \"_is_\" denotes, not the moment which passes\nas we speak, but the everlasting Now in the mind of God. This is not a\nregion in which human thought can live; and the symbolical eschatology\nof religion supplies us with forms in which it is possible to think.\nThe basis of the belief in future judgment is that deep conviction of\nthe rationality of the world-order, or, in religious language, of the\nwisdom and justice of God, which we cannot and will not surrender. It\nis authenticated by an instinctive assurance which is strongest in\nthe strongest minds, and which has nothing to do with any desire for\nspurious \"consolations\";[67] it is a conviction, not merely a hope,\nand we have every reason to believe that it is part of the Divine\nelement in our nature. This conviction, like other mystical\nintuitions, is formless: the forms or symbols under which we represent\nit are the best that we can get. They are, as Plato says, \"a raft\" on\nwhich we may navigate strange seas of thought far out of our depth. We\nmay use them freely, as if they were literally true, only remembering\ntheir symbolical character when they bring us into conflict with\nnatural science, or when they tempt us to regard the world of\nexperience as something undivine or unreal.\n\nIt is important to insist on this point, because the extreme\ndifficulty (or rather impossibility) of determining the true relations\nof becoming and being, of time and eternity, is constantly tempting us\nto adopt some facile solution which really destroys one of the two\nterms. The danger which besets us if we follow the line of thought\nnatural to speculative Mysticism, is that we may think we have solved\nthe problem in one of two ways, neither of which is a solution at all.\nEither we may sublimate our notion of spirit to such an extent that\nour idealism becomes merely a sentimental way of looking at the\nactual; or, by paring down the other term in the relation, we may fall\ninto that spurious idealism which reduces this world to a vain shadow\nhaving no relation to reality. We shall come across a good deal of\n\"acosmistic\" philosophy in our survey of Christian Platonism; and the\nsentimental rationalist is with us in the nineteenth century; but\nneither of the two has any right to appeal to St. John. Fond as he is\nof the present tense, he will not allow us to blot from the page\neither \"unborn to-morrow or dead yesterday.\" We have seen that he\nrecords the use by our Lord of the traditional language about future\njudgment. What is even more important, he asserts in the strongest\npossible manner, at the outset both of his Gospel and Epistle, the\nnecessity of remembering that the Christian revelation was conveyed by\ncertain historical events. \"The Word was made flesh, and tabernacled\namong us, and we have seen His glory.\" \"That which was from the\nbeginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our\neyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word\nof Life ... that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you.\"\nAnd again in striking words he lays it down as the test whereby we may\ndistinguish the spirit of truth from Antichrist or the spirit of\nerror, that the latter \"confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in\nthe flesh.\" The later history of Mysticism shows that this warning was\nvery much needed. The tendency of the mystic is to regard the Gospel\nhistory as only one striking manifestation of an universal law. He\nbelieves that every Christian who is in the way of salvation\nrecapitulates \"the whole process of Christ\" (as William Law calls\nit)--that he has his miraculous birth, inward death, and\nresurrection; and so the Gospel history becomes for the Gnostic (as\nClement calls the Christian philosopher) little more than a\ndramatisation of the normal psychological experience.[68] \"Christ\ncrucified is teaching for babes,\" says Origen, with startling\naudacity; and heretical mystics have often fancied that they can rise\nabove the Son to the Father. The Gospel and Epistle of St. John stand\nlike a rock against this fatal error, and in this feature some German\ncritics have rightly discerned their supreme value to mystical\ntheology.[69] \"In all life,\" says Grau, \"there is not an abstract\nunity, but an unity in plurality, an outward and inward, a bodily and\nspiritual; and life, like love, unites what science and philosophy\nseparate.\" This co-operation of the sensible and spiritual, of the\nmaterial and ideal, of the historical and eternal, is maintained\nthroughout by St. John. \"His view is mystical,\" says Grau, \"because\nall life is mystical.\" It is true that the historical facts hold, for\nSt. John, a subordinate place as _evidences_. His main _proof_ is, as\nI have said, experimental. But a spiritual revelation of God without\nits physical counterpart, an Incarnation, is for him an impossibility,\nand a Christianity which has cut itself adrift from the Galilean\nministry is in his eyes an imposture. In no other writer, I think, do\nwe find so firm a grasp of the \"psychophysical\" view of life which we\nall feel to be the true one, if only we could put it in an\nintelligible form.[70]\n\nThere is another feature in St. John's Gospel which shows his affinity\nto Mysticism, though of a different kind from that which we have been\nconsidering. I mean his fondness for using visible things and events\nas symbols. This objective kind of Mysticism will form the subject of\nmy last two Lectures, and I will here only anticipate so far as to say\nthat the belief which underlies it is that \"everything, in being what\nit is, is symbolic of something more.\" The Fourth Gospel is steeped in\nsymbolism of this kind. The eight miracles which St. John selects are\nobviously chosen for their symbolic value; indeed, he seems to regard\nthem mainly as acted parables. His favourite word for miracles is\n[Greek: s\u00eameia], \"signs\" or \"symbols.\" It is true that he also calls\nthem \"works,\" but this is not to distinguish them as supernatural. All\nChrist's actions are \"works,\" as parts of His one \"work.\" As evidences\nof His Divinity, such \"works\" are inferior to His \"words,\" being\nsymbolic and external. Only those who cannot believe on the evidence\nof the words and their echo in the heart, may strengthen their weak\nfaith by the miracles. But \"blessed are they who have not seen, and\nyet have believed.\" And besides these \"signs,\" we have, in place of\nthe Synoptic parables, a wealth of allegories, in which Christ is\nsymbolised as the Bread of Life, the Light of the World, the Door of\nthe Sheep, the good Shepherd, the Way, and the true Vine. Wind and\nwater are also made to play their part. Moreover, there is much\nunobtrusive symbolism in descriptive phrases, as when he says that\nNicodemus came by night, that Judas went out into the night, and that\nblood and water flowed from our Lord's side; and the washing of the\ndisciples' feet was a symbolic act which the disciples were to\nunderstand hereafter. Thus all things in the world may remind us of\nHim who made them, and who is their sustaining life.\n\nIn treating of St. John, it was necessary to protest against the\ntendency of some commentators to interpret him simply as a speculative\nmystic of the Alexandrian type. But when we turn to St. Paul, we find\nreason to think that this side of his theology has been very much\nunderestimated, and that the distinctive features of Mysticism are\neven more marked in him than in St. John. This is not surprising, for\nour blessed Lord's discourses, in which nearly all the doctrinal\nteaching of St. John is contained, are for all Christians; they rise\nabove the oppositions which must always divide human thought and human\nthinkers. In St. Paul, large-minded as he was, and inspired as we\nbelieve him to be, we may be allowed to see an example of that\nparticular type which we are considering.\n\nSt. Paul states in the clearest manner that Christ _appeared_ to him,\nand that this revelation was the foundation of his Christianity and\napostolic commission. \"Neither did I receive the Gospel from man,[71]\"\nhe says, \"nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of\nJesus Christ.\" It appears that he did not at first[72] think it\nnecessary to \"confer with flesh and blood\"--to collect evidence about\nour Lord's ministry, His death and resurrection; he had \"seen\" and\nfelt Him, and that was enough. \"It was the good pleasure of God to\nreveal His Son in me,[73]\" he says simply, using the favourite\nmystical phraseology. The study of \"evidences,\" in the usual sense of\nthe term in apologetics, he rejects with distrust and contempt.[74]\nExternal revelation cannot make a man religious. It can put nothing\nnew into him. If there is nothing answering to it in his mind, it will\nprofit him nothing. Nor can philosophy make a man religious. \"Man's\nwisdom,\" \"the wisdom of the world,\" is of no avail to find spiritual\ntruth. \"God chose the foolish things of the world, to put to shame\nthem that are wise.\" \"The word of the Cross is, to them that are\nperishing, foolishness.\" By this language he, of course, does not mean\nthat Christianity is irrational, and therefore to be believed on\nauthority. That would be to lay its foundation upon external\nevidences, and nothing could be further from the whole bent of his\nteaching. What he does mean, and say very clearly, is that the carnal\nmind is disqualified from understanding Divine truths; \"it cannot know\nthem, because they are spiritually discerned.\" He who has not raised\nhimself above \"the world,\" that is, the interests and ideals of human\nsociety as it organises itself apart from God, and above \"the flesh,\"\nthat is, the things which seem desirable to the \"average sensual man,\"\ndoes not possess in himself that element which can be assimilated by\nDivine grace. The \"mystery\" of the wisdom of God is necessarily hidden\nfrom him. St. Paul uses the word \"mystery\" in very much the same sense\nwhich St. Chrysostom[75] gives to it in the following careful\ndefinition: \"A mystery is that which is everywhere proclaimed, but\nwhich is not understood by those who have not right judgment. It is\nrevealed, not by cleverness, but by the Holy Ghost, as we are able to\nreceive it. And so we may call a mystery a secret ([Greek:\naporr\u00eaton]), for even to the faithful it is not committed in all its\nfulness and clearness.\" In St. Paul the word is nearly always found in\nconnexion with words denoting revelation or publication[76]. The\npreacher of the Gospel is a hierophant, but the Christian mysteries\nare freely communicated to all who can receive them. For many ages\nthese truths were \"hid in God,[77]\" but now all men may be\n\"illuminated,[78]\" if they will fulfil the necessary conditions of\ninitiation. These are to \"cleanse ourselves from all defilement of\nflesh and spirit,[79]\" and to have love, without which all else will\nbe unavailing. But there are degrees of initiation. \"We speak wisdom\namong the perfect,\" he says (the [Greek: teleioi] are the fully\ninitiated); but the carnal must still be fed with milk. Growth in\nknowledge, growth in grace, and growth in love, are so frequently\nmentioned together, that we must understand the apostle to mean that\nthey are almost inseparable. But this knowledge, grace, and love is\nitself the work of the indwelling God, who is thus in a sense the\norgan as well as the object of the spiritual life. \"The Spirit\nsearcheth all things,\" he says, \"yea, the deep things of God.\" The man\nwho has the Spirit dwelling in him \"has the mind of Christ.\" \"He that\nis spiritual judgeth all things,\" and is himself \"judged of no man.\"\nIt is, we must admit frankly, a dangerous claim, and one which may\neasily be subversive of all discipline. \"Where the Spirit of the Lord\nis, there is liberty\"; but such liberty may become a cloak of\nmaliciousness. The fact is that St. Paul had himself trusted in \"the\nLaw,\" and it had led him into grievous error. As usually happens in\nsuch cases, his recoil from it was almost violent. He exalts the inner\nlight into an absolute criterion of right and wrong, that no corner of\nthe moral life may remain in bondage to Pharisaism. The crucifixion of\nthe Lord Jesus and the stoning of Stephen were a crushing condemnation\nof legal and ceremonial righteousness; the law written in the heart of\nman, or rather spoken there by the living voice of the Holy Spirit,\ncould never so mislead men as to make them think that they were doing\nGod service by condemning and killing the just. Such memories might\nwell lead St. Paul to use language capable of giving encouragement\neven to fanatical Anabaptists. But it is significant that the boldest\nclaims on behalf of liberty all occur in the _earlier_ Epistles.\n\nThe subject of St. Paul's visions and revelations is one of great\ndifficulty. In the Acts we have full accounts of the appearance in the\nsky which caused, or immediately preceded, his conversion. It is quite\nclear that St. Paul himself regarded this as an appearance of the same\nkind as the other Christophanies granted to apostles and \"brethren,\"\nand of a different kind from such visions as might be seen by any\nChristian. It was an unique favour, conferring upon him the apostolic\nprerogatives of an eye-witness. Other passages in the Acts show that\nduring his missionary journeys St. Paul saw visions and heard voices,\nand that he believed himself to be guided by the \"Spirit of Jesus.\"\nLastly, in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians he records that \"more\nthan fourteen years ago\" he was in an ecstasy, in which he was \"caught\nup into the third heaven,\" and saw things unutterable. The form in\nwhich this experience is narrated suggests a recollection of\nRabbinical pseudo-science; the substance of the vision St. Paul will\nnot reveal, nor will he claim its authority for any of his\nteaching.[80] These recorded experiences are of great psychological\ninterest; but, as I said in my last Lecture, they do not seem to me\nto belong to the essence of Mysticism.\n\nAnother mystical idea, which is never absent from the mind of St.\nPaul, is that the individual Christian must live through, and\nexperience personally, the redemptive process of Christ. The life,\ndeath, and resurrection of Christ were for him the revelation of a\nlaw, the law of redemption through suffering. The victory over sin and\ndeath was won _for_ us; but it must also be won _in_ us. The process\nis an universal law, not a mere event in the past.[81] It has been\nexemplified in history, which is a progressive unfurling or revelation\nof a great mystery, the meaning of which is now at last made plain in\nChrist.[82] And it must also appear in each human life. \"We were\nburied with Him,\" says St. Paul to the Romans,[83] \"through baptism\ninto death,\" \"that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the\nglory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.\" And\nagain,[84] \"If the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead\ndwell in you, He that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall\nquicken also your mortal bodies through His Spirit that dwelleth in\nyou.\" And, \"If ye were raised together with Christ, seek the things\nthat are above.[85]\"\n\nThe law of redemption, which St. Paul considers to have been\ntriumphantly summed up by the death and resurrection of Christ,[86]\nwould hardly be proved to be an universal law if the Pauline Christ\nwere only the \"heavenly man,\" as some critics have asserted. St.\nPaul's teaching about the Person of Christ was really almost identical\nwith the Logos doctrine as we find it in St. John's prologue, and as\nit was developed by the mystical philosophy of a later period. Not\nonly is His pre-existence \"in the form of God\" clearly taught,[87] but\nHe is the agent in the creation of the universe, the vital principle\nupholding and pervading all that exists. \"The Son,\" we read in the\nEpistle to the Colossians,[88] \"is the image of the invisible God, the\nfirstborn of all creation; for in Him were all things created, in the\nheavens and upon the earth; all things have been created through Him,\nand unto Him; and He is before all things, and in Him all things\nconsist\" (that is, \"hold together,\" as the margin of the Revised\nVersion explains it). \"All things are summed up in Christ,\" he says to\nthe Ephesians.[89] \"Christ is _all_ and in all,\" we read again in the\nColossians.[90] And in that bold and difficult passage of the 15th\nchapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians he speaks of the\n\"reign\" of Christ as coextensive with the world's history. When time\nshall end, and all evil shall be subdued to good, Christ \"will deliver\nup the kingdom to God, even the Father,\" \"that God may be all in\nall.[91]\" Very important, too, is the verse in which he says that the\nIsraelites in the wilderness \"drank of that spiritual rock which\nfollowed them, and that rock was Christ.[92]\" It reminds us of\nClement's language about the Son as the Light which broods over all\nhistory.\n\nThe passage from the Colossians, which I quoted just now, contains\nanother mystical idea besides that of Christ as the universal source\nand centre of life. He is, we are told, \"the Image of the invisible\nGod,\" and all created beings are, in their several capacities, images\nof Him. Man is essentially \"the image and glory of God\";[93] the\n\"perfect man\" is he who has come \"to the measure of the stature of the\nfulness of Christ.[94]\" This is our _nature_, in the Aristotelian\nsense of completed normal development; but to reach it we have to slay\nthe false self, the old man, which is informed by an actively\nmaleficent agency, \"flesh\" which is hostile to \"spirit.\" This latter\nconception does not at present concern us; what we have to notice is\nthe description of the upward path as an inner transit from the false\nisolation of the natural man into a state in which it is possible to\nsay, \"I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.[95]\" In the Epistle\nto the Galatians he uses the favourite mystical phrase, \"until Christ\nbe formed in you\";[96] and in the Second Epistle to the\nCorinthians[97] he employs a most beautiful expression in describing\nthe process, reverting to the figure of the \"mirror,\" dear to\nMysticism, which he had already used in the First Epistle: \"We all\nwith unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord, are\ntransformed into the same image from glory to glory.\" Other passages,\nwhich refer primarily to the future state, are valuable as showing\nthat St. Paul lends no countenance to that abstract idea of eternal\nlife as freedom from all earthly conditions, which has misled so many\nmystics. Our hope, when the earthly house of our tabernacle is\ndissolved, is not that we may be unclothed, but that we may be\n_clothed upon_ with our heavenly habitation. The body of our\nhumiliation is to be changed and glorified, according to the mighty\nworking whereby God is able to subdue all things unto Himself. And\ntherefore our whole spirit and soul _and body_ must be preserved\nblameless; for the body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, not the\nprison-house of a soul which will one day escape out of its cage and\nfly away.\n\nSt. Paul's conception of Christ as the Life as well as the Light of\nthe world has two consequences besides those which have been already\nmentioned. In the first place, it is fatal to religious individualism.\nThe close unity which joins us to Christ is not so much a unity of the\nindividual soul with the heavenly Christ, as an organic unity of all\nmen, or, since many refuse their privileges, of all Christians, with\ntheir Lord. \"We, being many, are one body in Christ, and severally\nmembers one of another.[98]\" There must be \"no schism in the\nbody,[99]\" but each member must perform its allotted function. St.\nAugustine is thoroughly in agreement with St. Paul when he speaks of\nChrist and the Church as \"unus Christus.\" Not that Christ is\n\"divided,\" so that He cannot be fully present to any individual--that\nis an error which St. Paul, St. Augustine, and the later mystics all\ncondemn; but as the individual cannot reach his real personality as an\nisolated unit, he cannot, as an isolated unit, attain to full\ncommunion with Christ.\n\nThe second point is one which may seem to be of subordinate\nimportance, but it will, I think, awaken more interest in the future\nthan it has done in the past. In the 8th chapter of the Epistle to the\nRomans, St. Paul clearly teaches that the victory of Christ over sin\nand death is of import, not only to humanity, but to the whole of\ncreation, which now groans and travails in pain together, but which\nshall one day be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the\nglorious liberty of the sons of God. This recognition of the\nspirituality of matter, and of the unity of all nature in Christ, is\none which we ought to be thankful to find in the New Testament. It\nwill be my pleasant task, in the last two Lectures of this course, to\nshow how the later school of mystics prized it.\n\nThe foregoing analysis of St. Paul's teaching has, I hope, justified\nthe statement that all the essentials of Mysticism are to be found in\nhis Epistles. But there are also two points in which his authority has\nbeen claimed for false and mischievous developments of Mysticism.\nThese two points it will be well to consider before leaving the\nsubject.\n\nThe first is a contempt for the historical framework of Christianity.\nWe have already seen how strongly St. John warns us against this\nperversion of spiritual religion. But those numerous sects and\nindividual thinkers who have disregarded this warning, have often\nappealed to the authority of St. Paul, who in the Second Epistle to\nthe Corinthians says, \"Even though we have known Christ after the\nflesh, yet now we know Him so no more.\" Here, they say, is a distinct\nadmission that the worship of the historical Christ, \"the man Christ\nJesus,\" is a stage to be passed through and then left behind. There is\njust this substratum of truth in a very mischievous error, that St.\nPaul _does_ tell us[100] that he _began_ to teach the Corinthians by\ngiving them in the simplest possible form the story of \"Jesus Christ\nand Him crucified.\" The \"mysteries\" of the faith, the \"wisdom\" which\nonly the \"perfect\" can understand, were deferred till the converts had\nlearned their first lessons. But if we look at the passage in\nquestion, which has shocked and perplexed many good Christians, we\nshall find that St. Paul is not drawing a contrast between the\nearthly and the heavenly Christ, bidding us worship the Second Person\nof the Trinity, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, and to cease\nto contemplate the Cross on Calvary. He is distinguishing rather\nbetween the sensuous presentation of the facts of Christ's life, and a\ndeeper realisation of their import. It should be our aim to \"know no\nman after the flesh\"; that is to say, we should try to think of human\nbeings as what they are, immortal spirits, sharers with us of a common\nlife and a common hope, not as what they appear to our eyes. And the\nsame principle applies to our thoughts about Christ. To know Christ\nafter the flesh is to know Him, not as man, but as _a_ man. St. Paul\nin this verse condemns all religious materialism, whether it take the\nform of hysterical meditation upon the physical details of the\npassion, or of an over-curious interest in the manner of the\nresurrection. There is no trace whatever in St. Paul of any aspiration\nto rise above Christ to the contemplation of the Absolute--to treat\nHim as only a step in the ladder. This is an error of false Mysticism;\nthe true mystic follows St. Paul in choosing as his ultimate goal the\nfulness of Christ, and not the emptiness of the undifferentiated\nGodhead.\n\nThe second point in which St. Paul has been supposed to sanction an\nexaggerated form of Mysticism, is his extreme disparagement of\nexternal religion--of forms and ceremonies and holy days and the like.\n\"One man hath faith to eat all things; but he that is weak eateth\nherbs.[101]\" \"One man esteemeth one day above another, another\nesteemeth every day alike.\" \"He that eateth, eateth unto the Lord, and\ngiveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not,\nand giveth God thanks.\" \"Why turn ye back to the weak and beggarly\nrudiments, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage again? Ye observe\ndays, and months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I\nhave bestowed labour upon you in vain.[102]\" \"Why do ye subject\nyourselves to ordinances, handle not, nor taste, nor touch, after the\nprecepts and doctrines of men?[103]\" These are strongly-worded\npassages, and I have no wish to attenuate their significance. Any\nChristian priest who puts the observance of human ordinances--\nfast-days, for example--at all on the same level as such duties as\ncharity, generosity, or purity, is teaching, not Christianity, but that\ndebased Judaism against which St. Paul waged an unceasing polemic, and\nwhich is one of those dead religions which has to be killed again in\nalmost every generation.[104] But we must not forget that these vigorous\ndenunciations _do_ occur in a polemic against Judaism. They bear the\nstamp of the time at which they were written perhaps more than any other\npart of St. Paul's Epistles, except those thoughts which were connected\nwith his belief in the approaching end of the world. St. Paul certainly\ndid not intend his Christian converts to be anarchists in religious\nmatters. There is evidence, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians,\nthat his spiritual presentation of Christianity had already been made an\nexcuse for disorderly licence. The usual symptoms of degenerate\nMysticism had appeared at Corinth. There were men there who called\nthemselves \"spiritual persons[105]\" or prophets, and showed an arrogant\nindependence; there were others who wished to start sects of their own;\nothers who carried antinomianism into the sphere of morals; others who\nprided themselves on various \"spiritual gifts.\" As regards the last\nclass, we are rather surprised at the half-sanction which the apostle\ngives to what reads like primitive Irvingism;[106] but he was evidently\nprepared to enforce discipline with a strong hand. Still, it may be\nfairly said that he trusts mainly to his personal ascendancy, and to his\nteaching about the organic unity of the Christian body, to preserve or\nrestore due discipline and cohesion. There have been hardly any\nreligious leaders, if we except George Fox, the founder of Quakerism,\nwho have valued ceremonies so little. In this, again, he is a genuine\nmystic.\n\nOf the other books of the New Testament it is not necessary to say\nmuch. The Epistle to the Hebrews cannot be the work of St. Paul. It\nshows strong traces of Jewish Alexandrianism; indeed, the writer\nseems to have been well acquainted with the Book of Wisdom and with\nPhilo. Alexandrian idealism is always ready to pass into speculative\nMysticism, but the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews can hardly be\ncalled mystical in the sense in which St. Paul was a mystic. The most\ninteresting side of his theology, from our present point of view, is\nthe way in which he combines his view of religious ordinances as types\nand adumbrations of higher spiritual truths, with a comprehensive view\nof history as a progressive realisation of a Divine scheme. The\nkeynote of the book is that mankind has been educated partly by\nceremonial laws and partly by \"promises.\" Systems of laws and\nordinances, of which the Jewish Law is the chief example, have their\nplace in history. They rightly claim obedience until the practical\nlessons which they can teach have been learned, and until the higher\ntruths which they conceal under the protecting husk of symbolism can\nbe apprehended without disguise. Then their task is done, and mankind\nis no longer bound by them. In the same way, the \"promises\" which were\nmade under the old dispensation proved to be only symbols of deeper\nand more spiritual blessings, which in the moral childhood of humanity\nwould not have appeared desirable; they were (not delusions, but)\n_illusions_, \"God having prepared some better thing\" to take their\nplace. The doctrine is one of profound and far-reaching importance. In\nthis Epistle it is certainly connected with the idealistic thought\nthat all visible things are symbols, and that every truth apprehended\nby finite intelligences must be only the husk of a deeper truth. We\nmay therefore claim the Epistle to the Hebrews as containing in\noutline a Christian philosophy of history, based upon a doctrine of\nsymbols which has much in common with some later developments of\nMysticism.\n\nIn the Apocalypse, whoever the author may be, we find little or\nnothing of the characteristic Johannine Mysticism, and the influence\nof its vivid allegorical pictures has been less potent in this branch\nof theology than might perhaps have been expected.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 56: In referring thus to the Book of Job, I rest nothing on\nany theory as to its date. Whenever it was written, it illustrates\nthat view of the relation of man to God with which Mysticism can never\nbe content. But, of course, the antagonism between our personal claims\nand the laws of the universe must be done justice to before it can be\nsurmounted.]\n\n[Footnote 57: Jer. xxxi. 31-34.]\n\n[Footnote 58: Isa. xxxiii. 14-17.]\n\n[Footnote 59: See Appendix D, on the devotional use of the Song of\nSolomon.]\n\n[Footnote 60: Leathes, _The Witness of St. John to Christ_, p. 244.]\n\n[Footnote 61: The punctuation now generally adopted was invented\n(probably) by the Antiochenes, who were afraid that the words \"without\nHim was not anything made\" might, if unqualified, be taken to include\nthe Holy Spirit. Cyril of Alexandria comments on the older\npunctuation, but explains the verse wrongly. \"The Word, as Life by\nnature, was in the things which have become, mingling Himself by\nparticipation in the things that are.\" Bp. Westcott objects to this,\nthat \"the one life is regarded as dispersed.\" Cyril, however, guards\nagainst this misconception ([Greek: ou kata merismon tina kai\nalloi\u00f4sin]). He says that created things share in \"the one life as they\nare able.\" But some of his expressions are objectionable, as they seem\nto assume a material substratum, animated _ab extra_ by an infusion of\nthe Logos. Augustine's commentary on the verse is based on the\nwell-known passage of Plato's _Republic_ about the \"ideal bed.\" \"Arca\nin opere non est vita; arca in arte vita est. Sic Sapientia Dei, per\nquam facta sunt omnia, secundum artem continet omnia antequam fabricat\nomnia. Qu\u00e6 fiunt ... foris corpora sunt, in arte vita sunt.\" Those who\naccept the common authorship of the Gospel and the Apocalypse will\nfind a confirmation of the view that [Greek: \u00ean] refers to ideal,\nextra-temporal existence, in Rev. iv. 11: \"Thou hast created all\nthings, and for Thy pleasure they _were_ ([Greek: \u00easan] is the true\nreading) and were created.\" There is also a very interesting passage\nin Eusebius (_Proep. Ev._ xi. 19): [Greek: kai outos ara \u00ean ho logos\nkath' hon aei onta ta gignomena egeneto, h\u00f4sper H\u00earakleitos an\naxi\u00f4seie.] This is so near to the words of St. John's prologue as to\nsuggest that the apostle, writing at Ephesus, is here referring\ndeliberately to the lofty doctrine of the great Ephesian idealist,\nwhom Justin claims as a Christian before Christ, and whom Clement\nquotes several times with respect.]\n\n[Footnote 62: It will be seen that I assume that the first Epistle is\nthe work of the evangelist.]\n\n[Footnote 63: Westcott on John xiv. 26.]\n\n[Footnote 64: Westcott.]\n\n[Footnote 65: Cf. _Theologia Germanica_, chap. 48: \"He who would know\nbefore he believeth cometh never to true knowledge.... I speak of a\ncertain truth which it is possible to know by experience, but which ye\nmust believe in before ye know it by experience, else ye will never\ncome to know it truly.\"]\n\n[Footnote 66: On the second coming of Christ, cf. John v. 25, xxi. 23;\nI John ii. 28, iii. 2. Scholten goes so far as to expunge v. 25 and\n28, 29 as spurious.]\n\n[Footnote 67: The allegation that the Christian persuades himself of a\nfuture life because it is the most comfortable belief to hold, seems\nto me utterly contemptible. Certain views about heaven and hell are no\ndoubt traceable to shallow optimism; but the belief in immortality is\nin itself rather awful than consoling. Besides, what sane man would\nwish to be deceived in such a matter?]\n\n[Footnote 68: Henry More brings this charge against the Quakers. There\nare, he says, many good and wholesome things in their teaching, but\nthey mingle with them a \"slighting of the history of Christ, and\nmaking a mere allegory of it--tending to the utter overthrow of that\nwarrantable, though more external frame of Christianity, which\nScripture itself points out to us\" (_Mastix, his letter to a Friend_,\np. 306).]\n\n[Footnote 69: E.g. Strauss and Grau, quoted in Lilienfeld's _Thoughts\non the Social Science of the Future_.]\n\n[Footnote 70: The intense moral dualism of St. John has been felt by\nmany as a discordant note; and though it is not closely connected with\nhis Mysticism, a few words should perhaps be added about it. It has\nbeen thought strange that the Logos, who is the life of all things\nthat are, should have to invade His own kingdom to rescue it from its\n_de facto_ ruler, the Prince of darkness; and stranger yet, that the\nbulk of mankind should seemingly be \"children of the devil,\" born of\nthe flesh, and incapable of salvation. The difficulty exists, but it\nhas been exaggerated. St. John does not touch either the metaphysical\nproblem of the origin of evil, or predestination in the Calvinistic\nsense. The vivid contrasts of light and shade in his picture express\nhis judgment on the tragic fate of the Jewish people, The Gospel is\nnot a polemical treatise, but it bears traces of recent conflicts. St.\nJohn wishes to show that the rejection of Christ by the Jews was\nmorally inevitable; that their blindness and their ruin followed\nnaturally from their characters and principles. Looking back on the\nmemories of a long life, he desires to trace the operation of uniform\nlaws in dividing the wheat of humanity from the chaff. He is content\nto observe how [Greek: \u00eathos anthr\u00f4p\u00f4 daim\u00f4n], without speculating on\nthe reason why characters differ. In offering these remarks, I am\nassuming, what seems to me quite certain, that St. John selected from\nour Lord's discourses those which suited his particular object, and\nthat in the setting and arrangement he allowed himself a certain\namount of liberty.]\n\n[Footnote 71: Gal. i. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 72: 1 Cor. xv. shows that he subsequently satisfied himself\nof the truth of the other Christophanies.]\n\n[Footnote 73: Gal, i. 15, 16.]\n\n[Footnote 74: 1 Cor. i. and ii.]\n\n[Footnote 75: Chrysostom _in_ I _Cor_., Hom. vii. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 76: See Lightfoot on Col. i. 26.]\n\n[Footnote 77: Eph. iii. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 78: 2 Tim. i. 10 ([Greek: ph\u00f4tizein]); cf. Eph. i. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 79: 2 Cor. vii. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 80: In spite of this, he is attacked for this passage in the\n_Pseudo-Clementine Homilies_ (xvii. 19), where \"Simon Magus\" is asked,\n\"Can anyone be made wise to teach through a vision?\"]\n\n[Footnote 81: Compare a beautiful passage in R.L. Nettleship's\n_Remains_: \"To live is to die into something more perfect.... God can\nonly make His work to be truly _His_ work, by eternally dying,\nsacrificing what is dearest to Him.\"]\n\n[Footnote 82: Col. i. 26, ii. 2, iv. 3; Eph. iii. 2-9. I have allowed\nmyself to quote from these Epistles because I am myself a believer in\ntheir genuineness. The Mysticism of St. Paul might be proved from the\nundisputed Epistles only, but we should then lose some of the most\nstriking illustrations of it.]\n\n[Footnote 83: Rom. vi. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 84: Rom. viii. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 85: St. Paul's mystical language about death and\nresurrection has given rise to much controversy. On the one hand, we\nhave writers like Matthew Arnold, who tell us that St. Paul\nunconsciously substitutes an ethical for a physical resurrection--an\neternal life here and now for a future reward. On the other, we have\nwriters like Kabisch (_Eschatologie des Paulus_), who argue that the\napostle's whole conception was materialistic, his idea of a \"spiritual\nbody\" being that of a body composed of very fine atoms (like those of\nLucretius' \"_anima_\"), which inhabits the earthly body of the\nChristian like a kernel within its husk, and will one day (at the\nresurrection) slough off its muddy vesture of decay, and thenceforth\nexist in a form which can defy the ravages of time. Of the two views,\nMatthew Arnold's is much the truer, even though it should be proved\nthat St. Paul sometimes pictures the \"spiritual body\" in the way\ndescribed. But the key to the problem, in St. Paul as in St. John, is\nthat pyscho-physical theory which demands that the laws of the\nspiritual world shall have their analogous manifestations in the world\nof phenomena. Death must, somehow or other, be conquered in the\nvisible as well as in the invisible sphere. The law of life through\ndeath must be deemed to pervade every phase of existence. And as a\nmere prolongation of physical life under the same conditions is\nimpossible, and, moreover, would not fulfil the law in question, we\nare bound to have recourse to some such symbol as \"spiritual body.\" It\nwill hardly be disputed that the Christian doctrine of the\nresurrection of the whole man has taken a far stronger hold of the\nreligious consciousness of mankind than the Greek doctrine of the\nimmortality of the soul, or that this doctrine is plainly taught by\nSt. Paul. All attempts to turn his eschatology into a rationalistic\n(Arnold) or a materialistic (Kabisch) theory must therefore be\ndecisively rejected.]\n\n[Footnote 86: Col. iii. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 87: Phil. ii. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 88: Col. i. 15-17.]\n\n[Footnote 89: Eph. i. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 90: Col. iii. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 91: 1 Cor. xv. 24-28.]\n\n[Footnote 92: 1 Cor. x. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 93: 1 Cor. xi. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 94: Eph. iv. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 95: Gal. ii. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 96: Gal. iv. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 97: 2 Cor. iii. 18.]\n\n[Footnote 98: Rom. xii. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 99: 1 Cor. xii. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 100: 1 Cor. ii. 1, 2.]\n\n[Footnote 101: Rom. xiv.]\n\n[Footnote 102: Gal. iv. 9-11.]\n\n[Footnote 103: Col. ii. 20-22.]\n\n[Footnote 104: I have been reminded that great tenderness is due to\nthe \"sancta simplicitas\" of the \"anicula Christiana,\" whose religion\nis generally of this type. I should agree, if the \"anicula\" were not\nalways so ready with her faggot when a John Huss is to be burnt.]\n\n[Footnote 105: 1 Cor. xiv. 37.]\n\n[Footnote 106: There seem to have been two conceptions of the\noperations of the Spirit in St. Paul's time: (a) He comes fitfully,\nwith visible signs, and puts men beside themselves; (b) He is an\nabiding presence, enlightening, guiding, and strengthening. St. Paul\nlays weight on the latter view, without repudiating the former. See H.\nGunkel, _Die Wirkungen des H. Geistes nach der popul. Anschauung d.\napostol. Zeit und d. Lehre der Paulus._]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE III\n\n\n[Greek: \"Dio d\u00ea dikai\u00f4s mon\u00ea pteroutai h\u00ea tou philosophou dianoia\npros gar ekeinois aei esti mn\u00eam\u00ea kata dunamin, pros oisper theos \u00f4n\ntheios esti. tois de d\u00ea toioutois an\u00ear hupomn\u00eamasin orth\u00f4s\nchr\u00f4menos, teleous aei teletas teloumenos, teleos ont\u00f4s monos\ngignetai.\"]\n\nPLATO, _Ph\u00e6drus_, p. 249.\n\n\n  LICHT UND FARBE\n\n   \"Wohne, du ewiglich Eines, dort bei dem ewiglich Einen!\n     Farbe, du wechselnde, komm' freundlich zum Menschen herab!\"\n\nSCHILLER.\n\n\n   \"Nel suo profondo vidi che s'interna,\n      Legato con amore in un volume,\n      Ci\u00f2 che per l'universo si squaderna;\n    Sustanzia ed accidente, e lor costume,\n      Tutti conflati insieme par tal modo,\n      Che ci\u00f2 ch'io dico \u00e8 un semplice lume.\"\n\nDANTE, _Paradiso_, c. 33.\n\n\n\nCHRISTIAN PLATONISM AND SPECULATIVE MYSTICISM\n\nI. IN THE EAST\n\n\"That was the true Light, which lighteth every man coming into the\nworld.\"--JOHN i. 9.\n\n\"He made darkness His hiding place, His pavilion round about Him;\ndarkness of waters, thick clouds of the skies.\"--Ps. xviii. 11.\n\n\nI have called this Lecture \"Christian Platonism and Speculative\nMysticism.\" Admirers of Plato are likely to protest that Plato himself\ncan hardly be called a mystic, and that in any case there is very\nlittle resemblance between the philosophy of his dialogues and the\nsemi-Oriental Mysticism of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. I do not\ndispute either of these statements; and yet I wish to keep the name of\nPlato in the title of this Lecture. The affinity between Christianity\nand Platonism was very strongly felt throughout the period which we\nare now to consider. Justin Martyr claims Plato (with Heraclitus[107]\nand Socrates) as a Christian before Christ; Athenagoras calls him the\nbest of the forerunners of Christianity, and Clement regards the\nGospel as perfected Platonism.[108] The Pagans repeated so\npersistently the charge that Christ borrowed from Plato what was true\nin His teaching, that Ambrose wrote a treatise to confute them. As a\nrule, the Christians did not deny the resemblance, but explained it by\nsaying that Plato had plagiarised from Moses--a curious notion which\nwe find first in Philo. In the Middle Ages the mystics almost\ncanonised Plato: Eckhart speaks of him, quaintly enough, as \"the great\npriest\" (_der grosse Pfaffe_); and even in Spain, Louis of Granada\ncalls him \"divine,\" and finds in him \"the most excellent parts of\nChristian wisdom.\" Lastly, in the seventeenth century the English\nPlatonists avowed their intention of bringing back the Church to \"her\nold loving nurse the Platonic philosophy.\" These English Platonists\nknew what they were talking of; but for the medi\u00e6val mystics Platonism\nmeant the philosophy of Plotinus adapted by Augustine, or that of\nProclus adapted by Dionysius, or the curious blend of Platonic,\nAristotelian, and Jewish philosophy which filtered through into the\nChurch by means of the Arabs. Still, there was justice underlying this\nsuperficial ignorance. Plato is, after all, the father of European\nMysticism.[109] Both the great types of mystics may appeal to\nhim--those who try to rise through the visible to the invisible,\nthrough Nature to God, who find in earthly beauty the truest symbol of\nthe heavenly, and in the imagination--the image-making faculty--a raft\nwhereon we may navigate the shoreless ocean of the Infinite; and\nthose who distrust all sensuous representations as tending \"to nourish\nappetites which we ought to starve,\" who look upon this earth as a\nplace of banishment, upon material things as a veil which hides God's\nface from us, and who bid us \"flee away from hence as quickly as may\nbe,\" to seek \"yonder,\" in the realm of the ideas, the heart's true\nhome. Both may find in the real Plato much congenial teaching--that\nthe highest good is the greatest likeness to God--that the greatest\nhappiness is the vision of God--that we should seek holiness not for\nthe sake of external reward, but because it is the health of the soul,\nwhile vice is its disease--that goodness is unity and harmony, while\nevil is discord and disintegration--that it is our duty and happiness\nto rise above the visible and transitory to the invisible and\npermanent. It may also be a pleasure to some to trace the fortunes of\nthe positive and negative elements in Plato's teaching--of the\nhumanist and the ascetic who dwelt together in that large mind; to\nobserve how the world-renouncing element had to grow at the expense of\nthe other, until full justice had been done to its claims; and then\nhow the brighter, more truly Hellenic side was able to assert itself\nunder due safeguards, as a precious thing dearly purchased, a treasure\nreserved for the pure and humble, and still only to be tasted\ncarefully, with reverence and godly fear. There is, of course, no\nnecessity for connecting this development with the name of Plato. The\nway towards a reconciliation of this and other differences is more\nclearly indicated in the New Testament; indeed, nothing can\nstrengthen our belief in inspiration so much as to observe how the\nwhole history of thought only helps us to _understand_ St. Paul and\nSt. John better, never to pass beyond their teaching. Still, the\ntraditional connexion between Plato and Mysticism is so close that we\nmay, I think, be pardoned for keeping, like Ficinus, a lamp burning in\nhis honour throughout our present task.\n\nIt is not my purpose in these Lectures to attempt a historical survey\nof Christian Mysticism. To attempt this, within the narrow limits of\neight Lectures, would oblige me to give a mere skeleton of the\nsubject, which would be of no value, and of very little interest. The\naim which I have set before myself is to give a clear presentation of\nan important type of Christian life and thought, in the hope that it\nmay suggest to us a way towards the solution of some difficulties\nwhich at present agitate and divide us. The path is beset with\npitfalls on either side, as will be abundantly clear when we consider\nthe startling expressions which Mysticism has often found for itself.\nBut though I have not attempted to give even an outline of the history\nof Mysticism, I feel that the best and safest way of studying this or\nany type of religion is to consider it in the light of its historical\ndevelopment, and of the forms which it has actually assumed. And so I\nhave tried to set these Lectures in a historical framework, and, in\nchoosing prominent figures as representatives of the chief kinds of\nMysticism, to observe, so far as possible, the chronological order.\nThe present Lecture will carry us down to the Pseudo-Dionysius, the\ninfluence of whose writings during the next thousand years can hardly\nbe overestimated. But if we are to understand how a system of\nspeculative Mysticism, of an Asiatic rather than European type, came\nto be accepted as the work of a convert of St. Paul, and invested with\nsemi-apostolic authority, we must pause for a few minutes to let our\neyes rest on the phenomenon called Alexandrianism, which fills a large\nplace in the history of the early Church.\n\nWe have seen how St. Paul speaks of a _Gnosis_ or higher knowledge,\nwhich can be taught with safety only to the \"perfect\" or \"fully\ninitiated\";[110] and he by no means rejects such expressions as the\n_Pleroma_ (the totality of the Divine attributes), which were\ntechnical terms of speculative theism. St. John, too, in his prologue\nand other places, brings the Gospel into relation with current\nspeculation, and interprets it in philosophical language. The movement\nknown as Gnosticism, both within and without the Church, was an\nattempt to complete this reconciliation between speculative and\nrevealed religion, by systematising the symbols of transcendental\nmystical theosophy.[111] The movement can only be understood as a\npremature and unsuccessful attempt to achieve what the school of\nAlexandria afterwards partially succeeded in doing. The anticipations\nof Neoplatonism among the Gnostics would probably be found to be very\nnumerous, if the victorious party had thought their writings worth\npreserving. But Gnosticism was rotten before it was ripe. Dogma was\nstill in such a fluid state, that there was nothing to keep\nspeculation within bounds; and the Oriental element, with its\ninsoluble dualism, its fantastic mythology and spiritualism, was too\nstrong for the Hellenic. Gnosticism presents all the features which we\nshall find to be characteristic of degenerate Mysticism. Not to speak\nof its oscillations between fanatical austerities and scandalous\nlicence, and its belief in magic and other absurdities, we seem, when\nwe read Iren\u00e6us' description of a Valentinian heretic, to hear the\nvoice of Luther venting his contempt upon some \"_Geisterer_\" of the\nsixteenth century, such as Carlstadt or Sebastian Frank. \"The fellow\nis so puffed up,\" says Iren\u00e6us, \"that he believes himself to be\nneither in heaven nor on earth, but to have entered within the Divine\nPleroma, and to have embraced his guardian angel. On the strength of\nwhich he struts about as proud as a cock. These are the self-styled\n'spiritual persons,' who say they have already reached perfection.\"\nThe later Platonism could not even graft itself upon any of these\nGnostic systems, and Plotinus rejects them as decisively as Origen.\n\nStill closer is the approximation to later speculation which we find\nin Philo, who was a contemporary of St. Paul. Philo and his Therapeut\u00e6\nwere genuine mystics of the monastic type. Many of them, however, had\nnot been monks all their life, but were retired men of business, who\nwished to spend their old age in contemplation, as many still do in\nIndia. They were, of course, not Christians, but Hellenised Jews,\nthough Eusebius, Jerome, and the Middle Ages generally thought that\nthey were Christians, and were well pleased to find monks in the first\ncentury.[112]\n\nPhilo's object is to reconcile religion and philosophy--in other\nwords, Moses and Plato.[113] His method[114] is to make Platonism a\ndevelopment of Mosaism, and Mosaism an implicit Platonism. The claims\nof orthodoxy are satisfied by saying, rather audaciously, \"All this is\nMoses' doctrine, not mine.\" His chief instrument in this difficult\ntask is allegorism, which in his hands is a bad specimen of that\npseudo-science which has done so much to darken counsel in biblical\nexegesis. His speculative system, however, is exceedingly interesting.\n\nGod, according to Philo, is unqualified and pure Being, but _not_\nsuperessential. He is emphatically [Greek: ho \u00f4n], the \"I am,\" and the\nmost _general_ ([Greek: to genik\u00f4taton]) of existences. At the same\ntime He is without qualities ([Greek: apoios]), and ineffable\n([Greek: arr\u00eatos]). In His inmost nature He is inaccessible; as it\nwas said to Moses, \"Thou shalt see what is behind Me, but My face\nshall not be seen.\" It is best to contemplate God in silence, since we\ncan compare Him to nothing that we know. All our knowledge of God is\nreally God dwelling in us. He has breathed into us something of His\nnature, and is thus the archetype of what is highest in ourselves. He\nwho is truly inspired \"may with good reason be called God.\" This\nblessed state may, however, be prepared for by such mediating agencies\nas the study of God's laws in nature; and it is only the highest class\nof saints--the souls \"born of God\"--that are exalted above the need of\nsymbols. It would be easy to show how Philo wavers between two\nconceptions of the Divine nature--God as simply transcendent, and God\nas immanent. But this is one of the things that make him most\ninteresting. His Judaism will not allow him really to believe in a God\n\"without qualities.\"\n\nThe Logos dwells with God as His Wisdom (or sometimes he calls Wisdom,\nfiguratively, the mother of the Logos). He is the \"second God,\" the\n\"Idea of Ideas\"; the other Ideas or Powers are the forces which he\ncontrols--\"the Angels,\" as he adds, suddenly remembering his Judaism.\nThe Logos is also the mind of God expressing itself in act: the Ideas,\ntherefore, are the content of the mind of God. Here he anticipates\nPlotinus; but he does not reduce God to a logical point. His God is\nself-conscious, and reasons. By the agency of the Logos the worlds\nwere made: the intelligible world, the [Greek: kosmos no\u00eatos], is\nthe Logos acting as Creator. Indeed, Philo calls the intelligible\nuniverse \"the only and beloved Son of God\"; just as Erigena says, \"Be\nassured that the Word is the Nature of all things.\" The Son represents\nthe world before God as High Priest, Intercessor, and Paraclete. He is\nthe \"divine Angel\" that guides us; He is the \"bread of God,\" the \"dew\nof the soul,\" the \"convincer of sin\": no evil can touch the soul in\nwhich He dwells: He is the eternal image of the Father, and we, who\nare not yet fit to be called sons of God, may call ourselves His\nsons.\n\nPhilo's ethical system is that of the later contemplative Mysticism.\nKnowledge and virtue can be obtained only by renunciation of self.\nContemplation is a higher state than activity. \"The soul should cut\noff its right hand.\" \"It should shun the whirlpool of life, and not\neven touch it with the tip of a finger.\" The highest stage is when a\nman leaves behind his finite self-consciousness, and sees God face to\nface, standing in Him from henceforward, and knowing Him not by\nreason, but by clear certainty. Philo makes no attempt to identify the\nLogos with the Jewish Messiah, and leaves no room for an Incarnation.\n\nThis remarkable system anticipates the greater part of Christian and\nPagan Neoplatonism. The astonishing thing is that Philo's work\nexercised so little influence on the philosophy of the second century.\nIt was probably regarded as an attempt to evolve Platonism out of the\nPentateuch, and, as such, interesting only to the Jews, who were at\nthis period becoming more and more unpopular.[115] The same prejudice\nmay possibly have impaired the influence of Numenius, another\nsemi-mystical thinker, who in the age of the Antonines evolved a kind\nof Trinity, consisting of God, whom he also calls Mind; the Son, the\nmaker of the world, whom he does _not_ call the Logos; and the world,\nthe \"grandson,\" as he calls it. His Jewish affinities are shown by his\ncalling Plato \"an Atticising Moses.\"\n\nIt was about one hundred and fifty years after Philo that St. Clement\nof Alexandria tried to do for Christianity what Philo had tried to do\nfor Judaism. His aim is nothing less than to construct a philosophy of\nreligion--a Gnosis, \"knowledge,\" he calls it--which shall \"initiate\"\nthe educated Christian into the higher \"mysteries\" of his creed. The\nLogos doctrine, according to which Christ is the universal\nReason,[116] the Light that lighteth every man, here asserts its full\nrights. Reasoned belief is the superstructure of which faith[117] is\nthe foundation.\n\n\"Knowledge,\" says Clement, \"is more than faith.\" \"Faith is a summary\nknowledge of urgent truths, suitable for people who are in a hurry;\nbut knowledge is scientific faith.\" \"If the Gnostic (the philosophical\nChristian) had to choose between the knowledge of God and eternal\nsalvation, and it were possible to separate two things so inseparably\nconnected, he would choose without the slightest hesitation the\nknowledge of God.\" On the wings of this \"knowledge\" the soul rises\nabove all earthly passions and desires, filled with a calm\ndisinterested love of God. In this state a man can distinguish truth\nfrom falsehood, pure gold from base metal, in matters of belief; he\ncan see the connexion of the various dogmas, and their harmony with\nreason; and in reading Scripture he can penetrate beneath the literal\nto the spiritual meaning. But when Clement speaks of reason or\nknowledge, he does not mean merely intellectual training. \"He who\nwould enter the shrine must be pure,\" he says, \"and purity is to\nthink holy things.\" And again, \"The more a man loves, the more deeply\ndoes he penetrate into God.\" Purity and love, to which he adds\ndiligent study of the Scriptures, are all that is _necessary_ to the\nhighest life, though mental cultivation may be and ought to be a great\nhelp.[118]\n\nHistory exhibits a progressive training of mankind by the Logos.\n\"There is one river of truth,\" he says, \"which receives tributaries\nfrom every side.\"\n\nAll moral evil is caused either by ignorance or by weakness of will.\nThe cure for the one is knowledge, the cure for the other is\ndiscipline.[119]\n\nIn his doctrine of God we find that he has fallen a victim to the\nunfortunate negative method, which he calls \"analysis.\" It is the\nmethod which starts with the assertion that since God is exalted above\nBeing, we cannot say what He is, but only what He is not. Clement\napparently objects to saying that God is above Being, but he strips\nHim of all attributes and qualities till nothing is left but a\nnameless point; and this, too, he would eliminate, for a point is a\nnumerical unit, and God is above the idea of the Monad. We shall\nencounter this argument far too often in our survey of Mysticism, and\nin writers more logical than Clement, who allowed it to dominate their\nwhole theology and ethics.\n\nThe Son is the Consciousness of God. The Father only sees the world as\nreflected in the Son. This bold and perhaps dangerous doctrine seems\nto be Clement's own.\n\nClement was not a deep or consistent thinker, and the task which he\nhas set himself is clearly beyond his strength. But he gathers up most\nof the religious and philosophical ideas of his time, and weaves them\ntogether into a system which is permeated by his cultivated, humane,\nand genial personality.\n\nEspecially interesting from the point of view of our present task is\nthe use of mystery-language which we find everywhere in Clement. The\nChristian revelation is \"the Divine (or holy) mysteries,\" \"the Divine\nsecrets,\" \"the secret Word,\" \"the mysteries of the Word\"; Jesus Christ\nis \"the Teacher of the Divine mysteries\"; the ordinary teaching of the\nChurch is \"the lesser mysteries\"; the higher knowledge of the Gnostic,\nleading to full initiation ([Greek: epopteia]) \"the great mysteries.\"\nHe borrows _verbatim_ from a Neopythagorean document a whole sentence,\nto the effect that \"it is not lawful to reveal to profane persons the\nmysteries of the Word\"--the \"Logos\" taking the place of \"the\nEleusinian goddesses.\" This evident wish to claim the Greek\nmystery-worship, with its technical language, for Christianity, is\nvery interesting, and the attempt was by no means unfruitful. Among\nother ideas which seem to come direct from the mysteries is the notion\nof _deification by the gift of immortality_. Clement[120] says\ncategorically, [Greek: to m\u00ea phtheiresthai theiot\u00eatos metechein\nesti]. This is, historically, the way in which the doctrine of\n\"deification\" found its way into the scheme of Christian Mysticism.\nThe idea of immortality as the attribute constituting Godhead was, of\ncourse, as familiar to the Greeks as it was strange to the Jews.[121]\n\nOrigen supplies some valuable links in the history of speculative\nMysticism, but his mind was less inclined to mystical modes of thought\nthan was Clement's. I can here only touch upon a few points which bear\ndirectly upon our subject.\n\nOrigen follows Clement in his division of the religious life into two\nclasses or stages, those of faith and knowledge. He draws too hard a\nline between them, and speaks with a professorial arrogance of the\n\"popular, irrational faith\" which leads to \"somatic Christianity,\" as\nopposed to the \"spiritual Christianity\" conferred by Gnosis or\nWisdom.[122] He makes it only too clear that by \"somatic Christianity\"\nhe means that faith which is based on the gospel history. Of teaching\nfounded upon the historical narrative, he says, \"What better method\ncould be devised to assist the masses?\" The Gnostic or Sage no longer\nneeds the crucified Christ. The \"eternal\" or \"spiritual\" Gospel, which\nis his possession, \"shows clearly all things concerning the Son of God\nHimself, both the mysteries shown by His words, and the things of\nwhich His acts were the symbols.[123]\" It is not that he denies or\ndoubts the truth of the Gospel history, but he feels that events which\nonly happened once can be of no importance, and regards the life,\ndeath, and resurrection of Christ as only one manifestation of an\nuniversal law, which was really enacted, not in this fleeting world\nof shadows, but in the eternal counsels of the Most High. He\nconsiders that those who are thoroughly convinced of the universal\ntruths revealed by the Incarnation and Atonement, need trouble\nthemselves no more about their particular manifestations in time.\n\nOrigen, like the Neoplatonists, says that God is above or beyond\nBeing; but he is sounder than Clement on this point, for he attributes\nself-consciousness[124] and reason to God, who therefore does not\nrequire the Second Person in order to come to Himself. Also, since God\nis not wholly above reason, He can be approached by reason, and not\nonly by ecstatic vision.\n\nThe Second Person of the Trinity is called by Origen, as by Clement,\n\"the Idea of Ideas.\" He is the spiritual activity of God, the\nWorld-Principle, the One who is the basis of the manifold. Human souls\nhave fallen through sin from their union with the Logos, who became\nincarnate in order to restore them to the state which they have lost.\n\nEverything spiritual is indestructible; and therefore every spirit\nmust at last return to the Good. For the Good alone exists; evil has\nno existence, no substance. This is a doctrine which we shall meet\nwith again. Man, he expressly asserts, cannot be consubstantial with\nGod, for man can change, while God is immutable. He does not see,\napparently, that, from the point of view of the Platonist, his\nuniversalism makes man's freedom to change an illusion, as belonging\nto time only and not to eternity.\n\nWhile Origen was working out his great system of ecclesiastical\ndogmatic, his younger contemporary Plotinus, outside the Christian\npale, was laying the coping-stone on the edifice of Greek philosophy\nby a scheme of idealism which must always remain one of the greatest\nachievements of the human mind.[125] In the history of Mysticism he\nholds a more undisputed place than Plato; for some of the most\ncharacteristic doctrines of Mysticism, which in Plato are only thrown\nout tentatively, are in Plotinus welded into a compact whole. Among\nthe doctrines which first receive a clear exposition in his writings\nare, his theory of the Absolute, whom he calls the One, or the Good;\nand his theory of the Ideas, which differs from Plato's; for Plato\nrepresents the mind of the World-Artist as immanent in the Idea of the\nGood, while Plotinus makes the Ideas immanent in the universal mind;\nin other words, the real world (which he calls the \"intelligible\nworld,\" the sphere of the Ideas) is in the mind of God. He also, in\nhis doctrine of Vision, attaches an importance to _revelation_ which\nwas new in Greek philosophy. But his psychology is really the centre\nof his system, and it is here that the Christian Church and Christian\nMysticism, in particular, is most indebted to him.\n\nThe _soul_ is with him the meeting-point of the intelligible and the\nphenomenal. It is diffused everywhere.[126] Animals and vegetables\nparticipate in it;[127] and the earth has a soul which sees and\nhears.[128] The soul is immaterial and immortal, for it belongs to the\nworld of real existence, and nothing that _is_ can cease to be.[129]\nThe body is in the soul, rather than the soul in the body. The soul\ncreates the body by imposing form on matter, which in itself is\nNo-thing, pure indetermination, and next door to absolute\nnon-existence.[130] Space and time are only forms of our thought. The\nconcepts formed by the soul, by classifying the things of sense, are\nsaid to be \"Ideas unrolled and separate,\" that is, they are conceived\nas separate in space and time, instead of existing all together in\neternity. The nature of the soul is triple; it is presented under\nthree forms, which are at the same time the three stages of perfection\nwhich it can reach.[131] There is first and lowest the animal and\nsensual soul, which is closely bound up with the body; then there is\nthe logical, reasoning soul, the distinctively _human_ part; and,\nlastly, there is the superhuman stage or part, in which a man \"thinks\nhimself according to the higher intelligence, with which he has become\nidentified, knowing himself no longer as a man, but as one who has\nbecome altogether changed, and has transferred himself into the higher\nregion.\" The soul is thus \"made one with Intelligence without losing\nherself; so that they two are both one and two.\" This is exactly\nEckhart's doctrine of the _funkelein_, if we identify Plotinus'\n[Greek: Nous] with Eckhart's \"God,\" as we may fairly do. The soul is\nnot altogether incarnate in the body; part of it remains above, in the\nintelligible world, whither it desires to return in its entirety.\n\nThe world is an image of the Divine Mind, which is itself a reflection\nof the One. It is therefore not bad or evil. \"What more beautiful\nimage of the Divine could there be,\" he asks, \"than this world, except\nthe world yonder?\" And so it is a great mistake to shut our eyes to\nthe world around us, \"and all beautiful things.[132]\" The love of\nbeauty will lead us up a long way--up to the point when the love of\nthe Good is ready to receive us. Only we must not let ourselves be\nentangled by sensuous beauty. Those who do not quickly rise beyond\nthis first stage, to contemplate \"ideal form, the universal mould,\"\nshare the fate of Hylas; they are engulfed in a swamp, from which they\nnever emerge.\n\nThe universe resembles a vast chain, of which every being is a link.\nIt may also be compared to rays of light shed abroad from one centre.\nEverything flowed from this centre, and everything desires to flow\nback towards it. God draws all men and all things towards Himself as\na magnet draws iron, with a constant unvarying attraction. This theory\nof emanation is often sharply contrasted with that of evolution, and\nis supposed to be discredited by modern science; but that is only true\nif the emanation is regarded as a process in time, which for the\nNeoplatonist it is not.[133] In fact, Plotinus uses the word\n\"evolution\" to explain the process of nature.[134]\n\nThe whole universe is one vast organism,[135] and if one member\nsuffer, all the members suffer with it.[136] This is why a \"faint\nmovement of sympathy[137]\" stirs within us at the sight of any living\ncreature. So Origen says, \"As our body, while consisting of many\nmembers, is yet held together by one soul, so the universe is to be\nthought of as an immense living being, which is held together by one\nsoul--the power and the Logos of God.\" All existence is drawn upwards\ntowards God by a kind of centripetal attraction, which is unconscious\nin the lower, half conscious in the higher organisms.\n\nChristian Neoplatonism tended to identify the Logos, as the Second\nPerson of the Trinity, with the [Greek: Nous], \"Mind\" or\n\"Intelligence,\" of Plotinus, and rightly; but in Plotinus the word\nLogos has a less exalted position, being practically what we call\n\"law,\" regarded as a vital force.[138]\n\nPlotinus' Trinity are the One or the Good, who is above existence,\nGod as the Absolute; the Intelligence, who occupies the sphere of real\nexistence, organic unity comprehending multiplicity--the One-Many, as\nhe calls it, or, as we might call it, God as thought, God existing in\nand for Himself; and the Soul, the One and Many, occupying the sphere\nof appearance or imperfect reality--God as action. Soulless matter,\nwhich only exists as a logical abstraction, is arrived at by looking\nat things \"in disconnexion, dull and spiritless.\" It is the sphere of\nthe \"merely many,\" and is zero, as \"the One who is not\" is Infinity.\n\nThe Intelligible World is timeless and spaceless, and contains the\narchetypes of the Sensible World. The Sensible World is _our_ view of\nthe Intelligible World. When we say it does not exist, we mean that we\nshall not always see it in this form. The \"Ideas\" are the ultimate\nform in which things are regarded by Intelligence, or by God. [Greek:\nNous] is described as at once [Greek: stasis] and [Greek:\nkin\u00easis], that is, it is unchanging itself, but the whole cosmic\nprocess, which is ever in flux, is eternally present to it as a\nprocess.\n\nEvil is disintegration.[139] In its essence it is not merely unreal,\nbut unreality as such. It can only _appear_ in conjunction with some\nlow degree of goodness which suggests to Plotinus the fine saying that\n\"vice at its worst is still human, being mixed with something\nopposite to itself.[140]\"\n\nThe \"lower virtues,\" as he calls the duties of the average\ncitizen,[141] are not only purgative, but teach us the principles of\n_measure_ and _rule_, which are Divine characteristics. This is\nimmensely important, for it is the point where Platonism and Asiatic\nMysticism finally part company.[142]\n\nBut in Plotinus, as in his Christian imitators, they do _not_ part\ncompany. The \"marching orders\" of the true mystic are those given by\nGod to Moses on Sinai, \"See that thou make all things according to the\npattern showed thee in the mount.[143]\" But Plotinus teaches that, as\nthe sensible world is a shadow of the intelligible, so is action a\nshadow of contemplation, suited to weak-minded persons.[144] This is\nturning the tables on the \"man of action\" in good earnest; but it is\nfalse Platonism and false Mysticism. It leads to the heartless\ndoctrine, quite unworthy of the man, that public calamities are to the\nwise man only stage tragedies--or even stage comedies.[145] The moral\nresults of this self-centred individualism are exemplified by the\nmedi\u00e6val saint and visionary, Angela of Foligno, who congratulates\nherself on the deaths of her mother, husband, and children, \"who were\ngreat obstacles in the way of God.\"\n\nA few words must be said about the doctrine of ecstasy in Plotinus. He\ndescribes the conditions under which the vision is granted in exactly\nthe same manner as some of the Christian mystics, e.g. St. Juan of the\nCross. \"The soul when possessed by intense love of Him divests herself\nof all form which she has, even of that which is derived from\nIntelligence; for it is impossible, when in conscious possession of\nany other attribute, either to behold or to be harmonised with Him.\nThus the soul must be neither good nor bad nor aught else, that she\nmay receive Him only, Him alone, she alone.[146]\" While she is in this\nstate, the One suddenly appears, \"with nothing between,\" \"and they are\nno more two but one; and the soul is no more conscious of the body or\nof the mind, but knows that she has what she desired, that she is\nwhere no deception can come, and that she would not exchange her bliss\nfor all the heaven of heavens.\"\n\nWhat is the source of this strange aspiration to rise above Reason and\nIntelligence, which is for Plotinus the highest category of Being, and\nto come out \"on the other side of Being\" [Greek: epekeina t\u00eas\nousias]? Plotinus says himself elsewhere that \"he who would rise above\nReason, falls outside it\"; and yet he regards it as the highest\nreward of the philosopher-saint to converse with the hypostatised\nAbstraction who transcends all distinctions. The vision of the One is\nno part of his philosophy, but is a mischievous accretion. For though\nthe \"superessential Absolute\" may be a logical necessity, we cannot\nmake it, even in the most transcendental manner, an object of sense,\nwithout depriving it of its Absoluteness. What is really apprehended\nis not the Absolute, but a kind of \"form of formlessness,\" an idea not\nof the Infinite, but of the Indefinite.[147] It is then impossible to\ndistinguish \"the One,\" who is said to be above all distinctions, from\nundifferentiated matter, the formless No-thing, which Plotinus puts at\nthe lowest end of the scale.\n\nI believe that the Neoplatonic \"vision\" owes its place in the system\nto two very different causes. First, there was the direct influence of\nOriental philosophy of the Indian type, which tries to reach the\nuniversal by wiping out all the boundary-lines of the particular, and\nto gain infinity by reducing self and the world to zero. Of this we\nshall say more when we come to Dionysius. And, secondly, the blank\ntrance was a real psychical experience, quite different from the\n\"visions\" which we have already mentioned. Evidence is abundant; but I\nwill content myself with one quotation.[148] In Amiel's _Journal_[149]\nwe have the following record of such a trance: \"Like a dream which\ntrembles and dies at the first glimmer of dawn, all my past, all my\npresent, dissolve in me, and fall away from my consciousness at the\nmoment when it returns upon myself. I feel myself then stripped and\nempty, like a convalescent who remembers nothing. My travels, my\nreading, my studies, my projects, my hopes, have faded from my mind.\nAll my faculties drop away from me like a cloak that one takes off,\nlike the chrysalis case of a larva. I feel myself returning into a\nmore elementary form.\" But Amiel, instead of expecting the advent of\n\"the One\" while in this state, feels that \"the pleasure of it is\ndeadly, inferior in all respects to the joys of action, to the\nsweetness of love, to the beauty of enthusiasm, or to the sacred\nsavour of accomplished duty.[149]\"\n\nWe may now return to the Christian Platonists. We find in Methodius\nthe interesting doctrine that the indwelling Christ constantly repeats\nHis passion in remembrance, \"for not otherwise could the Church\ncontinually conceive believers, and bear them anew through the bath of\nregeneration, unless Christ were repeatedly to die, emptying Himself\nfor the sake of each individual.\" \"Christ must be born mentally\n([Greek: mo\u00eat\u00f4s]) in every individual,\" and each individual saint,\nby participating in Christ, \"is born as a Christ.\" This is exactly the\nlanguage of Eckhart and Tauler, and it is first clearly heard in the\nmouth of Methodius.[150] The new features are the great prominence\ngiven to _immanence_--the mystical union as an _opus operatum_, and\nthe individualistic conception of the relation of Christ to the soul.\n\nOf the Greek Fathers who followed Athanasius, I have only room to\nmention Gregory of Nyssa, who defends the historical incarnation in\ntrue mystical fashion by an appeal to spiritual experience. \"We all\nbelieve that the Divine is in everything, pervading and embracing it,\nand dwelling in it. Why then do men take offence at the dispensation\nof the mystery taught by the Incarnation of God, who is not, even now,\noutside of mankind?... If the _form_ of the Divine presence is not now\nthe same, we are as much agreed that God is among us to-day, as that\nHe was in the world then.\" He argues in another place that all other\nspecies of spiritual beings must have had their Incarnations of\nChrist; a doctrine which was afterwards condemned, but which seems to\nfollow necessarily from the Logos doctrine. These arguments show very\nclearly that for the Greek theologians Christ is a cosmic principle,\nimmanent in the world, though not confined by it; and that the scheme\nof salvation is regarded as part of the constitution of the universe,\nwhich is animated and sustained by the same Power who was fully\nmanifested in the Incarnation.\n\nThe question has been much debated, whether the influence of Persian\nand Indian thought can be traced in Neoplatonism, or whether that\nsystem was purely Greek.[151] It is a quite hopeless task to try to\ndisentangle the various strands of thought which make up the web of\nAlexandrianism. But there is no doubt that the philosophers of Asia\nwere held in reverence at this period. Origen, in justifying an\nesoteric mystery-religion for the educated, and a mythical religion\nfor the vulgar, appeals to the example of the \"Persians and Indians.\"\nAnd Philostratus, in his life of Apollonius of Tyana, says, or makes\nhis hero say, that while all wish to live in the presence of God, \"the\nIndians alone succeed in doing so.\" And certainly there are parts of\nPlotinus, and still more of his successors, which strongly suggest\nAsiatic influences.[152] When we turn from Alexandria to Syria, we\nfind Orientalism more rampant. Speculation among the Syrian monks of\nthe third, fourth, and fifth centuries was perhaps more unfettered\nand more audacious than in any other branch of Christendom at any\nperiod. Our knowledge of their theories is very limited, but one\nstrange specimen has survived in the book of Hierotheus,[153] which\nthe canonised Dionysius praises in glowing terms as an inspired\noracle--indeed, he professes that his own object in writing was merely\nto popularise the teaching of his master. The book purports to be the\nwork of Hierotheus, a holy man converted by St. Paul, and an\ninstructor of the real Dionysius the Areopagite. A strong case has\nbeen made out for believing the real author to be a Syrian mystic,\nnamed Stephen bar Sudaili, who lived late in the fifth century. If\nthis theory is correct, the date of Dionysius will have to be moved\nsomewhat later than it has been the custom to fix it. The book of the\nholy Hierotheus on \"the hidden mysteries of the Divinity\" has been but\nrecently discovered, and only a summary of it has as yet been made\npublic. But it is of great interest and importance for our subject,\nbecause the author has no fear of being accused of Pantheism or any\nother heresy, but develops his particular form of Mysticism to its\nlogical conclusions with unexampled boldness. He will show us better\neven than his pupil Dionysius whither the method of \"analysis\" really\nleads us.\n\nThe system of Hierotheus is not exactly Pantheism, but Pan-Nihilism.\nEverything is an emanation from the Chaos of bare indetermination\nwhich he calls God, and everything will return thither. There are\nthree periods of existence--(1) the present world, which is evil, and\nis characterised by motion; (2) the progressive union with Christ, who\nis all and in all--this is the period of rest; (3) the period of\nfusion of all things in the Absolute. The three Persons of the\nTrinity, he dares to say, will then be swallowed up, and even the\ndevils are thrown into the same melting-pot. Consistently with\nmystical principles, these three world-periods are also phases in the\ndevelopment of individual souls. In the first stage the mind aspires\ntowards its first principles; in the second it becomes Christ, the\nuniversal Mind; in the third its personality is wholly merged. The\ngreater part of the book is taken up with the adventures of the Mind\nin climbing the ladder of perfection; it is a kind of theosophical\nromance, much more elaborate and fantastic than the \"revelations\" of\nmedi\u00e6val mystics. The author professes to have himself enjoyed the\necstatic union more than once, and his method of preparing for it is\nthat of the Quietists: \"To me it seems right to speak without words,\nand understand without knowledge, that which is above words and\nknowledge; this I apprehend to be nothing but the mysterious silence\nand mystical quiet which destroys consciousness and dissolves forms.\nSeek, therefore, silently and mystically, that perfect and primitive\nunion with the Arch-Good.\"\n\nWe cannot follow the \"ascent of the Mind\" through its various\ntransmutations. At one stage it is crucified, \"with the soul on the\nright and the body on the left\"; it is buried for three days; it\ndescends into Hades;[154] then it ascends again, till it reaches\nParadise, and is united to the tree of life: then it descends below\nall essences, and sees a formless luminous essence, and marvels that\nit is _the same essence_ that it has seen on high. Now it comprehends\nthe truth, that God is consubstantial with the Universe, and that\nthere are no real distinctions anywhere. So it ceases to wander. \"All\nthese doctrines,\" concludes the seer, \"which are unknown even to\nangels, have I disclosed to thee, my son\" (Dionysius, probably).\n\"Know, then, that all nature will be confused with the Father--that\nnothing will perish or be destroyed, but all will return, be\nsanctified, united, and confused. Thus God will be all in all.[155]\"\n\nThere can be no difficulty in classifying this Syrian philosophy of\nreligion. It is the ancient religion of the Brahmins, masquerading in\nclothes borrowed from Jewish allegorists, half-Christian Gnostics,\nManicheans, Platonising Christians, and pagan Neoplatonists. We will\nnow see what St. Dionysius makes of this system, which he accepts as\nfrom the hand of one who has \"not only learned, but felt the things of\nGod.[156]\"\n\nThe date and nationality of Dionysius are still matters of\ndispute.[157] Mysticism changes so little that it is impossible to\ndetermine the question by internal evidence, and for our purposes it\nis not of great importance. The author was a monk, perhaps a Syrian\nmonk: he probably perpetrated a deliberate fraud--a pious fraud, in\nhis own opinion--by suppressing his own individuality, and fathering\nhis books on St. Paul's Athenian convert. The success of the imposture\nis amazing, even in that uncritical age, and gives much food for\nreflection. The sixth century saw nothing impossible in a book\nfull of the later Neoplatonic theories--those of Proclus rather\nthan Plotinus[158]--having been written in the first century.\nAnd the medi\u00e6val Church was ready to believe that this strange\nsemi-pantheistic Mysticism dropped from the lips of St. Paul.[159]\n\nDionysius is a theologian, not a visionary like his master Hierotheus.\nHis main object is to present Christianity in the guise of a Platonic\nmysteriosophy, and he uses the technical terms of the mysteries\nwhenever he can.[160] His philosophy is that of his day--the later\nNeoplatonism, with its strong Oriental affinities.\n\nBeginning with the Trinity, he identifies God the Father with the\nNeoplatonic Monad, and describes Him as \"superessential\nIndetermination,\" \"super-rational Unity,\" \"the Unity which unifies\nevery unity,\" \"superessential Essence,\" \"irrational Mind,\" \"unspoken\nWord,\" \"the absolute No-thing which is above all existence.[161]\"\nEven now he is not satisfied with the tortures to which he has\nsubjected the Greek language. \"No monad or triad,\" he says, \"can\nexpress the all-transcending hiddenness of the all-transcending\nsuper-essentially super-existing super-Deity.[162]\" But even in the\nmidst of this barbarous jargon he does not quite forget his Plato.\n\"The Good and Beautiful,\" he says, \"are the cause of all things that\nare; and all things love and aspire to the Good and Beautiful, which\nare, indeed, the sole objects of their desire.\" \"Since, then, the\nAbsolute Good and Beautiful is honoured by eliminating all qualities\nfrom it, the non-existent also ([Greek: to m\u00ea on]) must\nparticipate in the Good and Beautiful.\" This pathetic absurdity shows\nwhat we are driven to if we try to graft Indian nihilism upon the\nPlatonic doctrine of ideas. Plotinus tried hard to show that his First\nPerson was very different from his lowest category--non-existent\n\"matter\"; but if we once allow ourselves to define the Infinite as the\nIndefinite, the conclusion which he deprecated cannot long be averted.\n\n\"God is the Being of all that is.\" Since, then, Being is identical\nwith God or Goodness, evil, as such, does not exist; it only exists by\nits participation in good. Evil, he says, is not in things which\nexist; a good tree cannot bear evil fruit; it must, therefore, have\nanother origin. But this is dualism, and must be rejected.[163] Nor\nis evil in God, nor of God; nor in the angels; nor in the human soul;\nnor in the brutes; nor in inanimate nature; nor in matter. Having thus\nhunted evil out of every corner of the universe, he asks--Is evil,\nthen, simply privation of good? But privation is not evil in itself.\nNo; evil must arise from \"disorderly and inharmonious motion.\" As dirt\nhas been defined as matter in the wrong place, so evil is good in the\nwrong place. It arises by a kind of accident; \"all evil is done with\nthe object of gaining some good; no one does evil as evil.\" Evil in\nitself is that which is \"nohow, nowhere, and no thing\"; \"God sees evil\nas good.\" Students of modern philosophy will recognise a theory which\nhas found influential advocates in our own day: that evil needs only\nto be supplemented, rearranged, and transmuted, in order to take its\nplace in the universal harmony.[164]\n\nAll things flow out from God, and all will ultimately return to Him. The\nfirst emanation is the Thing in itself ([Greek: auto to einai]), which\ncorresponds to the Plotinian [Greek: Nous], and to the Johannine Logos.\nHe also calls it \"Life in itself\" and \"Wisdom in itself\" ([Greek:\nautoz\u00f4\u00ea, autosophia]). Of this he says, \"So then the Divine Wisdom in\nknowing itself will know all things. It will know the material\nimmaterially, and the divided inseparably, and the many as one ([Greek:\nheniai\u00f4s]), knowing all things by the standard of absolute unity.\" These\nimportant speculations are left undeveloped by Dionysius, who merely\nstates them dogmatically. The universe is evolved from the Son, whom he\nidentifies with the \"Thing in itself,\" \"Wisdom,\" or \"Life in itself.\" In\ncreation \"the One is said to become multiform.\" The world is a necessary\nprocess of God's being. He created it \"as the sun shines,\" \"without\npremeditation or purpose.\" The Father is simply One; the Son has also\nplurality, namely, the words (or reasons) which make existence ([Greek:\ntous ousiopoious logous]), which theology calls fore-ordinations\n([Greek: proorismous]). But he does not teach that all separate\nexistences will ultimately be merged in the One. The highest Unity gives\nto all the power of striving, on the one hand, to share in the One; on\nthe other, to persist in their own individuality. And in more than one\npassage he speaks of God as a Unity comprehending, not abolishing\ndifferences.[165] \"God is before all things\"; \"Being is in Him, and He\nis not in Being.\" Thus Dionysius tries to safeguard the transcendence of\nGod, and to escape Pantheism. The outflowing process is appropriated by\nthe mind by the _positive_ method--the downward path through finite\nexistences: its conclusion is, \"God is All.\" The return journey is by\nthe _negative_ road, that of ascent to God by abstraction and analysis:\nits conclusion is, \"All is not God.[166]\" The negative path is the high\nroad of a large school of mystics; I will say more about it presently.\nThe mystic, says Dionysius, \"must leave behind all things both in the\nsensible and in the intelligible worlds, till he enters into the\ndarkness of nescience that is truly mystical.\" This \"Divine darkness,\"\nhe says elsewhere, \"is the light unapproachable\" mentioned by St. Paul,\n\"a deep but dazzling darkness,\" as Henry Vaughan calls it. It is dark\nthrough excess of light[167]. This doctrine really renders nugatory what\nhe has said about the persistence of distinctions after the restitution\nof all things; for as \"all colours agree in the dark,\" so, for us, in\nproportion as we attain to true knowledge, all distinctions are lost in\nthe absolute.\n\nThe soul is bipartite. The higher portion sees the \"Divine images\"\ndirectly, the lower by means of symbols. The latter are not to be\ndespised, for they are \"true impressions of the Divine characters,\"\nand necessary steps, which enable us to \"mount to the one undivided\ntruth by analogy.\" This is the way in which we should use the\nScriptures. They have a symbolic truth and beauty, which is\nintelligible only to those who can free themselves from the \"puerile\nmyths[168]\" (the language is startling in a saint of the Church!) in\nwhich they are sometimes embedded.\n\nDionysius has much to say about love[169], but he uses the word\n[Greek: er\u00f4s], which is carefully avoided in the New Testament. He\nadmits that the Scriptures \"often use\" [Greek: agap\u00ea], but justifies\nhis preference for the other word by quoting St. Ignatius, who says of\nChrist, \"My Love [Greek: er\u00f4s] is crucified.[170]\" Divine Love, he\nfinely says, is \"an eternal circle, from goodness, through goodness,\nand to goodness.\"\n\nThe medi\u00e6val mystics were steeped in Dionysius, though his system\nreceived from them certain modifications under the influence of\nAristotelianism. He is therefore, for us, a very important figure; and\nthere are two parts of his scheme which, I think, require fuller\nconsideration than has been given them in this very slight sketch. I\nmean the \"negative road\" to God, and the pantheistic tendency.\n\nThe theory that we can approach God only by analysis or abstraction has\nalready been briefly commented on. It is no invention of Dionysius.\nPlotinus uses similar language, though his view of God as the fulness of\nall _life_ prevented him from following the negative path with\nthoroughness. But in Proclus we find the phrases, afterwards so common,\nabout \"sinking into the Divine Ground,\" \"forsaking the manifold for the\nOne,\" and so forth. Basilides, long before, evidently carried the\ndoctrine to its extremity: \"We must not even call God ineffable,\" he\nsays, \"since this is to make an assertion about Him; He is above every\nname that is named.[171]\" It was a commonplace of Christian instruction\nto say that \"in Divine matters there is great wisdom in confessing our\nignorance\"--this phrase occurs in Cyril's catechism.[172] But confessing\nour ignorance is a very different thing from refusing to make any\npositive statements about God. It is true that all our language about\nGod must be inadequate and symbolic; but that is no reason for\ndiscarding all symbols, as if we could in that way know God as He knows\nHimself. At the bottom, the doctrine that God can be described only by\nnegatives is neither Christian nor Greek, but belongs to the old\nreligion of India. Let me try to state the argument and its consequence\nin a clear form. Since God is the Infinite, and the Infinite is the\nantithesis of the finite, every attribute which can be affirmed of a\nfinite being may be safely denied of God. Hence God can only be\n_described_ by negatives; He can only be _discovered_ by stripping off\nall the qualities and attributes which veil Him; He can only be\n_reached_ by divesting ourselves of all the distinctions of personality,\nand sinking or rising into our \"uncreated nothingness\"; and He can only\nbe _imitated_ by aiming at an abstract spirituality, the passionless\n\"apathy\" of an universal which is nothing in particular. Thus we see\nthat the whole of those developments of Mysticism which despise symbols,\nand hope to see God by shutting the eye of sense, hang together. They\nall follow from the false notion of God as the abstract Unity\ntranscending, or rather excluding, all distinctions. Of course, it is\nnot intended to _exclude_ distinctions, but to rise above them; but the\nprocess of abstraction, or subtraction, as it really is, can never lead\nus to \"the One.[173]\" The only possible unification with such an\nInfinite is the [Greek: aterm\u00f4n n\u00eagretos hupnos] of Nirvana.[174] Nearly\nall that repels us in medi\u00e6val religious life--its \"other-worldliness\"\nand passive hostility to civilisation--the emptiness of its ideal\nlife--its maltreatment of the body--its disparagement of family\nlife--the respect which it paid to indolent contemplation--springs from\nthis one root. But since no one who remains a Christian can exhibit the\nresults of this theory in their purest form, I shall take the liberty of\nquoting a few sentences from a pamphlet written by a native Indian judge\nwho I believe is still living. His object is to explain and commend to\nWestern readers the mystical philosophy of his own country:[175]--\"He\nwho in perfect rest rises from the body and attains the highest light,\ncomes forth in his own proper form. This is the immortal soul. The\nascent is by the ladder of one's thoughts. To know God, one must first\nknow one's own spirit in its purity, unspotted by thought. The soul is\nhidden behind the veil of thought, and only when thought is worn off,\nbecomes visible to itself. This stage is called knowledge of the soul.\nNext is realised knowledge of God, who rises from the bosom of the soul.\nThis is the end of progress; differentiation between self and others has\nceased. All the world of thought and senses is melted into an ocean\nwithout waves or current. This dissolution of the world is also known as\nthe death of the sinful or worldly 'I,' which veils the true Ego. Then\nthe formless Being of the Deity is seen in the regions of pure\nconsciousness beyond the veil of thought. Consciousness is wholly\ndistinct from thought and senses; it knows them; they do not know it.\nThe only proof is an appeal to spiritual experience.\" In the highest\nstage one is absolutely inert, \"knowing nothing in particular.[176]\"\n\nMost of this would have been accepted as precious truth by the\nmedi\u00e6val Church mystics.[177] The words nakedness, darkness,\nnothingness, passivity, apathy, and the like, fill their pages. We\nshall find that this time-honoured phraseology was adhered to long\nafter the grave moral dangers which beset this type of Mysticism had\nbeen recognised. Tauler, for instance, who lays the axe to the root of\nthe tree by saying, \"Christ never arrived at the emptiness of which\nthese men talk,\" repeats the old jargon for pages together. German\nMysticism really rested on another basis, and when Luther had the\ncourage to break with ecclesiastical tradition, the _via negativa_\nrapidly disappeared within the sphere of his influence.\n\nBut it held sway for a long time--so long that we cannot complain if\nmany have said, \"This is the essence of Mysticism.\" Mysticism is such\na vague word, that one must not quarrel with any \"private\ninterpretation\" of it; but we must point out that this limitation\nexcludes the whole army of symbolists, a school which, in Europe at\nleast, has shown more vitality than introspective Mysticism. I regard\nthe _via negativa_ in metaphysics, religion, and ethics as the great\naccident of Christian Mysticism. The break-up of the ancient\ncivilisation, with the losses and miseries which it brought upon\nhumanity, and the chaos of brutal barbarism in which Europe weltered\nfor some centuries, caused a widespread pessimism and world-weariness\nwhich is foreign to the temper of Europe, and which gave way to\nenergetic and full-blooded activity in the Renaissance and\nReformation. Asiatic Mysticism is the natural refuge of men who have\nlost faith in civilisation, but will not give up faith in God. \"Let us\nfly hence to our dear country!\" We hear the words already in\nPlotinus--nay, even in Plato. The sun still shone in heaven, but on\nearth he was eclipsed. Mysticism cuts too deep to allow us to live\ncomfortably on the surface of life; and so all \"the heavy and the\nweary weight of all this unintelligible world\" pressed upon men and\nwomen till they were fain to throw it off, and seek peace in an\ninvisible world of which they could not see even a shadow round about\nthem.\n\nBut I do not think that the negative road is a pure error. There is a\nnegative side in religion, both in thought and practice. We are first\nimpelled to seek the Infinite by the limitations of the finite, which\nappear to the soul as bonds and prison walls. It is natural first to\nthink of the Infinite as that in which these barriers are done away.\nAnd in practice we must die daily, if our inward man is to be daily\nrenewed. We must die to our lower self, not once only but continually,\nso that we may rise on stepping stones of many dead selves to higher\nthings.[178] We must die to our first superficial views of the world\naround us, nay, even to our first views of God and religion, unless\nthe childlike in our faith is by arrest of growth to become the\nchildish. All the good things of life have first to be renounced, and\nthen given back to us, before they can be really ours. It was\nnecessary that these truths should be not only taught, but lived\nthrough. The individual has generally to pass through the quagmire of\nthe \"everlasting No,\" before he can set his feet on firm ground; and\nthe Christian races, it seems, were obliged to go through the same\nexperience. Moreover, there is a sense in which all moral effort aims\nat destroying the conditions of its own existence, and so ends\nlogically in self-negation. Our highest aim as regards ourselves is to\neradicate, not only sin, but temptation. We do not feel that we have\nwon the victory until we no longer wish to offend. But a being who was\nentirely free from temptation would be either more or less than a\nman--\"either a beast or a God,\" as Aristotle says.[179] There is,\ntherefore, a half truth in the theory that the goal of earthly\nstriving is negation and absorption. But it at once becomes false if\nwe forget that it is a goal which cannot be reached in time, and which\nis achieved, not by good and evil neutralising each other, but by\ndeath being swallowed up in victory. If morality ceases to be moral\nwhen it has achieved its goal, it must pass into something which\nincludes as well as transcends it--a condition which is certainly not\nfulfilled by contemplative passivity.[180]\n\nThese thoughts should save us from regarding the saints of the\ncloister with impatience or contempt. The limitations incidental to\ntheir place in history do not prevent them from being glorious\npioneers among the high passes of the spiritual life, who have scaled\nheights which those who talk glibly about \"the mistake of asceticism\"\nhave seldom even seen afar off.\n\nWe must next consider briefly the charge of Pantheism, which has been\nflung rather indiscriminately at nearly all speculative mystics, from\nPlotinus to Emerson. Dionysius, naturally enough, has been freely\ncharged with it. The word is so loosely and thoughtlessly used, even\nby writers of repute, that I hope I may be pardoned if I try to\ndistinguish (so far as can be done in a few words) between the various\nsystems which have been called pantheistic.\n\nTrue Pantheism must mean the identification of God with the totality\nof existence, the doctrine that the universe is the complete and only\nexpression of the nature and life of God, who on this theory is only\nimmanent and not transcendent. On this view, everything in the world\nbelongs to the Being of God, who is manifested equally in everything.\nWhatever is real is perfect; reality and perfection are the same\nthing. Here again we must go to India for a perfect example. \"The\nlearned behold God alike in the reverend Brahmin, in the ox and in the\nelephant, in the dog and in him who eateth the flesh of dogs.[181]\" So\nPope says that God is \"as full, as perfect, in a hair as heart.\" The\nPersian Sufis were deeply involved in this error, which leads to all\nmanner of absurdities and even immoralities. It is inconsistent with\nany belief in _purpose_, either in the whole or in the parts. Evil,\ntherefore, cannot exist for the sake of a higher good: it must be\nitself good. It is easy to see how this view of the world may pass\ninto pessimism or nihilism; for if everything is equally real and\nequally Divine, it makes no difference, except to our tempers, whether\nwe call it everything or nothing, good or bad.\n\nNone of the writers with whom we have to deal can fairly be charged\nwith this error, which is subversive of the very foundations of true\nreligion. Eckhart, carried away by his love of paradox, allows himself\noccasionally to make statements which, if logically developed, would\ncome perilously near to it; and Emerson's philosophy is more seriously\ncompromised in this direction. Dionysius is in no such danger, for the\nsimple reason that he stands too near to Plato. The pantheistic\ntendency of medi\u00e6val Realism requires a few words of explanation,\nespecially as I have placed the name of Plato at the head of this\nLecture. Plato's doctrine of ideas aimed at establishing the\ntranscendence of the highest Idea--that of God. But the medi\u00e6val\ndoctrine of ideas, as held by the extreme Realists, sought to find\nroom in the _summum genus_ for a harmonious coexistence of all\nthings. It thus tended towards Pantheism;[182] while the Aristotelian\nRealists maintained the substantial character of individuals outside\nthe Being of God. \"This view,\" says Eicken, \"which quite inverted the\nhistorical and logical relation of the Platonic and Aristotelian\nphilosophies, was maintained till the close of the Middle Ages.\"\n\nWe may also call pantheistic any system which regards the cosmic\nprocess as a real _becoming_ of God. According to this theory, God\ncomes to Himself, attains full self-consciousness, in the highest of\nHis creatures, which are, as it were, the organs of His self-unfolding\nPersonality. This is not a philosophy which commends itself specially\nto speculative mystics, because it involves the belief that _time_ is\nan ultimate reality. If in the cosmic process, which takes place in\ntime, God becomes something which He was not before, it cannot be said\nthat He is exalted above time, or that a thousand years are to Him as\none day. I shall say in my fourth Lecture that this view cannot justly\nbe attributed to Eckhart. Students of Hegel are not agreed whether it\nis or is not part of their master's teaching.[183]\n\nThe idea of _will_ as a world-principle--not in Schopenhauer's sense\nof a blind force impelling from within, but as the determination of a\nconscious Mind--lifts us at once out of Pantheism.[184] It sets up the\ndistinction between what is and what ought to be, which Pantheism\ncannot find room for, and at the same time implies that the cosmic\nprocess is already complete in the consciousness of God, which cannot\nbe held if He is subordinated to the category of time.\n\nGod is more than the All, as being the perfect Personality, whose Will\nis manifested in creation under necessarily imperfect conditions. He\nis also in a sense less than the All, since pain, weakness, and sin,\nthough known to Him as infinite Mind, can hardly be felt by Him as\ninfinite Perfection. The function of evil in the economy of the\nuniverse is an inscrutable mystery, about which speculative Mysticism\nmerely asserts that the solution cannot be that of the Manicheans. It\nis only the Agnostic[185] who will here offer the dilemma of Dualism\nor Pantheism, and try to force the mystic to accept the second\nalternative.\n\nThere are two other views of the universe which have been called\npantheistic, but incorrectly.\n\nThe first is that properly called _Acosmism_, which we have\nencountered as Orientalised Platonism. Plato's theory of ideas was\npopularised into a doctrine of two separate worlds, related to each\nother as shadow and substance. The intelligible world, which is in the\nmind of God, alone exists; and thus, by denying reality to the visible\nworld, we get a kind of idealistic Pantheism. But the notion of God as\nabstract Unity, which, as we have seen, was held by the later\nNeoplatonists and their Christian followers, seems to make a real\nworld impossible; for bare Unity cannot create, and the metaphor of\nthe sun shedding his rays explains nothing. Accordingly the\n\"intelligible world,\" the sphere of reality, drops out, and we are\nleft with only the infra-real world and the supra-real One. So we are\nlanded in nihilism or Asiatic Mysticism[186].\n\nThe second is the belief in the _immanence_ of a God who is also\ntranscendent. This should be called _Panentheism_, a useful word\ncoined by Krause, and not Pantheism. In its true form it is an\nintegral part of Christian philosophy, and, indeed, of all rational\ntheology. But in proportion as the indwelling of God, or of Christ, or\nthe Holy Spirit in the heart of man, is regarded as an _opus\noperatum_, or as complete _substitution_ of the Divine for the human,\nwe are in danger of a self-deification which resembles the maddest\nphase of Pantheism[187].\n\nPantheism, as I understand the word, is a pitfall for Mysticism to\navoid, not an error involved in its first principles. But we need not\nquarrel with those who have said that speculative Mysticism is the\nChristian form of Pantheism. For there is much truth in Amiel's\ndictum, that \"Christianity, if it is to triumph over Pantheism, must\nabsorb it.\" Those are no true friends to the cause of religion who\nwould base it entirely upon dogmatic supernaturalism. The passion for\nfacts which are objective, isolated, and past, often prevents us from\nseeing facts which are eternal and spiritual. We cry, \"Lo here,\" and\n\"Lo there,\" and forget that the kingdom of God is within us and\namongst us. The great service rendered by the speculative mystics to\nthe Christian Church lies in their recognition of those truths which\nPantheism grasps only to destroy.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 107: The mention of Heraclitus is very interesting. It shows\nthat the Christians had already recognised their affinity with the\ngreat speculative mystic of Ephesus, whose fragments supply many\nmottoes for essays on Mysticism. The identification of the Heraclitean\n[Greek: nous-logos] with the Johannine Logos appears also in Euseb.\n_Pr\u00e6p. Ev_. xi. 19, quoted above.]\n\n[Footnote 108: [Greek: ho panta aristos Plat\u00f4n--oion pheothoroumenos],\nhe calls him.]\n\n[Footnote 109: \"Mysticism finds in Plato all its texts,\" says Emerson\ntruly.]\n\n[Footnote 110: The doctrine of reserve in religious teaching, which\nsome have thought dishonest, rests on the self-evident proposition\nthat it takes two to tell the truth--one to speak, and one to hear.]\n\n[Footnote 111: \"Man kann den Gnosticismus des zweiten Jahrhunderts als\ntheologisch-transcendente Mystik, und die eigentliche Mystik als\nsubstantiell-immanente Gnosis bezeichnen\" (Noack).]\n\n[Footnote 112: See Conybeare's interesting account of the Therapeut\u00e6\nin his edition of Philo, _On the Contemplative Life_, and his\nrefutation of the theory of Lucius, Zeller, etc., that the Therapeut\u00e6\nbelong to the end of the third century.]\n\n[Footnote 113: _Stoical_ influence is also strong in Philo.]\n\n[Footnote 114: The Jewish writer Aristobulus (about 160 B.C.) is said\nto have used the same argument in an exposition of the Pentateuch\naddressed to Ptolemy Philometor.]\n\n[Footnote 115: Compare Philo's own account (_in Flaceum_) of the\nanti-Semitic outrages at Alexandria.]\n\n[Footnote 116: There is a very explicit identification of Christ with\n[Greek: Nous] in the second book of the _Miscellanies_: \"He says, Whoso\nhath ears to hear, let him hear. And who is 'He'? Let Epicharmus\nanswer: [Greek: Nous hora],\" etc.]\n\n[Footnote 117: See Bigg, _Christian Platonists of Alexandria_,\nespecially pp. 92, 93.]\n\n[Footnote 118: [Greek: Pistis] is here used in the familiar sense\n(which falls far short of the Johannine) of assent to particular\ndogmas. [Greek: Gn\u00f4sis] welds these together into a consistent\nwhole, and at the same time confers a more immediate apprehension of\ntruth.]\n\n[Footnote 119: [Greek: ask\u00easis] or [Greek: praxis].]\n\n[Footnote 120: _Strom_, v. 10. 63.]\n\n[Footnote 121: See, further, Appendices B and C.]\n\n[Footnote 122: In Origen, [Greek: sophia] is a higher term than\n[Greek: gn\u00f4sis].]\n\n[Footnote 123: The Greek word is [Greek: ainigmata] \"riddles.\" On the\nwhole subject see Harnack, _History of Dogma_, vol. ii. p. 342.]\n\n[Footnote 124: God, he says (_Tom. in Matth_. xiii. 569), is not the\nabsolutely unlimited; for then He could not have self-consciousness:\nHis omnipotence is limited by His goodness and wisdom (cf. _Cels_. iii.\n493).]\n\n[Footnote 125: I hope it is not necessary to apologise for devoting a\nfew pages to Plotinus in a work on Christian Mysticism. Every treatise\non religious thought in the early centuries of our era must take\naccount of the parallel developments of religious philosophy in the\nold and the new religions, which illustrate and explain each other.]\n\n[Footnote 126: _Enn_. i. 8. 14, [Greek: ouden estin ho amoiron esti\npsych\u00eas].]\n\n[Footnote 127: _Enn_. iii. 2. 7; iv. 7. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 128: _Enn_. iv. 4. 26.]\n\n[Footnote 129: _Enn_. iv. 1. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 130: Matter is [Greek: alogos, skia logou kai ekpt\u00f4sis]\n_Enn_. vi. 3. 7; [Greek: eid\u00f4lon kai phantasma ogkou kai hopostase\u00f4s\nephesis] _Enn_. iii. 6. 7. If matter were _nothing_, it could not\ndesire to be something; it is only no-thing--[Greek: apeiria,\naoristia].]\n\n[Footnote 131: These three stages correspond to the three stages in\nthe mystical ladder which appear in nearly all the Christian mystics.]\n\n[Footnote 132: The passages in which Plotinus (following Plato) bids\nus mount by means of the beauty of the external world, do not\ncontradict those other passages in which he bids us \"turn from things\nwithout to look within\" (_Enn_. iv. 8. 1). Remembering that postulate\nof all Mysticism, that we only know a thing by _becoming_ it, we see\nthat we can only know the world by finding it in ourselves, that is,\nby cherishing those \"best hours of the mind\" (as Bacon says) when we\nare lifted above ourselves into union with the world-spirit.]\n\n[Footnote 133: Plotinus guards against this misconception of his\nmeaning, _Enn_. v. 1. 6, [Greek: ekpod\u00f4n de \u00eamin est\u00f4 genesis h\u00ea en\nchron\u00f4].]\n\n[Footnote 134: [Greek: z\u00f4\u00ea exelittomen\u00ea], _Enn_. i. 4. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 135: See especially _Enn_. iv. 4. 32, 45.]\n\n[Footnote 136: _Enn_. iv. 5. 3, [Greek: sympathes to z\u00f4on tode to\npan heaut\u00f4]; iv. 9. 1, [Greek: h\u00f4ste emou pathontos synaisthanesthai\nto pan].]\n\n[Footnote 137: _Enn_. iv. 5. 2, [Greek: sympatheia amydra].]\n\n[Footnote 138: See Bigg, _Neoplatonism_, pp. 203, 204. He shows that\nwith the Stoics, who were Pantheists, the Logos was regarded as a\nfirst cause; while with the Neoplatonists, who were Theists and\nTranscendentalists, it was a secondary cause. In Plotinus, the\nIntelligence ([Greek: Nous]) is \"King\" (_Enn_. v. 3. 3), and \"the\nlaw of Being\" (_Enn_. v. 9. 5). But the Johannine Logos is both\nimmanent and transcendent. When Erigena says, \"Certius cognoscas\nverbum Naturam omnium esse,\" he gives a true but incomplete account of\nthe Nature of the Second Person of the Trinity.]\n\n[Footnote 139: See especially the interesting passage, _Enn_. i. 8.\n3.]\n\n[Footnote 140: _Enn_. i. 8. 13, [Greek: eti anthr\u00f4pikon h\u00ea kakia,\nmemigmen\u00ea tini enanti\u00f4].]\n\n[Footnote 141: The \"civil virtues\" are the four cardinal virtues.\nPlotinus says that justice is mainly \"minding one's business\" [Greek:\noikeiopagia]. \"The purifying virtues\" deliver us from sin; but [Greek:\nh\u00ea spoud\u00ea ouk ex\u00f4 hamartias einai, alla theon einai].]\n\n[Footnote 142: Compare Hegel's criticism of Schelling, in the latter's\nAsiatic period, \"This so-called wisdom, instead of being yielded up to\nthe influence of Divinity _by its contempt of all proportion and\ndefiniteness_, does really nothing but give full play to accident and\ncaprice. Nothing was ever produced by such a process better than mere\ndreams\" (_Vorrede zur Ph\u00e4nomenologie_, p. 6).]\n\n[Footnote 143: Heb. viii. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 144: _Enn_. iii. 8. 4, [Greek: hotan asthen\u00eas\u00f4sin eis to\nthe\u00f4rein, skian the\u00f4rias kai logou t\u00ean praxin poiountai]. Cf. Amiel's\n_Journal_, p. 4, \"action is coarsened thought.\"]\n\n[Footnote 145: _Enn_. iii. 2. 15, [Greek: hypokriseis] and [Greek:\npaignion]; and see iv. 3. 32, on love of family and country.]\n\n[Footnote 146: _Enn_. vi. 7. 34.]\n\n[Footnote 147: It would be an easy and rather amusing task to\nillustrate these and other aberrations of speculative Mysticism from\nHerbert Spencer's philosophy. E.g., he says that, though we cannot\nknow the Absolute, we may have \"an indefinite consciousness of it.\"\n\"It is impossible to give to this consciousness any qualitative or\nquantitative expression whatever,\" and yet it is quite certain that we\nhave it. Herbert Spencer's Absolute is, in fact, _matter without\nform_. This would seem to identify it rather with the all but\nnon-existing \"matter\" of Plotinus (see Bigg, _Neoplatonism_, p. 199),\nthan with the superessential \"One\"; but the later Neoplatonists found\nthemselves compelled to call _both_ extremes [Greek: to m\u00ea on].\nPlotinus struggles hard against this conclusion, which threatens to\nmake shipwreck of his Platonism. \"Hierotheus,\" whose sympathies are\nreally with Indian nihilism, welcomes it.]\n\n[Footnote 148: The following advice to directors, quoted by Ribet, may\nbe added: \"Director valde attendat ad personas languid\u00e6 valetudinis.\nSi tales person\u00e6 a Deo in quamdam quietis orationem eleventur,\ncontingit ut in omnibus exterioribus sensibus certum defectum ac\nspeciem quamdam deliquii experiantur cum magna interna suavitate, quod\nextasim aut raptum esse facillime putant. Cum Dei Spiritui resistere\nnolint, deliquio illi totas se tradunt, et per multas horas, cum\ngravissimo valetudinis pr\u00e6iudicio in tali mentis stupiditate\npersistunt.\" Genuine ecstasy, according to these authorities, seldom\nlasted more than half an hour, though one Spanish writer speaks of an\nhour.]\n\n[Footnote 149: Mrs. Humphry Ward's translation, p. 72.]\n\n[Footnote 150: But we should not forget that the author of the\n_Epistle to Diognetus_ speaks of the Logos as [Greek: pantote neos en\nhagi\u00f4n kardiais genn\u00f4menos]. In St. Augustine we find it in a rather\nsurprisingly bold form; cf. _in Joh. tract._ 21, n. 8: \"Gratulemur et\ngrates agamus non solum nos Christianos factos esse, sed Christum ...\nAdmiramini, gaudete: Christus facti sumus.\" But this is really quite\ndifferent from saying, \"Ego Christus factus sum.\"]\n\n[Footnote 151: \"Greek\" must here be taken to include the Hellenised\nJews. Those who are best qualified to speak on Jewish philosophy\nbelieve that it exercised a strong influence at Alexandria.]\n\n[Footnote 152: Proclus used to say that a philosopher ought to show no\nexclusiveness in his worship, but to be the hierophant of the whole\nworld. This eclecticism was not confined to cultus.]\n\n[Footnote 153: This account of \"Hierotheus\" is, of course, taken from\nFrothingham's most interesting monograph.]\n\n[Footnote 154: So Ruysbroek says, \"We must not remain on the top of\nthe ladder, but must descend.\"]\n\n[Footnote 155: Another description of the process of [Greek: hapl\u00f4sis]\nmay be found in the curious work of Ibn Tophail, translated by Ockley,\nand much valued by the Quakers, _The Improvement of Human Reason,\nexhibited in the Life of Hai Ebn Tophail, newly translated by Simon\nOckley_, 1708.]\n\n[Footnote 156: [Greek: ou monon math\u00f4n alla kai path\u00f4n ta theia.]]\n\n[Footnote 157: See Harnack, vol. iv. pp. 282, 283. Frothingham's\ntheory necessitates a later date for Dionysius than that which Harnack\nbelieves to be most probable; the latter is in favour of placing him\nin the second half of the fourth century. The writings of Dionysius\nare quoted not much later than 500.]\n\n[Footnote 158: E.g., he agrees with Iamblichus and Proclus (in\nopposition to Plotinus) that \"the One\" is exalted above \"Goodness.\"]\n\n[Footnote 159: At the present time the more pious opinion among\nRomanists seems to be that the writings are genuine; but Schram admits\nthat \"there is a dispute\" about their date, and some Roman Catholic\nwriters frankly give them up.]\n\n[Footnote 160: E.g., [Greek: katharsis, ph\u00f4tismos, my\u00easis, epopteia,\nthe\u00f4sis; hierotelestai] and [Greek: mystag\u00f4goi] (of the bishops),\n[Greek: ph\u00f4tistikoi] (of the priests), [Greek: kathartikoi] (of the\ndeacons).]\n\n[Footnote 161: [Greek: hyperousios aoristia--hyper noun\nhynot\u00eas--henas henopoios hapas\u00eas henados--hyperousios ousia kai nous\nano\u00eatos kai logos arr\u00eatos--alogia kai ano\u00easia kai an\u00f4nymia--auto de\nm\u00ea on \u00f4s pas\u00eas ousias epekeina.]]\n\n[Footnote 162: [Greek: oudemia \u00ea monas \u00ea trias exagei t\u00ean hyper\npanta krypsiot\u00eata t\u00eas hyper panta hyperousi\u00f4s hyperous\u00eas\nhypertheot\u00eatos.]]\n\n[Footnote 163: [Greek: monas estai pas\u00eas dyados arch\u00ea] is stated by\nDionysius as an axiom.]\n\n[Footnote 164: See especially Bradley's _Appearance and Reality_, some\nchapters of which show a certain sympathy with Oriental speculative\nMysticism. The theory set forth in the text must not be confounded\nwith true pantheism, to which every phenomenon is equally Divine as it\nstands. See below, at the end of this Lecture.]\n\n[Footnote 165: See _De Div. Nom._ iv. 8; xi. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 166: Dionysius distinguishes _three_ movements of the human\nmind--the _circular_, wherein the soul returns in upon itself; the\n_oblique_, which includes all knowledge acquired by reasoning,\nresearch, etc.; and the _direct_, in which we rise to higher truths by\nusing outward things as symbols. The last two he regards as inferior\nto the \"circular\" movement, which he also calls \"simplification\"\n[Greek: hapl\u00f4sis].]\n\n[Footnote 167: The highest stage (he says) is to reach [Greek: ton\nhyperph\u00f4ton gnophon kai di' ablepsias kai agn\u00f4sias idein kai gn\u00f4nai].]\n\n[Footnote 168: [Greek: tolm\u00f4sa theoplasia] and [Greek: paidari\u00f4d\u00eas\nphantasia] are phrases which he applies to Old Testament narratives.]\n\n[Footnote 169: As a specimen of his language, we may quote [Greek:\nesti de ekstatikos ho theios er\u00f4s, ouk e\u00f4n eaut\u00f4n einai tous erastas,\nalla t\u00f4n er\u00f4men\u00f4n] (_De Div. Nom_. iv. 13).]\n\n[Footnote 170: I am inclined to agree with Dr. Bigg (_Bampton\nLectures_, Introduction, pp. viii, ix), that Dionysius and the later\nmystics are right in their interpretation of this passage. Bishop\nLightfoot and some other good scholars take it to mean, \"My earthly\naffections are crucified.\" See the discussion in Lightfoot's edition\nof Ignatius, and in Bigg's Introduction. I am not aware how the\nvindicators of \"Dionysius\" explain the curious fact that he had read\nIgnatius!]\n\n[Footnote 171: See Harnack, vol. iii. pp. 242, 243. St. Augustine\naccepts this statement, which he repeats word for word.]\n\n[Footnote 172: Compare also Hooker: \"Of Thee our fittest eloquence is\nsilence, while we confess without confessing that Thy glory is\nunsearchable and beyond our reach.\"]\n\n[Footnote 173: Unity is a characteristic or simple condition of real\nbeing, but it is not in itself a principle of being, so that \"the One\"\ncould exist substantially by itself. To personify the barest of\nabstractions, call it God, and then try to imitate it, would seem too\nabsurd a fallacy to have misled any one, if history did not show that\nit has had a long and vigorous life.]\n\n[Footnote 174: Cf. Sir W. Hamilton (_Discussions_, p. 21): \"By\nabstraction we annihilate the object, and by abstraction we annihilate\nthe subject of consciousness. But what remains? Nothing. When we\nattempt to conceive it as reality, we hypostatise the zero.\"]\n\n[Footnote 175: The Hon. P. Ramanathan, C.M.G., Attorney-General of\nCeylon, _The Mystery of Godliness_. This interesting essay was brought\nto my notice by the kindness of the Rev. G.U. Pope, D.D., University\nTeacher in Tamil and Telugu at Oxford.]\n\n[Footnote 176: Hunt's summary of the philosophy of the Vedanta Sara\n(_Pantheism and Christianity_, p. 19) may help to illustrate further\nthis type of thought. \"Brahma is called the universal soul, of which\nall human souls are a part. These are likened to a succession of\nsheaths, which envelop each other like the coats of an onion. The\nhuman soul frees itself by knowledge from the sheath. But what is this\nknowledge? To know that the human intellect and all its faculties are\nignorance and delusion. This is to take away the sheath, and to find\nthat God is all. Whatever is not Brahma is nothing. So long as a man\nperceives himself to be anything, he is nothing. When he discovers\nthat his supposed individuality is no individuality, then he has\nknowledge. Man must strive to rid himself of himself as an object of\nthought. He must be only a subject. As subject he is Brahma, while the\nobjective world is mere phenomenon.\"]\n\n[Footnote 177: We may compare with them the following maxims, which,\nenclosed in an outline of Mount Carmel, form the frontispiece to an\nearly edition of St. Juan of the Cross:--\n\n\"To enjoy Infinity, do not desire to taste of finite things.\n\n\"To arrive at the knowledge of Infinity, do not desire the knowledge\nof finite things.\n\n\"To reach to the possession of Infinity, desire to possess nothing.\n\n\"To be included in the being of Infinity, desire to be thyself nothing\nwhatever.\n\n\"The moment that thou art resting in a creature, thou art ceasing to\nadvance towards Infinity.\n\n\"In order to unite thyself to Infinity, thou must surrender finite\nthings without reserve.\"\n\nAfter reading such maxims, we shall probably be inclined to think that\n\"the Infinite\" as a name for God might be given up with advantage.\nThere is nothing Divine about a _tabula rasa_.]\n\n[Footnote 178: Cf. Richard of St. Victor, _de Pr\u00e6p. Anim._ 83,\n\"ascendat per semetipsum super semetipsum.\"]\n\n[Footnote 179: The same is true of our attitude towards external\nnature. We are always trying to rise from the shadow to the substance,\nfrom the symbol to the thing symbolised, and so far the followers of\nthe negative road are right; but the life of Mysticism (on this side)\nconsists in the process of spiritualising our impressions; and to\nregard the process as completed is to lose shadow and substance\ntogether.]\n\n[Footnote 180: It may be objected that I have misused the term _via\nnegativa_, which is merely the line of argument which establishes the\ntranscendence of God, as the \"affirmative road\" establishes His\nimmanence. I am far from wishing to depreciate a method which when\nrightly used is a safeguard against Pantheism, but the whole history\nof medi\u00e6val Mysticism shows how mischievous it is when followed\nexclusively.]\n\n[Footnote 181: See Vaughan, _Hours with the Mystics_, vol. i. p. 58.]\n\n[Footnote 182: Seth, _Hegelianism and Personality_, states this more\nstrongly. He argues that \"the ultimate goal of Realism is a\nthorough-going Pantheism.\" God is regarded as the _summum genus_, the\nultimate Substance of which all existing things are accidents. The\ngenus inheres in the species, and the species in individuals, as an\nentity common to all and _identical in each_, an entity to which\nindividual differences adhere as accidents.]\n\n[Footnote 183: McTaggart, _Studies in Hegelian Dialectic_, p. 159 sq.,\nargues that Hegel means that the Absolute Idea exists eternally in its\nfull perfection. There can be no _real_ development in time. \"Infinite\ntime is a false infinite of endless aggregation.\" The whole discussion\nis very instructive and interesting.]\n\n[Footnote 184: So Lasson says well, in his book on Meister Eckhart,\n\"Mysticism views everything from the standpoint of teleology, while\nPantheism generally stops at causality.\"]\n\n[Footnote 185: As, for instance, Leslie Stephen tries to do in his\n_Agnostic's Apology_.]\n\n[Footnote 186: The system of Spinoza, based on the canon, \"Omnis\ndeterminatio est negatio,\" proceeds by wiping out all dividing lines,\nwhich he regards as illusions, in order to reach the ultimate truth of\nthings. This, as Hegel showed, is acosmism rather than Pantheism, and\ncertainly not \"atheism.\" The method of Spinoza should have led him, as\nthe same method led Dionysius, to define God as [Greek: hyperousios\naoristia]. He only escapes this conclusion by an inconsistency. See E.\nCaird, _Evolution of Religion_, vol. i. pp. 104, 105.]\n\n[Footnote 187: There is a third system which is called pantheistic;\nbut as it has nothing to do with Mysticism, I need not try to\ndetermine whether it deserves the name or not. It is that which\ndeifies physical law. Sometimes it is \"materialism grown sentimental,\"\nas it has been lately described; sometimes it issues in stern\nFatalism. This is Stoicism; and high Calvinism is simply Christian\nStoicism. It has been called pantheistic, because it admits only one\nWill in the universe.]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE IV\n\n\n[Greek: \"Ediz\u00easam\u00ean eme\u00f4uton.\"]\n\nHERACLITUS.\n\n\n\"La philosophie n'est pas philosophie si elle ne touche \u00e0 l'ab\u00eeme;\nmais elle cesse d'\u00eatre philosophie si elle y tombe.\"\n\nCOUSIN.\n\n\n   \"Denn Alles muss in Nichts zerfallen,\n    Wenn es im Sein beharren will.\"\n\nGOETHE.\n\n\n   \"Seek no more abroad, say I,\n    House and Home, but turn thine eye\n    Inward, and observe thy breast;\n    There alone dwells solid Rest.\n    Say not that this House is small,\n    Girt up in a narrow wall:\n    In a cleanly sober mind\n    Heaven itself full room doth find.\n    Here content make thine abode\n    With thyself and with thy God.\n    Here in this sweet privacy\n    May'st thou with thyself agree,\n    And keep House in peace, tho' all\n    Th' Universe's fabric fall.\"\n\nJOSEPH BEAUMONT.\n\n\n   \"The One remains, the many change and pass:\n      Heaven's light for ever shines; earth's shadows fly:\n    Life, like a dome of many-coloured glass,\n      Stains the white radiance of Eternity.\"\n\nSHELLEY.\n\n\n\nCHRISTIAN PLATONISM AND SPECULATIVE MYSTICISM\n\n2. IN THE WEST\n\n\"Know ye not that ye are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God\ndwelleth in you?\"--1 COR. iii. 16.\n\n\nWe have seen that Mysticism, like most other types of religion, had\nits cradle in the East. The Christian Platonists, whom we considered\nin the last Lecture, wrote in Greek, and we had no occasion to mention\nthe Western Churches. But after the Pseudo-Dionysius, the East had\nlittle more to contribute to Christian thought. John of Damascus, in\nthe eighth century, half mystic and half scholastic, need not detain\nus. The Eastern Churches rapidly sank into a deplorably barbarous\ncondition, from which they have never emerged. We may therefore turn\naway from the Greek-speaking countries, and trace the course of\nMysticism in the Latin and Teutonic races.\n\nScientific Mysticism in the West did not all pass through Dionysius.\nVictorinus, a Neoplatonic philosopher, was converted to Christianity\nin his old age, about 360 A.D. The story of his conversion, and the\njoy which it caused in the Christian community, is told by St.\nAugustine[188]. He was a deep thinker of the speculative mystical\ntype, but a clumsy and obscure writer, in spite of his rhetorical\ntraining. His importance lies in his position as the first Christian\nNeoplatonist who wrote in Latin.\n\nThe Trinitarian doctrine of Victorinus anticipates in a remarkable\nmanner that of the later philosophical mystics. The Father,\nhe says, eternally knows Himself in the Son. The Son is the\nself-objectification of God, the \"_forma_\" of God[189], the utterance\nof the Absolute. The Father is \"_cessatio_,\" \"_silentium_,\" \"_quies_\";\nbut He is also \"_motus_\" while the Son is \"_motio_.\" There is no\ncontradiction between \"_motus_\" and \"_cessatio_\" since \"_motus_\" is\nnot the same as \"_mutatio_.\" \"Movement\" belongs to the \"being\" of God;\nand this eternal \"movement\" is the generation of the Son. This eternal\ngeneration is exalted above time. All life is _now_: we live always in\nthe present, not in the past or future; and thus our life is a symbol\nof eternity, to which all things are for ever present[190]. The\ngeneration of the Son is at the same time the creation of the\narchetypal world; for the Son is the cosmic principle[191], through\nwhom all that potentially _is_ is actualised. He even says that the\nFather is to the Son as [Greek: ho m\u00ea \u00f4n] to [Greek: ho \u00f4n], thus\ntaking the step which Plotinus wished to avoid, and applying the same\nexpression to the superessential God as to infra-essential\nmatter.[192]\n\nThis actualisation is a self-limitation of God,[193] but involves no\ndegradation. Victorinus uses language implying the subordination of\nthe Son, but is strongly opposed to Arianism.\n\nThe Holy Ghost is the \"bond\" (_copula_) of the Trinity, joining in\nperfect love the Father and the Son. Victorinus is the first to use\nthis idea, which afterwards became common. It is based on the\nNeoplatonic triad of _status, progressio, regressus_ ([Greek: mon\u00ea,\nproodos, epistroph\u00ea]). In another place he symbolises the Holy Ghost\nas the female principle, the \"Mother of Christ\" in His eternal life.\nThis metaphor is a relic of Gnosticism, which the Church wisely\nrejected.\n\nThe second Person of the Trinity contains in Himself the archetypes of\neverything. He is the \"_elementum_,\" \"_habitaculum_,\" \"_habitator_,\"\n\"_locus_\" of the universe. The material world was created for man's\nprobation. All spirits pre-existed, and their partial immersion in an\nimpure material environment is a degradation from which they must\naspire to be delivered. But the whole mundane history of a soul is\nonly the realisation of the idea which had existed from all eternity\nin the mind of God. These doctrines show that Victorinus is involved\nin a dualistic view of matter, and in a form of predestinarianism; but\nhe has no definite teaching on the relation of sin to the ideal\nworld.\n\nHis language about Christ and the Church is mystical in tone. \"The\nChurch is Christ,\" he says; \"The resurrection of Christ is our\nresurrection\"; and of the Eucharist, \"The body of Christ is life.\"\n\nWe now come to St. Augustine himself, who at one period of his life\nwas a diligent student of Plotinus. It would be hardly justifiable to\nclaim St. Augustine as a mystic, since there are important parts of\nhis teaching which have no affinity to Mysticism; but it touched him\non one side, and he remained half a Platonist. His natural sympathy\nwith Mysticism was not destroyed by the vulgar and perverted forms of\nit with which he was first brought in contact. The Manicheans and\nGnostics only taught him to distinguish true Mysticism from false: he\nsoon saw through the pretensions of these sectaries, while he was not\nashamed to learn from Plotinus. The mystical or Neoplatonic element in\nhis theology will be clearly shown in the following extracts. In a few\nplaces he comes dangerously near to some of the errors which we found\nin Dionysius.\n\nGod is above all that can be said of Him. We must not even call Him\nineffable;[194] He is best adored in silence,[195] best known by\nnescience,[196] best described by negatives.[197] God is absolutely\nimmutable; this is a doctrine on which he often insists, and which\npervades all his teaching about predestination. The world pre-existed\nfrom all eternity in the mind of God; in the Word of God, by whom all\nthings were made, and who is immutable Truth, all things and events\nare stored up together unchangeably, and all are one. God sees the\ntime-process not as a process, but gathered up into one harmonious\nwhole. This seems very near to acosmism, but there are other passages\nwhich are intended to guard against this error. For instance, in the\n_Confessions_[198] he says that \"things above are better than things\nbelow; but all creation together is better than things above\"; that is\nto say, true reality is something higher than an abstract\nspirituality.[199]\n\nHe is fond of speaking of the _Beauty_ of God; and as he identifies\nbeauty with symmetry,[200] it is plain that the formless \"Infinite\" is\nfor him, as for every true Platonist, the bottom and not the top of\nthe scale of being. Plotinus had perhaps been the first to speak of\nthe Divine nature as the meeting-point of the Good, the True, and the\nBeautiful; and this conception, which is of great value, appears also\nin Augustine. There are three grades of beauty, they both say,\ncorporeal, spiritual, and divine,[201] the first being an image of the\nsecond, and the second of the third.[202] \"Righteousness is the truest\nbeauty,[203]\" Augustine says more than once. \"All that is beautiful\ncomes from the highest Beauty, which is God.\" This is true Platonism,\nand points to Mysticism of the symbolic kind, which we must consider\nlater. St. Augustine is on less secure ground when he says that evil\nis simply the splash of dark colour which gives relief to the picture;\nand when in other places he speaks of it as simple privation of good.\nBut here again he closely follows Plotinus.[204]\n\nSt. Augustine was not hostile to the idea of a World-Soul; he regards\nthe universe as a living organism;[205] but he often warns his readers\nagainst identifying God and the world, or supposing that God is merely\nimmanent in creation. The Neoplatonic teaching about the relation of\nindividual souls to the World-Soul may have helped him to formulate\nhis own teaching about the mystical union of Christians with Christ.\nHis phrase is that Christ and the Church are \"_una persona_.\"\n\nSt. Augustine arranges the ascent of the soul in seven stages.[206]\nBut the higher steps are, as usual, purgation, illumination, and\nunion. This last, which he calls \"the vision and contemplation of\ntruth,\" is \"not a step, but the goal of the journey.\" When we have\nreached it, we shall understand the wholesomeness of the doctrines\nwith which we were fed, as children with milk; the meaning of such\n\"hard sayings\" as the resurrection of the body will become plain to\nus. Of the blessedness which attends this state he says\nelsewhere,[207] \"I entered, and beheld with the mysterious eye of my\nsoul the light that never changes, above the eye of my soul, above my\nintelligence. It was something altogether different from any earthly\nillumination. It was higher than my intelligence because it made me,\nand I was lower because made by it. He who knows the truth knows that\nlight, and he who knows that light knows eternity. Love knows that\nlight.\" And again he says,[208] \"What is this which flashes in upon\nme, and thrills my heart without wounding it? I tremble and I burn; I\ntremble, feeling that I am unlike Him; I burn, feeling that I am like\nHim.\"\n\nOne more point must be mentioned before we leave St. Augustine. In\nspite of, or rather because of, his Platonism, he had nothing but\ncontempt for the later Neoplatonism, the theurgic and theosophic\napparatus of Iamblichus and his friends. I have said nothing yet about\nthe extraordinary development of magic in all its branches, astrology,\nnecromancy, table-rapping, and other kinds of divination, charms and\namulets and witchcraft, which brought ridicule upon the last struggles\nof paganism. These aberrations of Nature-Mysticism will be dealt with\nin their later developments in my seventh Lecture. St. Augustine,\nafter mentioning some nonsensical incantations of the \"abracadabra\"\nkind, says, \"A Christian old woman is wiser than these philosophers.\"\nIn truth, the spirit of Plato lived in, and not outside Christianity,\neven in the time of Porphyry. And on the cultus of angels and spirits,\nwhich was closely connected with theurgic superstition, St.\nAugustine's judgment is very instructive. \"Whom should I find,\" he\nasks, \"to reconcile me to Thee? Should I approach the angels? With\nwhat prayers, with what rites? Many, as I hear, have tried this\nmethod, and have come to crave for curious visions, and have been\ndeceived, as they deserved.[209]\"\n\nIn spite of St. Augustine's Platonism and the immense influence which\nhe exercised, the Western Church was slow in developing a mystical\ntheology. The Greek Mysticism, based on emanation, was not congenial\nto the Western mind, and the time of the German, with its philosophy\nof immanence, was not yet. The tendency of Eastern thinkers is to try\nto gain a view of reality as a whole, complete and entire: the form\nunder which it most readily pictures it is that of _space_. The West\nseeks rather to discover the universal laws which in every part of the\nuniverse are working out their fulfilment. The form under which it\nmost readily pictures reality is that of _time_.[210] Thus\nNeoplatonism had to undergo certain modifications before it could\nenter deeply into the religious consciousness of the West.\n\nThe next great name is that of John Scotus Erigena,[211] an English or\nIrish monk, who in the ninth century translated Dionysius into Latin.\nErigena is unquestionably one of the most remarkable figures of the\nMiddle Ages. A bold and independent thinker, he made it his aim to\nelucidate the vague theories of Dionysius, and to present them as a\nconsistent philosophical system worked out by the help of Aristotle\nand perhaps Boethius.[212] He intends, of course, to keep within the\nlimits permitted to Christian speculation; but in reality he does not\nallow dogma to fetter him. The Christian Alexandrians were, on the\nwhole, more orthodox than their language; Erigena's language partially\nveils the real audacity of his speculation. He is a mystic only by his\nintellectual affinities;[213] the warmth of pious aspiration and love\nwhich makes Dionysius, amid all his extravagance, still a religious\nwriter, has cooled entirely in Erigena. He can pray with fervour and\neloquence for intellectual enlightenment; but there was nothing of the\nprophet or saint about him, to judge from his writings. Still, though\none might dispute his title to be called either a Christian or a\nmystic, we must spare a few minutes to this last flower of\nNeoplatonism, which bloomed so late on our northern islands.\n\nGod, says Erigena, is called Essence or Being; but, strictly speaking,\nHe is not \"Being\";[214] for Being arises in opposition to not-Being,\nand there is no opposition to the Absolute, or God. Eternity, the\nabode or nature of God, is homogeneous and without parts, one, simple,\nand indivisible. \"God is the totality of all things which are and are\nnot, which can and cannot be. He is the similarity of the similar, the\ndissimilarity of the dissimilar, the opposition of opposites, and the\ncontrariety of contraries. All discords are resolved when they are\nconsidered as parts of the universal harmony.\" All things begin from\nunity and end in unity: the Absolute can contain nothing\nself-contradictory. And so God cannot be called Goodness, for Goodness\nis opposed to Badness, and God is above this distinction. Goodness,\nhowever is a more comprehensive term than Being. There may be Goodness\nwithout Being, but not Being without Goodness; for Evil is the\nnegation of Being. \"The Scripture openly pronounces this,\" says\nErigena; \"for we read, God saw all things; and _not_, lo, they were,\nbut, lo, they were very good.\" All things are, in so far as they are\ngood. \"But the things that are not are also called good, and are far\nbetter than those which are.\" Being, in fact, is a defect, \"since it\nseparates from the superessential Good.\" The feeling which prompts\nthis strange expression is that since time and space are themselves\nonesided appearances, a fixed limit must be set to the amount of\ngoodness and reality which can be represented under these conditions.\nErigena therefore thinks that to enter the time-process must be to\ncontract a certain admixture of unreality or evil. In so far as life\ninvolves _separateness_ (not distinction), this must be true; but the\nmanifold is only evil when it is discordant and antagonistic to unity.\nThat the many-in-one should appear as the one-in-many, is the effect\nof the forms of time and space in which it appears; the statement that\n\"the things which are not are far better than those which are,\" is\nonly true in the sense that the world of appearance is permeated by\nevil as yet unsubdued, which in the Godhead exists only as something\novercome or transmuted.\n\nErigena says that God is above all the categories, including that of\nrelation. It follows that the Persons of the Trinity, which are only\n\"relative names,\" are fused in the Absolute.[215] We may make\nstatements about God, if we remember that they are only metaphors; but\nwhatever we deny about Him, we deny truly.[216] This is the \"negative\nroad\" of Dionysius, from whom Erigena borrows a number of uncouth\ncompounds. But we can see that he valued this method mainly as\nsafeguarding the transcendence of God against pantheistic theories of\nimmanence. The religious and practical aspects of the doctrine had\nlittle interest for him.\n\nThe destiny of all things is to \"rest and be quiet\" in God. But he\ntries to escape the conclusion that all distinctions must disappear;\nrather, he says, the return to God raises creatures into a higher\nstate, in which they first attain their true being. All individual\ntypes will be preserved in the universal. He borrows an illustration,\nnot a very happy one, from Plotinus. \"As iron, when it becomes\nred-hot, seems to be turned into pure fire, but remains no less iron\nthan before; so when body passes into soul, and rational substances\ninto God, they do not lose their identity, but preserve it in a higher\nstate of being.\"\n\nCreation he regards as a necessary self-realisation of God. \"God was\nnot,\" he says, \"before He made the universe.\" The Son is the Idea of\nthe World; \"be assured,\" he says, \"that the Word is the nature of all\nthings.\" The primordial causes or ideas--Goodness, Being, Life, etc.,\n_in themselves_, which the Father made in the Son--are in a sense the\ncreators of the world, for the order of all things is established\naccording to them. God created the world, not out of nothing, nor out\nof something, but out of Himself.[217] The creatures have always\npre-existed \"yonder\" in the Word; God has only caused them to be\nrealised in time and space.\n\n\"Thought and Action are identical in God.\" \"He sees by working and\nworks by seeing.\"\n\nMan is a microcosm. The fivefold division of nature--corporeal, vital,\nsensitive, rational, intellectual--is all represented in his\norganisation. The corruptible body is an \"accident,\" the consequence\nof sin. The original body was immortal and incorruptible. This body\nwill one day be restored.\n\nEvil has no substance, and is destined to disappear. \"Nothing contrary\nto the Divine goodness and life and blessedness can be coeternal with\nthem.\" The world must reach perfection, when all will ultimately be\nGod. \"The loss and absence of Christ is the torment of the whole\ncreation, nor do I think that there is any other.\" There is no \"place\nof punishment\" anywhere.\n\nErigena is an admirable interpreter of the Alexandrians and of\nDionysius, but he emphasises their most dangerous tendencies. We\ncannot be surprised that his books were condemned; it is more strange\nthat the audacious theories which they repeat from Dionysius should\nhave been allowed to pass without censure for so long. Indeed, the\nfreedom of speculation accorded to the mystics forms a remarkable\nexception to the zeal for exact orthodoxy which characterised the\ngeneral policy of the early Church. The explanation is that in the\nEast Mysticism has seldom been revolutionary, and has compensated for\nits speculative audacity by the readiness of its outward conformity.\nMoreover, the theories of Dionysius about the earthly and heavenly\nhierarchies were by no means unwelcome to sacerdotalism. In the West\nthings were different. Mysticism there has always been a spirit of\nreform, generally of revolt. There is much even in Erigena, whose main\naffinities were with the East, which forecasts the Reformation. He is\nthe father, not only of Western Mysticism and scholasticism, but of\nrationalism as well.[218] But the danger which lurked in his\nspeculations was not at first recognised. His book on predestination\nwas condemned in 855 and 859 for its universalist doctrine,[219] and\ntwo hundred years later his Eucharistic doctrine, revived by Berengar,\nwas censured.[220] But it was not till the thirteenth century that a\ngeneral condemnation was passed upon him. This judgment followed the\nappearance of a strongly pantheistic or acosmistic school of mystics,\nchief among whom was Amalric of Bena, a master of theology at Paris\nabout 1200. Amalric is a very interesting figure, for his teaching\nexhibits all the features which are most characteristic of extravagant\nMysticism in the West--its strong belief in Divine immanence, not\nonly in the Church, but in the individual; its uncompromising\nrationalism, contempt for ecclesiastical forms, and tendency to\nevolutionary optimism. Among the doctrines attributed to Amalric and\nhis followers are a pantheistic identification of man with God, and a\nnegation of matter; they were said to teach that unconsecrated bread\nwas the body of Christ, and that God spoke through Ovid (a curious\nchoice!), as well as through St. Augustine. They denied the\nresurrection of the body, and the traditional eschatology, saying that\n\"he who has the knowledge of God in himself has paradise within him.\"\nThey insisted on a progressive historical revelation--the reign of the\nFather began with Abraham, that of the Son with Christ, that of the\nSpirit with themselves. They despised sacraments, believing that the\nSpirit works without means. They taught that he who lives in love can\ndo no wrong, and were suspected, probably truly, of the licentious\nconduct which naturally follows from such a doctrine. This\nantinomianism is no part of true Mysticism; but it is often found in\nconjunction with mystical speculation among the half-educated. It is\nthe vulgar perversion of Plotinus' doctrine that matter is nothing,\nand that the highest part of our nature can take no stain.[221] We\nfind evidence of immorality practised \"in nomine caritatis\" among the\nGnostics and Manicheans of the first centuries, and these heresies\nnever really became extinct. The sects of the \"Free Spirit,\" who\nflourished later in the thirteenth century, had an even worse\nreputation than the Amalricians. They combined with their Pantheism a\nDeterminism which destroyed all sense of responsibility. On the other\nhand, the followers of Ortlieb of Strassburg, about the same period,\nadvocated an extreme asceticism based on a dualistic or Manichean view\nof the world; and they combined with this error an extreme\nrationalism, teaching that the historical Christ was a mere man; that\nthe Gospel history has only a symbolical truth; that the soul only,\nwithout the body, is immortal; and that the Pope and his priests are\nservants of Satan.\n\nThe problem for the Church was how to encourage the warm love and\nfaith of the mystics without giving the rein to these mischievous\nerrors. The twelfth and thirteenth centuries produced several famous\nwriters, who attempted to combine scholasticism and Mysticism.[222]\nThe leaders in this attempt were Bernard,[223] Hugo and Richard of St.\nVictor, Bonaventura, Albertus Magnus, and (later) Gerson. Their works\nare not of great value as contributions to religious philosophy, for\nthe Schoolmen were too much afraid of their authorities--Catholic\ntradition and Aristotle--to probe difficulties to the bottom; and the\nmystics, who, by making the renewed life of the soul their\nstarting-point, were more independent, were debarred, by their\nignorance of Greek, from a first-hand knowledge of their intellectual\nancestors. But in the history of Mysticism they hold an important\nplace.[224] Speculation being for them restricted within the limits of\nChurch-dogma, they were obliged to be more psychological and less\nmetaphysical than Dionysius or Erigena. The Victorines insist often on\nself-knowledge as the way to the knowledge of God and on\nself-purification as more important than philosophy. \"The way to\nascend to God,\" says Hugo, \"is to descend into oneself.[225]\" \"The\nascent is through self above self,\" says Richard; we are to rise on\nstepping-stones of our dead selves to higher things. \"Let him that\nthirsts to see God clean his mirror, let him make his own spirit\nbright,\" says Richard again. The Victorines do not disparage reason,\nwhich is the organ by which mankind in general apprehend the things of\nGod; but they regard ecstatic contemplation as a supra-rational state\nor faculty, which can only be reached _per mentis excessum_, and in\nwhich the naked truth is seen, no longer in a glass darkly.[226]\n\nThis highest state, in which \"Reason dies in giving birth to Ecstasy,\nas Rachel died in giving birth to Benjamin,\" is not on the high road\nof the spiritual life. It is a rare gift, bestowed by supernatural\ngrace. Richard says that the first stage of contemplation is an\nexpansion of the soul, the second an exaltation, the third an\n_alienation_. The first arises from human effort, the second from\nhuman effort assisted by Divine grace, the third from Divine grace\nalone. The predisposing conditions for the third state are devotion\n(_devotio_), admiration (_admiratio_), and joy (_exaltatio_); but\nthese cannot _produce_ ecstasy, which is a purely supernatural\ninfusion.\n\nThis sharp opposition between the natural and the supernatural, which\nis fully developed first by Richard of St. Victor, is the\ndistinguishing feature of Catholic Mysticism. It is an abandonment of\nthe great aim which the earlier Christian idealists had set before\nthemselves, namely, to find spiritual law in the normal course of\nnature, and the motions of the Divine Word in the normal processes of\nmind. St. John's great doctrine of the Logos as a cosmic principle is\nnow dropped. Roman Catholic apologists[227] claim that Mysticism was\nthus set free from the \"idealistic pantheism\" of the Neoplatonist, and\nfrom the \"Gnostic-Manichean dualism\" which accompanies it. The world\nof space and time (they say) is no longer regarded, as it was by the\nNeoplatonist, as a fainter effluence from an ideal world, nor is human\nindividuality endangered by theories of immanence. Both nature and man\nregain a sort of independence. We once more tread as free men on solid\nground, while occasional \"supernatural phenomena\" are not wanting to\ntestify to the existence of higher powers.\n\nWe have seen that the Logos-doctrine (as understood by St. Clement) is\nexceptionally liable to perversion; but the remedy of discarding it is\nworse than the disease. The unscriptural[228] and unphilosophical\ncleft between natural and supernatural introduces a more intractable\ndualism than that of Origen. The faculty which, according to this\ntheory, possesses immediate intuition into the things of God is not\nonly irresponsible to reason, but stands in no relation to it. It\nushers us into an entirely new world, where the familiar criteria of\ntruth and falsehood are inapplicable. And what it reveals to us is not\na truer and deeper view of the actual, but a wholly independent cosmic\nprinciple which invades the world of experience as a disturbing force,\nspasmodically subverting the laws of nature in order to show its power\nover them.[229] For as soon as the formless intuition of\ncontemplation begins to express itself in symbols, these symbols, when\nuntested by reason, are transformed into hallucinations. The warning\nof Plotinus, that \"he who tries to rise above reason falls outside of\nit,\" receives a painful corroboration in such legends as that of St.\nChristina, who by reason of her extreme saintliness frequently soared\nover the tops of trees. The consideration of these alleged \"mystical\nphenomena\" belongs to objective Mysticism, which I hope to deal with\nin a later Lecture. Here I will only say that the scholastic-mystical\ndoctrine of \"supernatural\" interventions, which at first sight seems\nso attractive, has led in practice to the most barbarous and\nridiculous superstitions.[230]\n\nAnother good specimen of scholastic Mysticism is the short treatise,\n_De adh\u00e6rendo Deo_, of Albertus Magnus. It shows very clearly how the\n\"negative road\" had become the highway of medi\u00e6val Catholicism, and\nhow little could be hoped for civilisation and progress from the\ncontinuance of such teaching. \"When St. John says that God is a\nSpirit,\" says Albert in the first paragraph of his treatise, \"and that\nHe must be worshipped in spirit, he means that the mind must be\ncleared of all images. When thou prayest, shut thy door--that is, the\ndoors of thy senses ... keep them barred and bolted against all\nphantasms and images.... Nothing pleases God more than a mind free\nfrom all occupations and distractions.... Such a mind is in a manner\ntransformed into God, for it can think of nothing, and understand\nnothing, and love nothing, except God: other creatures and itself it\nonly sees in God.... He who penetrates into himself, and so transcends\nhimself, ascends truly to God.... He whom I love and desire is above\nall that is sensible and all that is intelligible; sense and\nimagination cannot bring us to Him, but only the desire of a pure\nheart. This brings us into the darkness of the mind, whereby we can\nascend to the contemplation even of the mystery of the Trinity.... Do\nnot think about the world, nor about thy friends, nor about the past,\npresent, or future; but consider thyself to be outside the world and\nalone with God, as if thy soul were already separated from the body,\nand had no longer any interest in peace or war, or the state of the\nworld. Leave thy body, and fix thy gaze on the uncreated light.... Let\nnothing come between thee and God.... The soul in contemplation views\nthe world from afar off, just as, when we proceed to God by the way of\nabstraction, we deny Him, first all bodily and sensible attributes,\nthen intelligible qualities, and, lastly, that _being_ (_esse_) which\nkeeps Him among created things. This, according to Dionysius, is the\nbest mode of union with God.\"\n\nBonaventura resembles Albertus in reverting more decidedly than the\nVictorines to the Dionysian tradition. He expatiates on the passivity\nand nakedness of the soul which is necessary in order to enter into\nthe Divine darkness, and elaborates with tiresome pedantry his\narbitrary schemes of faculties and stages. However, he gains something\nby his knowledge of Aristotle, which he uses to correct the\nNeoplatonic doctrine of God as abstract Unity. \"God is 'ideo\nomnimodum,'\" he says finely, \"quia summe unum.\" He is \"totum intra\nomnia et totum extra\"--a succinct statement that God is both immanent\nand transcendent. His proof of the Trinity is original and profound.\nIt is the nature of the Good to impart itself, and so the highest Good\nmust be \"summe diffusivum sui,\" which can only be in hypostatic union.\n\nThe last great scholastic mystic is Gerson, who lived from 1363 to\n1429. He attempts to reduce Mysticism to an exact science, tabulating\nand classifying all the teaching of his predecessors. A very brief\nsummary of his system is here given.\n\nGerson distinguishes symbolical, natural, and mystical theology,\nconfining the last to the method which rests on inner experiences, and\nproceeds by the negative road. The experiences of the mystic have a\ngreater certainty than any external revelations can possess.\n\nGerson's psychology may be given in outline as follows: The cognitive\npower has three faculties: (1) simple intelligence or natural light,\nan outflow from the highest intelligence, God Himself; (2) the\nunderstanding, which is on the frontier between the two worlds; (3)\nsense-consciousness. To each of these three faculties answers one of\nthe affective faculties: (1) synteresis;[231] (2) understanding,\nrational desire; (3) sense-affections. To these again correspond three\n_activities_: (1) contemplation; (2) meditation;[232] (3) thought.\n\nMystical theology differs from speculative (i.e. scholastic), in that\nmystical theology belongs to the affective faculties, not the\ncognitive; that it does not depend on logic, and is therefore open\neven to the ignorant; that it is _not_ open to the unbelieving, since\nit rests upon faith and love; and that it brings peace, whereas\nspeculation breeds unrest.\n\nThe \"means of mystical theology\" are seven: (i.) the call of God;\n(ii.) certainty that one is called to the contemplative life--all are\nnot so; (iii.) freedom from encumbrances; (iv.) concentration of\ninterests upon God; (v.) perseverance; (vi.) asceticism; but the body\nmust not be maltreated if it is to be a good servant; (vii.) shutting\nthe eye to all sense perceptions.[233]\n\nSuch teaching as this is of small value or interest. Mysticism itself\nbecomes arid and formal in the hands of Gerson. The whole movement was\ndoomed to failure, inasmuch as scholasticism was philosophy in chains,\nand the negative road was Mysticism blindfolded. No fruitful\nreconciliation between philosophy and piety could be thus achieved.\nThe decay of scholasticism put an end to these attempts at compromise.\nHenceforward the mystics either discard metaphysics, and develop their\ntheology on the devotional and ascetic side--the course which was\nfollowed by the later Catholic mystics; or they copy Erigena in his\nindependent attitude towards tradition.\n\nIn this Lecture we are following the line of speculative Mysticism,\nand we have now to consider the greatest of all speculative mystics,\nMeister Eckhart, who was born soon after the middle of the thirteenth\ncentury.[234] He was a Dominican monk, prior of Erfurt and vicar of\nThuringen, and afterwards vicar-general for Bohemia. He preached a\ngreat deal at Cologne about 1325; and before this period had come into\nclose relations with the Beghards and Brethren of the Free\nSpirit--societies of men and women who, by their implicit faith in the\ninner light, resembled the Quakers, though many of them, as has been\nsaid, were accused of immoral theories and practices. His teaching\nsoon attracted the attention of the Inquisition, and some of his\ndoctrines were formally condemned by the Pope in 1329, immediately\nafter his death.\n\nThe aim of Eckhart's religious philosophy is to find a speculative basis\nfor the doctrines of the Church, which shall at the same time satisfy\nthe claims of spiritual religion. His aims are purely constructive, and\nhe shows a distaste for polemical controversy. The writers whom he\nchiefly cites by name are Dionysius, Augustine, Gregory, and Boethius;\nbut he must have read Erigena, and probably Averroes, writers to whom a\nCatholic could hardly confess his obligations.[235] He also frequently\nintroduces quotations with the words, \"A master saith.\" The \"master\" is\nnearly always Thomas Aquinas, to whom Eckhart was no doubt greatly\nindebted, though it would be a great mistake to say, as some have done,\nthat all Eckhart can be found in the _Summa_. For instance, he sets\nhimself in opposition to Thomas about the \"spark,\" which Thomas regarded\nas a faculty of the soul, while Eckhart, in his later writings, says\nthat it is uncreated.[236] His double object leads him into some\ninconsistencies. Intellectually, he is drawn towards a semi-pantheistic\nidealism; his heart makes him an Evangelical Christian. But though it is\npossible to find contradictions in his writings, his transparent\nintellectual honesty and his great powers of thought, combined with deep\ndevoutness and childlike purity of soul, make him one of the most\ninteresting figures in the history of Christian philosophy.\n\nEckhart wrote in German; that is to say, he wrote for the public, and\nnot for the learned only. His desire to be intelligible to the general\nreader led him to adopt an epigrammatic antithetic style, and to omit\nqualifying phrases. This is one reason why he laid himself open to so\nmany accusations of heresy.[237]\n\nEckhart distinguishes between \"the Godhead\" and \"God.\" The Godhead is\nthe abiding potentiality of Being, containing within Himself all\ndistinctions, as yet undeveloped. He therefore cannot be the object of\nknowledge, nor of worship, being \"Darkness\" and \"Formlessness.[238]\"\nThe Triune God is evolved from the Godhead. The Son is the Word of\nthe Father, His uttered thought; and the Holy Ghost is \"the Flower of\nthe Divine Tree,\" the mutual love which unites the Father and the Son.\nEckhart quotes the words which St. Augustine makes Christ say of\nHimself: \"I am come as a Word from the heart, as a ray from the sun,\nas heat from the fire, as fragrance from the flower, as a stream from\na perennial fountain.\" He insists that the generation of the Son is a\ncontinual process.\n\nThe universe is the expression of the whole thought of the Father; it\nis the language of the Word. Eckhart loves startling phrases, and says\nboldly, \"Nature is the lower part of the Godhead,\" and \"Before\ncreation, God was not God.\" These statements are not so crudely\npantheistic as they sound. He argues that without the Son the Father\nwould not be God, but only undeveloped potentiality of being. The\nthree Persons are not merely accidents and modes of the Divine\nSubstance, but are inherent in the Godhead.[239] And so there can\nnever have been a time when the Son was not. But the generation of the\nSon necessarily involves the creation of an ideal world; for the Son\nis Reason, and Reason is constituted by a cosmos of ideas. When\nEckhart speaks of creation and of the world which had no beginning, he\nmeans, not the world of phenomena, but the world of ideas, in the\nPlatonic sense. The ideal world is the complete expression of the\nthought of God, and is above space and time. He calls it \"non-natured\nnature,\" as opposed to \"diu gen\u00e2-t\u00fbrte n\u00e2t\u00fbre,\" the world of\nphenomena.[240] Eckhart's doctrine here differs from that of Plotinus\nin a very important particular. The Neoplatonists always thought of\nemanation as a diffusion of rays from a sun, which necessarily\ndecrease in heat and brightness as they recede from the central focus.\nIt follows that the second Person of the Trinity, the [Greek: Nous] or\nIntelligence, is subordinate to the First, and the Third to the\nSecond. But with Eckhart there is no subordination. The Son is the\npure brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of His\nPerson. \"The eternal fountain of things is the Father; the image of\nthings in Him is the Son, and love for this Image is the Holy Ghost.\"\nAll created things abide \"formless\" (as possibilities) in the ground\nof the Godhead, and all are realised in the Son. The Alexandrian\nFathers, in identifying the Logos with the Platonic [Greek: Nous], the\nbearer of the World-Idea, had found it difficult to avoid\nsubordinating Him to the Father. Eckhart escapes this heresy, but in\nconsequence his view of the world is more pantheistic. For his\nintelligible world is really God--it is the whole content of the\nDivine mind.[241] The question has been much debated, whether Eckhart\nreally falls into pantheism or not. The answer seems to me to depend\non what is the obscurest part of his whole system--the relation of the\nphenomenal world to the world of ideas. He offers the Christian dogma\nof the Incarnation of the Logos as a kind of explanation of the\npassage of the \"prototypes\" into \"externality.\" When God \"speaks\" His\nideas, the phenomenal world arises. This is an incarnation. But the\nprocess by which the soul emancipates itself from the phenomenal and\nreturns to the intelligible world, is also called a \"begetting of the\nSon.\" Thus the whole process is a circular one--from God and back to\nGod again. Time and space, he says, were created with the world.\nMaterial things are outside each other, spiritual things in each\nother. But these statements do not make it clear how Eckhart accounts\nfor the imperfections of the phenomenal world, which he is precluded\nfrom explaining, as the Neoplatonists did, by a theory of emanation.\nNor can we solve the difficulty by importing modern theories of\nevolution into his system. The idea of the world-history as a gradual\nrealisation of the Divine Personality was foreign to Eckhart's\nthought. St\u00f6ckl, indeed, tries to father upon him the doctrine that\nthe human mind is a necessary organ of the self-development of God.\nBut this theory cannot be found in Eckhart. The \"necessity\" which\nimpels God to \"beget His Son\" is not a physical but a moral necessity.\n\"The good must needs impart itself,\" he says.[242] The fact is that\nhis view of the world is much nearer to acosmism than to pantheism.\n\"Nothing hinders us so much from the knowledge of God as time and\nplace,\" he says. He sees in phenomena only the negation of being, and\nit is not clear how he can also regard them as the abode of the\nimmanent God.[243] It would probably be true to say that, like most\nmedi\u00e6val thinkers, he did not feel himself obliged to give a permanent\nvalue to the transitory, and that the world, except as the temporary\nabode of immortal spirits, interested him but little. His neglect of\nhistory, including the earthly life of Christ, is not at all the\nresult of scepticism about the miraculous. It is simply due to the\nfeeling that the Divine process in the \"everlasting Now\" is a fact of\nimmeasurably greater importance than any occurrence in the external\nworld can be.\n\nWhen a religious writer is suspected of pantheism, we naturally turn\nto his treatment of the problem of evil. To the true pantheist all is\nequally divine, and everything for the best or for the worst, it does\nnot much matter which.[244] Eckhart certainly does not mean to\ncountenance this absurd theory, but there are passages in his writings\nwhich logically imply it; and we look in vain for any elucidation, in\nhis doctrine of sin, of the dark places in his doctrine of God.[245]\nIn fact, he adds very little to the Neoplatonic doctrine of the nature\nof evil. Like Dionysius, he identifies Being with Good, and evil, as\nsuch, with not-being. Moral evil is self-will: it is the attempt, on\nthe part of the creature, to be a particular This or That outside of\nGod.\n\nBut what is most distinctive in Eckhart's ethics is the new importance\nwhich is given to the doctrine of immanence. The human soul is a\nmicrocosm, which in a manner contains all things in itself. At the\n\"apex of the mind\" there is a Divine \"spark,\" which is so closely akin\nto God that it is one with Him, and not merely united to Him.[246] In\nhis teaching about this \"ground of the soul\" Eckhart wavers. His\nearlier view is that it is created, and only the medium by which God\ntransforms us to Himself. But his later doctrine is that it is\nuncreated, the immanence of the Being and Nature of God Himself.\n\"Diess F\u00fcnkelein, das ist Gott,\" he says once. This view was adopted\nby Ruysbroek, Suso, and (with modifications by) Tauler, and became one\nof their chief tenets.[247] This spark is the organ by which our\npersonality holds communion with God and knows Him. It is with\nreference to it that Eckhart uses the phrase which has so often been\nquoted to convict him of blasphemous self-deification--\"the eye with\nwhich I see God is the same as that with which He sees me.[248]\" The\n\"uncreated spark\" is really the same as the grace of God, which raises\nus into a Godlike state. But this grace, according to Eckhart (at\nleast in his later period), is God Himself acting like a human faculty\nin the soul, and transforming it so that \"man himself becomes grace.\"\n\nThe following is perhaps the most instructive passage: \"There is in\nthe soul something which is above the soul, Divine, simple, a pure\nnothing; rather nameless than named, rather unknown than known. Of\nthis I am accustomed to speak in my discourses. Sometimes I have\ncalled it a power, sometimes an uncreated light, and sometimes a\nDivine spark. It is absolute and free from all names and all forms,\njust as God is free and absolute in Himself. It is higher than\nknowledge, higher than love, higher than grace. For in all these there\nis still _distinction_. In this power God doth blossom and flourish\nwith all His Godhead, and the Spirit flourisheth in God. In this\npower the Father bringeth forth His only-begotten Son, as essentially\nas in Himself; and in this light ariseth the Holy Ghost. This spark\nrejecteth all creatures, and will have only God, simply as He is in\nHimself. It rests satisfied neither with the Father, nor with the Son,\nnor with the Holy Ghost, nor with the three Persons, so far as each\nexisteth in its particular attribute. It is satisfied only with the\nsuperessential essence. It is determined to enter into the simple\nGround, the still Waste, the Unity where no man dwelleth. Then it is\nsatisfied in the light; then it is one: it is one in itself, as this\nGround is a simple stillness, and in itself immovable; and yet by this\nimmobility are all things moved.\"\n\nIt is God that worketh in us both to will and to do of His good\npleasure; but our own nature and personality remain intact. It is\nplain that we could not see God unless our personality remained\ndistinct from the personality of God. Complete fusion is as\ndestructive of the possibility of love and knowledge as complete\nseparation[249].\n\nEckhart gives to \"the highest reason[250]\" the primacy among our\nfaculties, and in his earlier period identifies it with \"the spark.\"\nHe asserts the absolute supremacy of reason more strongly than anyone\nsince Erigena. His language on this subject resembles that of the\nCambridge Platonists. \"Reasonable knowledge is eternal life,\" he says.\n\"How can any external revelation help me,\" he asks, \"unless it be\nverified by inner experience? The last appeal must always be to the\ndeepest part of my own being, and that is my reason.\" \"The reason,\" he\nsays, \"presses ever upwards. It cannot rest content with goodness or\nwisdom, nor even with God Himself; it must penetrate to the Ground\nfrom whence all goodness and wisdom spring.\"\n\nThus Eckhart is not content with the knowledge of God which is\nmediated by Christ, but aspires to penetrate into the \"Divine\ndarkness\" which underlies the manifestation of the Trinity. In fact,\nwhen he speaks of the imitation of Christ, he distinguishes between\n\"the way of the manhood,\" which has to be followed by all, and \"the\nway of the Godhead,\" which is for the mystic only. In this overbold\naspiration to rise \"from the Three to the One,\" he falls into the\nerror which we have already noticed, and several passages in his\nwritings advocate the quietistic self-simplification which belongs to\nthis scheme of perfection. There are sentences in which he exhorts us\nto strip off all that comes to us from the senses, and to throw\nourselves upon the heart of God, there to rest for ever, \"hidden from\nall creatures[251].\" But there are many other passages of an opposite\ntendency. He tells us that \"the way of the manhood,\" which, of course,\nincludes imitation of the active life of Christ, must be trodden first\nby all; he insists that in the state of union the faculties of the\nsoul will act in a new and higher way, so that the personality is\nrestored, not destroyed; and, lastly, he teaches that contemplation is\nonly the means to a higher activity, and that this is, in fact, its\nobject; \"what a man has taken in by contemplation, that he pours out\nin love.\" There is no contradiction in the desire for rest combined\nwith the desire for active service; for rest can only be defined as\nunimpeded activity; but in Eckhart there is, I think, a real\ninconsistency. The traditions of his philosophy pointed towards\nwithdrawal from the world and from outward occupations--towards the\nmonkish ideal, in a word; but the modern spirit was already astir\nwithin him. He preached in German to the general public, and his\nfavourite themes are the present living operation of the Spirit, and\nthe consecration of life in the world. There is, he shows, no\ncontradiction between the active and the contemplative life; the\nformer belongs to the faculties of the soul, the latter to its\nessence. In commenting on the story of Martha and Mary, those\nfavourite types of activity and contemplation[252], he surprises us by\nputting Martha first. \"Mary hath _chosen_ the good part; that is,\" he\nsays, \"she is striving to be as holy as her sister. Mary is still at\nschool: Martha has learnt her lesson. It is better to feed the hungry\nthan to see even such visions as St. Paul saw.\" \"Besser ein\nLebemeister als tausend Lesemeister.\" He discourages monkish\nreligiosity and external badges of saintliness--\"avoid everything\npeculiar,\" he says, \"in dress, food, and language.\" \"You need not go\ninto a desert and fast; a crowd is often more lonely than a\nwilderness, and small things harder to do than great.\" \"What is the\ngood of the dead bones of saints?\" he asks, in the spirit of a\nsixteenth century reformer; \"the dead can neither give nor take[253].\"\nThis double aspect of Eckhart's teaching makes him particularly\ninteresting; he seems to stand on the dividing-line between medi\u00e6val\nand modern Christianity.\n\nLike other mystics, he insists that love, when perfect, is independent\nof the hope of reward, and he shows great freedom in handling\nPurgatory, Hell, and Heaven. They are states, not places; separation\nfrom God is the misery of hell, and each man is his own judge. \"We\nwould spiritualise everything,\" he says, with especial reference to\nHoly Scripture.[254]\n\nIn comparing the Mysticism of Eckhart with that of his predecessors,\nfrom Dionysius downwards, and of the scholastics down to Gerson, we\nfind an obvious change in the disappearance of the long ladders of\nascent, the graduated scales of virtues, faculties, and states of\nmind, which fill so large a place in those systems. These lists are\nthe natural product of the imagination, when it plays upon the theory\nof _emanation_. But with Eckhart, as we have seen, the fundamental\ntruth is the _immanence_ of God Himself, not in the faculties, but in\nthe ground of the soul. The \"spark of the soul\" is for him really\n\"divin\u00e6 particula aur\u00e6.\" \"God begets His Son in me,\" he is fond of\nsaying: and there is no doubt that, relying on a verse in the\nseventeenth chapter of St. John, he regards this \"begetting\" as\nanalogous to the eternal generation of the Son.[255] This birth of the\nSon in the soul has a double aspect--the \"eternal birth,\" which is\nunconscious and inalienable,[256] but which does not confer\nblessedness, being common to good and bad alike; and the assimilation\nof the faculties of the soul by the pervading presence of Christ, or\nin other words by grace, \"qu\u00e6 lux qu\u00e6dam deiformis est,\" as Ruysbroek\nsays. The deification of our nature is therefore a thing to be striven\nfor, and not given complete to start with; but it is important to\nobserve that Eckhart places no intermediaries between man and God.\n\"The Word is very nigh thee,\" nearer than any object of sense, and any\nhuman institutions; sink into thyself, and thou wilt find Him. The\nheavenly and earthly hierarchies of Dionysius, with the reverence for\nthe priesthood which was built upon them, have no significance for\nEckhart. In this as in other ways, he is a precursor of the\nReformation.\n\nWith Eckhart I end this Lecture on the speculative Mysticism of the\nMiddle Ages. His successors, Ruysbroek, Suso, and Tauler, much as they\nresemble him in their general teaching, differ from him in this, that\nwith none of them is the intellectual, philosophical side of primary\nimportance. They added nothing of value to the speculative system of\nEckhart; their Mysticism was primarily a _religion of the heart_ or a\nrule of life. It is this side of Mysticism to which I shall next\ninvite your attention. It should bring us near to the centre of our\nsubject: for a speculative religious system is best known by its\nfruits.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 188: _Conf._ viii. 2-5. The best account of the theology of\nVictorinus is Gore's article in the _Dictionary of Christian\nBiography_.]\n\n[Footnote 189: So Synesius calls the Son [Greek: patros morph\u00ea].]\n\n[Footnote 190: \"Non enim vivimus pr\u00e6teritum aut vivimus futurum, sed\nsemper pr\u00e6senti utimur.\" \"\u00c6ternitas semper per pr\u00e6sentiam habet omnia\net h\u00e6c semper.\"]\n\n[Footnote 191: \"Effectus est omnia,\" Victorinus says plainly.]\n\n[Footnote 192: Victorinus must have got this phrase from some Greek\nNeoplatonist. It was explained that [Greek: to m\u00ea on] may be used in\nfour senses, and that it is not intended to identify the two extremes.\nBut the very remarkable passage in Hierotheus (referred to in Lecture\nIII.) shows that the two categories of [Greek: aoristia] cannot be\nkept apart.]\n\n[Footnote 193: \"Ipse se ipsum circumterminavit.\"]\n\n[Footnote 194: _De Trin_. vii. 4. 7; _de Doctr. Christ_. i. 5. 5;\n_Serm_. 52. 16; _De Civ. Dei_, ix. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 195: _Contr. Adim. Man._ 11.]\n\n[Footnote 196: _De Ord._ ii. 16. 44, 18. 47.]\n\n[Footnote 197: _Enarrat. in Ps._ 85. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 198: _Conf._ vii. 13 _ad fin._]\n\n[Footnote 199: Compare with this sentence of the _Confessions_ the\nstatement of Erigena quoted below, that \"the things which are not are\nfar better than those which are.\"]\n\n[Footnote 200: _Ep._ 120. 20. St. Augustine wrote in early life an\nessay \"On the Beautiful and Fit,\" which he unhappily took no pains to\npreserve.]\n\n[Footnote 201: _De Ord._ ii. 16. 42, 59; Plot. _Enn._ i. 6. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 202: _De Lib. Arb._ ii. 16. 41; Plot. _Enn._ i. 6. 8, iii.\n8. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 203: _Enarr. in Ps._ xliv. 3; _Ep._ 120. 20. Plot. _Enn._ i.\n6. 4, says with more picturesqueness than usual [Greek: kalon to t\u00eas\ndikaiosyn\u00eas kai s\u00f4phrosyn\u00eas pros\u00f4pon, kai oute hesperos oute e\u00f4os\nout\u00f4 kala]. (From Aristotle, _Eth._ v. 1. 15.)]\n\n[Footnote 204: _Ench._ iii. \"etiam illud quod malum dicitur bene\nordinatum est loco suo positum; eminentius commendat bona.\" St.\nAugustine also says (_Ench._ xi.), \"cum omnino mali nomen non sit nisi\nprivationis boni\"; cf. Plot. _Enn._ iii. 2. 5, [Greek: hol\u00f4s de to\nkakon elleipsin tou agathou theteon.] St. Augustine praises Plotinus\nfor his teaching on the universality of Providence.]\n\n[Footnote 205: _De Civ. Dei_, iv. 12, vii. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 206: _De Quantitate Anim\u00e6_, xxx.]\n\n[Footnote 207: _Conf._ vii. 10. I have quoted Bigg's translation.]\n\n[Footnote 208: _Conf._ xi. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 209: St. Augustine does not reject the belief that visions\nare granted by the mediation of angels, but he expresses himself with\ngreat caution on the subject. Cf. _De Gen. ad litt._ xii. 30, \"Sunt\nqu\u00e6dam excellentia et merito divina, qu\u00e6 demonstrant angeli miris\nmodis: utrum visa sua facili quadam et pr\u00e6potenti iunctione vel\ncommixtione etiam nostra esse facientes, an scientes nescio quo modo\nnostram in spiritu nostro informar visionem, difficilis perceptu et\ndifficilior dictu res est.\"]\n\n[Footnote 210: See Lotze, _Microcosmus_, bk. viii. chap. 4, and other\nplaces. We may perhaps compare the Johannine [Greek: kosmos] with the\nSynoptic [Greek: ai\u00f4n] as examples of the two modes of envisaging\nreality.]\n\n[Footnote 211: Eriugena is, no doubt, the more correct spelling, but I\nhave preferred to keep the name by which he is best known.]\n\n[Footnote 212: Erigena quotes also Origen, the two Gregorys, Basil,\nMaximus, Ambrose, and Augustine. Of pagan philosophers he puts Plato\nfirst, but holds Aristotle in high honour.]\n\n[Footnote 213: St\u00f6ckl calls him \"ein f\u00e4lscher Mystiker,\" because the\nNeoplatonic (\"gnostic-rationalistic\") element takes, for him, the\nplace of supernaturalism. This, as will be shown later, is in\naccordance with the Roman Catholic view of Mysticism, which is not\nthat adopted in these Lectures. For us, Erigena's defect as a mystic\nis rather to be sought in his extreme intellectualism.]\n\n[Footnote 214: \"Dum vero (divina bonitas) incomprehensibilis\nintelligitur, per excellentiam non immerito _nihilum_ vocitatur.\"]\n\n[Footnote 215: This is really a revival of \"modalism.\" The unorthodoxy\nof the doctrine becomes very apparent in some of Erigena's\nsuccessors.]\n\n[Footnote 216: _De Div. Nat._ i. 36: \"Iamdudum inter nos est confectum\nomnia qu\u00e6 vel sensu corporeo vel intellectu vel ratione cognoscuntur\nde Deo merito creatore omnium, posse pr\u00e6dicari, dum nihil eorum qu\u00e6 de\nse pr\u00e6dicantur pura veritatis contemplatio eum approbat esse.\" All\naffirmations about God are made \"non proprie sed translative\"; all\nnegations \"non translative sed proprie.\" Cf. also _ibid._ i. 1. 66,\n\"verius fideliusque negatur in omnibus quam affirmatur\"; and\nespecially _ibid._ i. 5. 26, \"theophanias autem dico visibilium et\ninvisibilium species, quarum ordine et pulcritudine cognoscitur Deus\nesse et invenitur _non quid est, sed quia solummodo est._\" Erigena\ntries to say (in his atrocious Latin) that the external world can\nteach us nothing about God, except the bare fact of His existence. No\npassage could be found to illustrate more clearly the real tendencies\nof the negative road, and the purely subjective Mysticism connected\nwith it. Erigena will not allow us to infer, from the order and beauty\nof the world, that order and beauty are Divine attributes.]\n\n[Footnote 217: But it must be remembered that Erigena calls God\n\"nihilum.\" His words about creation are, \"Ac sic de nihilo facit\nomnia, de sua videlicet superessentialitate producit essentias, de\nsupervitalitate vitas, de superintellectualitate intellectus, de\nnegatione omnium qu\u00e6 sunt et qu\u00e6 non sunt, affirmationes omnium qu\u00e6\nsunt et qu\u00e6 non sunt.\"]\n\n[Footnote 218: So Kaulich shows in his monograph on the speculative\nsystem of Erigena.]\n\n[Footnote 219: Erigena was roused by a work on predestination, written\nby Gotteschalk, and advocating Calvinistic views, to protest against\nthe doctrine that God, who is life, can possibly predestine anyone to\neternal death.]\n\n[Footnote 220: Berengar objected to the crudely materialistic theories\nof the real presence which were then prevalent. He protested against\nthe statement that the transmutation of the elements takes place \"vere\net sensualiter,\" and that \"portiuncul\u00e6\" of the body of Christ lie upon\nthe altar. \"The mouth,\" he said, \"receives the _sacrament_, the inner\nman the true body of Christ.\"]\n\n[Footnote 221: Similar teaching from the sacred books of the East is\nquoted by E. Caird, _Evolution of Religion_, vol. i. p. 355.]\n\n[Footnote 222: This is the accepted phrase for the work of the twelfth\nand thirteenth century theologians. We might also say that they\nmodified uncompromising Platonic Realism by Aristotelian science. Cf.\nHarnack, _History of Dogma_, vol. vi. p. 43 (English translation):\n\"Under what other auspices could this great structure be erected than\nunder those of that Aristotelian Realism, which was at bottom a\ndialectic between the Platonic Realism and Nominalism; and which was\nrepresented as capable of uniting immanence and transcendence, history\nand miracle, the immutability of God and mutability, Idealism and\nRealism, reason and authority.\"]\n\n[Footnote 223: The great importance of Bernard in the history of\nMysticism does not lie in the speculative side of his teaching, in\nwhich he depends almost entirely upon Augustine. His great achievement\nwas to recall devout and loving contemplation to the image of the\ncrucified Christ, and to found that worship of our Saviour as the\n\"Bridegroom of the Soul,\" which in the next centuries inspired so much\nfervid devotion and lyrical sacred poetry. The romantic side of\nMysticism, for good and for evil, received its greatest stimulus in\nBernard's Poems and in his Sermons on the Canticles. This subject is\ndealt with in Appendix E.]\n\n[Footnote 224: St\u00f6ckl says of Hugo that the course of development of\nmedi\u00e6val Mysticism cannot be understood without a knowledge of his\nwritings. St\u00f6ckl's own account is very full and clear.]\n\n[Footnote 225: The \"eye of contemplation\" was given us \"to see God\nwithin ourselves\"; this eye has been blinded by sin. The \"eye of\nreason\" was given us \"to see ourselves\"; this has been injured by sin.\nOnly the \"eye flesh\" remains in its pristine clearness. In things\n\"above reason\" we must trust to faith, \"qu\u00e6 non adiuvatur ratione\nulla, quoniam non capit ea ratio.\"]\n\n[Footnote 226: Richard, who is more ecstatic than Hugo, gives the\nfollowing account of this state: \"Per mentis excessum extra semetipsum\nductus homo ... lumen non per speculum in \u00e6nigmate sed in simplici\nveritate contemplatur.\" In this state \"we forget all that is without\nand all that is within us.\" Reason and all other faculties are\nobscured. What then is our security against delusions? \"The\ntransfigured Christ,\" he says, \"must be accompanied by Moses and\nElias\"; that is to say, visions must not be believed which conflict\nwith the authority of Scripture.]\n\n[Footnote 227: See, especially, St\u00f6ckl, _Geschichte der Philosophie\ndes Mittelalters_, vol. i. pp. 382-384.]\n\n[Footnote 228: It is hardly necessary to point out that St. Paul's\ndistinction between natural and spiritual (see esp. 1 Cor. ii.) is\nwholly different.]\n\n[Footnote 229: Contrast the Plotinian doctrine of ecstasy with the\nfollowing: \"Dieu \u00e9l\u00e8ve \u00e0 son gr\u00e8 aux plus hauts sommets, sans aucun\nm\u00e9rite pr\u00e9alable. Osanne de Mantoue re\u00e7oit le don de la contemplation\n\u00e0 peine ag\u00e9e de six ans. Christine est fianc\u00e9e \u00e0 dix ans, pendant une\nextase de trois jours; Marie d'Agr\u00e8da re\u00e7ut des illuminations d\u00e8s sa\npremi\u00e8re enfance\" (Ribet). Since Divine favours are believed to be\nbestowed in a purely arbitrary manner, the fancies of a child left\nalone in the dark are as good as the deepest intuitions of saint,\npoet, or philosopher. Moreover, God sometimes \"asserts His liberty\" by\n\"elevating souls suddenly and without transition from the abyss of sin\nto the highest summits of perfection, just as in nature He asserts it\nby miracles\" (Ribet). Such teaching is interesting as showing how the\nadmission of caprice in the world of phenomena reacts upon the moral\nsense and depraves our conception of God and salvation. The faculty of\ncontemplation, according to Roman Catholic teaching, is acquired\n\"_either_ by virtue _or_ by gratuitous favour.\" The dualism of natural\nand supernatural thus allows men to claim independent merit, while the\ninterventions of God are arbitrary and unaccountable.]\n\n[Footnote 230: Those who are interested to see how utterly defenceless\nthis theory leaves us against the silliest delusions, may consult with\nadvantage the _Dictionary of Mysticism_, by the Abb\u00e9 Migne (_passim_),\nor, if they wish to ascend nearer to the fountain-head of these\nlegends, there are the sixty folio volumes of _Acta Sanctorum_,\ncompiled by the Bollandists. G\u00f6rres and Ribet are also very full of\nthese stories.]\n\n[Footnote 231: See Appendix C.]\n\n[Footnote 232: The difference between contemplation and meditation is\nexplained by all the medi\u00e6val mystics. Meditation is \"discursive,\"\ncontemplation is \"mentis in Deum suspens\u00e6 elevatio.\" Richard of St.\nVictor states the distinction epigrammatically--\"per meditationem\nrimamur, per contemplationem miramur.\" (\"Admiratio est actus\nconsequens contemplationem sublimis veritatis.\"--Thomas Aquinas.)]\n\n[Footnote 233: This arbitrary schematism is very characteristic of\nthis type of Mysticism, and shows its affinity to Indian philosophy.\nCompare \"the eightfold path of Buddha,\" and a hundred other similar\nclassifications in the sacred books of the East.]\n\n[Footnote 234: The date usually given, 1260, is probably too late; but\nthe exact year cannot be determined.]\n\n[Footnote 235: Prof. Karl Pearson (_Mina_, 1886) says, \"The Mysticism\nof Eckhart owes its leading ideas to Averroes.\" He traces the doctrine\nof the [Greek: Nous poi\u00eatikos] from Aristotle, _de Anima_, through\nthe Arabs to Eckhart, and finds a close resemblance between the\n\"prototypes\" or \"ideas\" of Eckhart and the \"Dinge an sich\" of Kant.\nBut Eckhart's affinities with Plotinus and Hegel seem to me to be\ncloser than those which he shows with Aristotle and Kant. On the\nconnexion with Averroes, Lasson says that while there is a close\nresemblance between the Eckhartian doctrine of the \"Seelengrund\" and\nAverroes' _Intellectus Agens_ as the universal principle of reason in\nall men (monopsychism), they differ in this--that with Averroes\npersonality is a phase or accident, but with Eckhart the eternal is\nimmanent in the personality in such a way that the personality itself\nhas a part in eternity (_Meister Eckhart der Mystiker_, pp. 348, 349).\nPersonality is for Eckhart the eternal ground-form of all true being,\nand the notion of Person is the centre-point of his system. He says,\n\"The word _I am_ none can truly speak but God alone.\" The individual\nmust try to become a person, as the Son of God is a Person.]\n\n[Footnote 236: Denifle has devoted great pains to proving that Eckhart\nin his Latin works is very largely dependent upon Aquinas. His\nconclusions are welcomed and gladly adopted by Harnack, who, like\nRitschl, has little sympathy with the German mystics, and considers\nthat Christian Mysticism is really \"Catholic piety.\" \"It will never be\npossible,\" he says, \"to make Mysticism Protestant without flying in\nthe face of history and Catholicism.\" No one certainly would be guilty\nof the absurdity of \"making Mysticism Protestant\"; but it is, I think,\neven more absurd to \"make it (Roman) Catholic,\" though such a view may\nunite the suffrages of Romanists and Neo-Kantians. See Appendix A, p.\n346.]\n\n[Footnote 237: Preger (vol. iii. p. 140) says that Eckhart did _not_\ntry to be popular. But it is clear, I think, that he did try to make\nhis philosophy intelligible to the average educated man, though his\nteaching is less ethical and more speculative than that of Tauler.]\n\n[Footnote 238: Sometimes he speaks of the Godhead as above the\nopposition of being and not being; but at other times he regards the\nGodhead as the universal Ground or Substance of the ideal world. \"All\nthings in God are one thing.\" \"God is neither this nor that.\" Compare,\ntoo, the following passage: \"(Gottes) einfeltige natur ist von formen\nformlos, von werden werdelos, von wesen wesenlos, und von sachen\nsachelos, und darum entgeht sie in allen werdenden dingen, und die\nendliche dinge m\u00fcssen da enden.\"]\n\n[Footnote 239: I here agree with Preger against Lasson. It seems to me\nto be one of the most important and characteristic parts of Eckhart's\nsystem, that the Trinity is _not_ for him (as it was for Hierotheus)\nan emanation or appearance of the Absolute. But it is not to be denied\nthat there are passages in Eckhart which support the other view.]\n\n[Footnote 240: Compare Spinoza's \"natura naturata.\"]\n\n[Footnote 241: The ideas are \"uncreated creatures\"; they are \"creatures\nin God but not in themselves.\" Preger states Eckhart's doctrine thus:\n\"Gott denkt sein Wesen in untergeordnete Weise nachahmbar, und der\nReflex dieses Denkens in dem g\u00f6ttlichen Bewusstsein, die Vorstellungen\nhievon, sind die Ideen.\" But in what sense is the ideal world\n\"subordinate\"? The Son in Eckhart holds quite a different relation to\nthe Father from that which the [Greek: No\u00fbs] holds to \"the One\" in\nPlotinus, as the following sentence will show: \"God is for ever working\nin one eternal Now; this working of His is giving birth to His Son; He\nbears Him at every moment. From this birth proceed all things. God has\nsuch delight therein that _He uses up all His power in the process_. He\nbears Himself out of Himself into Himself. He bears Himself continually\nin the Son; in Him He speaks all things.\" The following passage from\nRuysbroek is an attempt to define more precisely the nature of the\nEckhartian Ideas: Before the temporal creation God saw the creatures,\n\"et agnovit distincte in seipso in alteritate quadam--non tamen omnimoda\nalteritate; quidquid enim in Deo est Deus est.\" Our eternal life remains\n\"perpetuo in divina essentia sine discretione,\" but continually flows\nout \"per \u00e6ternam Verbi generationem.\" Ruysbroek also says clearly that\ncreation is the embodiment of the _whole_ mind of God: \"Whatever lives\nin the Father hidden in the unity, lives in the Son 'in emanatione\nmanifesta.'\"]\n\n[Footnote 242: It is true that Eckhart was censured for teaching \"Deum\nsine ipso nihil facere posse\"; but the notion of a real _becoming_ of\nGod in the human mind, and the attempt to solve the problem of evil on\nthe theory of evolutionary optimism, are, I am convinced, alien to his\nphilosophy. See, however, on the other side, Carri\u00e8re, _Die\nphilosophische Weltanschauung der Reformationszeit_, pp. 152-157.]\n\n[Footnote 243: See Lasson, _Meister Eckhart_, p. 351. Eckhart protests\nvigorously against the misrepresentation that he made the phenomenal\nworld the _Wesen_ of God, and uses strongly acosmistic language in\nself-defence. But there seems to be a real inconsistency in this side\nof his philosophy.]\n\n[Footnote 244: I mean that a pantheist may with equal consistency call\nhimself an optimist or a pessimist, or both alternately.]\n\n[Footnote 245: As when he says, \"In God all things are one, from angel\nto spider.\" The inquisitors were not slow to lay hold of this error.\nAmong the twenty-six articles of the gravamen against Eckhart we find,\n\"Item, in omni opere, etiam malo, manifestatur et relucet _\u00e6qualiter_\ngloria Dei.\" The word _\u00e6qualiter_ the stamp of true pantheism.\nEckhart, however, whether consistently or not, frequently asserts the\ntranscendence of God. \"God is in the creatures, but above them.\" \"He\nis above all nature, and is not Himself nature,\" etc. In dealing with\n_sin_, he is confronted with the obvious difficulty that if it is the\nnature of all phenomenal things to return to God, from whom they\nproceeded, the process which he calls the birth of the Son ought\nlogically to occur in every conscious individual, for all have a like\nphenomenal existence. He attempts to solve this puzzle by the\nhypothesis of a double aspect of the new birth (see below). But I fear\nthere is some justice in Professor Pearson's comment, \"Thus his\nphenomenology is shattered upon his practical theology.\"]\n\n[Footnote 246: Other scholastics and mystics had taught that there is\na _residue_ of the Godlike in man. The idea of a central point of the\nsoul appears in Plotinus and Augustine, and the word _scintilla_ had\nbeen used of this faculty before Eckhart. The \"synteresis\" of\nAlexander of Hales, Bonaventura, Albertus Magnus, and Thomas Aquinas,\nwas substantially the same. But there is this difference, that while\nthe earlier writers regard this resemblance to God as only a\n_residue_, Eckhart regards it as the true _Wesen_ of the soul, into\nwhich all its faculties may be transformed.]\n\n[Footnote 247: The following passage from Amiel (p. 44 of English\nedition) is an admirable commentary on the mystical doctrine of\nimmanence:--\"The centre of life is neither in thought nor in feeling\nnor in will, nor even in consciousness, so far as it thinks, feels, or\nwishes. For moral truth may have been penetrated and possessed in all\nthese ways, and escape us still. Deeper even than consciousness, there\nis our being itself, our very substance, our nature. Only those truths\nwhich have entered into this last region, which have become ourselves,\nbecome spontaneous and involuntary, instinctive and unconscious, are\nreally our life--that is to say, something more than our property. So\nlong as we are able to distinguish any space whatever between the\ntruth and us, we remain outside it. The thought, the feeling, the\ndesire, the consciousness of life, are not yet quite life. But peace\nand repose can nowhere be found except in life and in eternal life,\nand the eternal life is the Divine life, is God. To become Divine is,\nthen, the aim of life: then only can truth be said to be ours beyond\nthe possibility of loss, because it is no longer outside of us, nor\neven in us, but we are it, and it is we; we ourselves are a truth, a\nwill, a work of God. Liberty has become nature; the creature is one\nwith its Creator--one through love.\"]\n\n[Footnote 248: No better exposition of the religious aspect of\nEckhart's doctrine of immanence can be found than in Principal Caird's\n_Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion_, pp. 244, 245, as the\nfollowing extract will show: \"There is therefore a sense in which we\ncan say that the world of finite intelligence, though distinct from\nGod, is still, in its ideal nature, one with Him. That which God\ncreates, and by which He reveals the hidden treasures of His wisdom\nand love, is still not foreign to His own infinite life, but one with\nit. In the knowledge of the minds that know Him, in the self-surrender\nof the hearts that love Him, it is no paradox to affirm that He knows\nand loves Himself. As He is the origin and inspiration of every true\nthought and pure affection, of every experience in which we forget and\nrise above ourselves, so is He also of all these the end. If in one\npoint of view religion is the work of man, in another it is the work\nof God. Its true significance is not apprehended till we pass beyond\nits origin in time and in the experience of a finite spirit, to see in\nit the revelation of the mind of God Himself. In the language of\nScripture, 'It is God that worketh in us to will and to do of His good\npleasure: all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself.'\"]\n\n[Footnote 249: Eckhart sees this (cf. Preger, vol. i. p. 421):\n\"Personality in Eckhart is neither the faculties, nor the form\n(_Bild_), nor the essence, nor the nature of the Godhead, but it is\nrather the spirit which rises out of the essence, and is born by the\nirradiation of the form in the essence, which mingles itself with our\nnature and works by its means.\" The obscurity of this conception is\nnot made any less by the distinction which Eckhart draws between the\nouter and inner consciousness in the personality. The outer\nconsciousness is bound up with the earthly life; to it all images must\ncome through sense; but in this way it can have no image of itself.\nBut the higher consciousness is supra-temporal. The potential ground\nof the soul is and remains sinless; but the personality is also united\nto the bodily nature; its guilt is that it inclines to its sinful\nnature instead of to God.]\n\n[Footnote 250: Eckhart distinguishes the _intellectus agens_ (_diu\nwirkende Vernunft_) from the passive (_l\u00eedende_) intellect. The office\nof the former is to present perceptions to the latter, set out under\nthe forms of time and space. In his Strassburg period, the spark or\n_Ganster_, the _intellectus agens, diu oberste Vernunft_, and\n_synteresis_, seem to be identical; but later he says, \"The active\nintellect cannot give what it has not got. It cannot see two ideas\ntogether, but only one after another. But if God works in the place of\nthe active intellect, He begets (in the mind) many ideas in one\npoint.\" Thus the \"spark\" becomes supra-rational and uncreated--the\nDivine essence itself.]\n\n[Footnote 251: The following sentence, for instance, is in the worst\nmanner of Dionysius: \"Thou shalt love God as He is, a non-God, a\nnon-Spirit, a non-Person, a non-Form: He is absolute bare Unity.\" This\nis Eckhart's theory of the Absolute (\"the Godhead\") as distinguished\nfrom God. In these moods he wishes, like the Asiatic mystics, to sink\nin the bottomless sea of the Infinite. He also aspires to absolute\n[Greek: apatheia] (_Abgeschiedenheit_). \"Is he sick? He is as fain to\nbe sick as well. If a friend should die--in the name of God. If an eye\nshould be knocked out--in the name of God.\" The soul has returned to\nits pre-natal condition, having rid itself of all \"creatureliness.\"]\n\n[Footnote 252: Many passages might be quoted. The ordinary conclusion\nis that Mary chose the better part, because activity is confined to\nthis life, while contemplation lasts for ever. Augustine treats the\nstory of Leah and Rachel in the same way (_Contra Faust. Manich_.\nxxii. 52): \"Lia interpretatur Laborans, Rachel autem Visum principium,\nsive Verbum ex quo videtur principium. Actio ergo human\u00e6 mortalisque\nvit\u00e6 ... ipsa est Lia prior uxor Jacob; ac per hoc et infirmis oculis\nfuisse commemoratur. Spes vero \u00e6tern\u00e6 contemplationis Dei, habens\ncertam et delectabilem intelligentiam veritatis, ipsa est Rachel, unde\netiam dicitur bona facie et pulcra specie,\" etc.]\n\n[Footnote 253: Moreover, he is never tired of insisting that the\n_Will_ is everything. \"If your will is right, you cannot go wrong,\" he\nsays. \"With the will I can do everything.\" \"Love resides in the\nwill--the more will, the more love.\" \"There is nothing evil but the\nevil will, of which sin is the appearance.\" \"The value of human life\ndepends entirely on the aim which it sets before itself.\" This\nover-insistence on purity of intention as the end, as well as the\nbeginning, of virtue, is no doubt connected with Eckhart's denial of\nreality and importance to the world of time; he tries to show that it\ndoes not logically lead to Antinomianism. His doctrine that good works\nhave no value in themselves differs from those of Abelard and Bernard,\nwhich have a superficial resemblance to it. Eckhart really regards the\nCatholic doctrine of good works much as St. Paul treated the Pharisaic\nlegalism; but he is as unconscious of the widening gulf which had\nalready opened between Teutonic and Latin Christianity, as of the\ndiscredit which his own writings were to help to bring upon the\nmonkish view of life.]\n\n[Footnote 254: As an example of his free handling of the Old\nTestament, I may quote, \"Do not suppose that when God made heaven and\nearth and all things, He made one thing to-day and another to-morrow.\nMoses says so, of course, but he knew better; he only wrote that for\nthe sake of the populace, who could not have understood otherwise. God\nmerely _willed_ and the world _was_.\"]\n\n[Footnote 255: E.g. \"Da der vatter seynen sun in mir gebirt, da byn\nich der selb sun und nitt eyn ander.\"]\n\n[Footnote 256: So Hermann of Fritslar says that the soul has two\nfaces, the one turned towards this world, the other immediately to\nGod. In the latter God flows and shines eternally, whether man is\nconscious of it or not. It is therefore according to man's nature as\npossessed of this Divine ground, to seek God, his original; and even\nin hell the suffering there has its source in hopeless contradiction\nof this indestructible tendency. See Vaughan, vol. i. p. 256; and the\nsame teaching in Tauler, p. 185.]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE V\n\n\n[Greek: \"Ho thronos t\u00eas theiot\u00eatos ho nous estin \u00eam\u00f4n.\"]\n\nMACARIUS.\n\n\n   \"Thou comest not, thou goest not;\n      Thou wert not, wilt not be;\n    Eternity is but a thought\n      By which we think of Thee.\"\n\nFABER.\n\n\n   \"Werd als ein Kind, werd taub und blind,\n    Dein eignes Icht muss werden nicht:\n      All Icht, all Nicht treib ferne nur;\n    Lass Statt, lass Zeit, auch Bild lass weit,\n    Geh ohne Weg den schmalen Steg,\n      So kommst du auf der W\u00fcste Spur.\n    O Seele mein, aus Gott geh ein,\n    Sink als ein Icht in Gottes Nicht,\n      Sink in die ungegr\u00fcndte Fluth.\n    Flich ich von Dir, du kommst zu mir,\n    Verlass ich mich, so find ich Dich,\n      O \u00fcberwesentliches Gut!\"\n\n_Medi\u00e6val German Hymn_.\n\n\n  \"Quid c\u00e6lo dabimus? quantum est quo veneat omne?\n  Impendendus homo est, Deus esse ut possit in ipso.\"\n\nMANILIUS.\n\n\n\nPRACTICAL AND DEVOTIONAL MYSTICISM\n\n\"We all, with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the\nLord, are transformed into the same image, from glory to glory.\"--2\nCOR. iii. 18.\n\n\nThe school of Eckhart[257] in the fourteenth century produced the\nbrightest cluster of names in the history of Mysticism. In Ruysbroek,\nSuso, Tauler, and the author of the _Theologia Germanica_ we see\nintrospective Mysticism at its best. This must not be understood to\nmean that they improved upon the philosophical system of Eckhart, or\nthat they are entirely free from the dangerous tendencies which have\nbeen found in his works. On the speculative side they added nothing of\nvalue, and none of them rivals Eckhart in clearness of intellect. But\nwe find in them an unfaltering conviction that our communion with God\nmust be a fact of experience, and not only a philosophical theory.\nWith the most intense earnestness they set themselves to live through\nthe mysteries of the spiritual life, as the only way to understand and\nprove them. Suso and Tauler both passed through deep waters; the\nhistory of their inner lives is a record of heroic struggle and\nsuffering. The personality of the men is part of their message, a\nstatement which could hardly be made of Dionysius or Erigena, perhaps\nnot of Eckhart himself.\n\nJohn of Ruysbroek, \"doctor ecstaticus,\" as the Church allowed him to\nbe called, was born in 1293, and died in 1381. He was prior of the\nconvent of Gr\u00fcnthal, in the forest of Soignies, where he wrote most of\nhis mystical treatises, under the direct guidance, as he believed, of\nthe Holy Spirit. He was the object of great veneration in the later\npart of his life. Ruysbroek was not a learned man, or a clear\nthinker.[258] He knew Dionysius, St. Augustine, and Eckhart, and was\nno doubt acquainted with some of the other mystical writers; but he\ndoes not write like a scholar or a man of letters. He resembles Suso\nin being more emotional and less speculative than most of the German\nschool.\n\nRuysbroek reverts to the mystical tradition, partially broken by\nEckhart, of arranging almost all his topics in three or seven\ndivisions, often forming a progressive scale. For instance, in the\ntreatise \"On the Seven Grades of Love,\" we have the following series,\nwhich he calls the \"Ladder of Love\": (1) goodwill; (2) voluntary\npoverty; (3) chastity; (4) humility; (5) desire for the glory of God;\n(6) Divine contemplation, which has three properties--intuition,\npurity of spirit, and nudity of mind; (7) the ineffable, unnameable\ntranscendence of all knowledge and thought. This arbitrary schematism\nis the weakest part of Ruysbroek's writings, which contain many deep\nthoughts. His chief work, _Ordo spiritualium nuptiarum_, is one of the\nmost complete charts of the mystic's progress which exist. The three\nstages are here the active life (_vita actuosa_), the internal,\nelevated, or affective life, to which all are not called, and the\ncontemplative life, to which only a few can attain. The three parts of\nthe soul, sensitive, rational, and spiritual, correspond to these\nthree stages. The motto of the active life is the text, \"_Ecce sponsus\nvenit; exite obviam ei_.\" The Bridegroom \"comes\" three times: He came\nin the flesh; He comes into us by grace; and He will come to judgment.\nWe must \"go out to meet Him,\" by the three virtues of humility, love,\nand justice: these are the three virtues which support the fabric of\nthe active life. The ground of all the virtues is humility; thence\nproceed, in order, obedience, renunciation of our own will, patience,\ngentleness, piety, sympathy, bountifulness, strength and impulse for\nall virtues, soberness and temperance, chastity. \"This is the active\nlife, which is necessary for us all, if we wish to follow Christ, and\nto reign with Him in His everlasting kingdom.\"\n\nAbove the active rises the inner life. This has three parts. Our\nintellect must be enlightened with supernatural clearness; we must\nbehold the inner coming of the Bridegroom, that is, the eternal truth;\nwe must \"go out\" from the exterior to the inner life; we must go to\n_meet_ the Bridegroom, to enjoy union with His Divinity.\n\nFinally, the spirit rises from the inner to the contemplative life.\n\"When we rise above ourselves, and in our ascent to God are made so\nsimple that the love which embraces us is occupied only with itself,\nabove the practice of all the virtues, then we are transformed and die\nin God to ourselves and to all separate individuality.\" God unites us\nwith Himself in eternal love, which is Himself. \"In this embrace and\nessential unity with God all devout and inward spirits are one with\nGod by living immersion and melting away into Him; they are by grace\none and the same thing with Him, because the same essence is in both.\"\n\"For what we are, that we intently contemplate; and what we\ncontemplate, that we are; for our mind, our life, and our essence are\nsimply lifted up and united to the very truth, which is God. Wherefore\nin this simple and intent contemplation we are one life and one spirit\nwith God. And this I call the contemplative life. In this highest\nstage the soul is united to God without means; it sinks into the vast\ndarkness of the Godhead.\" In this abyss, he says, following his\nauthorities, \"the Persons of the Trinity transcend themselves\";\n\"_there_ is only the eternal essence, which is the substance of the\nDivine Persons, where we are all one and uncreated, according to our\nprototypes.\" Here, \"so far as distinction of persons goes, there is no\nmore God nor creature\"; \"we have lost ourselves and been melted away\ninto the unknown darkness.\" And yet we remain eternally distinct from\nGod. The creature remains a creature, and loses not its\ncreatureliness. We must be conscious of ourselves in God, and\nconscious of ourselves in ourselves. For eternal life consists in the\nknowledge of God, and there can be no knowledge without\nself-consciousness. If we could be blessed without knowing it, a\nstone, which has no consciousness, might be blessed.\n\nRuysbroek, it is plain, had no qualms in using the old mystical\nlanguage without qualification. This is the more remarkable, because\nhe was fully aware of the disastrous consequences which follow from\nthe method of negation and self-deification. For Ruysbroek was an\nearnest reformer of abuses. He spares no one--popes, bishops, monks,\nand the laity are lashed in vigorous language for their secularity,\ncovetousness, and other faults; but perhaps his sharpest castigation\nis reserved for the false mystics. There are some, he says, who\nmistake mere laziness for holy abstraction; others give the rein to\n\"spiritual self-indulgence\"; others neglect all religious exercises;\nothers fall into antinomianism, and \"think that nothing is forbidden\nto them\"--\"they will gratify any appetite which interrupts their\ncontemplation\": these are \"by far the worst of all.\" \"There is another\nerror,\" he proceeds, \"of those who like to call themselves\n'theopaths.' They take every impulse to be Divine, and repudiate all\nresponsibility. Most of them live in inert sloth.\" As a corrective to\nthese errors, he very rightly says, \"Christ must be the rule and\npattern of all our lives\"; but he does not see that there is a deep\ninconsistency between the imitation of Christ as the living way to the\nFather, and the \"negative road\" which leads to vacancy.[259]\n\nHenry Suso, whose autobiography is a document of unique importance\nfor the psychology of Mysticism, was born in 1295[260]. Intellectually\nhe is a disciple of Eckhart, whom he understands better than\nRuysbroek; but his life and character are more like those of the\nSpanish mystics, especially St. Juan of the Cross. The text which is\nmost often in his mouth is, \"Where I am, there shall also My servant\nbe\"; which he interprets to mean that only those who have embraced to\nthe full the fellowship of Christ's sufferings, can hope to be united\nto Him in glory. \"No cross, no crown,\" is the law of life which Suso\naccepts in all the severity of its literal meaning. The story of the\nterrible penances which he inflicted on himself for part of his life\nis painful and almost repulsive to read; but they have nothing in\ncommon with the ostentatious self-torture of the fakir. Suso's deeply\naffectionate and poetical temperament, with its strong human loves and\nsympathies, made the life of the cloister very difficult for him. He\naccepted it as the highest life, and strove to conform himself to its\nideals; and when, after sixteen years of cruel austerities, he felt\nthat his \"refractory body\" was finally tamed, he discontinued his\nmortifications, and entered upon a career of active usefulness. In\nthis he had still heavier crosses to carry, for he was persecuted and\nfalsely accused, while the spiritual consolations which had cheered\nhim in his early struggles were often withdrawn. In his old age,\nshortly before his death in 1365, he published the history of his\nlife, which is one of the most interesting and charming of all\nautobiographies. Suso's literary gift is very remarkable. Unlike most\necstatic mystics, who declare on each occasion that \"tongue cannot\nutter\" their experiences, Suso's store of glowing and vivid language\nnever fails. The hunger and thirst of the soul for God, and the\nanswering love of Christ manifested in the inner man, have never found\na more pure and beautiful expression. In the hope of inducing more\nreaders to become acquainted with this gem of medi\u00e6val literature, I\nwill give a few extracts from its pages.\n\n\"The servitor of the eternal Wisdom,\" as he calls himself throughout\nthe book, made the first beginning of his perfect conversion to God in\nhis eighteenth year. Before that, he had lived as others live, content\nto avoid deadly sin; but all the time he had felt a gnawing reproach\nwithin him. Then came the temptation to be content with gradual\nprogress, and to \"treat himself well.\" But \"the eternal Wisdom\" said\nto him, \"He who seeks with tender treatment to conquer a refractory\nbody, wants common sense. If thou art minded to forsake all, do so to\ngood purpose.\" The stern command was obeyed.[261] Very soon--it is the\nusual experience of ascetic mystics--he was encouraged by rapturous\nvisions. One such, which came to him on St. Agnes' Day, he thus\ndescribes:--\"It was without form or mode, but contained within itself\nthe most entrancing delight. His heart was athirst and yet satisfied.\nIt was a breaking forth of the sweetness of eternal life, felt as\npresent in the stillness of contemplation. Whether he was in the body\nor out of the body, he knew not.\" It lasted about an hour and a half;\nbut gleams of its light continued to visit him at intervals for some\ntime after.\n\nSuso's loving nature, like Augustine's, needed an object of affection.\nHis imagination concentrated itself upon the eternal Wisdom,\npersonified in the Book of Proverbs in female form as a loving\nmistress, and the thought came often to him, \"Truly thou shouldest\nmake trial of thy fortune, whether this high mistress, of whom thou\nhast heard so much, will become thy love; for in truth thy wild young\nheart will not remain without a love.\" Then in a vision he saw her,\nradiant in form, rich in wisdom, and overflowing with love; it is she\nwho touches the summit of the heavens, and the depths of the abyss,\nwho spreads herself from end to end, mightily and sweetly disposing\nall things. And she drew nigh to him lovingly, and said to him\nsweetly, \"My son, give me thy heart.\"\n\nAt this season there came into his soul a flame of intense fire, which\nmade his heart burn with Divine love. And as a \"love token,\" he cut\ndeep in his breast the name of Jesus, so that the marks of the\nletters remained all his life, \"about the length of a finger-joint.\"\n\nAnother time he saw a vision of angels, and besought one of them to\nshow him the manner of God's secret dwelling in the soul. An angel\nanswered, \"Cast then a joyous glance into thyself, and see how God\nplays His play of love with thy loving soul.\" He looked immediately,\nand saw that his body over his heart was as clear as crystal, and that\nin the centre was sitting tranquilly, in lovely form, the eternal\nWisdom, beside whom sat, full of heavenly longing, the servitor's own\nsoul, which leaning lovingly towards God's side, and encircled by His\narms, lay pressed close to His heart.\n\nIn another vision he saw \"the blessed master Eckhart,\" who had lately\ndied in disfavour with the rulers of the Church. \"He signified to the\nservitor that he was in exceeding glory, and that his soul was quite\ntransformed, and made Godlike in God.\" In answer to questions, \"the\nblessed Master\" told him that \"words cannot tell the manner in which\nthose persons dwell in God who have really detached themselves from\nthe world, and that the way to attain this detachment is to die to\nself, and to maintain unruffled patience with all men.\"\n\nVery touching is the vision of the Holy Child which came to him in\nchurch on Candlemas Day. Kneeling down in front of the Virgin, who\nappeared to him, \"he prayed her to show him the Child, and to suffer\nhim also to kiss it. When she kindly offered it to him, he spread out\nhis arms and received the beloved One. He contemplated its beautiful\nlittle eyes, he kissed its tender little mouth, and he gazed again and\nagain at all the infant members of the heavenly treasure. Then,\nlifting up his eyes, he uttered a cry of amazement that He who bears\nup the heavens is so great, and yet so small, so beautiful in heaven\nand so childlike on earth. And as the Divine Infant moved him, so did\nhe act toward it, now singing now weeping, till at last he gave it\nback to its mother.\"\n\nWhen at last he was warned by an angel, he says, to discontinue his\nausterities, \"he spent several weeks very pleasantly,\" often weeping\nfor joy at the thought of the grievous sufferings which he had\nundergone. But his repose was soon disturbed. One day, as he sat\nmeditating on \"life as a warfare,\" he saw a vision of a comely youth,\nwho vested him in the attire of a knight,[262] saying to him,\n\"Hearken, sir knight! Hitherto thou hast been a squire; now God wills\nthee to be a knight. And thou shalt have fighting enough!\" Suso cried,\n\"Alas, my God! what art Thou about to do unto me? I thought that I had\nhad enough by this time. Show me how much suffering I have before me.\"\nThe Lord said, \"It is better for thee not to know. Nevertheless I will\ntell thee of three things. Hitherto thou hast stricken thyself. Now I\nwill strike thee, and thou shalt suffer publicly the loss of thy good\nname. Secondly, where thou shalt look for love and faithfulness, there\nshalt thou find treachery and suffering. Thirdly, hitherto thou hast\nfloated in Divine sweetness, like a fish in the sea; this will I now\nwithdraw from thee, and thou shalt starve and wither. Thou shalt be\nforsaken both by God and the world, and whatever thou shalt take in\nhand to comfort thee shall come to nought.\" The servitor threw himself\non the ground, with arms outstretched to form a cross, and prayed in\nagony that this great misery might not fall upon him. Then a voice\nsaid to him, \"Be of good cheer, I will be with thee and aid thee to\novercome.\"\n\nThe next chapters show how this vision or presentiment was verified.\nThe journeys which he now took exposed him to frequent dangers, both\nfrom robbers and from lawless men who hated the monks. One adventure\nwith a murderer is told with delightful simplicity and vividness. Suso\nremains throughout his life thoroughly human, and, hard as his lot had\nbeen, he is in an agony of fear at the prospect of a violent death.\nThe story of the outlaw confessing to the trembling monk how, besides\nother crimes, he had once pushed into the Rhine a priest who had just\nheard his confession, and how the wife of the assassin comforted Suso\nwhen he was about to drop down from sheer fright, forms a quaint\ninterlude in the saint's memoirs. But a more grievous trial awaited\nhim. Among other pastoral work, he laboured much to reclaim fallen\nwomen; and a pretended penitent, whose insincerity he had detected,\nrevenged herself by a slander which almost ruined him.[263] Happily,\nthe chiefs of his order, whose verdict he had greatly dreaded,\ncompletely exonerated him, after a full investigation, and his last\nyears seem to have been peaceful and happy. The closing chapters of\nthe Life are taken up by some very interesting conversations with his\nspiritual \"daughter,\" Elizabeth St\u00e4glin, who wished to understand the\nobscurer doctrines of Mysticism. She asks him about the doctrine of\nthe Trinity, which he expounds on the general lines of Eckhart's\ntheology. She, however, remembers some of the bolder phrases in\nEckhart, and says, \"But there are some who say that, in order to\nattain to perfect union, we must divest ourselves of God, and turn\nonly to the inwardly-shining light.\" \"That is false,\" replies Suso,\n\"if the words are taken in their ordinary sense. But the common belief\nabout God, that He is a great Taskmaster, whose function is to reward\nand punish, _is_ cast out by perfect love; and in this sense the\nspiritual man _does_ divest himself of God, as conceived of by the\nvulgar. Again, in the highest state of union, the soul takes no note\nof the Persons _separately_; for it is not the Divine Persons taken\nsingly that confer bliss, but the Three in One.\" Suso here gives a\nreally valuable turn to one of Eckhart's rashest theses. \"_Where_ is\nheaven?\" asks his pupil next. \"The intellectual _where_\" is the\nreply, \"is the essentially-existing unnameable nothingness. So we\nmust call it, because we can discover no mode of being, under which to\nconceive of it. But though it seems to us to be no-thing, it deserves\nto be called something rather than nothing.\" Suso, we see, follows\nDionysius, but with this proviso. The maiden now asks him to give her\na figure or image of the self-evolution of the Trinity, and he gives\nher the figure of concentric circles, such as appear when we throw a\nstone into a pond. \"But,\" he adds, \"this is as unlike the formless\ntruth as a black Moor is unlike the beautiful sun.\" Soon after, the\nholy maiden died, and Suso saw her in a vision, radiant and full of\nheavenly joy, showing him how, guided by his counsels, she had found\neverlasting bliss. When he came to himself, he said, \"Ah, God! blessed\nis the man who strives after Thee alone! He may well be content to\nsuffer, whose pains Thou rewardest thus. God help us to rejoice in\nthis maiden, and in all His dear friends, and to enjoy His Divine\ncountenance eternally!\" So ends Suso's autobiography. His other chief\nwork, a Dialogue between the eternal Wisdom and the Servitor, is a\nprose poem of great beauty, the tenor of which may be inferred from\nthe above extracts from the Life. Suso believed that the Divine Wisdom\nhad indeed spoken through his pen; and few, I think, will accuse him\nof arrogance for the words which conclude the Dialogue. \"Whosoever\nwill read these writings of mine in a right spirit, can hardly fail to\nbe stirred in his heart's depths, either to fervent love, or to new\nlight, or to longing and thirsting for God, or to detestation and\nloathing of his sins, or to that spiritual aspiration by which the\nsoul is renewed in grace.\"\n\nJohn Tauler was born at Strassburg about 1300, and entered a Dominican\nconvent in 1315. After studying at Cologne and Paris, he returned to\nStrassburg, where, as a Dominican, he was allowed to officiate as a\npriest, although the town was involved in the great interdict of 1324.\nIn 1339, however, he had to fly to Basel, which was the headquarters\nof the revivalist society who called themselves \"the Friends of God.\"\nAbout 1346 he returned to Strassburg, and was devoted in his\nministrations during the \"black death\" in 1348. He appears to have\nbeen strongly influenced by one of the Friends of God, a mysterious\nlayman, who has been identified, probably wrongly, with Nicholas of\nBasel,[264] and, according to some, dated his \"conversion\" from his\nacquaintance with this saintly man. Tauler continued to preach to\ncrowded congregations till his death in 1361.\n\nTauler is a thinker as well as a preacher. Though in most points his\nteaching is identical with that of Eckhart,[265] he treats all\nquestions in an independent manner, and sometimes, as for instance in\nhis doctrine about the uncreated ground of the soul,[266] he differs\nfrom his master. There is also a perceptible change in the stress\nlaid upon certain parts of the system, which brings Tauler nearer than\nEckhart to the divines of the Reformation. In particular, his sense of\nsin is too deep for him to be satisfied with the Neoplatonic doctrine\nof its negativity, which led Eckhart into difficulties.[267]\n\nThe little book called the _German Theology_, by an unknown author,\nalso belongs to the school of Eckhart. It is one of the most precious\ntreasures of devotional literature, and deserves to be better known\nthan it is in this country. In some ways it is superior to the famous\ntreatise of \u00e0 Kempis, _On the Imitation of Christ_, since the\nself-centred individualism is less prominent. The author thoroughly\nunderstands Eckhart, but his object is not to view everything _sub\nspecie oeternitatis_, but to give a practical religious turn to his\nmaster's speculations. His teaching is closely in accordance with that\nof Tauler, whom he quotes as an authority, and whom he joins in\ndenouncing the followers of the \"false light,\" the erratic mystics of\nthe fourteenth century.\n\nThe practical theology of these four German mystics of the fourteenth\ncentury--Ruysbroek, Suso, Tauler, and the writer of the _German\nTheology_, is so similar that it is possible to consider it in detail\nwithout taking each author separately. It is the crowning achievement\nof Christian Mysticism before the Reformation, except in the English\nPlatonists of the seventeenth century, we shall not find anywhere a\nsounder and more complete scheme of doctrine built upon this\nfoundation.\n\nThe distinction drawn by Eckhart between the Godhead and God is\nmaintained in the _German Theology_, and by Ruysbroek. The latter, as\nwe have seen,[268] does not shrink from following the path of analysis\nto the end, and says plainly that in the Abyss there is no distinction\nof Divine and human persons, but only the eternal essence. Tauler also\nbids us \"put out into the deep, and let down our nets\"; but his \"deep\"\nis in the heart, not in the intellect. \"My children, you should not\nask about these great high problems,\" he says; and he prefers not to\ntalk much about them, \"for no teacher can teach what he has not lived\nthrough himself.\" Still he speaks, like Dionysius and Eckhart, of the\n\"Divine darkness,\" \"the nameless, formless nothing,\" \"the wild waste,\"\nand so forth; and says of God that He is \"the Unity in which all\nmultiplicity is transcended,\" and that in Him are gathered up both\nbecoming and being, eternal rest and eternal motion. In this deepest\nground, he says, the Three Persons are implicit, not explicit. The Son\nis the Form of all forms, to which the \"eternal, reasonable form\ncreated after God's image\" (the Idea of mankind) longs to be\nconformed.\n\nThe creation of the world, according to Tauler, is rather consonant\nwith than necessary to the nature of God. The world, before it became\nactual, existed in its Idea in God, and this ideal world was set forth\nby means of the Trinity. It is in the Son that the Ideas exist \"from\nall eternity.\" The Ideas are said to be \"living,\" that is, they work\nas forms, and after the creation of matter act as universals above and\nin things. Tauler is careful to show that he is not a pantheist. \"God\nis the Being of all beings,\" he says; \"but He is none of all things.\"\nGod is all, but all is not God; He far transcends the universe in\nwhich He is immanent.\n\nWe look in vain to Tauler for an explanation of the obscurest point in\nEckhart's philosophy, as to the relations of the phenomenal to the\nreal. We want clearer evidence that temporal existence is not regarded\nas something illusory or accidental, an error which may be\ninconsistent with the theory of immanence as taught by the school of\nEckhart, but which is too closely allied with other parts of their\nscheme.\n\nThe indwelling of God in the soul is the real centre of Tauler's\ndoctrine, but his psychology is rather intricate and difficult. He\nspeaks of three phases of personal life, the sensuous nature, the\nreason, and the \"third man\"--the spiritual life or pure substance of\nthe soul. He speaks also of an \"uncreated ground,\" which is the abyss\nof the Godhead, but yet \"in us,\" and of a \"created ground,\" which he\nuses in a double sense, now of the empirical self, which is imperfect\nand must be purified, and now of the ideal man, as God intended him to\nbe. This latter is \"the third man,\" and is also represented by the\n\"spark\" at the \"apex of the soul,\" which is to transform the rest of\nthe soul into its own likeness. The \"uncreated ground,\" in Tauler,\nworks upon us through the medium of the \"created ground,\" and not as\nin Eckhart, immediately. The \"created ground,\" in this sense, he calls\n\"the Image,\" which is identical with Eckhart's \"spark.\" It is a\ncreative principle as well as created, like the \"Ideas\" of Erigena.\n\nThe _German Theology_ says that \"the soul has two eyes,[269]\" one of\nwhich, the right eye, sees into eternity, the other sees time and the\ncreatures. The \"right eye\" is practically the same as Eckhart's\n\"spark\" and Tauler's \"image.\" It is significant that the author tells\nus that we cannot see with both eyes together; the left eye must be\nshut before we can use the right.[270] The passage where this precept\nis given shows very plainly that the author, like the other fourteenth\ncentury mystics,[271] was still under the influence of medi\u00e6val\ndualism--the belief that the Divine begins where the earthly leaves\noff. It is almost the only point in this \"golden little treatise,\" as\nHenry More calls it, to which exception must be taken.[272]\n\nThe essence of sin is self-assertion or self-will, and consequent\nseparation from God. Tauler has, perhaps, a deeper sense of sin than\nany of his predecessors, and he revives the Augustinian\n(anti-Pelagian) teaching on the miserable state of fallen humanity.\nSensuality and pride, the two chief manifestations of self-will, have\ninvaded the _whole_ of our nature. Pride is a sin of the spirit, and\nthe poison has invaded \"even the ground\"--the \"created ground,\" that\nis, as the unity of all the faculties. It will be remembered that the\nNeoplatonic doctrine was that the spiritual part of our nature can\ntake no defilement. Tauler seems to believe that under one aspect the\n\"created ground\" is the transparent medium of the Divine light, but in\nthis sense it is only potentially the light of our whole body. He will\nnot allow the sinless _apex mentis_ to be identified with the\npersonality. Separation from God is the source of all misery. Therein\nlies the pain of hell. The human soul can never cease to yearn and\nthirst after God; \"and the greatest pain\" of the lost \"is that this\nlonging can never be satisfied.\" In the _German Theology_, the\nnecessity of rising above the \"I\" and \"mine\" is treated as the great\nsaving truth. \"When the creature claimeth for its own anything good,\nit goeth astray.\" \"The more of self and me, the more of sin and\nwickedness. Be simply and wholly bereft of self.\" \"So long as a man\nseeketh his own highest good _because_ it is his, he will never find\nit. For so long as he doeth this, he seeketh himself, and deemeth that\nhe himself is the highest good.\" (These last sentences are almost\nverbally repeated in a sermon by John Smith, the Cambridge Platonist.)\n\nThe three stages of the mystic's ascent appear in Tauler's sermons. We\nhave first to practise self-control, till all our lower powers are\ngoverned by our highest reason. \"Jesus cannot speak in the temple of\nthy soul till those that sold and bought therein are cast out of it.\"\nIn this stage we must be under strict rule and discipline. \"The old\nman must be subject to the old law, till Christ be born in him of a\ntruth.\" Of the second stage he says, \"Wilt thou with St. John rest on\nthe loving breast of our Lord Jesus Christ, thou must be transformed\ninto His beauteous image by a constant, earnest contemplation\nthereof.\" It is possible that God may will to call thee higher still;\nthen let go all forms and images, and suffer Him to work with thee as\nHis instrument. To some the very door of heaven has been opened--\"this\nhappens to some with a convulsion of the mind, to others calmly and\ngradually.\" \"It is not the work of a day nor of a year.\" \"Before it\ncan come to pass, nature must endure many a death, outward and\ninward.\"\n\nIn the first stage of the \"dying life,\" he says elsewhere, we are much\noppressed by the sense of our infirmities, and by the fear of hell.\nBut in the third, \"all our griefs and joys are a sympathy with Christ,\nwhose earthly life was a mingled web of grief and joy, and this life\nHe has left as a sacred testament to His followers.\"\n\nThese last extracts show that the Cross of Christ, and the imitation\nof His life on earth, have their due prominence in Tauler's teaching.\nIt is, of course, true that for him, as for all mystics, Christ _in_\nus is more than Christ _for_ us. But it is unfair to put it in this\nway, as if the German mystics wished to contrast the two views of\nredemption, and to exalt one at the expense of the other. Tauler's\nwish is to give the historical redemption its true significance, by\nshowing that it is an universal as well as a particular fact. When he\nsays, \"We should worship Christ's humanity only in union with this\ndivinity,\" he is giving exactly the same caution which St. Paul\nexpresses in the verse about \"knowing Christ after the flesh.\"\n\nIn speaking of the highest of the three stages, passages were quoted\nwhich advocate a purely passive state of the will and intellect.[273]\nThis quietistic tendency cannot be denied in the fourteenth century\nmystics, though it is largely counteracted by maxims of an opposite\nkind. \"God draws us,\" says Tauler, \"in three ways, first, by His\ncreatures; secondly, by His voice in the soul, when an eternal truth\nmysteriously suggests itself, as happens not infrequently in morning\nsleep.\" (This is interesting, being evidently the record of personal\nexperience.) \"Thirdly, without resistance or means, when the will is\nquite subdued.\" \"What is given through means is tasteless; it is seen\nthrough a veil, and split up into fragments, and bears with it a\ncertain sting of bitterness.\" There are other passages in which he is\nobviously under the influence of Dionysius; as when he speaks of\n\"dying to all distinctions\"; in fact, he at times preaches\n\"simplification\" in an unqualified form. But, on the other hand, no\nChristian teachers have made more of the _active will_ than these\npupils of Eckhart.[274] \"Ye are as holy as ye truly will to be holy,\"\nsays Ruysbroek. \"With the will one may do everything,\" we read in\nTauler. And against the perversion of the \"negative road\" he says, \"we\nmust lop and prune vices, not nature, which is in itself good and\nnoble.\" And \"Christ Himself never arrived at the 'emptiness' of which\nthese men (the false mystics) talk.\" Of contemplation he says,\n\"Spiritual enjoyments are the food of the soul, and are only to be\ntaken for nourishment and support to help us in our active work.\"\n\"Sloth often makes men fain to be excused from their work and set to\ncontemplation. Never trust in a virtue that has not been put into\npractice.\" These pupils of Eckhart all led strenuous lives themselves,\nand were no advocates of pious indolence. Tauler says, \"Works of love\nare more acceptable to God than lofty contemplation\": and, \"All kinds\nof skill are gifts of the Holy Ghost.[275]\"\n\nThe process of deification is thus described by Ruysbroek and by\nTauler. Ruysbroek writes: \"All men who are exalted above their\ncreatureliness into a contemplative life are one with this Divine\nglory--yea, _are_ that glory. And they see and feel and find in\nthemselves, by means of this Divine light, that they are the same\nsimple Ground as to their uncreated nature, since the glory shineth\nforth without measure, after the Divine manner, and abideth within\nthem simply and without mode, according to the simplicity of the\nessence. Wherefore contemplative men should rise above reason and\ndistinction, beyond their created substance, and gaze perpetually by\nthe aid of their inborn light, and so they become transformed, and one\nwith the same light, by means of which they see, and which they see.\nThus they arrive at that eternal image after which they were created,\nand contemplate God and all things without distinction, in a simple\nbeholding, in Divine glory. This is the loftiest and most profitable\ncontemplation to which men attain in this life.\" Tauler, in his sermon\nfor the Fifteenth Sunday after Trinity, says: \"The kingdom is seated\nin the inmost recesses of the spirit. When, through all manner of\nexercises, the outward man has been converted into the inward\nreasonable man, and thus the two, that is to say, the powers of the\nsenses and the powers of the reason, are gathered up into the very\ncentre of the man's being,--the unseen depths of his spirit, wherein\nlies the image of God,--and thus he flings himself into the Divine\nAbyss, in which he dwelt eternally before he was created; then when\nGod finds the man thus firmly down and turned towards Him, the Godhead\nbends and nakedly descends into the depths of the pure waiting soul,\nand transforms the created soul, drawing it up into the uncreated\nessence, so that the spirit becomes one with Him. Could such a man\nbehold himself, he would see himself so noble that he would fancy\nhimself God, and see himself a thousand times nobler than he is in\nhimself, and would perceive all the thoughts and purposes, words and\nworks, and have all the knowledge of all men that ever were.\" Suso and\nthe _German Theology_ use similar language.\n\nThe idea of deification startles and shocks the modern reader. It\nastonishes us to find that these earnest and humble saints at times\nexpress themselves in language which surpasses the arrogance even of\nthe Stoics. We feel that there must be something wrong with a system\nwhich ends in obliterating the distinction between the Creator and His\ncreatures. We desire in vain to hear some echo of Job's experience, so\ndifferent in tone: \"I have heard Thee by the hearing of the ear, but\nnow mine eye seeth Thee; _therefore_ I abhor myself, and repent in\ndust and ashes.\" The proper effect of the vision of God is surely that\nwhich Augustine describes in words already quoted: \"I tremble, and I\nburn. I tremble, in that I am unlike Him; I burn, in that I am like\nHim.\" Nor is this only the beginner's experience: St. Paul had almost\n\"finished his course\" when he called himself the chief of sinners. The\njoy which uplifts the soul, when it feels the motions of the Holy\nSpirit, arises from the fact that in such moments \"the spirit's true\nendowments stand out plainly from its false ones\"; we then see the\n\"countenance of our genesis,\" as St. James calls it--the man or woman\nthat God meant us to be, and know that we could _not_ so see it if we\nwere wholly cut off from its realisation. But the clearer the vision\nof the ideal, the deeper must be our self-abasement when we turn our\neyes to the actual. We must not escape from this sharp and humiliating\ncontrast by mentally annihilating the self, so as to make it\nimpossible to say, \"Look on this picture, and on _this_.\" Such false\nhumility leads straight to its opposite--extreme arrogance. Moreover,\nto regard deification as an accomplished fact, involves, as I have\nsaid (p. 33), a contradiction. The process of unification with the\nInfinite _must_ be a _progressus ad infinitum_. The pessimistic\nconclusion is escaped by remembering that the highest reality is\nsupra-temporal, and that the destiny which God has designed for us has\nnot merely a contingent realisation, but is in a sense already\naccomplished. There are, in fact, two ways in which we may abdicate\nour birthright, and surrender the prize of our high calling: we may\ncount ourselves already to have apprehended, which must be a grievous\ndelusion, or we may resign it as unattainable, which is also a\ndelusion.\n\nThese truths were well known to Tauler and his brother-mystics, who\nwere saints as well as philosophers. If they retained language which\nappears to us so objectionable, it must have been because they felt\nthat the doctrine of union with God enshrined a truth of great value.\nAnd if we remember the great Mystical paradox, \"He that will lose his\nlife shall save it,\" we shall partly understand how they arrived at\nit. It is quite true that the nearer we approach to God, the wider\nseems to yawn the gulf that separates us from Him, till at last we\nfeel it to be infinite. But does not this conviction itself bring with\nit unspeakable comfort? How could we be aware of that infinite\ndistance, if there were not something within us which can span the\ninfinite? How could we feel that God and man are incommensurable, if\nwe had not the witness of a higher self immeasurably above our lower\nselves? And how blessed is the assurance that this higher self gives\nus access to a region where we may leave behind not only external\ntroubles and \"the provoking of all men,\" but \"the strife of tongues\"\nin our own hearts, the chattering and growling of the \"ape and tiger\"\nwithin us, the recurring smart of old sins repented of, and the\ndragging weight of innate propensities! In this state the will,\ndesiring nothing save to be conformed to the will of God, and\nseparating itself entirely from all lower aims and wishes, claims the\nright of an immortal spirit to attach itself to eternal truth alone,\nhaving nothing in itself, and yet possessing all things in God. So\nTauler says, \"Let a man lovingly cast all his thoughts and cares, and\nhis sins too, as it were, on that unknown Will. O dear child! in the\nmidst of all these enmities and dangers, sink thou into thy ground and\nnothingness. Let the tower with all its bells fall on thee; yea, let\nall the devils in hell storm out upon thee; let heaven and earth and\nall the creatures assail thee, all shall but marvellously serve thee;\nsink thou into thy nothingness, and the better part shall be thine.\"\nThis hope of a real transformation of our nature by the free gift of\nGod's grace is the _only_ message of comfort for those who are tied\nand bound by the chain of their sins.\n\nThe error comes in, as I have said before, when we set before\nourselves the idea of God the Father, or of the Absolute, instead of\nChrist, as the object of imitation. Whenever we find such language as\nthat quoted from Ruysbroek, about \"rising above all distinctions,\" we\nmay be sure that this error has been committed. Mystics of all times\nwould have done well to keep in their minds a very happy phrase which\nIren\u00e6us quotes from some unknown author, \"He spoke well who said that\nthe infinite (_immensum_) Father is _measured_ (_mensuratum_) in the\nSon: _mensura enim Patris Filius_.[276]\" It is to this \"measure,\" not\nto the immeasureable, that we are bidden to aspire.\n\nEternity is, for Tauler, \"the everlasting Now\"; but in his popular\ndiscourses he uses the ordinary expressions about future reward and\npunishment, even about hell fire; though his deeper thought is that\nthe hopeless estrangement of the soul from God is the source of all\nthe torments of the lost.\n\nLove, says Tauler, is the \"beginning, middle, and end of virtue.\" Its\nessence is complete self-surrender. We must lose ourselves in the love\nof God as a drop of water is lost in the ocean.\n\nIt only remains to show how Tauler combats the fantastic errors into\nwhich some of the German mystics had fallen in his day. The author of\nthe _German Theology_ is equally emphatic in his warnings against the\n\"false light\"; and Ruysbroek's denunciation of the Brethren of the\nFree Spirit has already been quoted. Tauler, in an interesting\nsermon[277], describes the heady arrogance, disorderly conduct, and\nfutile idleness of these fanatics, and then gives the following\nmaxims, by which we may distinguish the false Mysticism from the true.\n\"Now let us know how we may escape these snares of the enemy. No one\ncan be free from the observance of the laws of God and the practice of\nvirtue. No one can unite himself to God in emptiness without true love\nand desire for God. No one can be holy without becoming holy, without\ngood works. No one may leave off doing good works. No one may rest in\nGod without love for God. No one can be exalted to a stage which he\nhas not longed for or felt.\" Finally, he shows how the example of\nChrist forbids all the errors which he is combating.\n\nThe _Imitation of Christ_ has been so often spoken of as the finest\nflower of Christian Mysticism, that it is impossible to omit all\nreference to it in these Lectures. And yet it is not, properly\nspeaking, a mystical treatise. It is the ripe fruit of medi\u00e6val\nChristianity as concentrated in the life of the cloister, the last and\nbest legacy, in this kind, of a system which was already decaying; but\nwe find in it hardly a trace of that independence which made Eckhart a\npioneer of modern philosophy, and the fourteenth century mystics\nforerunners of the Reformation. Thomas \u00e0 Kempis preaches a\nChristianity of the _heart_; but he does not exhibit the\ndistinguishing characteristics of Mysticism. The title by which the\nbook is known is really the title of the first section only, and it\ndoes not quite accurately describe the contents of the book.\nThroughout the treatise we feel that we are reading a defence of the\nrecluse and his scheme of life. Self-denial, renunciation of the\nworld, prayer and meditation, utter humility and purity, are the road\nto a higher joy, a deeper peace, than anything which the world can\ngive us. There are many sentences which remind us of the Roman Stoics,\nwhose main object was by detachment from the world to render\nthemselves invulnerable. Not that Thomas \u00e0 Kempis shrinks from bearing\nthe Cross. The Cross of Christ is always before him, and herein he is\nsuperior to those mystics who speak only of the Incarnation. But the\nmonk of the fifteenth century was perhaps more thrown back upon\nhimself than his predecessors in the fourteenth. The monasteries were\nno longer such homes of learning and centres of activity as they had\nbeen. It was no longer evident that the religious orders were a\nbenefit to civilisation. That indifference to human interests, which\nwe feel to be a weak spot in medi\u00e6val thought generally, and in the\nNeoplatonists to whom medi\u00e6val thought was so much indebted, reaches\nits climax in Thomas \u00e0 Kempis. Not only does he distrust and disparage\nall philosophy, from Plato to Thomas Aquinas, but he shuns society and\nconversation as occasions of sin, and quotes with approval the pitiful\nepigram of Seneca, \"Whenever I have gone among men, I have returned\nhome less of a man.\" It is, after all, the life of the \"shell-fish,\"\nas Plato calls it, which he considers the best. The book cannot safely\nbe taken as a guide to the Christian life as a whole. What we do find\nin it, set forth with incomparable beauty and unstudied dignity, are\nthe Christian graces of humility, simplicity, and purity of heart.\n\nIt is very significant that the mystics, who had undermined\nsacerdotalism, and in many other ways prepared the Reformation, were\nshouldered aside when the secession from Rome had to be organised. The\nLutheran Church was built by other hands. And yet the mystics of\nLuther's generation, Carlstadt and Sebastian Frank, are far from\ndeserving the contemptuous epithets which Luther showered upon them.\nCarlstadt endeavoured to deepen the Lutheran notion of faith by\nbringing it into closer connexion with the love of God to man and of\nman to God; Sebastian Frank developed the speculative system of\nEckhart and Tauler in an original and interesting manner. But\nspeculative Mysticism is a powerful solvent, and Protestant Churches\nare too ready to fall to pieces even without it. \"I will not even\nanswer such men as Frank,\" said Luther in 1545; \"I despise them too\nmuch. If my nose does not deceive me, he is an enthusiast or\nspiritualist, who is content with nothing but Spirit, spirit, spirit,\nand cares not at all for Bible, Sacrament, or Preaching.\" The teaching\nwhich the sixteenth century spurned so contemptuously was almost\nidentical with that of Eckhart and Tauler, whose names were still\nrevered. But it was not wanted just then. It was not till the next\ngeneration, when superstitious veneration for the letter of Scripture\nwas bringing back some of the evils of the unreformed faith, that\nMysticism in the person of Valentine Weigel was able to resume its\ntrue task in the deepening and spiritualising of religion in Germany.\n\nBut instead of following any further the course of mystical theology\nin Germany, I wish to turn for a few minutes to our own country. I am\nthe more ready to do so, because I have come across the statement,\nrepeated in many books, that England has been a barren field for\nmystics. It is assumed that the English character is alien to\nMysticism--that we have no sympathy, as a nation, for this kind of\nreligion. Some writers hint that it is because we are too practical,\nand have too much common sense. The facts do not bear out this view.\nThere is no race, I think, in which there is a richer vein of\nidealism, and a deeper sense of the mystery of life, than our own. In\na later Lecture I hope to illustrate this statement from our national\npoetry. Here I wish to insist that even the Mysticism of the cloister,\nwhich is the least satisfying to the energetic and independent spirit\nof our countrymen, might be thoroughly and adequately studied from the\nworks of English mystics alone. I will give two examples of this\nmedi\u00e6val type. Both of them lived before the Reformation, near the end\nof the fourteenth century; but in them, as in Tauler, we find very few\ntraces of Romish error.\n\nWalter Hilton or Hylton[278], a canon of Thurgarton, was the author of\na mystical treatise, called _The Scale (or Ladder) of Perfection_. The\nfollowing extracts, which are given as far as possible in his own\nwords, will show in what manner he used the traditional mystical\ntheology.\n\nThere are two lives, the active and the contemplative, but in the\nlatter there are many stages. The highest state of contemplation a man\ncannot enjoy always, \"but only by times, when he is visited\"; \"and, as\nI gather from the writings of holy men, the time of it is very short.\"\n\"This part of contemplation God giveth where He will.\" Visions and\nrevelations, of whatever kind, \"are not true contemplation, but merely\nsecondary. The devil may counterfeit them\"; and the only safeguard\nagainst these impostures is to consider whether the visions have\nhelped or hindered us in devotion to God, humility, and other virtues.\n\n\"In the third stage of contemplation,\" he says finely, \"reason is\nturned into light, and will into love.\"\n\n\"Spiritual prayer,\" by which he means vocal prayer not in set words,\nbelongs to the second part of contemplation. \"It is very wasting to\nthe body of him who uses it much, wounding the soul with the blessed\nsword of love.\" \"The most vicious or carnal man on earth, were he once\nstrongly touched with this sharp sword, would be right sober and grave\nfor a great while after.\" The highest kind of prayer of all is the\nprayer of quiet, of which St. Paul speaks, \"I will pray with the\nunderstanding also[279].\" But this is not for all; \"a pure heart,\nindeed, it behoveth him to have who would pray in this manner.\"\n\nWe must fix our affections first on the humanity of Christ. Since our\neyes cannot bear the unclouded light of the Godhead, \"we must live\nunder the shadow of His manhood as long as we are here below.\" St.\nPaul tells his converts that he first preached to them of the\nhumanity and passion of Christ, but afterwards of the Godhead, how\nthat Christ is the power and wisdom of God[280].\n\n\"Christ is lost, like the piece of money in the parable; but where? In\nthy house, that is, in thy soul. Thou needest not run to Rome or\nJerusalem to seek Him. He sleepeth in thy heart, as He did in the\nship; awaken Him with the loud cry of thy desire. Howbeit, I believe\nthat thou sleepest oftener to Him than He to thee.\" Put away\n\"distracting noises,\" and thou wilt hear Him. First, however, find the\nimage of sin, which thou bearest about with thee. It is no bodily\nthing, no real thing--only a lack of light and love. It is a false,\ninordinate love of thyself, from whence flow all the deadly sins.\n\n\"Fair and foul is a man's soul--foul without like a beast, fair within\nlike an angel.\" \"But the sensual man doth not bear about the image of\nsin, but is borne by it.\"\n\nThe true light is love of God, the false light is love of the world.\nBut we must pass through darkness to go from one to the other. \"The\ndarker the night is, the nearer is the true day.\" This is the\n\"darkness\" and \"nothing\" spoken of by the mystics, \"a rich nothing,\"\nwhen the soul is \"at rest as to thoughts of any earthly thing, but\nvery busy about thinking of God.\" \"But the night passeth away; the day\ndawneth.\" \"Flashes of light shine through the chinks of the walls of\nJerusalem; but thou art not there yet.\" \"But now beware of the midday\nfiend, that feigneth light as if it came from Jerusalem. This light\nappears between two black rainy clouds, whereof the upper one is\npresumption and self-exaltation, and the lower a disdaining of one's\nneighbour. This is not the light of the true sun.\" This darkness,\nthrough which we must pass, is simply the death of self-will and all\ncarnal affections; it is that dying to the world which is the only\ngate of life.\n\nThe way in which Hilton conceives the \"truly mystical darkness\" of\nDionysius is very interesting. As a psychical experience, it has its\nplace in the history of the inner life. The soul _does_ enter into\ndarkness, and the darkness is not fully dispelled in this world; \"thou\nart not there yet,\" as he says. But the psychical experience is in\nHilton _entirely dissociated_ from the metaphysical idea of absorption\ninto the Infinite. The chains of Asiatic nihilism are now at last\nshaken off, easily and, it would seem, unconsciously. The \"darkness\"\nis felt to be only the herald of a brighter dawn: \"the darker the\nnight, the nearer is the true day.\" It is, I think, gratifying to\nobserve how our countryman strikes off the fetters of the\ntime-honoured Dionysian tradition, the paralysing creed which blurs\nall distinctions, and the \"negative road\" which leads to darkness and\nnot light; and how in consequence his Mysticism is sounder and saner\nthan even that of Eckhart or Tauler. Before leaving Hilton, it may be\nworth while to quote two or three isolated maxims of his, as examples\nof his wise and pure doctrine.\n\n\"There are two ways of knowing God--one chiefly by the imagination,\nthe other by the understanding. The understanding is the mistress, and\nthe imagination is the maid.\"\n\n\"What is heaven to a reasonable soul? Nought else but Jesus God.\"\n\n\"Ask of God nothing but this gift of love, which is the Holy Ghost.\nFor there is no gift of God that is both the giver and the gift, but\nthis gift of love.\"\n\nMy other example of English Mysticism in the Middle Ages is Julian or\nJuliana of Norwich,[281] to whom were granted a series of\n\"revelations\" in the year 1373, she being then about thirty years old.\nShe describes with evident truthfulness the manner in which the\nvisions came to her. She ardently desired to have a \"bodily sight\" of\nher Lord upon the Cross, \"like other that were Christ's lovers\"; and\nshe prayed that she might have \"a grievous sickness almost unto\ndeath,\" to wean her from the world and quicken her spiritual sense.\nThe sickness came, and the vision; for they thought her dying, and\nheld the crucifix before her, till the figure on the Cross changed\ninto the semblance of the living Christ. \"All this was showed by three\nparts--that is to say, by bodily sight, and by words formed in my\nunderstanding, and by ghostly sight.[282]\" \"But the ghostly sight I\ncannot nor may not show it as openly nor as fully as I would.\" Her\nlater visions came to her sometimes during sleep, but most often when\nshe was awake. The most pure and certain were wrought by a \"Divine\nillapse\" into the spiritual part of the soul, the mind and\nunderstanding, for these the devil cannot counterfeit. Juliana was\ncertainly perfectly honest and perfectly sane. The great charm of her\nlittle book is the sunny hopefulness and happiness which shines from\nevery page, and the tender affection for her suffering Lord which\nmingles with her devotion without ever becoming morbid or irreverent.\nIt is also interesting to see how this untaught maiden (for she shows\nno traces of book learning) is led by the logic of the heart straight\nto some of the speculative doctrines which we have found in the\nphilosophical mystics. The brief extracts which follow will illustrate\nall these statements.\n\nThe crucified Christ is the one object of her devotion. She refused to\nlisten to \"a proffer in my reason,\" which said, \"Look up to heaven to\nHis Father.\" \"Nay, I may not,\" she replied, \"for Thou art my heaven.\nFor I would liever have been in that pain till Doomsday than to come\nto heaven otherwise than by Him.\" \"Me liked none other heaven than\nJesus, which shall be my bliss when I come there.\" And after\ndescribing a vision of the crucifixion, she says, \"How might any pain\nbe more than to see Him that is all my life and all my bliss suffer?\"\n\nHer estimate of the value of means of grace is very clear and sound.\n\"In that time the custom of our praying was brought to mind, how we\nuse, for lack of understanding and knowing of love, to make [use of]\nmany means. Then saw I truly that it is more worship to God and more\nvery delight that we faithfully pray to Himself of His goodness, and\ncleave thereto by His grace, with true understanding and steadfast by\nlove, than if we made [use of] all the means that heart can think. For\nif we made [use of] all these means, it is too little, and not full\nworship to God; but in His goodness is all the whole, and _there_\nfaileth right nought. For this, as I shall say, came into my mind. In\nthe same time we pray to God for [the sake of] His holy flesh and\nprecious blood, His holy passion, His dearworthy death and wounds: and\nall the blessed kinship, the endless life that we have of all this, is\nHis goodness. And we pray Him for [the sake of] His sweet mother's\nlove, that Him bare; and all the help that we have of her is of His\ngoodness.\" And yet \"God of His goodness hath advanced means to help\nus, full fair and many; of which the chief and principal mean is the\nblessed nature that He took of the maid, with all the means that go\nafore and come after which belong to our redemption and to endless\nsalvation. Wherefore it pleaseth Him that we seek Him and worship Him\nthrough means, understanding and knowing that He is the goodness of\nall. For the goodness of God is the highest prayer, and it cometh down\nto the lowest part of our need. It quickeneth our soul, and bringeth\nit on life, and maketh it for to wax in grace and virtue. It is\nnearest in nature and readiest in grace; for it is the same grace that\nthe soul seeketh, and ever shall seek till we know verily that He hath\nus all in Himself beclosed.\"\n\n\"After this our Lord showed concerning Prayers. In which showing I see\ntwo conditions signified by our Lord; one is rightfulness, another is\nassured trust. But oftentimes our trust is not full; for we are not\nsure that God heareth us, as we think because of our unworthiness, and\nbecause we feel right nought; for we are as barren and dry oftentimes\nafter our prayers as we were before.... But our Lord said to me, 'I am\nthe ground of thy beseechings: first, it is My will that thou have it;\nand then I make thee to wish for it; and then I make thee to beseech\nit, and thou beseechest it. How then should it be that thou shouldest\nnot have thy beseeching?' ... For it is most impossible that we should\nbeseech mercy and grace and not have it. For all things that our good\nLord maketh us to beseech, Himself hath ordained them to us from\nwithout beginning. Here may we see that our beseeching is not the\ncause of God's goodness; and that showed He soothfastly in all these\nsweet words which He saith: 'I am the ground.' And our good Lord\nwilleth that this be known of His lovers in earth; and the more that\nwe know it the more should we beseech, if it be wisely taken; and so\nis our Lord's meaning. Merry and joyous is our Lord of our prayer, and\nHe looketh for it; and He willeth to have it; because with His grace\nHe would have us like to Himself in condition as we are in kind.\nTherefore saith He to us 'Pray inwardly, although thou think it has no\nsavour to thee: for it is profitable, though thou feel not, though\nthou see not, yea, though thou think thou canst not.'\"\n\n\"And also to prayer belongeth thanksgiving. Thanksgiving is a true\ninward knowing, with great reverence and lovely dread turning\nourselves with all our mights unto the working that our good Lord\nstirreth us to, rejoicing and thanking inwardly. And sometimes for\nplenteousness it breaketh out with voice and saith: Good Lord! great\nthanks be to Thee: blessed mote Thou be.\"\n\n\"Prayer is a right understanding of that fulness of joy that is to\ncome, with great longing and certain trust.... Then belongeth it to us\nto do our diligence, and when we have done it, then shall we yet think\nthat it is nought; and in sooth it is. But if we do as we can, and\ntruly ask for mercy and grace, all that faileth us we shall find in\nHim. And thus meaneth He where He saith: 'I am the ground of thy\nbeseeching.' And thus in this blessed word, with the Showing, I saw a\nfull overcoming against all our weakness and all our doubtful dreads.\"\n\nJuliana's view of human personality is remarkable, as it reminds us of\nthe Neoplatonic doctrine that there is a higher and a lower self, of\nwhich the former is untainted by the sins of the latter. \"I saw and\nunderstood full surely,\" she says, \"that in every soul that shall be\nsaved there is a godly will that never assented to sin, nor ever\nshall; which will is so good that it may never work evil, but evermore\ncontinually it willeth good, and worketh good in the sight of God....\nWe all have this blessed will whole and safe in our Lord Jesus\nChrist.\" This \"godly will\" or \"substance\" corresponds to the spark of\nthe German mystics.\n\n\"I saw no difference,\" she says, \"between God and our substance, but,\nas it were, all God. And yet my understanding took, that our substance\nis _in_ God--that is to say, that God is God, and our substance a\ncreature in God. Highly ought we to enjoy that God dwelleth in our\nsoul, and much more highly, that our soul dwelleth in God.... Thus was\nmy understanding led to know, that our soul is _made_ Trinity, like to\nthe unmade Blessed Trinity, known and loved from without beginning,\nand in the making oned to the Maker. This sight was full sweet and\nmarvellous to behold, peaceable and restful, sure and delectable.\"\n\n\"As anent our substance and our sense-part, both together may rightly\nbe called our soul; and that is because of the oneing that they have\nin God. The worshipful City that our Lord Jesus sitteth in, it is our\nsense-soul, in which He is enclosed, and our natural substance is\nbeclosed in Jesus, sitting with the blessed soul of Christ at rest in\nthe Godhead.\" Our soul cannot reach its full powers until our\nsense-nature by the virtue of Christ's passion be \"brought up to the\nsubstance.\" This fulfilment of the soul \"is grounded in nature. That\nis to say, our reason is grounded in God, which is substantial\nNaturehood; out of this substantial Nature mercy and grace spring and\nspread into us, working all things in fulfilling of our joy: these\nare our ground, in which we have our increase and our fulfilling. For\nin nature we have our life and our being, and in mercy and grace we\nhave our increase and our fulfilling.\"\n\nIn one of her visions she was shown our Lord \"scorning the fiend's\nmalice, and noughting his unmight.\" \"For this sight I laught mightily,\nand that made them to laugh that were about me. But I saw not Christ\nlaugh. After this I fell into graveness, and said, 'I see three\nthings: I see game, scorn, and earnest. I see game, that the fiend is\novercome; I see scorn, in that God scorneth him, and he shall be\nscorned; and I see earnest, in that he is overcome by the blissful\npassion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, that was done in full\nearnest and with sober travail.'\"\n\nAlternations of mirth and sadness followed each other many times, \"to\nlearn me that it is speedful to some souls to feel on this wise.\" Once\nespecially she was left to herself, \"in heaviness and weariness of my\nlife, and irksomeness of myself, that scarcely I could have pleasure\nto live.... For profit of a man's soul he is sometimes left to\nhimself; although sin is not always the cause; for in that time I\nsinned not, wherefore I should be so left to myself; for it was so\nsudden. Also, I deserved not to have this blessed feeling. But freely\nour Lord giveth when He will, and suffereth us to be in woe sometime.\nAnd both is one love.\"\n\nHer treatment of the problem of evil is very characteristic. \"In my\nfolly, often I wondered why the beginning of sin was not letted; but\nJesus, in this vision, answered and said, 'Sin is behovable,[283] but\nall shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing\nshall be well.' In this naked word _sin_ our Lord brought to my mind\ngenerally all that is not good.... But I saw not sin; for I believe it\nhad no manner of substance, nor any part of being, nor might it be\nknown but by the pain that is caused thereof; and this pain ...\npurgeth and maketh us to know ourself, and ask mercy. In these same\nwords ('all shall be well') I saw an high and marvellous privity hid\nin God.\" She wondered _how_ \"all shall be well,\" when Holy Church\nteacheth us to believe that many shall be lost. But \"I had no other\nanswer but this, 'I shall save my word in all things, and I shall make\nall thing well.'\" \"This is the great deed that our Lord God shall do;\nbut what the deed shall be, and how it shall be done, there is no\ncreature beneath Christ that knoweth it, ne shall wit it till it is\ndone.\"\n\n\"I saw no wrath but on man's party,\" she says, \"and that forgiveth He\nin us. It is the most impossible that may be, that God should be\nwroth.... Our life is all grounded and rooted in love.... Suddenly is\nthe soul oned to God, when it is truly peaced in itself; for in Him is\nfound no wrath. And thus I saw, when we be all in peace and love, we\nfind no contrariousness, nor no manner of letting, through that\ncontrariousness which is now in us; nay, our Lord God of His goodness\nmaketh it to us full profitable.\" No visions of hell were ever showed\nto her. In place of the hideous details of torture which some of the\nRomish visionaries describe almost with relish, Juliana merely\nreports, \"To me was showed none harder hell than sin.\"\n\nAgain and again she rings the changes on the words which the Lord said\nto her, \"I love thee and thou lovest Me, and our love shall never be\ndisparted in two.\" \"The love wherein He made us was in Him from\nwithout beginning; in which love,\" she concludes, \"we have our\nbeginning, and all this shall be seen in God without end.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 257: The indebtedness of the fourteenth century mystics to\nEckhart is now generally recognised, at any rate in Germany; but\nbefore Pfeiffer's work his name had been allowed to fall into most\nundeserved obscurity. This was not the fault of his scholars, who, in\nspite of the Papal condemnation of his writings, speak of Eckhart with\nthe utmost reverence, as the \"great,\" \"sublime,\" or \"holy\" master.]\n\n[Footnote 258: \"Vir ut ferunt devotus sed parum litteratus,\" says the\nAbb\u00e9 Trith\u00eame (_ap._ Gessner, _Biblioth._). \"Rusbrochius cum idiota\nesset\" (_Dyon. Carth._ Serm. i.). Compare Rousselot, _Les Mystiques\nEspagnols_, p. 493.]\n\n[Footnote 259: Maeterlinck, Ruysbroek's latest interpreter, is far too\ncomplimentary to the intellectual endowments of his fellow-countryman.\n\"Ce moine poss\u00e9dait un des plus sages, des plus exacts, et des plus\nsubtils organes philosophiques qui aient jamais exist\u00e9.\" He thinks it\nmarvellous that \"il sait, \u00e0 son insu, le platonisme de la Gr\u00e8ce, le\nsoufisme de la Perse, le brahmanisme de I'Inde et le bouddhisme de\nThibet,\" etc. In reality, Ruysbroek gets all his philosophy from\nEckhart, and his manner of expounding it shows no abnormal acuteness.\nBut Maeterlinck's essay in _Le Tr\u00e9sor des Humbles_ contains some good\nthings--e.g. \"Les verit\u00e9s mystiques ne peuvent ni vieillir ni\nmourir.... Une oeuvre ne vieillit qu'en proportion de son\nantimysticisme.\"]\n\n[Footnote 260: So Preger, probably rightly. Noack places his birth\nfive years later. The chronology of the _Life_ is very loose.]\n\n[Footnote 261: The extreme asceticism which was practised by Suso, and\n(though to a less degree) by Tauler, is not enjoined by them as a\nnecessary part of a holy life. \"We are to kill our passions, not our\nflesh and blood,\" as Tauler says.]\n\n[Footnote 262: It would be very interesting to trace the influence of\nthe chivalric idea on religious Mysticism. Chivalry, the worship of\nidealised womanhood, is itself a mystical cult, and its relation to\nreligious Mysticism appears throughout the \"Divine Comedy\" and \"Vita\nNuova\" (see especially the incomparable paragraph which concludes this\nlatter), and in the sonnet of M. Angelo translated by Wordsworth, \"No\nmortal object did these eyes behold,\" etc.]\n\n[Footnote 263: Nothing in the book is more touching than the scene\nwhen the baby, deserted by its mother, Suso's false accuser, is\nbrought to him. Suso takes the child in his arms, and weeps over it\nwith affectionate words, while the infant smiles up at him. In spite\nof the calumny which he knew was being spread wherever it would most\ninjure him, he insists on paying for the child's maintenance, rather\nthan leave it to die from neglect. The Italian mystic Scupoli, the\nauthor of a beautiful devotional work called the _Spiritual Combat_,\nwas calumniated in a similar manner.]\n\n[Footnote 264: By Schmidt, whose researches formed the basis of\nseveral popular accounts of Tauler's life. Preger and Denifle both\nreject the identification of the mysterious stranger with Nicholas;\nDenifle doubts his existence altogether. The subject is very fully\ndiscussed by Preger]\n\n[Footnote 265: Tauler was well read in the earlier mystics. He cites\nProclus, Augustine (frequently), Dionysius, Bernard, and the\nVictorines; also Aristotle and Aquinas.]\n\n[Footnote 266: Tauler adheres to the doctrine of an \"uncreated\nground,\" but he holds that it must always act upon us through the\nmedium of the \"created ground.\" He evidently considered Eckhart's\nlater doctrine as too pantheistic. See below, p. 183.]\n\n[Footnote 267: See p. 155. In my estimate of Tauler's doctrine, I have\nmade no use of the treatise on _The Imitation of the Poverty of\nChrist_, which Noack calls his masterpiece, and the kernel of his\nMysticism. The work is not by Tauler.]\n\n[Footnote 268: See above, p. 170.]\n\n[Footnote 269: This expression is found first, I think, in Richard of\nSt. Victor; but St. Augustine speaks of \"oculus interior atque\nintelligibilis\" (_De div. qu\u00e6st._ 46).]\n\n[Footnote 270: But Christ, he says, could see with both eyes at once;\nthe left in no way hindered the right.]\n\n[Footnote 271: Tauler often uses similar language; as, for instance,\nwhen he says, \"The natural light of the reason must be entirely\nbrought to nothing, if God is to enter with His light.\"]\n\n[Footnote 272: St\u00f6ckl criticises the _Theologia Germanica_ in a very\nhostile spirit. He finds it in \"pantheism,\" by which he means\nacosmism, and also \"Gnostic-Manichean dualism,\" the latter being his\nfavourite charge against the Lutherans and their forerunners. He\nconsiders that this latter tendency is more strongly marked in the\n_German Theology_ than in the other works of the Eckhartian school, in\nthat the writer identifies \"the false light\" with the light of nature,\nand selfhood with sin; \"devil, sin, Adam, old man, disobedience,\nselfhood, individuality, mine, me, nature, self-will, are all the\nsame; they all represent what is against God and without God.\"\nAccordingly, salvation consists in annihilation of the self, and\nsubstitution for God for it. There is no doubt that the writer of this\ntreatise is deeply impressed with the belief that the root of sin is\nself-will, and that the new birth must be a complete transformation;\nbut it must be remembered that the language of piety is less guarded\nthan that of dogmatic disputation, and that the theology of such a\nbook must be judged by its whole tendency. My own judgment is that,\ntaken as a whole, it is safer than Tauler or Ruysbroek, and much safer\nthan Eckhart. The strongly-marked \"ethical dualism\" is of very much\nthe same kind as that which we find in St. John's Gospel. Taken as a\ntheory of the origin and nature of evil, it no doubt does hold out a\nhand to Manicheism; but I do not think that the writer meant it to be\nso taken, any more than St. John did.]\n\n[Footnote 273: Throughout the fourteenth century, and still more in\nthe fifteenth, we can trace an increasing prominence given to\nsubjugation of the _will_ in mystical theology. This change is to be\nattributed partly to the influence of the Nominalist science of Duns\nScotus, which gradually gained (at least this point) the ascendancy\nover the school of Aquinas. It may be escribed as a transition from\nthe more speculative Mysticism towards quietism. In the fourteenth\ncentury writings, such as the _Theologia Germanica_, we merely welcome\na new and valuable aspect of the religious life; since the change is\nconnected with a distrust of reason, and a return to standpoint of\nharsh legalism, we cannot regard it as an improvement.]\n\n[Footnote 274: Compare p. 161, for similar teaching in Eckhart\nhimself.]\n\n[Footnote 275: See the quotation on p. 11, note.]\n\n[Footnote 276: Iren\u00e6us, _Contra Har_. iv. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 277: No. 31. on Psalm xci. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 278: Hilton's book has been reprinted from the edition of\n1659, with an introduction by the Rev. J.B. Dalgairns. Very little is\nknown about the author's life, but his book was widely read, and was\n\"chosen to be the guide of good Christians in the courts of kings and\nin the world.\" The mother of Henry VII. valued it very highly. I have\nalso used Mr. Guy's edition in my quotations from _The Scale of\nPerfection_.]\n\n[Footnote 279: 1 Cor. xiv. 15. This text was also appealed to by the\nQuietists of the post-Reformation period.]\n\n[Footnote 280: The texts to which he refers are those which Origen\nuses in the same manner. Compare 1 Cor. i. 23, ii. 2, Gal. vi. 14,\nwith 1 Cor. i. 24.]\n\n[Footnote 281: Julian (born 1343) was probably a Benedictine nun of\nCarrow, near Norwich, but lived for the greater part of her life in an\nanchorage in the churchyard of St. Julian at Norwich. There is a copy\nof her _Revelations_ in the British Museum. Editions by Cressy, 1670;\nreprint issued 1843; by Collins, 1877. See, further, in the\n_Dictionary of National Biography_. In my quotations from her, I have\nused an unpublished version kindly lent me by Miss G.H. Warrack. It is\njust so far modernised as to be intelligible to those who are not\nfamiliar with fourteenth century English.]\n\n[Footnote 282: This was a recognised classification. Scaramelli says,\n\"Le visioni corporce sono favori propri dei principianti, che\nincomminciano a camminare nella via dello spirito.... Le visioni\nimmaginari sono proprie dei principianti e dei proficienti, che non\nsono ancor bene purgati.... Le visioni intellectuali sono proprie di\nquelli che si trovano gia in istato di perfezione.\" It comes\noriginally from St. Augustine (_De Gen. ad litt._ xii. 7, n. 16): \"H\u00e6c\nsunt tria genera visionum.... Primum ergo appellemus corporale, quia\nper corpus percipitur, et corporis sensibus exhibetur. Secundum\nspirituale: quidquid enim corpus non est, et tamen aliquid est, iam\nrecte dicitur spiritus; et utique non est corpus, quamvis corpori\nsimilis sit, imago absentis corporis, nee ille ipse obtutus quo\ncernitur. Tertium vero intellectuale, ab intellectu.\"]\n\n[Footnote 283: That is, \"necessary\" or \"profitable.\"]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VI\n\n\n   \"O heart, the equal poise of Love's both parts,\n    Big alike with wounds and darts,\n    Live in these conquering leaves, live still the same,\n    And walk through all tongues one triumphant flame!\n    Live here, great heart, and love and die and kill,\n    And bleed, and wound, and yield, and conquer still.\n    Let this immortal life, where'er it comes,\n    Walk in a crowd of loves and martyrdoms.\n    Let mystic deaths wait on it, and wise souls be\n    The love-slain witnesses of this life of thee.\n    O sweet incendiary! show here thy art\n    Upon this carcase of a hard, cold heart;\n    Let all thy scattered shafts of light, that play\n    Among the leaves of thy large books of day,\n    Combined against this breast at once break in,\n    And take away from me myself and sin;\n    This glorious robbery shall thy bounty be,\n    And my best fortunes such fair spoils of me.\n    O thou undaunted daughter of desires!\n    By all thy dower of lights and fires,\n    By all the eagle in thee, all the dove,\n    By all thy lives and deaths of love,\n    By thy large draughts of intellectual day,\n    And by thy thirsts of love more large than they;\n    By all thy brim-fill'd bowls of fierce desire,\n    By thy last morning's draught of liquid fire,\n    By the full kingdom of that final kiss\n    That seized thy parting soul and seal'd thee His;\n    By all the heavens thou hast in Him,\n    Fair sister of the seraphim!\n    By all of Him we have in Thee,\n    Leave nothing of myself in me:\n    Let me so read thy life, that I\n    Unto all life of mine may die.\"\n\nCRASHAW, _On St. Teresa_.\n\n\n           \"In a dark night,\n    Burning with ecstasies wherein I fell,\n            Oh happy plight,\n    Unheard I left the house wherein I dwell,\n    The inmates sleeping peacefully and well.\n\n           \"Secure from sight;\n    By unknown ways, in unknown robes concealed,\n           Oh happy plight;\n    And to no eye revealed,\n    My home in sleep as in the tomb was sealed.\n\n    \"Sweet night, in whose blessed fold\n    No human eye beheld me, and mine eye\n           None could behold.\n    Only for Guide had I\n    His Face whom I desired so ardently.\"\n\nST. JUAN OF THE CROSS (translated by Hutchings).\n\n\n\nPRACTICAL AND DEVOTIONAL MYSTICISM--_continued_\n\n\"Whom have I in heaven but Thee? and there is none upon earth that I\ndesire beside Thee. My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the\nstrength of my heart, and my portion for ever.\"--Ps. lxxiii. 25, 26.\n\n\nWe have seen that the leaders of the Reformation in Germany thrust\naside speculative Mysticism with impatience. Nor did Christian\nPlatonism fare much better in the Latin countries. There were students\nof Plotinus in Italy in the sixteenth century, who fancied that a\nrevival of humane letters, and a better acquaintance with philosophy,\nwere the best means of combating the barbaric enthusiasms of the\nNorth. But these Italian Neoplatonists had, for the most part, no deep\nreligious feelings, and they did not exhibit in their lives that\nseverity which the Alexandrian philosophers had practised. And so,\nwhen Rome had need of a Catholic mystical revival to stem the tide of\nProtestantism, she could not find what she required among the scholars\nand philosophers of the Papal court. The Mysticism of the\ncounter-Reformation had its centre in Spain.\n\nIt has been said that \"Mysticism is the philosophy of Spain.[284]\"\nThis does not mean that idealistic philosophy flourished in the\nPeninsula, for the Spanish race has never shown any taste for\nmetaphysics. The Mysticism of Spain is psychological; its point of\ndeparture is not the notion of Being or of Unity, but the human soul\nseeking reconcilation with God. We need not be on our guard against\npantheism in reading the Spanish mystics; they show no tendency to\nobliterate the dividing lines of personality, or to deify sinful\nhumanity. The cause of this peculiarity is to be sought partly in the\nstrong individualism of the Spanish character, and partly in external\ncircumstances.[285] Free thought in Spain was so sternly repressed,\nthat those tendencies of mystical religion which are antagonistic to\nCatholic discipline were never allowed to display themselves. The\nSpanish mystics remained orthodox Romanists, subservient to their\n\"directors\" and \"superiors,\" and indefatigable in making recruits for\nthe cloister. Even so, they did not escape the attention of the\nInquisition; and though two among them, St. Teresa and St. Juan of the\nCross, were awarded the badge of sanctity, the fate of Molinos showed\nhow Rome had come to dread even the most submissive mystics.\n\nThe early part of the sixteenth century was a period of high culture\nin Spain. The universities of Salamanca and Alcala were famous\nthroughout Europe; the former is said (doubtless with great\nexaggeration) to have contained at one time fourteen thousand\nstudents. But the Inquisition, which had been founded to suppress Jews\nand Mahometans, was roused to a more baneful activity by the\nappearance of Protestantism in Spain. Before the end of the sixteenth\ncentury, the Spanish people, who up to that time had been second to\nnone in love of liberty and many-sided energy, had been changed into\nsombre fanatics, sunk in ignorance and superstition, and retaining\nhardly a trace of their former buoyancy and healthy independence.[286]\nThe first _Index Expurgatorius_ was published in 1546; the burning of\nProtestants began in 1559. Till then, Eckhart, Tauler, Suso, and\nRuysbroek had circulated freely in Spain. But the Inquisition\ncondemned them all, except Ruysbroek. The same rigour was extended to\nthe Arabian philosophers, and so their speculations influenced Spanish\ntheology much less than might have been expected from the long sojourn\nof the Moors in the Peninsula. Averroism was known in Spain chiefly\nthrough the medium of the _Fons Vit\u00e6_ of Ibn Gebirol (Avicebron).\nDionysius and the scholastic mystics of the Middle Ages were, of\ncourse, allowed to be read. But besides these, the works of Plato and\nPlotinus were accessible in Latin translations, and were highly valued\nby some of the Spanish mystics. This statement may surprise those who\nhave identified Spanish Mysticism with Teresa and Juan of the Cross,\nand who know how little Platonism is to be found in their theology.\nBut these two militant champions of the counter-Reformation numbered\namong their contemporaries mystics of a different type, whose\nwritings, little known in this country, entitle them to an honourable\nplace in the roll of Christian Platonists.\n\nWe find in them most of the characteristic doctrines of Christian\nNeoplatonism: the radiation of all things from God and their return to\nGod; the immanence of God in all things;[287] the notion of man as a\nmicrocosm, vitally connected with all the different orders of\ncreation;[288] the Augustinian doctrine of Christ and His members as\n\"one Christ\";[289] insistence upon disinterested love;[290] and\nadmonitions to close the eye of sense.[291] This last precept, which,\nas I have maintained, is neither true Platonism nor true Mysticism,\nmust be set against others in which the universe is said to be a copy\nof the Divine Ideas, \"of which Plotinus has spoken divinely,\" the\ncreation of Love, which has given form to chaos, and stamped it with\nthe image of the Divine beauty; and in which we are exhorted to rise\nthrough the contemplation of nature to God.[292] Juan de Angelis, in\nhis treatise on the spiritual nuptials, quotes freely, not only from\nPlato, Plotinus, and Virgil, but from Lucretius, Ovid, Tibullus, and\nMartial.\n\nBut this kind of humanism was frowned upon by the Church, in Spain as\nelsewhere. These were not the weapons with which Lutheranism could be\nfought successfully. Juan d'Avila was accused before the Inquisition\nin 1534, and one of his books was placed on the Index of 1559; Louis\nde Granada had to take refuge in Portugal; Louis de Leon, who had the\ncourage to say that the Song of Solomon is only a pastoral idyll, was\nsent to a dungeon for five years.[293] Even St. Teresa narrowly\nescaped imprisonment at Seville; and St. Juan of the Cross passed nine\nmonths in a black hole at Toledo.\n\nPersecution, when applied with sufficient ruthlessness, seldom fails\nof its immediate object. It took only about twelve years to destroy\nProtestantism in Spain; and the Holy Office was equally successful in\nbinding Mysticism hand and foot.[294] And so we must not expect to\nfind in St. Teresa or St. Juan any of the characteristic independence\nof Mysticism. The inner light which they sought was not an\nillumination of the intellect in its search for truth, but a consuming\nfire to burn up all earthly passions and desires. Faith presented\nthem with no problems; all such questions had been settled once for\nall by Holy Church. They were ascetics first and Church Reformers\nnext; neither of them was a typical mystic.[295]\n\nThe life of St. Teresa[296] is more interesting than her teaching. She\nhad all the best qualities of her noble Castilian ancestors--\nsimplicity, straightforwardness, and dauntless courage; and the record\nof her self-denying life is enlivened by numerous flashes of humour,\nwhich make her character more lovable. She is best known as a visionary,\nand it is mainly through her visions that she is often regarded as one\nof the most representative mystics. But these visions do not occupy a\nvery large space in the story of her life. They were frequent during the\nfirst two or three years of her convent life, and again between the ages\nof forty and fifty: there was a long gap between the two periods, and\nduring the last twenty years of her life, when she was actively engaged\nin founding and visiting religious houses, she saw them no more. This\nexperience was that of many other saints of the cloister. Spiritual\nconsolations seem to be frequently granted to encourage young\nbeginners;[297] then they are withdrawn, and only recovered after a long\nperiod of dryness and darkness; but in later life, when the character is\nfixed, and the imagination less active, the vision fades into the light\nof common day. In considering St. Teresa's visions, we must remember\nthat she was transparently honest and sincere; that her superiors\nstrongly disliked and suspected, and her enemies ridiculed, her\nspiritual privileges; that at the same time they brought her great fame\nand influence; that she was at times haunted by doubts whether she ever\nreally saw them; and, lastly, that her biographers have given them a\nmore grotesque and materialistic character than is justified by her own\ndescriptions.\n\nShe tells us herself that her reading of St. Augustine's\n_Confessions_, at the age of forty-one, was a turning-point in her\nlife. \"When I came to his conversion,\" she says, \"and read how he\nheard the voice in the garden, it was just as if the Lord called me.\"\nIt was after this that she began again to see visions--or rather to\nhave a sudden sense of the presence of God, with a suspension of all\nthe faculties. In these trances she generally heard Divine\n\"locutions.\" She says that \"the words were very clearly formed, and\nunmistakable, though not heard by the bodily ear. They are quite\nunlike the words framed by the imagination, which are muffled\" (_cosa\nsorda_). She describes her visions of Christ very carefully. First He\nstood beside her while she was in prayer, and she heard and saw Him,\n\"though not with the eyes of the body, nor of the soul.\" Then by\ndegrees \"His sacred humanity was completely manifested to me, as it is\npainted after the Resurrection.\" (This last sentence suggests that\nsacred pictures, lovingly gazed at, may have been the source of some\nof her visions.) Her superiors tried to persuade her that they were\ndelusions; but she replied, \"If they who said this told me that a\nperson who had just finished speaking to me, whom I knew well, was not\nthat person, but they knew that I fancied it, doubtless I should\nbelieve them, rather than what I had seen; but if this person left\nbehind him some jewels as pledges of his great love, and I found\nmyself rich having been poor, I could not believe it if I wished. And\nthese jewels I could show them. For all who knew me saw clearly that\nmy soul was changed; the difference was great and palpable.\" The\nanswer shows that for Teresa the question was not whether the\nmanifestations were \"subjective\" or \"objective,\" but whether they were\nsent by God or Satan.\n\nOne of the best chapters in her autobiography, and perhaps the most\ninteresting from our present point of view, is the allegory under\nwhich she describes the different kinds of prayer. The simile is not\noriginal--it appears in St. Augustine and others; but it is more fully\nworked out by St. Teresa, who tells us \"it has always been a great\ndelight to me to think of my soul as a garden, and of the Lord as\nwalking in it.\" So here she says, \"Our soul is like a garden, rough\nand unfruitful, out of which God plucks the weeds, and plants flowers,\nwhich we have to water by prayer. There are four ways of doing\nthis--First, by drawing the water from a well; this is the earliest\nand most laborious process. Secondly, by a water-wheel which has its\nrim hung round with little buckets. Third, by causing a stream to flow\nthrough it. Fourth, by rain from heaven. The first is ordinary prayer,\nwhich is often attended by great sweetness and comfort. But sometimes\nthe well is dry. What then? The love of God does not consist in being\nable to weep, nor yet in delights and tenderness, but in serving with\njustice, courage, and humility. The other seems to me rather to\nreceive than to give. The second is the prayer of quiet, when the soul\nunderstands that God is so near to her that she need not talk aloud to\nHim.\" In this stage the Will is absorbed, but the Understanding and\nMemory are still active. (Teresa, following the scholastic mystics,\nmakes these the three faculties of the soul.) In the third stage God\nbecomes, as it were, the Gardener. \"It is a sleep of the faculties,\nwhich are not entirely suspended, nor yet do they understand how they\nwork.\" In the fourth stage, the soul labours not at all; all the\nfaculties are quiescent. As she pondered how she might describe this\nstate, \"the Lord said these words to me: She (the soul) unmakes\nherself, my daughter, to bring herself closer to Me. It is no more she\nthat lives, but I. As she cannot comprehend what she sees,\nunderstanding she ceases to understand.\" Years after she had attained\nthis fourth stage, Teresa experienced what the mystics call \"the great\ndereliction,\" a sense of ineffable loneliness and desolation, which\nnevertheless is the path to incomparable happiness. It was accompanied\nby a kind of catalepsy, with muscular rigidity and cessation of the\npulses.\n\nThese intense joys and sorrows of the spirit are the chief events of\nTeresa's life for eight or ten years. They are followed by a period of\nextreme practical activity, when she devoted herself to organising\ncommunities of bare-footed Carmelites, whose austerity and devotion\nwere to revive the glories of primitive Christianity. In this work she\nshowed not only energy, but worldly wisdom and tact in no common\ndegree. Her visions had certainly not impaired her powers as an\norganiser and ruler of men and women. Her labours continued without\nintermission till, at the age of sixty-seven, she was struck down by\nher last illness. \"This _saint_ will be no longer wanted,\" she said,\nwith a sparkle of her old vivacity, when she knew that she was to die.\n\nIt is not worth while to give a detailed account of St. Teresa's\nmystical theology. Its cardinal points are that the religious life\nconsists in complete conformity to the will of God, so that at last\nthe human will becomes purely \"passive\" and \"at rest\"; and the belief\nin Christ as the sole ground of salvation, on which subject she uses\nlanguage which is curiously like that of the Lutheran Reformers. Her\nteaching about passivity and the \"prayer of quiet\" is identical with\nthat which the Pope afterwards condemned in Molinos; but it is only\nfair to remember that Teresa was not canonised for her theology, but\nfor her life, and that the Roman Church is not committed to every\ndoctrine which can be found in the writings of her saints. The real\ncharacter of St. Teresa's piety may be seen best in some of her\nprayers, such as this which follows:--\n\n\"O Lord, how utterly different are Thy thoughts from our thoughts!\nFrom a soul which is firmly resolved to love Thee alone, and which has\nsurrendered her whole will into Thy hands, Thou demandest only that\nshe should hearken, strive earnestly to serve Thee, and desire only to\npromote Thine honour. She need seek and choose no path, for Thou\ndoest that for her, and her will follows Thine; while Thou, O Lord,\ntakest care to bring her to fuller perfection.\"\n\nIn theory, it may not be easy to reconcile \"earnest striving\" with\ncomplete surrender and abrogation of the will, but the logic of the\nheart does not find them incompatible. Perhaps no one has spoken\nbetter on this matter than the Rabbi Gamaliel, of whom it is reported\nthat he prayed, \"O Lord, grant that I may do Thy will as if it were my\nwill, that Thou mayest do my will as if it were Thy will.\" But\nquietistic Mysticism often puts the matter on a wrong basis. Self-will\nis to be annihilated, not (as St. Teresa sometimes implies) because\nour thoughts are so utterly different from God's thoughts that they\ncannot exist in the same mind, but because self-interest sets up an\nunnatural antagonism between them. The will, like the other faculties,\nonly realises itself in its fulness when God worketh in us both to\nwill and to do of His good pleasure.\n\nSt. Juan of the Cross, the fellow-workman of St. Teresa in the reform\nof monasteries, is a still more perfect example of the Spanish type of\nMysticism. His fame has never been so great as hers; for while\nTeresa's character remained human and lovable in the midst of all her\nausterities, Juan carried self-abnegation to a fanatical extreme, and\npresents the life of holiness in a grim and repellent aspect. In his\ndisdain of all compromise between the claims of God and the world, he\nwelcomes every kind of suffering, and bids us choose always that which\nis most painful, difficult, and humiliating. His own life was divided\nbetween terrible mortifications and strenuous labour in the\nfoundation of monasteries. Though his books show a tendency to\nQuietism, his character was one of fiery energy and unresting\nindustry. Houses of \"discalced\" Carmelites sprang up all over Spain as\nthe result of his labours. These monks and nuns slept upon bare\nboards, fasted eight months in the year, never ate meat, and wore the\nsame serge dress in winter and summer. In some of these new\nfoundations the Brethren even vied with each other in adding voluntary\nausterities to this severe rule. It was all part of the campaign\nagainst Protestantism. The worldliness and luxury of the Renaissance\nperiod were to be atoned for by a return to the purity and devotion of\nearlier centuries. The older Catholic ideal--the medi\u00e6val type of\nChristianity--was to be restored in all its completeness in the\nseventeenth century. This essentially militant character of the\nmovement among the Carmelites must not be lost sight of: the two great\nSpanish mystics were before all things champions of the\ncounter-Reformation.\n\nThe two chief works of St. Juan are _The Ascent of Mount Carmel_, and\n_The Obscure Night of the Soul_. Both are treatises on quietistic\nMysticism of a peculiar type. At the beginning of _La Subida de Monte\nCarmelo_ he says, \"The journey of the soul to the Divine union is\ncalled _night_ for three reasons: the point of departure is privation\nof all desire, and complete detachment from the world; the road is by\nfaith, which is like night to the intellect; the goal, which is God,\nis incomprehensible while we are in this life.\"\n\nThe soul in its ascent passes from one realm of darkness to another.\nFirst there is the \"night of sense,\" in which the things of earth\nbecome dark to her. This must needs be traversed, for \"the creatures\nare only the crumbs that fall from God's table, and none but dogs will\nturn to pick them up.\" \"One desire only doth God allow--that of\nobeying Him, and carrying the Cross.\" All other desires weaken,\ntorment, blind, and pollute the soul. Until we are completely detached\nfrom all such, we cannot love God. \"When thou dwellest upon anything,\nthou hast ceased to cast thyself upon the All.\" \"If thou wilt keep\nanything with the All, thou hast not thy treasure simply in God.\"\n\"Empty thy spirit of all created things, and thou wilt walk in the\nDivine light, for God resembles no created thing.\" Such is the method\nof traversing the \"night of sense.\" Even at this early stage the forms\nand symbols of eternity, which others have found in the visible works\nof God, are discarded as useless. \"God has no resemblance to any\ncreature.\" The dualism or acosmism of medi\u00e6val thought has seldom\nfound a harsher expression.\n\nIn the night of sense, the understanding and reason are not blind; but\nin the second night, the night of faith, \"all is darkness.\" \"Faith is\nmidnight\"; it is the deepest darkness that we have to pass; for in the\n\"third night, the night of memory and will,\" the dawn is at hand.\n\"Faith\" he defines as \"the assent of the soul to what we have\nheard\"--as a blind man would receive a statement about the colour of\nan object. We must be totally blind, \"for a partially blind man will\nnot commit himself wholly to his guide.\" Thus for St. Juan the whole\ncontent of revelation is removed from the scope of the reason, and is\ntreated as something communicated from outside. We have, indeed,\ntravelled far from St. Clement's happy confidence in the guidance of\nreason, and Eckhart's independence of tradition. The soul has three\nfaculties--intellect, memory, and will. The imagination (_fantasia_)\nis a link between the sensitive and reasoning powers, and comes\nbetween the intellect and memory.[298] Of these faculties, \"faith (he\nsays) blinds the intellect, hope the memory, and love the will.\" He\nadds, \"to all that is not God\"; but \"God in this life is like night.\"\nHe blames those who think it enough to deny themselves \"without\nannihilating themselves,\" and those who \"seek for satisfaction in\nGod.\" This last is \"spiritual gluttony.\" \"We ought to seek for\nbitterness rather than sweetness in God,\" and \"to choose what is most\ndisagreeable, whether proceeding from God or the world.\" \"The way of\nGod consisteth not in ways of devotion or sweetness, though these may\nbe necessary to beginners, but in giving ourselves up to suffer.\" And\nso we must fly from all \"mystical phenomena\" (supernatural\nmanifestations to the sight, hearing, and the other senses) \"without\nexamining whether they be good or evil.\" \"For bodily sensations bear\nno proportion to spiritual things\"; since the distance \"between God\nand the creature is infinite,\" \"there is no essential likeness or\ncommunion between them.\" Visions are at best \"childish toys\"; \"the fly\nthat touches honey cannot fly,\" he says; and the probability is that\nthey come from the devil. For \"neither the creatures, nor intellectual\nperceptions, natural or supernatural, can bring us to God, there\nbeing no proportion between them. Created things cannot serve as a\nladder; they are only a hindrance and a snare.\"\n\nThere is something heroic in this sombre interpretation of the maxim\nof our Lord, \"Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he\nhath, he cannot be My disciple.\" All that he hath--\"yea, and his own\nlife also\"--intellect, reason, and memory--all that is most Divine in\nour nature--are cast down in absolute surrender at the feet of Him who\n\"made darkness His secret place, His pavilion round about Him with\ndark water, and thick clouds to cover Him.[299]\"\n\nIn the \"third night\"--that of memory and will--the soul sinks into a\nholy inertia and oblivion (_santa ociosidad y olvido_), in which the\nflight of time is unfelt, and the mind is unconscious of all\nparticular thoughts. St. Juan seems here to have brought us to\nsomething like the torpor of the Indian Yogi or of the hesychasts of\nMount Athos. But he does not intend us to regard this state of trance\nas permanent or final. It is the last watch of the night before the\ndawn of the supernatural state, in which the human faculties are\nturned into Divine attributes, and by a complete transformation the\nsoul, which was \"at the opposite extreme\" to God, \"becomes, by\nparticipation, God.\" In this beatific state \"one might say, in a\nsense, that the soul gives God to God, for she gives to God all that\nshe receives of God; and He gives Himself to her. This is the\nmystical love-gift, wherewith the soul repayeth all her debt.\" This\nis the infinite reward of the soul who has refused to be content with\nanything short of infinity (_no se llenan menos que con lo Infinito_).\nWith what yearning this blessed hope inspired St. Juan, is shown in\nthe following beautiful prayer, which is a good example of the\neloquence, born of intense emotion, which we find here and there in\nhis pages: \"O sweetest love of God, too little known; he who has found\nThee is at rest; let everything be changed, O God, that we may rest in\nThee. Everywhere with Thee, O my God, everywhere all things with Thee;\nas I wish, O my Love, all for Thee, nothing for me--nothing for me,\neverything for Thee. All sweetness and delight for Thee, none for\nme--all bitterness and trouble for me, none for Thee. O my God, how\nsweet to me Thy presence, who art the supreme Good! I will draw near\nto Thee in silence, and will uncover Thy feet,[300] that it may please\nThee to unite me to Thyself, making my soul Thy bride; I will rejoice\nin nothing till I am in Thine arms. O Lord, I beseech Thee, leave me\nnot for a moment, because I know not the value of mine own soul.\"\n\nSuch faith, hope, and love were suffered to cast gleams of light upon\nthe saint's gloomy and thorn-strewn path. But nevertheless the text of\nwhich we are most often reminded in reading his pages is the verse of\nAmos: \"Shall not the day of the Lord be darkness and not light? even\nvery dark, and no brightness in it?\" It is a terrible view of life and\nduty--that we are to denude ourselves of everything that makes us\ncitizens of the world--that _nothing_ which is natural is capable of\nentering into relations with God--that all which is human must die,\nand have its place taken by supernatural infusion. St. Juan follows to\nthe end the \"negative road\" of Dionysius, without troubling himself at\nall with the transcendental metaphysics of Neoplatonism. His nihilism\nor acosmism is not the result of abstracting from the notion of Being\nor of unity; its basis is psychological. It is \"subjective\" religion\ncarried _almost_ to its logical conclusion. The Neoplatonists were led\non by the hope of finding a reconciliation between philosophy and\npositive religion; but no such problems ever presented themselves to\nthe Spaniards. We hear nothing of the relation of the creation to God,\nor _why_ the contemplation of it should only hinder instead of helping\nus to know its Maker. The world simply does not exist for St. Juan;\nnothing exists save God and human souls. The great human society has\nno interest for him; he would have us cut ourselves completely adrift\nfrom the aims and aspirations of civilised humanity, and, \"since\nnothing but the Infinite can satisfy us,\" to accept nothing until our\nnothingness is filled with the Infinite. He does not escape from the\nquietistic attitude of passive expectancy which belongs to this view\nof life; and it is only by a glaring inconsistency that he attaches\nany value to the ecclesiastical symbolism, which rests on a very\ndifferent basis from that of his teaching. But St. Juan's Mysticism\nbrought him no intellectual emancipation, either for good or evil.\nFaith with him was the antithesis, not to _sight_, as in the Bible,\nbut to reason. The sacrifice of reason was part of the crucifixion of\nthe old man. And so he remained in an attitude of complete\nsubservience to Church tradition and authority, and even to his\n\"director,\" an intermediary who is constantly mentioned by these\npost-Reformation mystics. Even this unqualified submissiveness did not\npreserve him from persecution during his lifetime, and suspicion\nafterwards. His books were only authorised twenty-seven years after\nhis death, which occurred in 1591; and his beatification was delayed\ntill 1674. His orthodoxy was defended largely by references to St.\nTeresa, who had already been canonised. But it could not be denied\nthat the quietists of the next century might find much support for\ntheir controverted doctrines in both writers.\n\nSt. Juan's ideal of saintliness was as much of an anachronism as his\nscheme of Church reform. But no one ever climbed the rugged peaks of\nMount Carmel with more heroic courage and patience. His life shows\nwhat tremendous moral force is generated by complete self-surrender to\nGod. And happily neither his failure to read the signs of the times,\nnor his one-sided and defective grasp of Christian truth, could\ndeprive him of the reward of his life of sacrifice--the reward, I\nmean, of feeling his fellowship with Christ in suffering. He sold \"all\nthat he had\" to gain the pearl of great price, and the surrender was\nnot made in vain.\n\nThe later Roman Catholic mystics, though they include some beautiful\nand lovable characters, do not develop any further the type which we\nhave found in St. Teresa and St. Juan. St. Francis de Sales has been a\nfavourite devotional writer with thousands in this country. He\npresents the Spanish Mysticism softened and polished into a graceful\nand winning pietism, such as might refine and elevate the lives of\nthe \"honourable women\" who consulted him. The errors of the quietists\ncertainly receive some countenance from parts of his writings, but\nthey are neutralised by maxims of a different tendency, borrowed\neclectically from other sources.[301]\n\nA more consistent and less fortunate follower of St. Teresa was Miguel\nde Molinos, a Spanish priest, who came to Rome about 1670. His piety\nand learning won him the favour of Pope Innocent XI., who, according\nto Bishop Burnet, \"lodged him in an apartment of the palace, and put\nmany singular marks of his esteem upon him.\" In 1675 he published in\nItalian his _Spiritual Guide_, a mystical treatise of great interest.\n\nMolinos begins by saying that there are two ways to the knowledge of\nGod--meditation or discursive thought, and \"pure faith\" or\ncontemplation. Contemplation has two stages, active and passive, the\nlatter being the higher.[302] Meditation he also calls the \"exterior\nroad\"; it is good for beginners, he says, but can never lead to\nperfection. The \"interior road,\" the goal of which is union with God,\nconsists in complete resignation to the will of God, annihilation of\nall self-will, and an unruffled tranquillity or passivity of soul,\nuntil the mystical grace is supernaturally \"infused.\" Then \"we shall\nsink and lose ourselves in the immeasurable sea of God's infinite\ngoodness, and rest there steadfast and immovable.[303]\" He gives a\nlist of tokens by which we may know that we are called from meditation\nto contemplation; and enumerates four means, which lead to perfection\nand inward peace--prayer, obedience, frequent communions, and inner\nmortification. The best kind of prayer is the prayer of silence;[304]\nand there are three silences, that of words, that of desires, and that\nof thought. In the last and highest the mind is a blank, and God alone\nspeaks to the soul.[305] With the curious passion for subdivision\nwhich we find in nearly all Romish mystics, he distinguishes three\nkinds of \"infusa contemplazione\"--(1) satiety, when the soul is filled\nwith God and conceives a hatred for all worldly things; (2) \"un\nmentale eccesso\" or elevation of the soul, born of Divine love and its\nsatiety; (3) \"security.\" In this state the soul would willingly even\ngo to hell, if it were God's will. \"Happy is the state of that soul\nwhich has slain and annihilated itself.\" It lives no longer in itself,\nfor God lives in it. \"With all truth we may say that it is deified.\"\n\nMolinos follows St. Juan of the Cross in disparaging visions, which\nhe says are often snares of the devil. And, like him, he says much of\nthe \"horrible temptations and torments, worse than any which the\nmartyrs of the early Church underwent,\" which form part of \"purgative\ncontemplation.\" He resembles the Spanish mystics also in his\ninsistence on outward observances, especially \"daily communion, when\npossible,\" but thinks frequent confession unnecessary, except for\nbeginners.\n\n\"The book was no sooner printed,\" says Bishop Burnet, \"than it was\nmuch read and highly esteemed, both in Italy and Spain. The\nacquaintance of the author came to be much desired. Those who seemed\nin the greatest credit at Rome seemed to value themselves upon his\nfriendship. Letters were writ to him from all places, so that a\ncorrespondence was settled between him and those who approved of his\nmethod, in many different places of Europe.\" \"It grew so much to be\nthe vogue in Rome, that all the nuns, except those who had Jesuits to\ntheir confessors, began to lay aside their rosaries and other\ndevotions, and to give themselves much to the practice of mental\nprayer.\"\n\nMolinos had written with the object of \"breaking the fetters\" which\nhindered souls in their upward course. Unfortunately for himself, he\nalso loosened some of the fetters in which the Roman priesthood\ndesires to keep the laity[306]. And so, instead of the honours which\nhad been grudgingly and suspiciously bestowed on his predecessors,\nMolinos ended his days in a dungeon[307]. His condemnation was\nfollowed by a sharp persecution of his followers in Italy, who had\nbecome very numerous; and, in France, Bossuet procured the\ncondemnation and imprisonment of Madame Guyon, a lady of high\ncharacter and abilities, who was the centre of a group of quietists.\nMadame de Guyon need not detain us here. Her Mysticism is identical\nwith that of Saint Teresa, except that she was no visionary, and that\nher character was softer and less masculine. Her attractive\npersonality, and the cruel and unjust treatment which she experienced\nduring the greater part of her life, arouse the sympathy of all who\nread her story; but since my present object is not to exhibit a\nportrait gallery of eminent mystics, but to investigate the chief\ntypes of mystical thought, it will not be necessary for me to describe\nher life or make extracts from her writings. The character of her\nquietism may be illustrated by one example--the hymn on \"The\nAcquiescence of Pure Love,\" translated by Cowper:--\n\n\n  \"Love! if Thy destined sacrifice am I,\n     Come, slay thy victim, and prepare Thy fires;\n   Plunged in Thy depths of mercy, let me die\n     The death which every soul that loves desires!\n\n   \"I watch my hours, and see them fleet away;\n     The time is long that I have languished here;\n   Yet all my thoughts Thy purposes obey,\n     With no reluctance, cheerful and sincere.\n\n   \"To me 'tis equal, whether Love ordain\n     My life or death, appoint me pain or ease\n   My soul perceives no real ill in pain;\n     In ease or health no real good she sees.\n\n   \"One Good she covets, and that Good alone;\n     To choose Thy will, from selfish bias free\n   And to prefer a cottage to a throne,\n     And grief to comfort, if it pleases Thee.\n\n   \"That we should bear the cross is Thy command\n     Die to the world, and live to self no more;\n   Suffer unmoved beneath the rudest hand,\n     As pleased when shipwrecked as when safe on shore.\"\n\n\nF\u00e9nelon was also a victim of the campaign against the quietists,\nthough he was no follower of Molinos. He was drawn into the\ncontroversy against his will by Bossuet, who requested him to endorse\nan unscrupulous attack upon Madame Guyon. This made it necessary for\nF\u00e9nelon to define his position, which he did in his famous _Maxims of\nthe Saints_. The treatise is important for our purposes, since it is\nan elaborate attempt to determine the limits of true and false\nMysticism concerning two great doctrines--\"disinterested love\" and\n\"passive contemplation.\"\n\nOn the former, F\u00e9nelon's teaching may be summarised as follows:\nSelf-interest must be excluded from our love of God, for self-love is\nthe root of all evil. This predominant desire for God's glory need not\nbe always explicit--it need only become so on extraordinary occasions;\nbut it must always be implicit. There are five kinds of love for God:\n(i.) purely servile--the love of God's gifts apart from Himself; (ii.)\nthe love of mere covetousness, which regards the love of God only as\nthe condition of happiness; (iii.) that of hope, in which the desire\nfor our own welfare is still predominant; (iv.) interested love, which\nis still mixed with self-regarding motives; (v.) disinterested love.\nHe mentions here the \"three lives\" of the mystics, and says that in\nthe purgative life love is mixed with the fear of hell; in the\nilluminative, with the hope of heaven; while in the highest stage \"we\nare united to God in the peaceable exercise of pure love.\" \"If God\nwere to will to send the souls of the just to hell--so Chrysostom and\nClement suggest--souls in the third state would not love Him\nless[308].\" \"Mixed love,\" however, is not a sin: \"the greater part of\nholy souls never reach perfect disinterestedness in this life.\" We\nought to wish for our salvation, because it is God's will that we\nshould do so. Interested love coincides with resignation,\ndisinterested with holy indifference. \"St. Francis de Sales says that\nthe disinterested heart is like wax in the hands of its God.\"\n\nWe must continue to _co-operate_ with God's grace, even in the highest\nstage, and not cease to resist our impulses, as if all came from God.\n\"To speak otherwise is to speak the language of the tempter.\" (This\nis, of course, directed against the immoral apathy attributed to\nMolinos.) The only difference between the vigilance of pure and that\nof interested love, is that the former is simple and peaceable, while\nthe latter has not yet cast out fear. It is false teaching to say that\nwe should hate ourselves; _we should be in charity with ourselves as\nwith others_.[309]\n\nSpontaneous, unreflecting good acts proceed from what the mystics call\nthe apex of the soul. \"In such acts St. Antony places the most perfect\nprayer--unconscious prayer.\"\n\nOf prayer he says, \"We pray as much as we desire, and we desire as\nmuch as we love.\" Vocal prayer cannot be (as the extreme quietists\npretend) useless to contemplative souls; \"for Christ has taught us a\nvocal prayer.\"\n\nHe then proceeds to deal with \"passive contemplation,\" and refers\nagain to the \"unconscious prayer\" of St. Antony. But \"pure\ncontemplation is never unintermittent in this life.\" \"Bernard, Teresa,\nand John say that their periods of pure contemplation lasted not more\nthan half an hour.\" \"Pure contemplation,\" he proceeds, \"is negative,\nbeing occupied with no sensible image, no distinct and nameable idea;\nit stops only at the purely intellectual and abstract idea of being.\"\nYet this idea includes, \"as distinct objects,\" all the attributes of\nGod--\"as the Trinity, the humanity of Christ, and all His mysteries.\"\n\"To deny this is to annihilate Christianity under pretence of\npurifying it, and to confound God with _n\u00e9ant_. It is to form a kind\nof deism which at once falls into atheism, wherein all real idea of\nGod as distinguished from His creatures is rejected.\" Lastly, it is to\nadvance two impieties--(i.) To suppose that there is or may be on the\nearth a contemplative who is no longer a traveller, and who no longer\nneeds the way, since he has reached his destination. (ii.) To ignore\nthat Jesus Christ is the way as well as the truth and the life, the\nfinisher as well as the author of our faith.\n\nThis criticism of the formless vision is excellent, but there is a\npalpable inconsistency between the definition of \"negative\ncontemplation\" and the inclusion in it of \"all the attributes of God\nas distinct objects.\" Contradictions of this sort abound in F\u00e9nelon,\nand destroy the value of his writings as contributions to religious\nphilosophy, though in his case, as in many others, we may speak of\n\"noble inconsistencies\" which do more credit to his heart than\ndiscredit to his intellect. We may perhaps see here the dying spasm of\nthe \"negative method,\" which has crossed our path so often in this\nsurvey.\n\nThe image of Jesus Christ, F\u00e9nelon continues, is not clearly seen by\ncontemplatives at first, and may be withdrawn while the soul passes\nthrough the last furnace of trial; but we can never cease to need Him,\n\"though it is true that the most eminent saints are accustomed to\nregard Him less as an exterior object than as the interior principle\nof their lives.\" They are in error who speak of possessing God in His\nsupreme simplicity, and of no more knowing Christ after the flesh.\nContemplation is called passive because it excludes the _interested_\nactivity of the soul, not because it excludes real action. (Here again\nF\u00e9nelon is rather explaining away than explaining his authorities.)\nThe culmination of the \"passive state\" is \"transformation,\" in which\nlove is the life of the soul, as it is its being and substance.\n\"Catherine of Genoa said, I find no more _me_; there is no longer any\nother _I_ but God.\" \"But it is false to say that transformation is a\ndeification of the real and natural soul, or a hypostatic union, or an\nunalterable conformity with God.[310]\" In the passive state we are\nstill liable to mortal sin. (It is characteristic of F\u00e9nelon that he\ncontradicts, without rejecting, the substitution-doctrine plainly\nstated in the sentence from Catherine of Genoa.)\n\nIn his letter to the Pope, which accompanies the \"Explanation of the\nMaxims,\" F\u00e9nelon thus sums up his distinctions between true and false\nMysticism:--\n\n1. The \"permanent act\" (i.e. an indefectible state of union with God)\nis to be condemned as \"a poisoned source of idleness and internal\nlethargy.\"\n\n2. There is an indispensable necessity of the distinct exercise of\neach virtue.\n\n3. \"Perpetual contemplation,\" making venial sins impossible, and\nabolishing the distinction of virtues, is impossible.\n\n4. \"Passive prayer,\" if it excludes the co-operation of free-will, is\nimpossible.\n\n5. There can be no \"quietude\" except the peace of the Holy Ghost,\nwhich acts in a manner so uniform that these acts seem, _to\nunscientific persons_, not distinct acts, but a single and permanent\nunity with God.\n\n6. That the doctrine of pure love may not serve as an asylum for the\nerrors of the Quietists, we assert that hope must always abide, as\nsaith St. Paul.\n\n7. The state of pure love is very rare, and it is intermittent.\n\nIn reply to this manifesto, the \"Three Prelates[311]\" rejoin that\nF\u00e9nelon keeps the name of hope but takes away the thing; that he\nreally preaches indifference to salvation; that he is in danger of\nregarding contemplation of Christ as a descent from the heights of\npure contemplation; that he unaccountably says nothing of the \"love of\ngratitude\" to God and our Redeemer; that he \"erects the rare and\ntransient experiences of a few saints into a rule of faith.\"\n\nIn this controversy about disinterested love, our sympathies are\nchiefly, but not entirely, with F\u00e9nelon. The standpoint of Bossuet is\nnot religious at all. \"Pure love,\" he says almost coarsely, \"is\nopposed to the essence of love, which always desires the enjoyment of\nits object, as well as to the nature of man, who necessarily desires\nhappiness.\" Most of us will rather agree with St. Bernard, that love,\nas such, desires nothing but reciprocation--\"verus amor se ipso\ncontentus est: habet pr\u00e6mium, sed id quod amatur.\" If the question had\nbeen simply whether religion is or is not in its nature mercenary, we\nshould have felt no doubt on which side the truth lay. Self-regarding\nhopes and schemes may be schoolmasters to bring us to Christ; it\nseems, indeed, to be part of our education to form them, and then see\nthem shattered one after another, that better and deeper hopes may be\nconstructed out of the fragments; but a selfish Christianity is a\ncontradiction in terms. But F\u00e9nelon, in his teaching about\ndisinterested love, goes further than this. \"A man's self,\" he says,\n\"is his own greatest cross.\" \"We must therefore become strangers to\nthis self, this _moi._\" Resignation is not a remedy; for \"resignation\nsuffers in suffering; one is as two persons in resignation; it is only\npure love that loves to suffer.\" This is the thought with which many\nof us are familiar in James Hinton's _Mystery of Pain_. It is at\nbottom Stoical or Buddhistic, in spite of the emotional turn given to\nit by F\u00e9nelon. Logically, it should lead to the destruction of love;\nfor love requires two living factors,[312] and the person who has\nattained a \"holy indifference,\" who has passed wholly out of self, is\nas incapable of love as of any other emotion. The attempt \"to wind\nourselves too high for mortal man\" has resulted, as usual, in two\nopposite errors. We find, on the one hand, some who try to escape the\ndaily sacrifices which life demands, by declaring themselves bankrupt\nto start with. And, on the other hand, we find men like F\u00e9nelon, who\nare too good Christians to wish to shift their crosses in this way;\nbut who allow their doctrines of \"holy indifference\" and \"pure love\"\nto impart an excessive sternness to their teaching, and demand from us\nan impossible degree of detachment and renunciation.\n\nThe importance attached to the \"prayer of quiet\" can only be\nunderstood when we remember how much mechanical recitation of forms of\nprayer was enjoined by Romish \"directors.\" It is, of course, possible\nfor the soul to commune with God without words, perhaps even without\nthoughts;[313] but the recorded prayers of our Blessed Lord will not\nallow us to regard these ecstatic states as better than vocal prayer,\nwhen the latter is offered \"with the spirit, and with the\nunderstanding also.\"\n\nThe quietistic controversy in France was carried on in an atmosphere\nof political intrigues and private jealousies, which in no way concern\nus. But the great fact which stands out above the turmoil of calumny\nand misrepresentation is that the Roman Church, which in sore straits\nhad called in the help of quietistic Mysticism to stem the flood of\nProtestantism, at length found the alliance too dangerous, and\ndisbanded her irregular troops in spite of their promises to submit to\ndiscipline. In F\u00e9nelon, Mysticism had a champion eloquent and learned,\nand not too logical to repudiate with honest conviction consequences\nwhich some of his authorities had found it necessary to accept. He\nremained a loyal and submissive son of the Church, as did Molinos; and\nwas, in fact, more guarded in his statements than Bossuet, who in his\nignorance of mystical theology often blundered into dangerous\nadmissions[314]. But the Jesuits saw with their usual acumen that\nMysticism, even in the most submissive guise, is an independent and\nturbulent spirit; and by condemning F\u00e9nelon as well as Molinos, they\ncrushed it out as a religious movement in the Latin countries.\n\nTo us it seems that the Mysticism of the counter-Reformation was bound\nto fail, because it was the revival of a perverted, or at best a\none-sided type. The most consistent quietists were perhaps those who\nbrought the doctrine of quietism into most discredit, such as the\nhesychasts of Mount Athos. For at bottom it rests upon that dualistic\nor rather acosmistic view of life which prevailed from the decay of\nthe Roman Empire till the Renaissance and Reformation. Its cosmology\nis one which leaves this world out of account except as a training\nground for souls; its theory of knowledge draws a hard and fast line\nbetween natural and supernatural truths, and then tries to bring them\ntogether by intercalating \"supernatural phenomena\" in the order of\nnature; and in ethics it paralyses morality by teaching with St.\nThomas Aquinas that \"to love God _secundum se_ is more meritorious\nthan to love our neighbour.[315]\" All this is not of the essence of\nMysticism, but belongs to medi\u00e6val Catholicism. It was probably a\nnecessary stage through which Christianity, and Mysticism with it, had\nto pass. The vain quest of an abstract spirituality at any rate\nliberated the religious life from many base associations; the\n\"negative road\" is after all the holy path of self-sacrifice; and the\nmaltreatment of the body, which began among the hermits of the\nThebaid, was largely based on an instinctive recoil against the poison\nof sensuality, which had helped to destroy the old civilisation. But\nthe resuscitation of medi\u00e6val Mysticism after the Renaissance was an\nanachronism; and except in the fighting days of the sixteenth century,\nit was not likely to appeal to the manliest or most intelligent\nspirits. The world-ruling papal polity, with its incomparable army of\nofficials, bound to poverty and celibacy, and therefore invulnerable,\nwas a _reductio ad absurdum_ of its world-renouncing doctrines, which\nEurope was not likely to forget. Introspective Mysticism had done its\nwork--a work of great service to the human race. It had explored all\nthe recesses of the lonely heart, and had wrestled with the angel of\nGod through the terrors of the spiritual night even till the morning.\n\"Tell me now Thy name\" ... \"I will not let Thee go until Thou bless\nme.\" These had been the two demands of the contemplative mystic--the\nonly rewards which his soul craved in return for the sacrifice of\nevery earthly delight. The reward was worth the sacrifice; but \"God\nreveals Himself in many ways,\" and the spiritual Christianity of the\nmodern epoch is called rather to the consecration of art, science, and\nsocial life than to lonely contemplation. In my last two Lectures I\nhope to show how an important school of mystics, chiefly between the\nRenaissance and our own day, have turned to the religious study of\nnature, and have found there the same illumination which the medi\u00e6val\nascetics drew from the deep wells of their inner consciousness.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 284: Rousselot, _Les Mystiques Espagnols_, p. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 285: Among the latter must be mentioned the growth of\nScotist Nominalism, on which see a note on p. 187. Ritschl was the\nfirst to point out how strongly Nominalism influenced the later\nMysticism, by giving it its quietistic character. See Harnack,\n_History of Dogma_ (Eng. tr.), vol. vi. p. 107.]\n\n[Footnote 286: Cf. the beginning of the _Vida de Lazarillo de Tormes,\ncorregida y emendada por Juan de Luna_ (Paris, 1620). \"The ignorance\nof the Spaniards is excusable. The Inquisitors are the cause. They are\ndreaded, not only by the people, but by the great lords, to such an\nextent that the mere mention of the Inquisition makes every head\ntremble like a leaf in the wind.\"]\n\n[Footnote 287: Pedro Malon de Chaide: \"Las cosas en Dios son mismo\nDios.\"]\n\n[Footnote 288: Alejo Venegas in Rousselot, p. 78: Louis de Leon, who\nis indebted to the _Fons Vit\u00e6_.]\n\n[Footnote 289: Louis de Leon: \"The members and the head are one\nChrist.\"]\n\n[Footnote 290: Diego de Stella affirms the mystic paradox, that it is\nbetter to be in hell with Christ than in glory without Him (_Medit._\niii.).]\n\n[Footnote 291: Juan d'Avila: \"Let us put a veil between ourselves and\nall created things.\"]\n\n[Footnote 292: This side of Platonism appears in Pedro Malon, and\nespecially in Louis de Granada. Compare also the beautiful ode of\nLouis de Leon, entitled \"Noche Serena,\" where the eternal peace of the\nstarry heavens is contrasted with the turmoil of the world--\n\n  \"Quien es el que esto mira,\n   Y precia la bajeza de la tierra,\n   Y no gime y suspira\n   Y rompe lo que encierra\n   El alma, y destos bienes la destierra?\n   Aqui vive al contento,\n   Aqui reina la paz, aqui asentado\n   En rico y alto asiento\n   Esta el amor sagrado\n   De glorias y deleites rodeado.\"  ]\n\n[Footnote 293: After his release he was suffered to resume his\nlectures. A crowd of sympathisers assembled to hear his first\nutterance; but he began quietly with his usual formula, \"Deciamos\nahora,\" \"We were saying just now.\"]\n\n[Footnote 294: The heresy of the \"Alombrados\" (Illuminati), which\nappeared in the sixteenth century, and was ruthlessly crushed by the\nInquisition, belonged to the familiar type of degenerate Mysticism.\nIts adherents taught that the prayers of the Church were worthless,\nthe only true prayer being a kind of ecstasy, without words or mental\nimages. The \"illuminated\" need no sacraments, and can commit no sins.\nThe mystical union once achieved is an abiding possession. There was\nanother outbreak of the same errors in 1623, and a corresponding sect\nof _Illumin\u00e9s_ in Southern France.]\n\n[Footnote 295: The real founder of Spanish quietistic Mysticism was\nPedro of Alcantara (d. 1562). He was confessor to Teresa. Teresa is\nalso indebted to Francisco de Osuna, in whose writings the principles\nof quietism are clearly taught. Cf. Heppe, _Geschichte der\nquietistichen Mystik_, p. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 296: The fullest and best account of St. Teresa is in Mrs.\nCunninghame Graham's _Life and Times of Santa Teresa_ (2 vols.).]\n\n[Footnote 297: \"H\u00e6 imaginari\u00e6 visiones regulariter eveniunt vel\nincipientibus vel proficientibus nondum bene purgatis, ut communiter\ntenent myst\u00e6\" (_Lucern. Myst. Tract_, v. 3).]\n\n[Footnote 298: So in Plotinus [Greek: phantasia] comes between [Greek:\nphysis] (the lower soul) and the perfect apprehension of [Greek:\nnous].]\n\n[Footnote 299: St. Juan follows the medi\u00e6val mystics in distinguishing\nbetween \"meditation\" and \"contemplation.\" \"Meditation,\" from which\nexternal images are not excluded, is for him an early and imperfect\nstage; he who is destined to higher things will soon discover signs\nwhich indicate that it is time to abandon it.]\n\n[Footnote 300: The reference is to Ruth iii. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 301: The somewhat feminine temper of Francis leads him to\nattach more value to fanciful symbolism than would have been approved\nby St. Juan, or even by St. Teresa. And we miss in him that steady\ndevotion to the Person of Christ, and to Him alone, which gives the\nSpaniards, in spite of themselves, a sort of kinship with evangelical\nChristianity. St. Juan could never have written, \"Honorez, reverez, et\nrespectez d'un amour special la sacr\u00e9e et glorieuse Vierge Marie. Elle\nest m\u00e8re de nostre souverain p\u00e8re et par consequent nostre grand'm\u00e8re\"\n(!).]\n\n[Footnote 302: The three parts into which the book is divided deal\nrespectively with the \"darkness and dryness\" by which God purifies the\nheart; the second stage, in which he insists, complete obedience to a\nspiritual director is essential; and the stage of higher\nillumination.]\n\n[Footnote 303: \"Col\u00e0 c' ingolfiano e ci perdiamo nel mare immenso\ndell' infinita sua bont\u00e0 in cui restiamo stabili ed immobili.\"]\n\n[Footnote 304: It is interesting to find the \"prayer of quiet\" even in\nPlotinus. Cf. _Enn_. v. 1. 6: \"Let us call upon God Himself before we\nthus answer--not with uttered words, but reaching forth our souls in\nprayer to Him; for thus alone can we pray, alone to Him who is\nalone.\"]\n\n[Footnote 305: He speaks, too, of \"inner recollection\" (il\nraccoglimento interiore), \"mirandolo dentro te medesima nel pi\u00f9 intimo\ndel' anima tua, senza forma, specie, modo \u00f2 figura, in vista e\ngenerate notitia di fede amorosa ed oscura, senza veruna distinzione\ndi perfezione \u00f2 attributo.\"]\n\n[Footnote 306: Cf. Bp. Burnet: \"In short, everybody that was thought\neither sincerely devout, or that at least affected the reputation of\nit, came to be reckoned among the Quietists; and if these persons were\nobserved to become more strict in their lives, more retired and\nserious in their mental devotions, yet there appeared less zeal in\ntheir whole deportment as to the exterior parts of the religion of\nthat Church. They were not so assiduous at Mass, nor so earnest to\nprocure Masses to be said for their friends; nor were they so\nfrequently either at confession or in processions, so that the trade\nof those that live by these things was terribly sunk.\"]\n\n[Footnote 307: The _Spiritual Guide_ was well received at first in\nhigh quarters; but in 1681 a Jesuit preacher published a book on \"the\nprayer of quiet,\" which raised a storm. The first commission of\ninquiry exonerated Molinos; but in 1685 the Jesuits and Louis XIV.\nbrought strong pressure to bear on the Pope, and Molinos was accused\nof heresy. Sixty-eight false propositions were extracted from his\nwritings, and formally condemned. They include a justification of\ndisgraceful vices, which Molinos, who was a man of saintly character,\ncould never have taught. But though the whole process against the\nauthor of the _Spiritual Guide_ was shamefully unfair, the book\ncontains some highly dangerous teaching, which might easily be pressed\ninto the service of immorality. Molinos saved his life by recanting\nall his errors, but was imprisoned till his death, about 1696. In 1687\nthe Inquisition arrested 200 persons for \"quietist\" opinions.]\n\n[Footnote 308: This \"mystic paradox\" has been mentioned already. It\nis developed at length in the _Meditations_ of Diego de Stella.\nF\u00e9nelon says that it is found in Cassian, Gregory of Nazianzus,\nAugustine, Anselm, \"and a great number of saints.\" It is an\nunfortunate attempt to improve upon Job's fine saying, \"Though He slay\nme, yet will I trust in Him,\" or the line in Homer which has been\noften quoted--[Greek: en de phaei kai olesson, epei ny toi euaden\nout\u00f4s.] But unless we form a very unworthy idea of heaven and hell,\nthe proposition is not so much extravagant as self-contradictory.]\n\n[Footnote 309: The doctrine here condemned is Manichean, says F\u00e9nelon\nrightly.]\n\n[Footnote 310: St. Bernard (_De diligendo Deo_, x. 28) gives a careful\nstatement of the deification-doctrine as he understands it: \"Quomodo\nomnia in omnibus erit Deus, si in homine de homine quicquam supererit?\n_Manebit substantia sed in alia forma._\" See Appendix C.]\n\n[Footnote 311: The Archbishop of Paris, the Bishop of Meaux (Bossuet),\nand the Bishop of Chartres.]\n\n[Footnote 312: If two beings are separate, they cannot influence each\nother inwardly. If they are not distinct, there can be no relations\nbetween them. Man is at once organ and organism, and this is why love\nbetween man and God is possible. The importance of maintaining that\naction between man and God must be reciprocal, is well shown by\nLilienfeld, _Gedanken \u00fcber die Socialwissenschaft der Zukunft_, vol.\nv. p. 472 sq.]\n\n[Footnote 313: \"Thought was not,\" says Wordsworth of one in a state of\nrapture; and again, \"All his thoughts were steeped in feeling.\"]\n\n[Footnote 314: E.g., he writes to Madame Guyon, \"Je n'ai jamais hesit\u00e9\nun seul moment sur les \u00e9tats de Sainte Th\u00e9r\u00e8se, parceque je n'y ai\nrien trouv\u00e9, que je ne trouvasse aussi dans l'ecriture.\" It is\ndoubtful whether Bossuet had really read much of St. Teresa. F\u00e9nelon\nsays much more cautiously, \"Quelque respect et quelque admiration que\nj'aie pour Sainte Th\u00e9r\u00e8se, je n'aurais jamais voulu donner au public\ntout ce qu'elle a \u00e9crit.\"]\n\n[Footnote 315: Of course there is a sense in which this is true; but I\nam speaking of the way in which it was understood by medi\u00e6val\nCatholicism.]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VII\n\n[Greek: En pasi tois physikois enesti ti thaumaston; kathaper\nH\u00earakleitos legetai eipein; einai kai entautha theous.]\n\nARISTOTLE, _de Partibus Animalium_, i. 5.\n\n\n                          \"What if earth\n    Be but the shadow of heaven, and things therein\n    Each to other like, more than on earth is thought?\"\n\nMILTON.\n\n\n   \"God is not dumb, that He should speak no more.\n    If thou hast wanderings in the wilderness,\n    And find'st not Sinai, 'tis thy soul is poor;\n    There towers the mountain of the voice no less,\n    Which whoso seeks shall find; but he who bends,\n    Intent on manna still and mortal ends,\n    Sees it not, neither hears its thundered lore.\"\n\nLOWELL.\n\n\n\"Of the Absolute in the theoretical sense I do not venture to speak;\nbut this I maintain, that if a man recognises it in its\nmanifestations, and always keeps his eye fixed upon it, he will reap a\nvery great reward.\"\n\nGOETHE.\n\n\n\nNATURE-MYSTICISM AND SYMBOLISM\n\n\"The creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of\ncorruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of\nGod.\"--ROM. viii. 21.\n\n\nIt would be possible to maintain that all our happiness consists in\nfinding sympathies and affinities underlying apparent antagonisms, in\nbringing harmony out of discord, and order out of chaos. Even the\nlowest pleasures owe their attractiveness to a certain temporary\ncorrespondence between our desires and the nature of things.\nSelfishness itself, the prime source of sin, misery, and ignorance,\ncannot sever the ties which bind us to each other and to nature; or if\nit succeeds in doing so, it passes into madness, of which an\nexperienced alienist has said, that its essence is \"concentrated\negoism.\" Incidentally I may say that the peculiar happiness which\naccompanies every glimpse of insight into truth and reality, whether\nin the scientific, \u00e6sthetic, or emotional sphere, seems to me to have\na greater apologetic value than has been generally recognised. It is\nthe clearest possible indication that the true is for us the good, and\nforms the ground of a reasonable faith that all things, if we could\nsee them as they are, would be found to work together for good to\nthose who love God.\n\n\"The true Mysticism,\" it has been lately said with much truth, \"is\nthe belief that everything, in being what it is, is symbolic of\nsomething more.[316]\" All Nature (and there are few more pernicious\nerrors than that which separates man from Nature) is the language in\nwhich God expresses His thoughts; but the thoughts are far more than\nthe language.[317] Thus it is that the invisible things of God from\nthe creation of the world may be clearly seen and understood from the\nthings that are made; while at the same time it is equally true that\nhere we see through a glass darkly, and know only in part. Nature half\nconceals and half reveals the Deity; and it is in this sense that it\nmay be called a symbol of Him.\n\nThe word \"symbol,\" like several other words which the student of\nMysticism has to use, has an ill-defined connotation, which produces\nconfusion and contradictory statements. For instance, a French writer\ngives as his definition of Mysticism \"the tendency to approach the\nAbsolute, morally, by means of symbols.[318]\" On the other hand, an\nEnglish essayist denies that Mysticism is symbolic.[319] Mysticism, he\nsays, differs from symbolism in that, while symbolism treats the\nconnexion between symbol and substance as something accidental or\nsubjective, Mysticism is based on a positive belief in the existence\nof life within life, of deep correspondences and affinities, not less\nreal than those to which the common superficial consciousness of\nmankind bears witness. I agree with this statement about the basis of\nMysticism, but I prefer to use the word symbol of that which has a\nreal, and not merely a conventional affinity to the thing\nsymbolised.[320] The line is by no means easy to draw. An aureole is\nnot, properly speaking, a _symbol_ of saintliness,[321] nor a crown of\nroyal authority, because in these instances the connexion of sign with\nsignificance is conventional. A circle is perhaps not a symbol of\neternity, because the comparison appeals only to the intellect. But\nfalling leaves are a symbol of human mortality, a flowing river of the\n\"stream\" of life, and a vine and its branches of the unity of Christ\nand the Church, because they are examples of the same law which\noperates through all that God has made. And when the Anglian noble, in\na well-known passage of Bede, compares the life of man to the flight\nof a bird which darts quickly through a lighted hall out of darkness,\nand into darkness again, he has found a symbol which is none the less\nvalid, because light and darkness are themselves only symbolically\nconnected with life and death. The writer who denies that Mysticism is\nsymbolic, means that the discovery of arbitrary and fanciful\nresemblances or types is no part of healthy Mysticism.[322] In this he\nis quite right; and the importance of the distinction which he wishes\nto emphasise will, I hope, become clear as we proceed. It is not\npossible always to say dogmatically, \"_This_ is genuine Symbolism, and\n_that_ is morbid or fantastic\"; but we do assert that there is a true\nand a false Symbolism, of which the true is not merely a legitimate,\nbut a necessary mode of intuition; while the latter is at best a\nfrivolous amusement, and at worst a degrading superstition.[323]\n\nBut we shall handle our subject very inadequately if we consider only\nthe symbolical value which may be attached to external objects. Our\nthoughts and beliefs about the spiritual world, so far as they are\nconceived under forms, or expressed in language, which belong properly\nonly to things of time and space, are of the nature of symbols. In\nthis sense it has been said that the greater part of dogmatic theology\nis the dialectical development of mystical symbols. For instance, the\npaternal relation of the First Person of the Trinity to the Second is\na symbol; and the representation of eternity as an endless period of\ntime stretching into futurity, is a symbol. We believe that the forms\nunder which it is natural and necessary for us to conceive of\ntranscendental truths have a real and vital relation to the ideas\nwhich they attempt to express; but their inadequacy is manifest if we\ntreat them as facts of the same order as natural phenomena, and try to\nintercalate them, as is too often done, among the materials with which\nan abstract science has to deal.\n\nThe two great sacraments are typical symbols, if we use the word in\nthe sense which I give to it, as something which, in being what it is,\nis a sign and vehicle of something higher and better. This is what the\nearly Church meant when it called the sacraments symbols.[324] A\n\"symbol\" at that period implied a mystery, and a \"mystery\" implied a\nrevelation. The need of sacraments is one of the deepest convictions\nof the religious consciousness. It rests ultimately on the instinctive\nreluctance to allow any spiritual fact to remain without an external\nexpression. It is obvious that all morality depends on the application\nof this principle to conduct. All voluntary external acts are symbolic\nof (that is, vitally connected with) internal states, and cannot be\ndivested of this their essential character. It may be impossible to\nshow how an act of the material body can purify or defile the\nimmaterial spirit; but the correspondence between the outward and\ninward life cannot be denied without divesting morality of all\nmeaning. The maxim of Plotinus, that \"the mind can do no wrong,\" when\ntransferred from his transcendental philosophy to matters of conduct,\nis a sophism no more respectable than that which Euripides puts into\nthe mouth of one of his characters: \"The tongue hath sworn; the heart\nremains unsworn.\" Every act of the will is the expression of a state\nof the soul; and every state of the soul must seek to find expression\nin an act of the will. Love, as we should all admit, is not love, so\nlong as it is content to be only in thought, or \"in word and in\ntongue\"; it is only when it is love \"in deed\" that it is love \"in\ntruth.[325]\" And it is the same with all other virtues, which are in\nthis sense symbolic, as implying something beyond the external act.\nNearly all the states or motions of the soul can find their\nappropriate expression in action. Charity in its manifold forms need\nnot seek long for an object; and thankfulness and penitence, though\nthey drive us first to silent prayer, are not satisfied till they have\nborne fruit in some act of gratitude or humility. But that deepest\nsense of communion with God, which is the very heart of religion, is\nin danger of being shut up in thought and word, which are inadequate\nexpressions of any spiritual state. No doubt this highest state of the\nsoul may find indirect expression in good works; but these fail to\nexpress the _immediacy_ of the communion which the soul has felt. The\nwant of symbols to express these highest states of the soul is\nsupplied by sacraments. A sacrament is a symbolic act, not arbitrarily\nchosen, but resting, to the mind of the recipient, on Divine\nauthority, which has no ulterior object except to give expression to,\nand in so doing to effectuate,[326] a relation which is too purely\nspiritual to find utterance in the customary activities of life. There\nare three requisites (on the human side) for the validity of a\nsacramental act. The symbol must be appropriate; the thing symbolised\nmust be a spiritual truth; and there must be the intention to perform\nthe act _as_ a sacrament.\n\nThe sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper fulfil these\nconditions. Both are symbols of the mystical union between the\nChristian and his ascended Lord. Baptism symbolises that union in its\ninception, the Eucharist in its organic life. Baptism is received but\nonce, because the death unto sin and the new birth unto righteousness\nis a definite entrance into the spiritual life, rather than a gradual\nprocess. The fact that in Christian countries Baptism in most cases\nprecedes conversion does not alter the character of the sacrament;\nindeed, infant Baptism is by far the most appropriate symbol of our\nadoption into the Divine Sonship, to which we only consent after the\nevent. It is only because we are already sons that we can say, \"I will\narise, and go unto my Father.\" The Holy Communion is the symbol of the\nmaintenance of the mystical union, and of the \"strengthening and\nrefreshing of our souls,\" which we derive from the indwelling presence\nof our Lord. The Church claims an absolute prerogative for its duly\nordained ministers in the case of this sacrament, because the common\nmeal is the symbol of the organic unity of Christ and the Church as\n\"unus Christus,\" a doctrine which the schismatic, as such,\ndenies.[327] The communicant who believes only in an individual\nrelation between Christ and separate persons, or in an \"invisible\nChurch,\" does not understand the meaning of the sacrament of the\nLord's Supper, and can hardly be said to participate in it.\n\nThere are two views of this sacrament which the \"plain man\" has always\nfound much easier to understand than the symbolic view which is that\nof our Church. One is that it is a miracle or magical performance, the\nother is that it is a mere commemoration. Both are absolutely\ndestructive of the idea of a sacrament. The latter view, that of some\nProtestant sects, was quite foreign to the early Church, so far as our\nevidence goes; the former, it is only just to say, is found in many of\nthe Fathers, not in the grossly materialistic form which it afterwards\nassumed, but in such phrases as \"the medicine of immortality\" applied\nto the consecrated elements, where we are meant to understand that the\nelements have a mysterious power of preserving the receiver from the\nnatural consequences of death.[328] But when we find that the same\nwriters who use compromising phrases about the change that comes over\nthe elements,[329] also use the language of symbolism, and remember,\ntoo, that a \"miracle\" was a very different thing to those who knew of\nno inflexible laws in the natural world from what it is to us, we\nshall not be ready to agree with those who have accused the third and\nfourth century Fathers of degrading the Lord's Supper into a magical\nceremony.\n\nMost of the errors which have so grievously obscured the true nature\nof this sacrament have proceeded from attempts to answer the question,\n\"How does the reception of the consecrated elements affect the inner\nstate of the receiver?\" To those who hold the symbolic view, as I\nunderstand it, it seems clear that the question of cause and effect\nmust be resolutely cast aside. The reciprocal action of spirit and\nmatter is the one great mystery which, to all appearance, must remain\nimpenetrable to the finite intelligence. We do not ask whether the\nsoul is the cause of the body, or the body of the soul; we only know\nthat the two are found, in experience, always united. In the same way\nwe should abstain, I think, from speculating on the effect of the\nsacraments, and train ourselves instead to consider them as\ndivinely-ordered symbols, by which the Church, as an organic whole,\nand we as members of it, realise the highest and deepest of our\nspiritual privileges.\n\nThere are other religious forms for which no Divine institution is\nclaimed, but which have a quasi-sacramental value. And those who,\n\"whether they eat, or drink, or whatever they do,\" do all to the glory\nof God, may be said to turn the commonest acts into sacraments. To the\ntrue mystic, life itself is a sacrament. It is natural, but\nunfortunate, that some of those who have felt this most strongly have\nshown a tendency to disparage observances which are simply acts of\ndevotion, \"mere forms,\" as they call them. The attempt to distinguish\nbetween conventional ceremonies, which have no essential connexion\nwith the truth symbolised, and actions which are in themselves moral\nor immoral, is no doubt justifiable, but it should be remembered that\nthis is the way in which antinomianism takes its rise. Many have begun\nby saying, \"The heart, the motive, is all, the external act nothing;\nthe spirit is all, the letter nothing. What can it matter whether I\nsay my prayers in church or at home, on my knees or in bed, in words\nor in thought only? What can it matter whether the Eucharistic bread\nand wine are consecrated or not? whether I actually eat and drink or\nnot?\" And so on. The descent to Avernus is easy by this road. Perhaps\nno sect that has professed contempt for all ceremonial forms has\nescaped at least the imputation of scandalous licentiousness, with the\nhonourable exception of the Quakers. The truth is that the need of\nsymbols to express or represent our highest emotions is inwoven with\nhuman nature, and indifference to them is not, as many have supposed,\na sign of enlightenment or of spirituality. It is, in fact, an\nunhealthy symptom. We do not credit a man with a warm heart who does\nnot care to show his love in word and act; nor should we commend the\ncommon sense of a soldier who saw in his regimental colours only a rag\nat the end of a pole. It is one of the points in which we must be\ncontent to be children, and should be thankful that we may remain\nchildren with a clear conscience.\n\nI do not shrink from expressing my conviction that the true meaning\nof our sacramental system, which in its external forms is so strangely\nanticipated by the Greek mysteries, and in its inward significance\nstrikes down to the fundamental principles of mystical Christianity,\ncan only be understood by those who are in some sympathy with\nMysticism. But it has not been possible to say much about the\nsacraments sooner than this late stage of our inquiry. We have\nhitherto been dealing with the subjective or introspective type of\nMysticism, and it is plain that this form, when carried to its logical\nconclusion, is inconsistent with sacramental religion. Those who seek\nto ascend to God by the way of abstraction, the negative road, must\nregard all symbols as veils between our eyes and reality, and must\nwish to get rid of them as soon as possible. From this point of view,\nsacraments, like other ceremonial forms, can only be useful at a very\nearly stage in the upward path, which leads us ultimately into a\nDivine darkness, where no forms can be distinguished. It is true that\nsome devout mystics of this type have both observed and exacted a\npunctilious strictness in using all the appointed means of grace; but\nthis inconsistency is easily accounted for.[330] The pressure of\nauthority, loyalty to the established order, and human nature, which\nis stronger than either, has prevented them from casting away the\ntime-honoured symbols and vehicles of Divine love. But a true\nappreciation of sacraments belongs only to those who can sympathise\nwith the other branch of Mysticism--that which rests on belief in\nsymbolism. To this branch of my subject I now invite your attention.\nIf we expect to find ourselves at once in a larger air when we have\ntaken leave of the monkish mystics, we shall be disappointed. The\nobjective or symbolical type of Mysticism is liable to quite as many\nperversions as the subjective. If in the latter we found a tendency to\nrevert to the apathy of the Indian Yogi, we shall observe in the\nformer too many survivals of still more barbarous creeds. Indeed, I\nfeel that it is almost necessary, as an introduction to this part of\nmy subject, to consider very briefly the stages through which the\nreligious consciousness of mankind has passed in its attempts to\nrealise Divine immanence in Nature, for this is, of course, the\nfoundation of all religious symbolism.\n\nThe earliest belief seems to be that which has been called _Animism_,\nthe belief that all natural forces are conscious living beings like\nourselves. This is the primitive form of natural religion; and though\nit leads to some deplorable customs, it is not a morbid type, but a\nvery early effort on the lines of true development[331].\n\nThe perverted form of primitive Animism is called _Fetishism_, which\nis the belief that supernatural powers reside in some visible object,\nwhich is the home or most treasured possession of a god or demon. The\nobject may be a building, a tree, an animal, a particular kind of\nfood, or indeed anything. Unfortunately this belief is not peculiar to\nsavages. A degraded form of it is exhibited by the so-called\nneo-mystical school of modern France, and in the baser types of Roman\nCatholicism everywhere[332].\n\nPrimitive Animism believes in no natural laws. The next stage is to\nbelieve in laws which are frequently suspended by the intervention of\nan independent and superior power. Medi\u00e6val dualism regarded every\nbreach of natural law as a vindication of the power of spirit over\nmatter--not always, however, of Divine power, for evil spirits could\nproduce very similar disturbances of the physical order. Thus arose\nthat persistent tendency to \"seek after a sign,\" in which the religion\nof the vulgar, even in our own day, is deeply involved. Miracle, in\nsome form or other, is regarded as the real basis of belief in God. At\nthis stage people never ask themselves whether any spiritual truth, or\nindeed anything worth knowing, could possibly be communicated or\nauthenticated by thaumaturgic exhibitions. What attracts them at first\nis the evidence which these beliefs furnish, that the world in which\nthey live is not entirely under the dominion of an unconscious or\ninflexible power, but that behind the iron mechanism of cause and\neffect is a will more like their own in its irregularity and\narbitrariness. Afterwards, as the majesty of law dawns upon them,\nmiracles are no longer regarded as capricious exercises of power, but\nas the operation of higher physical laws, which are only active on\nrare occasions. A truer view sees in them a materialisation of\nmystical symbols, the proper function of which is to act as\ninterpreters between the real and the apparent, between the spiritual\nand material worlds. When they crystallise as portents, they lose all\ntheir usefulness. Moreover, the belief in celestial visitations has\nits dark counterpart in superstitious dread of the powers of evil,\nwhich is capable of turning life into a long nightmare, and has led to\ndreadful cruelties[333]. The error has still enough vitality to\ncreate a prejudice against natural science, which appears in the light\nof an invading enemy wresting province after province from the empire\nof the supernatural.\n\nBut we are concerned with thaumaturgy only so far as it has affected\nMysticism. At first sight the connexion may seem very slight; and\nslight indeed it is. But just as Mysticism of the subjective type is\noften entangled in theories which sublimate matter till only a vain\nshadow remains, so objective Mysticism has been often pervaded by\nanother kind of false spiritualism--that which finds edification in\npalpable supernatural manifestations. These so-called \"mystical\nphenomena\" are so much identified with \"Mysticism\" in the Roman\nCatholic Church of to-day, that the standard treatises on the subject,\nnow studied in continental universities, largely consist of grotesque\nlegends of \"levitation,\" \"bilocation,\" \"incandescence,\" \"radiation,\"\nand other miraculous tokens of Divine favour[334]. The great work of\nG\u00f6rres, in five volumes, is divided into Divine, Natural, and\nDiabolical Mysticism. The first contains stories of the miraculous\nenhancement of sight, hearing, smell, and so forth, which results from\nextreme holiness; and tells us how one saint had the power of becoming\ninvisible, another of walking through closed doors, and a third of\nflying through the air. \"Natural Mysticism\" deals with divination,\nlycanthropy, vampires, second sight, and other barbarous\nsuperstitions. \"Diabolical Mysticism\" includes witchcraft, diabolical\npossession, and the hideous stories of incubi and succub\u00e6. It is not\nmy intention to say any more about these savage survivals, as I do not\nwish to bring my subject into undeserved contempt[335]. \"These\nterrors, and this darkness of the mind,\" as Lucretius says, \"must be\ndispelled, not by the bright shafts of the sun's light, but by the\nstudy of Nature's laws[336].\"\n\nSome of these fables are quite obviously due to a materialisation of\nconventional symbols. These symbols are the picture language into\nwhich the imagination translates what the soul has felt. A typical\ncase is that of the miniature image of Christ, which is said to have\nbeen found embedded in the heart of a deceased saint. The supposed\nmiracle was, of course, the work of imagination; but this does not\nmean that those who reported it were deliberate liars. We know now\nthat we must distinguish between observation and imagination, between\nthe language of science and that of poetical metaphor; but in an age\nwhich abhorred rationalism this was not so clear[337]. Rationalism has\nits function in proving that such mystical symbols are not physical\nfacts. But when it goes on to say that they are related to physical\nfacts as morbid hallucinations to realities, it has stepped outside\nits province.\n\nProceeding a little further as we trace the development of natural or\nobjective religion, we come to the belief in _magic_, which in\nprimitive peoples is closely associated with their first attempts at\nexperimental science. What gives magic its peculiar character is that\nit is based on fanciful, and not on real correspondences. The\nuneducated mind cannot distinguish between associations of ideas which\nare purely arbitrary and subjective, and those which have a more\nuniversal validity. Not, of course, that all the affinities seized\nupon by primitive man proved illusory; but those which were not so\nceased to be magical, and became scientific. The savage draws no\ndistinction between the process by which he makes fire and that by\nwhich his priest calls down rain, except that the latter is a\nprofessional secret; drugs and spells are used indifferently to cure\nthe sick; astronomy and astrology are parts of the same science. There\nis, however, a difference between the magic which is purely\nnaturalistic and that which makes mystical claims. The magician\nsometimes claims that the spirits are subject to him, not because he\nhas learned how to wield the forces which they must obey, but because\nhe has so purged his higher faculties that the occult sympathies of\nnature have become apparent to him. His theosophy claims to be a\nspiritual illumination, not a scientific discovery. The error here is\nthe application of spiritual clairvoyance to physical relations. The\ninsight into reality, which is unquestionably the reward of the pure\nheart and the single eye, does not reveal to us in detail how nature\nshould be subdued to our needs. No spirits from the vasty deep will\nobey our call, to show us where lies the road to fortune or to ruin.\nPhysical science is an abstract inquiry, which, while it keeps to its\nproper subject--the investigation of the relations which prevail in\nthe phenomenal world--is self-sufficient, and can receive nothing on\nexternal authority. Still less can the adept usurp Divine powers, and\nbend the eternal laws of the universe to his puny will.\n\nThe turbid streams of theurgy and magic flowed into the broad river\nof Christian thought by two channels--the later Neoplatonism, and\nJewish Cabbalism. Of the former something has been said already. The\nroot-idea of the system was that all life may be arranged in a\ndescending scale of potencies, forming a kind of chain from heaven to\nearth. Man, as a microcosm, is in contact with every link in the\nchain, and can establish relations with all spiritual powers, from the\nsuperessential One to the lower spirits or \"d\u00e6mons.\" The\nphilosopher-saint, who had explored the highest regions of the\nintelligence, might hope to dominate the spirits of the air, and\ncompel them to do his bidding. Thus the door was thrown wide open for\nevery kind of superstition. The Cabbalists followed much the same\npath. The word Cabbala means \"oral tradition,\" and is defined by\nReuchlin as \"the symbolic reception of a Divine revelation handed down\nfor the saving contemplation of God and separate forms.[338]\" In\nanother place he says, \"The Cabbala is nothing else than symbolic\ntheology, in which not only are letters and words symbols of things,\nbut things are symbols of other things.\" This method of symbolic\ninterpretation was held to have been originally communicated by\nrevelation,[339] in order that persons of holy life might by it\nattain to a mystical communion with God, or deification. The\nCabbalists thus held much the same relation to the Talmudists as the\nmystics to the scholastics in the twelfth century. But, as Jews, they\nremained faithful to the two doctrines of an inspired tradition and an\ninspired book, which distinguish them from Platonic mystics.[340]\n\nPico de Mirandola (born 1463) was the first to bring the Cabbala into\nChristian philosophy, and to unite it with his Neoplatonism. Very\ncharacteristic of his age is the declaration that \"there is no natural\nscience which makes us so certain of the Divinity of Christ as Magic\nand the Cabbala.[341]\" For there was at that period a curious\nalliance of Mysticism and natural science against scholasticism, which\nhad kept both in galling chains; and both mystics and physicists\ninvoked the aid of Jewish theosophy. Just as Pythagoras, Plato, and\nProclus were set up against Aristotle, so the occult philosophy of the\nJews, which on its speculative side was mere Neoplatonism, was set up\nagainst the divinity of the Schoolmen. In Germany, Reuchlin\n(1455-1522) wrote a treatise, _On the Cabbalistic Art_, in which a\ntheological scheme resembling those of the Neoplatonists and\nspeculative mystics was based on occult revelation. The book\ncaptivated Pope Leo X. and the early Reformers alike.\n\nThe influence of Cabbalism at this period was felt not only in the\ngrowth of magic, but in the revival of the science of _allegorism_,\nwhich resembles magic in its doctrine of occult sympathies, though\nwithout the theurgic element. According to this view of nature,\neverything in the visible world has an emblematic meaning. Everything\nthat a man saw, heard, or did--colours, numbers, birds, beasts, and\nflowers, the various actions of life--was to remind him of something\nelse.[342] The world was supposed to be full of sacred cryptograms,\nand every part of the natural order testified in hieroglyphics[343] to\nthe truths of Christianity. Thus the shamrock bears witness to the\nTrinity, the spider is an emblem of the devil, and so forth. This\nkind of symbolism was and is extensively used merely as a\npicture-language, in which there is no pretence that the signs are\nother than artificial or conventional. The language of signs may be\nused either to instruct those who cannot understand words, or to\nbaffle those who can. Thus, a crucifix may be as good as a sermon to\nan illiterate peasant; while the sign of a fish was used by the early\nChristians because it was unintelligible to their enemies. This is not\nsymbolism in the sense which I have given to the word in this\nLecture.[344] But it is otherwise when the type is used as a _proof_\nof the antitype. This latter method had long been in use in biblical\nexegesis. Pious persons found a curious satisfaction in turning the\nmost matter of fact statements into enigmatic prophecies. Every verse\nmust have its \"mystical\" as well as its natural meaning, and the\nsearch for \"types\" was a recognised branch of apologetics. Allegorism\nbecame authoritative and dogmatic, which it has no right to be. It\nwould be rash to say that this pseudo-science, which has proved so\nattractive to many minds, is entirely valueless. The very absurdity of\nthe arguments used by its votaries should make us suspect that there\nis a dumb logic of a more respectable sort behind them. There is,\nunderlying this love of types and emblems, a strong conviction that\nif \"one eternal purpose runs\" through the ages, it must be discernible\nin small things as well as in great. Everything in the world, if we\ncould see things as they are, must be symbolic of the Divine Power\nwhich made it and maintains it in being. We cannot believe that\nanything in life is meaningless, or has no significance beyond the\nfleeting moment. Whatever method helps us to realise this is useful,\nand in a sense true. So far as this we may go with the allegorists,\nwhile at the same time we may be thankful that the cobwebs which they\nspun over the sacred texts have now been cleared away, so that we can\nat last read our Bible as its authors intended it to be read.[345]\n\nTheosophical and magical Mysticism culminated in the sixteenth and\nseventeenth centuries. Just as the idealism of Plotinus lost itself in\nthe theurgic system of Iamblichus, so the doctrine of Divine immanence\npreached by Eckhart and his school was followed by the Nature-Mysticism\nof Cornelius Agrippa[346] and Paracelsus.[347] The \"negative road\" had\nbeen discredited by Luther's invective, and Mysticism, instead of\nshutting her eyes to the world of phenomena, stretched forth her hands\nto conquer and annex it. The old theory of a World-Spirit, the\npulsations of whose heart are felt in all the life of the universe, came\nonce more into favour. Through all phenomena, it was believed, runs an\nintricate network of sympathies and antipathies, the threads of which,\ncould they be disentangled, would furnish us with a clue through all the\nlabyrinths of natural and supernatural science. The age was impatient to\nenter on the inheritance from which humanity had long been debarred; the\nmethods of experimental science seemed tame and slow; and so we find,\nespecially in Germany, an extraordinary outburst of Nature-Mysticism--\nastrology, white magic, alchemy, necromancy, and what not--such as\nChristianity had not witnessed before. These pseudo-sciences (with which\nwas mingled much real progress in medicine, natural history, and kindred\nsciences) were divided under three provinces or \"vincula\"--those of the\nSpiritual World, which were mainly magical invocations, diagrams, and\nsigns; those of the Celestial World, which were taught by astrology; and\nthose of the Elemental World, which consisted in the sympathetic\ninfluence of material objects upon each other. These secrets (it was\nheld) are all discoverable by man; for man is a microcosm, or epitome of\nthe universe, and there is nothing in it with which he cannot claim an\naffinity. In knowing himself, he knows both God and all the other works\nthat God has made.\n\nThe subject of Nature-Mysticism is a fascinating one; but I must here\nconfine myself to its religious aspects. An attempt was soon made, by\nValentine Weigel (1533-1588), Lutheran pastor at Tschopau, to bring\ntogether the new objective Mysticism--freed from its superstitious\nelements--and the traditional subjective Mysticism which the Middle\nAges had handed down from Dionysius and the Neoplatonists. Weigel's\ncosmology is based on that of Paracelsus; and his psychology also\nreminds us of him. Man is a microcosm, and his nature has three\nparts--the outward material body, the astral spirit, and the immortal\nsoul, which bears the image of God. The three faculties of the soul\ncorrespond to these three parts; they are sense, reason (_Vernunft_),\nand understanding (_Verstand_). These are the \"three eyes\" by which we\nget knowledge. The sense perceives material things; the reason,\nnatural science and art; the understanding, which he also calls the\nspark, sees the invisible and Divine. He follows the scholastic\nmystics in distinguishing between natural and supernatural knowledge,\nbut his method of distinguishing them is, I think, original. Natural\nknowledge, he says, is not conveyed by the object; it is the\npercipient subject which creates knowledge out of itself. The object\nmerely provokes the consciousness into activity. In natural knowledge\nthe subject is \"active, not passive\"; all that appears to come from\nwithout is really evolved from within. In supernatural knowledge the\nopposite is the case. The eye of the \"understanding,\" which sees the\nDivine, is the spark in the centre of the soul where lies the Divine\nimage. In this kind of cognition the subject must be absolutely\npassive; its thoughts must be as still as if it were dead. Just as in\nnatural knowledge the object does not co-operate, so in supernatural\nknowledge the subject does not co-operate. Yet this supernatural\nknowledge does not come from without. The Spirit and Word of God are\n_within_ us. God is Himself the eye and the light in the soul, as well\nas the object which the eye sees by this light. Supernatural knowledge\nflows from within outwards, and in this way resembles natural\nknowledge. But since God is both the eye that sees and the object\nwhich it sees, it is not we who know God, so much as God who knows\nHimself in us. Our inner man is a mere instrument of God.\n\nThus Weigel, who begins with Paracelsus, leaves off somewhere near\nEckhart--and Eckhart in his boldest mood. But his chief concern is to\nattack the Bibliolaters (_Buchstabentheologen_) in the Lutheran\nChurch, and to protest against the unethical dogma of imputed\nrighteousness. We need not follow him into either of these\ncontroversies, which give a kind of accidental colouring to his\ntheology. Speculative Mysticism, which is always the foe of formalism\nand dryness in religion, attacks them in whatever forms it finds them;\nand so, when we try to penetrate the essence of Mysticism by\ninvestigating its historical manifestations, we must always consider\nwhat was the system which in each case it was trying to purify and\nspiritualise. Weigel's Mysticism moves in the atmosphere of Lutheran\ndogmatics. But it also marks a stage in the general development of\nChristian Mysticism, by giving a positive value to scientific and\nnatural knowledge as part of the self-evolution of the human soul.\n\"Study nature,\" he says, \"physics, alchemy, magic, etc.; for _it is\nall in you, and you become what you have learnt_.\" It is true that his\nreligious attitude is rigidly quietistic; but this position is so\ninconsistent with the activity which he enjoins on the \"reason,\" that\nhe may claim the credit of having exhibited the contradiction between\nthe positive and negative methods in a clear light; and to prove a\ncontradiction is always the first step towards solving it.\n\nA more notable effort in the same direction was that of Jacob B\u00f6hme,\nwho, though he had studied Weigel, brought to his task a philosophical\ngenius which was all his own.\n\nB\u00f6hme was born in 1575 near G\u00f6rlitz, where he afterwards settled as a\nshoemaker and glover. He began to write in 1612, and in spite of\nclerical opposition, which silenced him for five years, he produced a\nnumber of treatises between that date and his death in 1624.\n\nB\u00f6hme professed to write only what he had \"seen\" by Divine\nillumination. His visions are not (with insignificant exceptions)\nauthenticated by any marvellous signs; he simply asserts that he has\nbeen allowed to see into the heart of things, and that the very Being\nof God has been laid open to his spiritual sight.[348] His was that\ntype of mind to which every thought becomes an image, and a logical\nprocess is like an animated photograph. \"I am myself my own book,\" he\nsays; and in writing, he tries to transcribe on paper the images which\nfloat before his mind's eye. If he fails, it is because he cannot find\nwords to describe what he is seeing. B\u00f6hme was an unlearned man; but\nwhen he is content to describe his visions in homely German, he is\nlucid enough. Unfortunately, the scholars who soon gathered round him\nsupplied him with philosophical terms, which he forthwith either\npersonified--for instance the word \"Idea\" called forth the image of a\nbeautiful maiden--or used in a sense of his own. The study of\nParacelsus obscured his style still more, filling his treatises with a\nbewildering mixture of theosophy and chemistry. The result is\ncertainly that much of his work is almost unreadable; the nuggets of\ngold have to be dug out from a bed of rugged stone; and we cannot be\nsurprised that the unmystical eighteenth century declared that\n\"Behmen's works would disgrace Bedlam at full moon.[349]\" But German\nphilosophers have spoken with reverence of \"the father of Protestant\nMysticism,\" who \"perhaps only wanted learning and the gift of clear\nexpression to become a German Plato\"; and Sir Isaac Newton shut\nhimself up for three months to study B\u00f6hme, whose teaching on\nattraction and the laws of motion seemed to him to have great\nvalue.[350]\n\nFor us, he is most interesting as marking the transition from the\npurely subjective type of Mysticism to Symbolism, or rather as the\nauthor of a brilliant attempt to fuse the two into one system. In my\nbrief sketch of B\u00f6hme's doctrines I shall illustrate his teaching from\nthe later works of William Law, who is by far its best exponent. Law\nwas an enthusiastic admirer of B\u00f6hme, and being, unlike his master, a\nman of learning and a practised writer, was able to bring order out\nof the chaos in which B\u00f6hme left his speculations. In strength of\nintellect Law was B\u00f6hme's equal, and as a writer of clear and forcible\nEnglish he has few superiors.\n\nB\u00f6hme's doctrine of God and the world resembles that of other\nspeculative mystics, but he contributes a new element in the great\nstress which he lays on _antithesis_ as a law of being. \"In Yes and No\nall things consist,\" he says. No philosopher since Heraclitus and\nEmpedocles had asserted so strongly that \"Strife is the father of all\nthings.\" Even in the hidden life of the unmanifested Godhead he finds\nthe play of Attraction and Diffusion, the resultant of which is a\nDesire for manifestation felt in the Godhead. As feeling this desire,\nthe Godhead becomes \"Darkness\"; the light which illumines the darkness\nis the Son. The resultant is the Holy Spirit, in whom arise the\narchetypes of creation. So he explains Body, Soul, and Spirit as\nthesis, antithesis, and synthesis; and the same formula serves to\nexplain Good, Evil, and Free Will; Angels, Devils, and the World. His\nview of Evil is not very consistent; but his final doctrine is that\nthe object of the cosmic process is to exhibit the victory of Good\nover Evil, of Love over Hatred.[351] He at least has the merit of\nshowing that strife is so inwoven with our lives here that we cannot\npossibly soar above the conflict between Good and Evil. It must be\nobserved that B\u00f6hme repudiated the doctrine that there is any\nevolution of God in time. \"I say not that Nature is God,\" he says:\n\"He Himself is all, and communicates His power to all His works.\" But\nthe creation of the archetypes was not a temporal act.\n\nLike other Protestant mystics, he lays great stress on the indwelling\npresence of Christ. And, consistently with this belief, he revolts\nagainst the Calvinistic doctrine of imputed righteousness, very much\nas did the Cambridge Platonists a little later. \"That man is no\nChristian,\" he says, \"who doth merely comfort himself with the\nsuffering, death, and satisfaction of Christ, and doth impute it to\nhimself as a gift of favour, remaining himself still a wild beast and\nunregenerate.... If this said sacrifice is to avail for me, it must be\nwrought _in_ me. The Father must beget His Son in my desire of faith,\nthat my faith's hunger may apprehend Him in His word of promise. Then\nI put Him on, in His entire process of justification, in my inward\nground; and straightway there begins in me the killing of the wrath of\nthe devil, death, and hell, from the inward power of Christ's death. I\nam inwardly dead, and He is my life; I live in Him, and not in my\nselfhood. I am an instrument of God, wherewith He doeth what He will.\"\nTo the same effect William Law says, \"Christ given _for_ us is neither\nmore nor less than Christ given _into_ us. He is in no other sense our\nfull, perfect, and sufficient Atonement, than as His nature and spirit\nare born and formed in us.\" Law also insists that the Atonement was\nthe effect, not of the wrath, but of the love of God. \"Neither reason\nnor scripture,\" he says, \"will allow us to bring wrath into God\nHimself, as a temper of His mind, who is only infinite, unalterable,\noverflowing Love.\" \"Wrath is atoned when sin is extinguished.\" This\nrevolt against the forensic theory of the Atonement is very\ncharacteristic of Protestant Mysticism.[352]\n\nThe disparagement of external rites and ordinances, which we have\nfound in so many mystics, appears in William Law, though he was\nhimself precise in observing all the rules of the English Church.\n\"This pearl of eternity is the Church, a temple of God _within_ thee,\nthe consecrated place of Divine worship, where alone thou canst\nworship God in spirit and in truth. In _spirit_, because thy spirit is\nthat alone in thee which can unite and cleave unto God, and receive\nthe working of the Divine Spirit upon thee. In _truth_, because this\nadoration in spirit is that truth and reality of which all outward\nforms and rites, though instituted by God, are only the figure for a\ntime; but this worship is eternal. Accustom thyself to the holy\nservice of this inward temple. In the midst of it is the fountain of\nliving water, of which thou mayst drink and live for ever. There the\nmysteries of thy redemption are celebrated, or rather opened in life\nand power. There the supper of the Lamb is kept; the bread that came\ndown from heaven, that giveth life to the world, is thy true\nnourishment: all is done, and known in real experience, in a living\nsensibility of the work of God on the soul. There the birth, the life,\nthe sufferings, the death, the resurrection and ascension of Christ,\nare not merely remembered, but inwardly found and enjoyed as the real\nstates of thy soul, which has followed Christ in the regeneration.\nWhen once thou art well grounded in this inward worship, thou wilt\nhave learnt to live unto God above time and place. For every day will\nbe Sunday to thee, and wherever thou goest thou wilt have a priest, a\nchurch, and an altar along with thee.[353]\"\n\nIn his teaching about faith and love, Law follows the best mystical\nwriters; but none before him, I think, attained to such strong and\ngrowing eloquence in setting it forth. \"There is but one salvation for\nall mankind, and the way to it is one; and that is, the desire of the\nsoul turned to God. This desire brings the soul to God, and God into\nthe soul; it unites with God, it co-operates with God, and is one life\nwith God. O my God, just and true, how great is Thy love and mercy to\nmankind, that heaven is thus everywhere open, and Christ thus the\ncommon Saviour to all that turn the desire of their hearts to Thee!\"\nAnd of love he says: \"No creature can have any union or communion with\nthe goodness of the Deity till its life is a spirit of love. This is\nthe one only bond of union betwixt God and His creature.\" \"Love has no\nby-ends, wills nothing but its own increase: everything is as oil to\nits flame. The spirit of love does not want to be rewarded, honoured,\nor esteemed; its only desire is to propagate itself, and become the\nblessing and happiness of everything that wants it.\"\n\nThe doctrine of the Divine spark (_synteresis_) is held by Law, but in\na more definitely Christian form than by Eckhart. \"If Christ was to\nraise a new life like His own in every man, then every man must have\nhad originally in the inmost spirit of his life a seed of Christ, or\nChrist as a seed of heaven, lying there in a state of insensibility,\nout of which it could not arise but by the mediatorial power of\nChrist.... For what could begin to deny self, if there were not\nsomething in man different from self?... The Word of God is the hidden\ntreasure of every human soul, immured under flesh and blood, till as a\nday-star it arises in our hearts, and changes the son of an earthly\nAdam into a son of God.\" Is not this the Platonic doctrine of\n_anamnesis_, Christianised in a most beautiful manner?\n\nVery characteristic of the later Mysticism is the language which both\nB\u00f6hme and Law use about the future state. \"The soul, when it departs\nfrom the body,\" B\u00f6hme writes, \"needeth not to go far; for where the\nbody dies, there is heaven and hell. God is there, and the devil; yea,\neach in his own kingdom. There also is Paradise; and the soul needeth\nonly to enter through the deep door in the centre.\" Law is very\nemphatic in asserting that heaven and hell are states, not places, and\nthat they are \"no foreign, separate, and imposed states, adjudged to\nus by the will of God.\" \"Damnation,\" he says, \"is the natural,\nessential state of our own disordered nature, which is impossible, in\nthe nature of the thing, to be anything else but our own hell, both\nhere and hereafter.\" \"There is nothing that is supernatural,\" he says\nvery finely, \"in the whole system of our redemption. Every part of it\nhas its ground in the workings and powers of nature, and all our\nredemption is only nature set right, or made to be that which it\nought to be.[354] There is nothing that is supernatural but God\nalone.... Right and wrong, good and evil, true and false, happiness\nand misery, are as unchangeable in nature as time and space. Nothing,\ntherefore, can be done to any creature supernaturally, or in a way\nthat is without or contrary to the powers of nature; but every thing\nor creature that is to be helped, that is, to have any good done to\nit, or any evil taken out of it, can only have it done so far as the\npowers of nature are able, and rightly directed to effect it.[355]\"\n\nIt is difficult to abstain from quoting more passages like this, in\nwhich Faith, which had been so long directed only to the unseen and\nunknown, sheds her bright beams over this earth of ours, and claims\nall nature for her own. The laws of nature are now recognised as the\nlaws of God, and for that very reason they cannot be broken or\narbitrarily suspended. Redemption is a law of life. There will come a\ntime[356], \"the time of the lilies,\" as B\u00f6hme calls it, when all\nnature will be delivered from bondage. \"All the design of Christian\nredemption,\" says Law, \"is to remove everything that is unheavenly,\ngross, dark, wrathful, and disordered from every part of this fallen\nworld.\" No text is oftener in his mouth than the words of St. Paul\nwhich I read as the text of this Lecture. That \"dim sympathy\" of the\nhuman spirit with the life of nature which Plotinus felt, but which\nmedi\u00e6val dualism had almost quenched, has now become an intense and\nhappy consciousness of community with all living things, as subjects\nof one all-embracing and unchanging law, the law of perfect love.\nMagic and portents, apparitions and visions, the raptures of \"infused\ncontemplation\" and their dark Nemesis of Satanic delusions, can no\nmore trouble the serenity of him who has learnt to see the same God in\nnature whom he has found in the holy place of his own heart.\n\nIt was impossible to separate Law from the \"blessed Behmen,\" whose\ndisciple he was proud to profess himself. But in putting them together\nI have been obliged to depart from the chronological order, for the\nCambridge Platonists, as they are usually called, come between. This,\nhowever, need cause no confusion, for the Platonists had no direct\ninfluence upon Law. Law, Nonjuror as well as mystic, remained a High\nChurchman by sympathy, and hated Rationalism; while the Platonists\nsprang from an Evangelical school, were never tired of extolling\nReason, and regarded B\u00f6hme as a fanciful \"enthusiast.[357]\" And yet,\nwe find so very much in common between the Platonists and William Law,\nthat these party differences seem merely superficial. The same exalted\ntype of Mysticism appears in both.\n\nThe group of philosophical divines, who had their centre in some of\nthe Cambridge colleges towards the middle of the seventeenth century,\nfurnishes one of the most interesting and important chapters in the\nhistory of our Church. Never since the time of the early Greek Fathers\nhad any orthodox communion produced thinkers so independent and yet so\nthoroughly loyal to the Church. And seldom has the Christian temper\nfound a nobler expression than in the lives and writings of such men\nas Whichcote and John Smith.[358]\n\nThese men made no secret of their homage to Plato. And let it be\nnoticed that they were students of Plato and Plotinus more than of\nDionysius and his successors. Their Platonism is not of the debased\nOriental type, and is entirely free from self-absorbed quietism. The\n_via negativa_ has disappeared as completely in their writings as in\nthose of B\u00f6hme; the world is for them as for him the mirror of the\nDeity; but, being philosophers and not physicists, they are most\ninterested in claiming for religion the whole field of _intellectual_\nlife. They are fully convinced that there can be no ultimate\ncontradiction between philosophy or science and Christian faith; and\nthis accounts not only for their praise of \"reason,\" but for the happy\noptimism which appears everywhere in their writings. The luxurious and\nindolent Restoration clergy, whose lives were shamed by the simplicity\nand spirituality of the Platonists, invented the word \"Latitudinarian\"\nto throw at them, \"a long nickname which they have taught their\ntongues to pronounce as roundly as if it were shorter than it is by\nfour or five syllables\"; but they could not deny that their enemies were\nloyal sons of the Church of England.[359] What the Platonists meant\nby making reason the seat of authority may be seen by a few\nquotations from Whichcote and Smith, who for our purpose are, I think,\nthe best representatives of the school. Whichcote answers Tuckney, who\nhad remonstrated with him for \"a vein of doctrine, in which reason\nhath too much given to it in the mysteries of faith\";--\"Too much\" and\n\"too often\" on these points! \"The Scripture is full of such truths,\nand I discourse on them too much and too often! Sir, I oppose not\nrational to spiritual, for spiritual is most rational.\" Elsewhere he\nwrites, \"He that gives reason for what he has said, has done what is\nfit to be done, and the most that can be done.\" \"Reason is the Divine\nGovernor of man's life; it is the very voice of God.\" \"When the\ndoctrine of the Gospel becomes the reason of our mind, it will be the\nprinciple of our life.\" \"It ill becomes us to make our intellectual\nfaculties Gibeonites.[360]\" How far this teaching differs from the\nfrigid \"common-sense\" morality prevalent in the eighteenth century,\nmay be judged from the following, which stamps Whichcote as a genuine\nmystic. \"Though liberty of judgment be everyone's right, yet how few\nthere are that make use of this right! For the use of this right doth\ndepend upon self-improvement by meditation, consideration,\nexamination, prayer, and the like. These are things antecedent and\nprerequisite.\" John Smith, in a fine passage too long to quote in\nfull, says: \"Reason in man being _lumen de lumine_, a light flowing\nfrom the Fountain and Father of lights ... was to enable man to work\nout of himself all those notions of God which are the true groundwork\nof love and obedience to God, and conformity to Him.... But since\nman's fall from God, the inward virtue and vigour of reason is much\nabated, the soul having suffered a [Greek: pterorry\u00easis], as Plato\nspeaks, a _defluvium pennarum_.... And therefore, besides the truth of\nnatural inscription, God hath provided the truth of Divine\nrevelation.... But besides this outward revelation, there is also an\ninward impression of it ... which is in a more special manner\nattributed to God.... God only can so shine upon our glassy\nunderstandings, as to beget in them a picture of Himself, and turn the\nsoul like wax or clay to the seal of His own light and love. He that\nmade our souls in His own image and likeness can easily find a way\ninto them. The Word that God speaks, having found a way into the soul,\nimprints itself there as with the point of a diamond.... It is God\nalone that acquaints the soul with the truths of revelation, and also\nstrengthens and raises the soul to better apprehensions even of\nnatural truth, God being that in the intellectual world which the sun\nis in the sensible, as some of the ancient Fathers love to speak, and\nthe ancient philosophers too, who meant God by their _Intellectus\nAgens_[361] whose proper work they supposed to be not so much to\nenlighten the object as the faculty.\"\n\nThe Platonists thus lay great stress on the inner light, and identify\nit with the purified reason. The best exposition of their teaching on\nthis head is in Smith's beautiful sermon on \"The True Way or Method of\nattaining to Divine Knowledge.\" \"Divinity,\" he says, \"is a Divine life\nrather than a Divine science, to be understood rather by a spiritual\nsensation than by any verbal description. A good life is the\n_prolepsis_ of Divine science--the fear of the Lord is the beginning\nof wisdom. Divinity is a true efflux from the eternal light, which,\nlike the sunbeams, does not only enlighten, but also heat and enliven;\nand therefore our Saviour hath in His beatitudes connext purity of\nheart to the beatific vision.\" \"Systems and models furnish but a poor\nwan light,\" compared with that which shines in purified souls. \"To\nseek our divinity merely in books and writings is to seek the living\namong the dead\"; in these, \"truth is often not so much enshrined as\nentombed.\" \"That which enables us to know and understand aright the\nthings of God, must be a living principle of holiness within us. The\nsun of truth never shines into any unpurged souls.... Such as men\nthemselves are, such will God Himself seem to be.... Some men have too\nbad hearts to have good heads.... He that will find truth must seek it\nwith a free judgment and a sanctified mind.\"\n\nSmith was well read in mystical theology, and was aware how much his\nideal differed from that of Dionysian Mysticism. His criticism of the\n_via negativa_ is so admirable that I must quote part of it. \"Good men\n... are content and ready to deny themselves for God. I mean not that\nthey should deny their own reason, as some would have it, for that\nwere to deny a beam of Divine light, and so to deny God, instead of\ndenying ourselves for Him.... By self-denial, I mean the soul's\nquitting all its own interest in itself, and an entire resignation of\nitself to Him as to all points of service and duty; and thus the soul\nloses itself in God, and lives in the possession not so much of its\nown being as of the Divinity, desiring only to be great in God, to\nglory in His light, and spread itself in His fulness; to be filled\nalways by Him, and to empty itself again into Him; to receive all from\nHim, and to expend all for Him; and so to live, not as its own, but as\nGod's.\" Wicked men \"maintain a _meum_ and _tuum_ between God and\nthemselves,\" but the good man is able to make a full surrender of\nhimself, \"triumphing in nothing more than in his own nothingness, and\nin the allness of the Divinity. But, indeed, this his being nothing is\nthe only way to be all things; this his having nothing the truest way\nof possessing all things.... The spirit of religion is always\nascending upwards; and, spreading itself through the whole essence of\nthe soul, loosens it from a self-confinement and narrowness, and so\nrenders it more capacious of Divine enjoyment.... The spirit of a good\nman is always drinking in fountain-goodness, and fills itself more and\nmore, till it be filled with all the fulness of God.\" \"It is not a\nmelancholy kind of sitting still, and slothful waiting, that speaks\nmen enlivened by the Spirit and power of God. It is not religion to\nstifle and smother those active powers and principles which are within\nus.... Good men do not walk up and down the world merely like ghosts\nand shadows; but they are indeed living men, by a real participation\nfrom Him who is indeed a quickening Spirit.\"\n\n\"Neither were it an happiness worth the having for a mind, like an\nhermit sequestered from all things else, to spend an eternity in\nself-converse and the enjoyment of such a diminutive superficial\nnothing as itself is.... We read in the Gospel of such a question of\nour Saviour's, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? We may\ninvert it, What do you return within to see? A soul confined within\nthe private and narrow cell of its own particular being? Such a soul\ndeprives itself of all that almighty and essential glory and goodness\nwhich shines round about it, which spreads itself throughout the whole\nuniverse; I say, it deprives itself of all this, for the enjoying of\nsuch a poor, petty, and diminutive thing as itself is, which yet it\ncan never enjoy truly in such retiredness.\"\n\nThe English Platonists are equally sound on the subject of ecstasy.\nWhichcote says: \"He doth not know God at all as He is, nor is he in a\ngood state of religion, who doth not find in himself at times\nravishings with sweet and lovely considerations of the Divine\nperfections.\" And Smith: \"Who can tell the delights of those\nmysterious converses with the Deity, when reason is turned into sense,\nand faith becomes vision? The fruit of this knowledge is sweeter than\nhoney and the honeycomb.... By the Platonists' leave, this life and\nknowledge (that of the 'contemplative man') peculiarly belongs to the\ntrue and sober Christian. This life is nothing else but an\ninfant-Christ formed in his soul. But we must not mistake: this\nknowledge is here but in its infancy.\" While we are here, \"our own\nimaginative powers, which are perpetually attending the best acts of\nour souls, will be breathing a gross dew upon the pure glass of our\nunderstandings.\"\n\n\"Heaven is first a temper, then a place,\" says Whichcote, and Smith\nsays the same about hell. \"Heaven is not a thing without us, nor is\nhappiness anything distinct from a true conjunction of the mind with\nGod.\" \"Though we could suppose ourselves to be at truce with heaven,\nand all Divine displeasure laid asleep; yet would our own sins, if\nthey continue unmortified, make an \u00c6tna or Vesuvius within us.[362]\"\nThis view of the indissoluble connexion between holiness and\nblessedness, as between sin and damnation, leads Smith to reject\nstrenuously the doctrine of imputed, as opposed to imparted,\nrighteousness. \"God does not bid us be warmed and filled,\" he says,\n\"and deny us those necessities which our starving and hungry souls\ncall for.... I doubt sometimes, some of our dogmata and notions about\njustification may puff us up in far higher and goodlier conceits of\nourselves than God hath of us, and that we profanely make the\nunspotted righteousness of Christ to serve only as a covering wherein\nto wrap our foul deformities and filthy vices, and when we have done,\nthink ourselves in as good credit and repute with God as we are with\nourselves, and that we are become Heaven's darlings as much as we are\nour own.[363]\"\n\nThese extracts will show that the English Platonists breathe a larger\nair than the later Romish mystics, and teach a religion more\ndefinitely Christian than Erigena and Eckhart. I shall now show how\nthis happy result was connected with a more truly spiritual view of\nthe external world than we have met with in the earlier part of our\nsurvey. That the laws of nature are the laws of God, that \"man, as\nman, is averse to what is evil and wicked,\" that \"evil is unnatural,\"\nand a \"contradiction of the law of our being,\" which is only found in\n\"wicked men and devils,\" is one of Whichcote's \"gallant themes.\" And\nSmith sets forth the true principles of Nature-Mysticism in a splendid\npassage, with which I will conclude this Lecture:--\n\n\"God made the universe and all the creatures contained therein as so\nmany glasses wherein He might reflect His own glory. He hath copied\nforth Himself in the creation; and in this outward world we may read\nthe lovely characters of the Divine goodness, power, and wisdom....\nBut how to find God here, and feelingly to converse with Him, and\nbeing affected with the sense of the Divine glory shining out upon the\ncreation, how to pass out of the sensible world into the intellectual,\nis not so effectually taught by that philosophy which professed it\nmost, as by true religion. That which knits and unites God and the\nsoul together can best teach it how to ascend and descend upon those\ngolden links that unite, as it were, the world to God. That Divine\nWisdom, that contrived and beautified this glorious structure, can\nbest explain her own art, and carry up the soul back again in these\nreflected beams to Him who is the Fountain of them.... Good men may\neasily find every creature pointing out to that Being whose image and\nsuperscription it bears, and climb up from those darker resemblances\nof the Divine wisdom and goodness, shining out in different degrees\nupon several creatures, till they sweetly repose themselves in the\nbosom of the Divinity; and while they are thus conversing with this\nlower world ... they find God many times secretly flowing into their\nsouls, and leading them silently out of the court of the temple into\nthe Holy Place.... Thus religion, where it is in truth and power,\nrenews the very spirit of our minds, and doth in a manner spiritualise\nthis outward creation to us.... It is nothing but a thick mist of\npride and self-love that hinders men's eyes from beholding that sun\nwhich enlightens them and all things else.... A good man is no more\nsolicitous whether this or that good thing be mine, or whether my\nperfections exceed the measure of this or that particular creature;\nfor whatsoever good he beholds anywhere, he enjoys and delights in it\nas much as if it were his own, and whatever he beholds in himself, he\nlooks not upon it as his property, but as a common good; for all these\nbeams come from one and the same Fountain and Ocean of light in whom\nhe loves them all with an universal love.... Thus may a man walk up\nand down the world as in a garden of spices, and suck a Divine\nsweetness out of every flower. There is a twofold meaning in every\ncreature, a literal and a mystical, and the one is but the ground of\nthe other; and as the Jews say of their law, so a good man says of\neverything that his senses offer to him--it speaks to his lower part,\nbut it points out something above to his mind and spirit. It is the\ndrowsy and muddy spirit of superstition which is fain to set some idol\nat its elbow, something that may jog it and put it in mind of God.\nWhereas true religion never finds itself out of the infinite sphere of\nthe Divinity ... it beholds itself everywhere in the midst of that\nglorious unbounded Being who is indivisibly everywhere. A good man\nfinds every place he treads upon holy ground; to him the world is\nGod's temple; he is ready to say with Jacob, 'How dreadful is this\nplace! this is none other than the house of God, this is the gate of\nheaven.'\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 316: In R.L. Nettleship's _Remains_.]\n\n[Footnote 317: In addition to passages quoted elsewhere, the following\nsentence from Luthardt is a good statement of the symbolic theory:\n\"Nature is a world of symbolism, a rich hieroglyphic book: everything\nvisible conceals an invisible mystery, and the last mystery of all is\nGod.\" Goethe's \"Alles verg\u00e4ngliche ist nur ein Gleichniss\" would be\nbetter without the \"nur,\" from our point of view.]\n\n[Footnote 318: R\u00e9c\u00e9jac, _Essai sur les Fondements de la Connaissance\nMystique_.]\n\n[Footnote 319: In the _Edinburgh Review_, October 1896. The article\nreferred to, on \"The Catholic Mystics of the Middle Ages,\" is\nbeautifully written, and should be read by all who are interested in\nthe subject.]\n\n[Footnote 320: This is Kant's use of the word. See Bosanquet, _History\nof \u00c6sthetic_, p. 273: \"A symbol is for Kant a perception or\npresentation which represents a conception neither conventionally as a\nmere sign, nor directly, but in the abstract, as a scheme, but\nindirectly though appropriately through a similarity between the rules\nwhich govern our reflection in the symbol and in the thing (or idea)\nsymbolised.\" \"In this sense beauty is a symbol of the moral order.\"\nGoethe's definition is also valuable: \"That is true symbolism where\nthe more particular represents the more general, not as a dream or\nshade, but as a vivid, instantaneous revelation of the inscrutable.\"]\n\n[Footnote 321: Or rather of power and dignity; for in some early\nByzantine works even Satan is represented with a nimbus.]\n\n[Footnote 322: Emerson says rightly, \"Mysticism (in a bad sense)\nconsists in the mistake of an accidental and individual symbol for an\nuniversal one.\"]\n\n[Footnote 323: The distinction which Ruskin draws between the _fancy_\nand the _imagination_ may help us to discern the true and the false in\nSymbolism. \"Fancy has to do with the outsides of things, and is\ncontent therewith. She can never _feel_, but is one of the most purely\nand simply intellectual of the faculties. She cannot be made serious;\nno edge-tool, but she will play with: whereas the imagination is in\nall things the reverse. She cannot but be serious; she sees too far,\ntoo darkly, too solemnly, too earnestly, ever to smile.... There is\nreciprocal action between the intensity of moral feeling and the power\nof imagination. Hence the powers of the imagination may always be\ntested by accompanying tenderness of emotion.... Imagination is quiet,\nfancy restless; fancy details, imagination suggests.... All egotism is\ndestructive of imagination, whose play and power depend altogether on\nour being able to forget ourselves.... Imagination has no respect for\nsayings or opinions: it is independent\" (_Modern Painters_, vol. ii.\nchap. iii.).]\n\n[Footnote 324: Cf. Harnack, _History of Dogma_, vol. ii. p. 144: \"What\nwe nowadays understand by 'symbols' is a thing which is not that which\nit represents; at that time (in the second century) 'symbol' denoted a\nthing which, in some kind of way, is that which it signifies; but, on\nthe other hand, according to the ideas of that period, the really\nheavenly element lay either in or behind the visible form without\nbeing identical with it. Accordingly, the distinction of a symbolic\nand realistic conception of the Lord's Supper is altogether to be\nrejected.\" And vol. iv. p. 289: \"The 'symbol' was never a mere type or\nsign, but always embodied a mystery.\" So Justin Martyr uses [Greek:\nsymbolik\u00f4s eipein] and [Greek: eipein en myst\u00eari\u00f4] as interchangeable\nterms; and Tertullian says that the name of Joshua was _nominis futuri\nsacramentum_.]\n\n[Footnote 325: So some thinkers have felt that \"the Word\" is not the\nbest expression for the creative activity of God. The passage of\nGoethe where Faust rejects \"Word,\" \"Thought,\" and \"Power,\" and finally\ntranslates, \"In the beginning was the _Act_,\" is well known. And\nPhilo, in a very interesting passage, says that Nature is the language\nin which God speaks; \"but there is this difference, that while the\nhuman voice is made to be _heard_, the voice of God is made to be\n_seen_: what God says consists of acts, not of words\" (_De Decem\nOrac_. II).]\n\n[Footnote 326: Aquinas says of the sacraments, \"efficiunt quod\nfigurant.\" The Thomists held that the sacraments are \"caus\u00e6\" of\ngrace; the Scotists (Nominalists), that grace is their inseparable\nconcomitant. The maintenance of a real correspondence between sign and\nsignificance seems to be essential to the idea of a sacrament, but\nthen the danger of degrading it into magic lies close at hand.]\n\n[Footnote 327: In the case of irregular Baptism, the maxim holds:\n\"Fieri non debuit; factum valet.\" Cf. Bp. Churton, _The Missionary's\nFoundation of Doctrine_, p. 129. The reason for this difference\nbetween the two sacraments is quite clear.]\n\n[Footnote 328: It is, of course, difficult to decide how far such\nstatements were meant to be taken literally. But there is no doubt\nthat both Baptism and the Eucharist were supposed to _confer_\nimmortality. Cf. Tert. _de Bapt._ 2 (621, Oehl.), \"nonne mirandum est\nlavacro dilui mortem?\"; Gregory of Nyssa, _Or. cat. magn._ 35, [Greek:\nm\u00ea dynasthai de ph\u00eami dicha t\u00eas kata to loutron anagenn\u00ease\u00f4s en\nanastasei genesthai ton anthr\u00f4pon]. Basil, too, calls Baptism [Greek:\ndynamis eis t\u00ean anastasin]. Of the Eucharist, Ignatius uses the\nphrase quoted, [Greek: pharmakon t\u00eas athanasias], and [Greek:\nantidotos tou m\u00ea apothanein]; and Gregory of Nyssa uses the same\nlanguage as about Baptism. See, further, in Appendices B and C.]\n\n[Footnote 329: E.g. [Greek: metallaxis] (Theodoret), [Greek:\nmetabol\u00ea] (Cyril), [Greek: metapoi\u00easis] (Gregory Naz.), [Greek:\nmetastoichei\u00f4sis] (Theophylact). The last-named goes on to say that\n\"we are in the same way _transelementated_ into Christ.\" The Christian\nNeoplatonists naturally regard the sacrament as symbolic. Origen is\ninclined to hold that _every_ action should be sacramental, and that\nmaterial symbols, such as bread and wine, and participation in a\nceremonial, cannot be necessary vehicles of spiritual grace; this is\nin accordance with the excessive idealism and intellectualism of his\nsystem. Dionysius calls the elements [Greek: symbola, eikones,\nantitypa, aisth\u00eata tina anti no\u00eat\u00f4n metalambanomena]; and Maximus,\nhis commentator, defines a symbol as [Greek: aisth\u00eaton ti anti\nno\u00eatou metalambanomenon].]\n\n[Footnote 330: Harnack (_History of Dogma_, vol. vi. p. 102, English\nedition) says: \"In the centuries before the Reformation, a growing\nvalue was attached not only to the sacraments, but to crosses,\namulets, relics, holy places, etc. As long as what the soul seeks is\nnot the rock of assurance, but means for inciting to piety, it will\ncreate for itself a thousand holy things. It is therefore an extremely\nsuperficial view that regards the most inward Mysticism and the\nservice of idols as contradictory. The opposite view, rather, is\ncorrect.\" I have seldom found myself able to agree with this writer's\njudgments upon Mysticism; and this one is no exception. The \"most\ninward Mysticism\" does not occupy itself much with external\n\"incitements to piety,\" nor is this the motive with which a mystic\ncould ever (e.g.) receive the Eucharist. The use of amulets, etc.,\nwhich Harnack finds to have been spreading before the Reformation, and\nwhich was certainly very prevalent in the sixteenth and seventeenth\ncenturies, had very little to do with \"the most inward Mysticism.\" My\nview as to the place of magic in the history of Mysticism is given in\nthis Lecture; I protest against identifying it with the essence of\nMysticism. Symbolic Mysticism soon outgrew it; introspective Mysticism\nnever valued it. The use of visible things as stimulants to piety is\nanother matter; it has its place in the systems of the Catholic\nmystics, but as a very early stage in the spiritual ascent. What I\nhave said as to the inconsistency of a high sacramental doctrine with\nthe favourite injunctions to \"cast away all images,\" which we find in\nthe medi\u00e6val mystics, is, I think, indisputable.]\n\n[Footnote 331: The most recent developments of German idealistic\nphilosophy, as set forth in the cosmology of Lotze, and still more of\nFechner, may perhaps be described as an attempt to preserve the truth\nof Animism on a much higher plane, without repudiating the\nuniversality of law.]\n\n[Footnote 332: I refer especially to Huysmans' two \"mystical\" novels,\n_En Route_ and _La Cath\u00e9drale_. The naked Fetishism of the latter book\nalmost passes belief. We have a Madonna who is good-natured at Lourdes\nand cross-grained at La Salette; who likes \"pretty speeches and little\ncoaxing ways\" in \"paying court\" to her, and who at the end is\napostrophised as \"our Lady of the Pillar,\" \"our Lady of the Crypt.\" It\nmay perhaps be excusable to resort to such expedients as these in the\nconversion of savages; but there is something singularly repulsive in\nthe picture (drawn apparently from life) of a profligate man of\nletters seeking salvation in a Christianity which has lowered itself\nfar beneath educated paganism. At any rate, let not the name of\nMysticism be given to such methods.]\n\n[Footnote 333: I refer especially to the horrors connected with the\nbelief in witchcraft, on which see Lecky, _Rationalism in Europe_,\nvol. i. \"Remy, a judge of Nancy, boasted that he had put to death\neight hundred witches in sixteen years.\" \"In the bishopric of\nWartzburg, nine hundred were burnt in one year.\" As late as 1850, some\nFrench peasants burnt alive a woman named Bedouret, whom they supposed\nto be a witch.]\n\n[Footnote 334: The degradation of Mysticism in the Roman Church since\nthe Reformation may be estimated by comparing the definitions of\nMysticism and Mystical Theology current in the Middle Ages with the\nfollowing from Ribet, who is recognised as a standard authority on the\nsubject: \"La Theologie mystique, au point de vue subjectif et\nexperimental, nous semble pouvoir \u00eatre d\u00e9finie; une attraction\nsurnaturelle et passive de l'\u00e2me vers Dieu, provenant d'une\nillumination et d'un embrasement int\u00e9rieurs, qui pr\u00e9viennent la\nr\u00e9flexion, surpassent l'effort humain, _et peuvent avoir sur le corps\nun retentissement merveilleux et irresistible_.\" \"Au point de vue\ndoctrinal et objectif, la mystique peut se d\u00e9finir: la science qui\ntraite _des ph\u00e9nom\u00e8nes surnaturels_, soit intimes, _soit ext\u00e9rieurs_,\nqui preparent, accompagnent, et suivent la contemplation divine.\" The\ntime is past, if it ever existed, when such superstitions could be\nbelieved without grave injury to mental and moral health.]\n\n[Footnote 335: This language about the teaching of the Roman Church\nmay be considered unseemly by those who have not studied the subject.\nThose who have done so will think it hardly strong enough. In\nself-defence, I will quote one sentence from Schram, whose work on\n\"Mysticism\" is considered authoritative, and is studied in the great\nCatholic university of Louvain: \"Qu\u00e6ri potest utrum d\u00e6mon per turpem\nconcubitum possit violenter opprimere marem vel feminam cuius obsessio\npermissa sit ob finem perfectionis et contemplationis acquirend\u00e6.\" The\nanswer is in the affirmative, and the evidence is such as could hardly\nbe transcribed, even in Latin. Schram's book is mainly intended for\nthe direction of confessing priests, and the evidence shows, as might\nhave been expected, that the subjects of these \"phenomena\" are\ngenerally poor nuns suffering from hysteria.]\n\n[Footnote 336: At a time when many are hoping to find in the study of\nthe obscurer psychical phenomena a breach in the \"middle wall of\npartition\" between the spiritual and material worlds, I may seem to\nhave brushed aside too contemptuously the floating mass of popular\nbeliefs which \"spiritualists\" think worthy of serious investigation. I\nmust therefore be allowed to say that in my opinion psychical research\nhas already established results of great value, especially in helping\nto break down that view of the _imperviousness_ of the ego which is\nfatal to Mysticism, and (I venture to think) to any consistent\nphilosophy. Monadism, we may hope, is doomed. But the more popular\nkind of spiritualism is simply the old hankering after supernatural\nmanifestations, which are always dear to semi-regenerate minds.]\n\n[Footnote 337: It is, I think, significant that the word \"imagination\"\nwas slow in making its way into psychology. [Greek: Phantasia] is\ndefined by Aristotle (_de Anima_, iii. 3) as [Greek: kin\u00easis hypo t\u00eas\naisth\u00ease\u00f4s t\u00eas kat energeian gignomen\u00ea], but it is not till\nPhilostratus that the creative imagination is opposed to [Greek:\nmim\u00easis]. Cf. _Vit. Apoll._ vi. 19, [Greek: mim\u00easis men\nd\u00eamiourg\u00easei ho eiden, phantasia de kai ho m\u00ea eiden].]\n\n[Footnote 338: Reuchlin, _De arte cabbalistica_: \"Est enim Cabbala\ndivin\u00e6 revelationis ad salutiferam Dei et formarum separatarum\ncontemplationem tradit\u00e6 symbolica receptio, quam qui coelesti\nsortiumtur afflatu recto nomine Cabbalici dicuntur, eorum vero\ndiscipulos cognomento Cabbal\u00e6os appellabimus, et qui alioquin eos\nimitari conantur, Cabbalist\u00e6 nominandi sunt.\"]\n\n[Footnote 339: The mystical Rabbis ascribe the Cabbala to the angel\nRazael, the reputed teacher of Adam in Paradise, and say that this\nangel gave Adam the Cabbala as his lesson-book. There is a clear and\nsuccinct account of the main Cabbalistic docrines in Hunt, _Pantheism\nand Christianity_, pp. 84-88.]\n\n[Footnote 340: But the notion that the deepest mysteries should not be\nentrusted to writing is found in Clement and Origen; cf. Origen,\n_Against Celsus_, vi. 26: [Greek: ouk akindynon t\u00ean t\u00f4n toiout\u00f4n\nsaph\u00eaneian pisteusai graph\u00ea]. And Clement says: [Greek: ta aporr\u00eata,\nkathaper ho theos, log\u00f4 pisteuetai ou grammati]. The curious legend of\nan oral tradition also appears in Clement (_Hypolyp. Fragm._ in\nEusebius, _H.E._ ii. I. 4): [Greek: Iak\u00f4b\u00f4 t\u00f4 dikai\u00f4 kai I\u00f4an\u00ea kai\nPetr\u00f4 meta t\u00ean anastasin pared\u00f4ke t\u00ean gn\u00f4sin ho kyrios, outoi tois\nloipois apostolois pared\u00f4kan, oi de loipoi apostoloi tois\nhebdom\u00eakonta, \u00f4n eis \u00ean kai Barnabas.] Origen, too, speaks of \"things\nspoken in private to the disciples.\"]\n\n[Footnote 341: The following extract from Pico's _Apology_ may be\ninteresting, as illustrating the close connexion between magic and\nscience at this period: \"One of the chief charges against me is that I\nam a magician. Have I not myself distinguished two kinds of magic?\nOne, which the Greeks call [Greek: go\u00eateia], depends entirely on alliance\nwith evil spirits, and deserves to be regarded with horror, and to be\npunished; the other is magic in the proper sense of the word. The\nformer subjects man to the evil spirits, the latter makes them serve\nhim. The former is neither an art nor a science; the latter embraces\nthe deepest mysteries, and the knowledge of the whole of Nature with\nher powers. While it connects and combines the forces scattered by God\nthrough the whole world, it does not so much work miracles as come to\nthe help of working nature. Its researches into the sympathies of\nthings enable it to bring to light hidden marvels from the secret\ntreasure-houses of the world, just as if it created them itself. As\nthe countryman trains the vine upon the elm, so the magician marries\nthe earthly objects to heavenly bodies. His art is beneficial and\nGodlike, for it brings men to wonder at the works of God, than which\nnothing conduces more to true religion.\"]\n\n[Footnote 342: This was a very old theory. Cf. Lecky, _Rationalism in\nEurope_, vol. i. p. 264. \"The _Clavis_ of St. Melito, who was bishop\nof Sardis, it is said, in the beginning of the second century,\nconsists of a catalogue of many hundreds of birds, beasts, plants, and\nminerals that were symbolical of Christian virtues, doctrines, and\npersonages.\"]\n\n[Footnote 343: The analogy between allegorism in religion and the\nhieroglyphic writing is drawn out by Clement, _Strom._ v. 4 and 7.]\n\n[Footnote 344: The distinction, however, would be unintelligible to\nthe savage mind. To primitive man a _name_ is a symbol in the\nstrictest sense. Hence, \"the knowledge, invocation, and vain\nrepetition of a deity's name constitutes in itself an actual, if\nmystic, union with the deity named\" (Jevons, _Introduction to the\nHistory of Religion_, p. 245). This was one of the chief reasons for\nmaking a secret of the cultus, and even of the name of a patron-deity.\nTo reveal it was to admit strangers into the tutelage of the national\ngod.]\n\n[Footnote 345: I do not find it possible to give a more honourable\nplace than this to a system of biblical exegesis which has still a few\ndefenders. It was first developed in Christian times by the Gnostics,\nand was eagerly adopted by Origen, who fearlessly applied it to the\nGospels, teaching that \"Christ's actions on earth were enigmas\n([Greek: ainigmata]), to be interpreted by Gnosis.\" The method was\noften found useful in dealing with moral and scientific difficulties\nin the Old Testament; it enabled Dionysius to use very bold language\nabout the literal meaning, as I showed in Lecture III. The Christian\nPlatonists of Alexandria meant it to be an esoteric method: Clement\ncalls it [Greek: symbolik\u00f4s philosophein]. It was held that [Greek: ta\nmyst\u00earia mystik\u00f4s paradidotai]; and even that Divine truths are\nhonoured by enigmatic treatment ([Greek: h\u00ea krypsis h\u00ea mystik\u00ea\nsemnopoiei to theion]). But the main use of allegorism was pietistic;\nand to this there can be no objection, unless the piety is morbid, as\nis the case in many commentaries on the Song of Solomon. Still, it can\nhardly be disputed that the countless books written to elaborate the\nprinciples of allegorism contain a mass of futility such as it would\nbe difficult to match in any other class of literature. The best\ndefence of the method is perhaps to be found in Keble's Tract (No. 89)\non the \"Mysticism\" of the early Fathers. Keble's own poetry contains\nmany beautiful examples of the true use of symbolism; but as an\napologist of allegorism he does not distinguish between its use and\nabuse. Yet surely there is a vast difference between seeing in the\n\"glorious sky embracing all\" a type of \"our Maker's love,\" and\nanalysing the 153 fish caught in the Sea of Galilee into the square of\nthe 12 Apostles + the square of the 3 Persons of the Trinity.\n\nThe history of the doctrine of \"signatures,\" which is the cryptogram\ntheory applied to medicine, is very curious and interesting, \"Citrons,\naccording to Paracelsus, are good for heart affections, because they\nare heart-shaped; the _saphena riparum_ is to be applied to fresh\nwounds, because its leaves are spotted as with flecks of blood. A\nspecies of _dentaria_, whose roots resemble teeth, is a cure for\ntoothache and scurvy.\"--Vaughan, _Hours with the Mystics_, vol. ii. p.\n77. It is said that some traces of this quaint superstition survive\neven in the modern materia medica. The alliance between medicine and\nMysticism subsisted for a long time, and forms a curious chapter of\nhistory.]\n\n[Footnote 346: Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim, a contemporary of\nReuchlin, studied Cabbalism mainly as a magical science. He was\nnominally a Catholic, but attacked Rome and scholasticism quite in the\nspirit of Luther. His three chief works are, _On the Threefold Way of\nKnowing God, On the Vanity of Arts and Sciences_ (a ferocious attack\non most of the professions), and _On Occult Philosophy_ (treating of\nnatural, celestial, and religious magic). The \"magician,\" he says,\n\"must study three sciences--physics, mathematics, and theology.\"\nAgrippa's adventurous life ended in 1533.]\n\n[Footnote 347: Theophrastus Paracelsus (Philippus Bombastus von\nHohenheim) was born in 1493, and died in 1541. His writings are a\ncurious mixture of theosophy and medical science: \"medicine,\" he\ntaught, \"has four pillars--philosophy, astronomy (or rather\nastrology), alchemy, and religion.\" He lays great stress on the\ndoctrine that man is a microcosm, and on the law of Divine\nmanifestation _by contraries_--the latter is a new feature which was\nfurther developed by B\u00f6hme.]\n\n[Footnote 348: \"I saw,\" he says, \"the Being of all Beings, the Ground\nand the Abyss; also, the birth of the Holy Trinity; the origin and\nfirst state of the world and of all creatures. I saw in myself the\nthree worlds--the Divine or angelic world; the dark world, the\noriginal of Nature; and the external world, as a substance spoken\nforth out of the two spiritual worlds.... In my inward man I saw it\nwell, as in a great deep; for I saw right through as into a chaos\nwhere everything lay wrapped, but I could not unfold it. Yet from time\nto time it opened itself within me, like a growing plant. For twelve\nyears I carried it about within me, before I could bring it forth in\nany external form; till afterwards it fell upon me, like a bursting\nshower that killeth wheresoever it lighteth, as it will. Whatever I\ncould bring into outwardness, that I wrote down. The work is none of\nmine; I am but the Lord's instrument, wherewith He doeth what He\nwill.\"]\n\n[Footnote 349: This is from Bp. Warburton. \"Sublime nonsense,\ninimitable bombast, fustian not to be paralleled,\" is John Wesley's\nverdict.]\n\n[Footnote 350: See Overton, _Life of William Law_, p. 188.]\n\n[Footnote 351: I have omitted B\u00f6hme's gnostical theories as to the\nseven _Quellgeister_ as belonging rather to theosophy than to\nMysticism. The resemblance to Basilides is here rather striking, but\nit must be a pure coincidence.]\n\n[Footnote 352: And of English Mysticism before the Reformation; cf. p.\n208.]\n\n[Footnote 353: From the _Spirit of Prayer_. The sect of Behmenists in\nGermany, unlike Law, attended no church, and took no part in the\nLord's Supper.--Overton, _Life of William Law_, p. 214.]\n\n[Footnote 354: This stimulating doctrine, that the soul, when freed\nfrom impediments, ascends naturally and inevitably to its \"own place,\"\nis put into the mouth of Beatrice by Dante (_Paradiso_, i. 136)--\n\n  \"Non dei pi\u00f9 ammirar, se bene stimo,\n   Lo tuo salir, se non come d'un rivo\n   Se d'alto monte scende giuso ad imo.\n   Maraviglia sarebbe in te, se privo\n   D'impedimento giu ti fossi assiso,\n   Com' a terra quieto fuoco vivo.\n   Quinci rivolce inver lo cielo il viso.\"  ]\n\n[Footnote 355: It may be interesting to compare the following passage\nfrom George Fox, which dramatises the irruption of natural science,\nwith its faith in fixed laws, into the sphere of the religious\nconsciousness:--\"One morning, while I was sitting by the fire, a great\ncloud came over me, a temptation beset me; and I sat still. It was\nsaid, _All things come by Nature_; and the elements and stars came\nover me, so that I was in a manner quite clouded by it. And as I sat\nstill under it and let it alone, a living hope and a true voice arose\nin me, which said, _There is a living God who made all things_.\nImmediately the cloud and temptation vanished away, and life rose over\nit all; my heart was glad, and I praised the living God.\"]\n\n[Footnote 356: So we may fairly say, if we remember that we are\nspeaking of what transcends time. Neither B\u00f6hme nor Law looks forward\nto a golden age on this earth.]\n\n[Footnote 357: Henry More's judgment is as follows: \"Jacob Behmen, I\nconceive, is to be reckoned in the number of those whose imaginative\nfaculty has the pre-eminence above the rational; and though he was a\ngood and holy man, his natural complexion, notwithstanding, was not\ndestroyed, but retained its property still; and, therefore, his\nimagination being very busy about Divine things, he could not without\na miracle fail of becoming an enthusiast, and of receiving Divine\ntruths upon the account of the strength and vigour of his fancy;\nwhich, being so well qualified with holiness and sanctity, proved not\nunsuccessful in sundry apprehensions, but in others it fared with him\nafter the manner of men, the sagacity of his imagination failing him,\nas well as the anxiety of reason does others of like integrity with\nhimself.\"]\n\n[Footnote 358: Canon G.G. Perry, in his _Students' English Church\nHistory_, disposes of this noble group of men in one contemptuous\nparagraph, as a \"class of divines who were neither Puritans nor High\nChurchmen,\" and makes the astounding statement that \"to the school\nthus commenced, the deadness, carelessness, and indifference prevalent\nin the eighteenth century are in large measure to be attributed.\" It\nis of these very same men that Bishop Burnet writes, that if they had\nnot appeared to combat the \"laziness and negligence,\" the \"ease and\nsloth\" of the Restoration clergy, \"the Church had quite lost her\nesteem over the nation.\" Alexander Knox (_Works_, vol. iii. p. 199)\nspeaks of the rise of this school as a great instance of the design\nof Providence to supply to the Church what had never before been\nproduced, writers who do \"full honour at once to the elevation and the\nrationality of Christian piety.... In their writings we are invited to\nascend, by having a prospect opened before us as luminous as it is\nsublime.... They are such writers as had never before existed.... No\nChurch but the English Church could have produced them.\" Of John Smith\nhe says, \"My value for him is beyond what words can do justice to.\"\nThe works of Whichcote, Smith, Cudworth, and Culverwel are happily\naccessible enough, and I beg my readers to study them at first hand. I\ndo not believe that any Christian could rise from the perusal of the\ntwo first-named without having gained a lasting benefit in the\ndeepening of his spiritual life and heightening of his faith.]\n\n[Footnote 359: A writer who signs himself S.P. (probably Simon\nPatrick, bishop of Ely), in a pamphlet called _A Brief Account of the\nnew Sect of Latitude Men_ (1662), vindicates their attachment to the\n\"virtuous mediocrity\" of the Church of England, as distinguished from\nthe \"meretricious gaudiness of the Church of Rome, and the squalid\nsluttery of fanatic conventicles.\"]\n\n[Footnote 360: Compare with these extracts the words of Leibnitz: \"To\ndespise reason in matters of religion is to my eyes certain proof\neither of an obstinacy that borders on fanaticism, or, what is worse,\nof hypocrisy.\"]\n\n[Footnote 361: See Appendix C.]\n\n[Footnote 362: The classical reader will be reminded of Lucretius,\niii. 979-1036. Smith, however, would not have relished this\ncomparison. He devotes part of one sermon to a refutation of the\nEpicurean poet, in whom he sees a precursor of his _b\u00eate noire_,\nHobbes!]\n\n[Footnote 363: Compare with this the following passage of Jean de\nLabadie (1610-1674), the founder of a mystical school on the\nContinent: \"Plusieurs sont bien aises d'ouyr dire qu'ils sont\njustifi\u00e9s par Jesus-Christ, lav\u00e9s de leurs p\u00e9ch\u00e9s en son sang par la\nfo\u00ed, par la repentance et par le bapt\u00eame chrestien, et volontiers ils\nI'embrasent comme Justificateur, comme crucifi\u00e9 et mort pour eux; mais\npeu prennent part \u00e0 sa croix, \u00e0 sa mort, pour se faire spirituellement\nmourir avec Luy, crucifier leur chair avec la sienne, et porter en\neux-m\u00eames les vives marques de sa croix et de sa mort. Peu le goutent\ncomme Justificateur au dedans par l'Esprit consacrant et immolant le\nvieil homme \u00e0 Dieu et par une pratique vraiment sainte, laquelle\ndompte le p\u00e9ch\u00e9.\"]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VIII\n\n\n   \"For nothing worthy proving can be proven,\n    Nor yet disproven; wherefore thou be wise,\n    Cleave ever to the sunnier side of doubt,\n    And cling to Faith beyond the forms of Faith!\n    She reels not in the storm of warring words,\n    She brightens at the clash of Yes and No,\n    She sees the Best that glimmers through the Worst,\n    She feels the sun is hid but for a night,\n    She spies the summer thro' the winter bud,\n    She tastes the fruit before the blossom falls,\n    She hears the lark within the songless egg,\n    She finds the fountain where they wail'd 'Mirage!'\"\n\nTENNYSON, _The Ancient Sage_.\n\n\n\"Of true religions there are only two: one of them recognises and\nworships the Holy that without form or shape dwells in and around us;\nand the other recognises and worships it in its fairest form.\nEverything that lies between these two is idolatry.\"\n\nGOETHE.\n\n\n\"My wish is that I may perceive the God whom I find everywhere in the\nexternal world, in like manner within and inside me.\"\n\nKEPLER.\n\n\n   \"Getrost, das Leben schreitet\n      Zum ew'gen Leben hin;\n    Von innrer Gluth geweitet\n      Verkl\u00e4rt sich unser Sinn.\n    Die Sternwelt wird zerfliessen\n      Zum goldnen Lebenswein,\n    Wir werden sie geniessen\n      Und lichte Sterne sein.\n\n    \"Die Lieb' ist freigegeben\n      Und keine Trennung mehr\n    Es wogt das volle Leben\n      Wie ein unendlich Meer.\n    Nur eine Nacht der Wonne,\n      Ein ewiges Gedicht!\n    Und unser Aller Sonne\n      Ist Gottes Angesicht.\"\n\nNOVALIS.\n\n\n\nNATURE-MYSTICISM--_continued_\n\n\"The invisible things of Him since the creation of the world are\nclearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even\nHis everlasting power and Divinity.\"--ROM. i. 20.\n\n\nIn my last Lecture I showed how the later Mysticism emancipated itself\nfrom the mischievous doctrine that the spiritual eye can only see when\nthe eye of sense is closed. After the Reformation period the mystic\ntries to look with both eyes; his aim is to see God in all things, as\nwell as all things in God. He returns with better resources to the\ntask of the primitive religions, and tries to find spiritual law in\nthe natural world. It is true that a strange crop of superstitions,\nthe seeds of which had been sown long before, sprang up to mock his\nhopes. In necromancy, astrology, alchemy, palmistry, table-turning,\nand other delusions, we have what some count the essence, and others\nthe reproach, of Mysticism. But these are, strictly speaking,\nscientific and not religious errors. From the standpoint of religion\nand philosophy, the important change is that, in the belief of these\nlater mystics, the natural and the spiritual are, somehow or other, to\nbe reconciled; the external world is no longer regarded as a place of\nexile from God, or as a delusive appearance; it is the living vesture\nof the Deity; and its \"discordant harmony,[364]\" though \"for the many\nit needs interpreters,[365]\" yet \"has a voice for the wise\" which\nspeaks of things behind the veil. The glory of God is no longer\nfigured as a blinding white light in which all colours are combined\nand lost; but is seen as a \"many-coloured wisdom[366]\" which shines\neverywhere, its varied hues appearing not only in the sanctuary of the\nlonely soul, but in all the wonders that science can discover, and all\nthe beauties that art can interpret. Dualism, with the harsh\nasceticism which belongs to it, has given way to a brighter and more\nhopeful philosophy; men's outlook upon the world is more intelligent,\nmore trustful, and more genial; only for those who perversely seek to\nimpose the ethics of selfish individualism upon a world which obeys no\nsuch law, science has in reserve a blacker pessimism than ever brooded\nover the ascetic of the cloister.\n\nWe shall not meet, in this chapter, any finer examples of the\nChristian mystic than John Smith and William Law. But these men, and\ntheir intellectual kinsmen, were far from exhausting the treasure of\nNature-Mysticism. The Cambridge Platonists, indeed, somewhat\nundervalued the religious lessons of Nature. They were scholars and\ndivines, and what lay nearest their heart was the consecration of the\nreason--that is, of the whole personality under the guidance of its\nhighest faculty--to the service of truth and goodness. And Law, in his\nlater years, was too much under the influence of B\u00f6hme's fantastic\ntheosophy to bring to Nature that childlike spirit which can best\nlearn her lessons.\n\nThe Divine in Nature has hitherto been discerned more fully by the\npoet than by the theologian or the naturalist; and in this concluding\nLecture I must deal chiefly with Christian poetry. The attitude\ntowards Nature which we have now to consider is more contemplative\nthan practical; it studies analogies in order to _know_ the unseen\npowers which surround us, and has no desire to bend them or make them\nits instruments.\n\nOur Lord's precept, \"Consider the lilies,\" sanctions this religious\nuse of Nature; and many of His parables, such as that of the Sower,\nshow us how much we may learn from such analogies. And be it observed\nthat it is the normal and regular in Nature which in these parables is\npresented for our study; the yearly harvest, not the three years'\nfamine; the constant care and justice of God, not the \"special\nprovidence\" or the \"special judgment.\" We need not wait for\ncatastrophes to trace the finger of God. As for Christian poetry and\nart, we do not expect to find any theory of \u00e6sthetic in the New\nTestament; but we may perhaps extract from the precept quoted above\nthe canon that the highest beauty that we can discern resides in the\nreal and natural, and only demands the seeing eye to find it.\n\nIn the Greek Fathers we find great stress laid on the glories of\nNature as a revelation of God. Cyril says, \"The wider our\ncontemplation of creation, the grander will be our conception of God.\"\nAnd Basil uses the same language. We find, indeed, in these writers a\nmarked tendency to exalt the religious value of natural beauty, and to\ndisparage the function of art--a premonition, perhaps, of iconoclasm.\nPagan art, which was decaying before the advent of Christ, could not,\nit appears, be quietly Christianised and carried on without a break.\n\nThe true Nature-Mysticism is prominent in St. Francis of Assisi. He\nloves to see in all around him the pulsations of one life, which\nsleeps in the stones, dreams in the plants, and wakens in man. \"He\nwould remain in contemplation before a flower, an insect, or a bird,\nand regarded them with no dilettante or egoistic pleasure; he was\ninterested that the plant should have its sun, the bird its nest; that\nthe humblest manifestations of creative force should have the\nhappiness to which they are entitled.[367]\" So strong was his\nconviction that all living things are children of God, that he would\npreach to \"my little sisters the birds,\" and even undertook the\nconversion of \"the ferocious wolf of Agobio.\"\n\nThis tender reverence for Nature, which is a mark of all true\nPlatonism, is found, as we have seen, in Plotinus. It is also\nprominent in the Platonists of the Renaissance, such as Bruno and\nCampanella,[368] and in Petrarch, who loved to offer his evening\nprayers among the moonlit mountains. Suso has at least one beautiful\npassage on the sights and sounds of spring, and exclaims, \"O tender\nGod, if Thou art so loving in Thy creatures, how fair and lovely must\nThou be in Thyself![369]\" The Reformers, especially Luther and\nZwingli, are more alive than might have been expected to the value of\nNature's lessons; and the French mystics, Francis de Sales and\nF\u00e9nelon, write gracefully about the footprints of the Divine wisdom\nand beauty which may be traced everywhere in the world around us.\n\nBut natural religion is not to be identified with Mysticism, and it\nwould not further our present inquiry to collect passages, in prose or\npoetry, which illustrate the aids to faith which the book of Nature\nmay supply. Nor need we dwell on such pure Platonism as we find in\nSpenser's \"Hymn of Heavenly Beauty,\" or some of Shelley's poems, in\nwhich we are bidden to gaze upon the world as a mirror of the Divine\nBeauty, since our mortal sight cannot endure the \"white radiance\" of\nthe eternal archetypes.[370] We have seen how this view of the world\nas a pale reflection of the Ideas leads in practice to a contempt for\nvisible things; as, indeed, it does in Spenser's beautiful poem. He\ninvites us, after learning Nature's lessons, to\n\n\n\"Look at last up to that sovereign light,\n From whose pure beams all perfect beauty springs;\n That kindleth love in every godly spright,\n Even the love of God; which loathing brings\n Of this vile world and these gay-seeming things;\n With whose sweet pleasures being so possessed,\n Thy straying thoughts henceforth for ever rest.\"\n\n\nThis is not the keynote of the later Nature-Mysticism. We now expect\nthat every new insight into the truth of things, every enlightenment\nof the eyes of our understanding, which may be granted us as the\nreward of faith, love, and purity of heart, will make the world around\nus appear, not viler and baser, but more glorious and more Divine. It\nis not a proof of spirituality, but of its opposite, if God's world\nseems to us a poor place. If we could see it as God sees it, it would\nbe still, as on the morning of creation, \"very good.\" The hymn\nwhich is ever ascending from the earth to the throne of God is to be\nlistened for, that we may join in it. The laws by which all creation\nlives are to be studied, that we too may obey them. As for the beauty\nwhich is everywhere diffused so lavishly, it seems to be a gift of\nGod's pure bounty, to bring happiness to the unworldly souls who alone\nare able to see and enjoy it.\n\nThe greatest prophet of this branch of contemplative Mysticism is\nunquestionably the poet Wordsworth. It was the object of his life to\nbe a religious teacher, and I think there is no incongruity in placing\nhim at the end of the roll of mystical divines who have been dealt\nwith in these Lectures. His intellectual kinship with the acknowledged\nrepresentatives of Nature-Mysticism will, I hope, appear very plainly.\n\nWordsworth was an eminently sane and manly spirit. He found his\nphilosophy of life early, and not only preached but lived it\nconsistently. A Platonist by nature rather than by study, he is\nthoroughly Greek in his distrust of strong emotions and in his love of\nall which the Greeks included under [Greek: s\u00f4phrosyn\u00ea]. He was a\nloyal Churchman, but his religion was really almost independent of any\necclesiastical system. His ecclesiastical sonnets reflect rather the\ndignity of the Anglican Church than the ardent piety with which our\nother poet-mystics, such as Herbert, Vaughan, and Crashaw, adorn the\noffices of worship. His cast of faith, intellectual and contemplative\nrather than fervid, and the solitariness of his thought, forbade him\nto find much satisfaction in public ceremonial. He would probably\nagree with Galen, who in a very remarkable passage says that the study\nof nature, if prosecuted with the same earnestness and intensity which\nmen bring to the contemplation of the \"Mysteries,\" is even more fitted\nthan they to reveal the power and wisdom of God; for \"_the symbolism\nof the mysteries is more obscure than that of nature_.\"\n\nHe shows his affinity with the modern spirit in his firm grasp of\nnatural _law_. Like George Fox and William Law, he had to face the\nshock of giving up his belief in arbitrary interferences. There was a\nperiod when he lost his young faculty of generalisation; when he bowed\nbefore the inexorable dooms of an unknown Lawgiver--\"the categorical\nimperative,\" till the gift of intuition was restored to him in fuller\nmeasure. This experience explains his attitude towards natural\nscience. His reverence for _facts_ never failed him; \"the sanctity and\ntruth of nature,\" he says, \"must not be tricked out with accidental\nornaments\"; but he looked askance at the science which tries to erect\nitself into a philosophy. Physics, he saw plainly, is an abstract\nstudy: its view of the world is an abstraction for certain purposes,\nand possesses less truth than the view of the poet.[371] And yet he\nlooked forward to a time when science, too, shall be touched with fire\nfrom the altar;--\n\n\n  \"Then her heart shall kindle; her dull eye,\n   Dull and inanimate, no more shall hang\n   Chained to its object in brute slavery.\"\n\n\nAnd in a remarkable passage of the \"Prefaces\" he says \"If the time\nshould ever come when that which is now called science shall be ready\nto put on as it were a form of flesh and blood, the poet will lend his\nDivine spirit to aid the transformation, and will welcome the Being\nthus produced as a dear and genuine inmate of the household of man.\"\nHe feels that the loving and disinterested study of nature's laws must\nat last issue, not in materialism, but in some high and spiritual\nfaith, inspired by the Word of God, who is Himself, as Erigena said,\n\"the Nature of all things.\"\n\nIn aloofness and loneliness of mind he is exceeded by no mystic of the\ncloister. It may be said far more truly of him than of Milton, that\n\"his soul was like a star, and dwelt apart.\" In his youth he confesses\nthat human beings had only a secondary interest for him;[372] and\nthough he says that Nature soon led him to man, it was to man as a\n\"unity,\" as \"one spirit,\" that he was drawn, not to men as\nindividuals.[373] Herein he resembled many other contemplative\nmystics; but it has been said truly that \"it is easier to know man in\ngeneral than a man in particular.[374]\" The sage who \"sits in the\ncentre\" of his being, and there \"enjoys bright day,[375]\" does not\nreally know human beings as persons.\n\nIt will be interesting to compare the steps in the ladder of\nperfection, as described by Wordsworth, with the schemes of\nNeoplatonism and introspective Mysticism. The three stages of the\nmystical ascent have been already explained. We find that Wordsworth,\ntoo, had his purgative, disciplinary stage. He began by deliberately\ncrushing, not only the ardent passions to which he tells us that he\nwas naturally prone, but all ambition and love of money, determining\nto confine himself to \"such objects as excite no morbid passions, no\ndisquietude, no vengeance, and no hatred,\" and found his reward in a\nsettled state of calm serenity, in which all the thoughts flow like a\nclear fountain, and have forgotten how to hate and how to\ndespise.[376]\n\nWordsworth is careful to inculcate several safeguards for those who\nwould proceed to the contemplative life. First, there must be\nstrenuous aspiration to reach that infinitude which is our being's\nheart and home; we must press forward, urged by \"hope that can never\ndie, effort, and expectation, and desire, and something evermore about\nto be.[377]\" The mind which is set upon the unchanging will not\n\"praise a cloud,[378]\" but will \"crave objects that endure.\" In the\nspirit of true Platonism, as contrasted with its later aberrations,\nWordsworth will have no blurred outlines. He tries always to see in\nNature distinction without separation; his principle is the exact\nantithesis of Hume's atheistic dictum, that \"things are conjoined, but\nnot connected.[379]\" The importance of this caution has been fully\ndemonstrated in the course of our inquiry. Then, too, he knows that to\nimperfect man reason is a crown \"still to be courted, never to be\nwon.\" Delusions may affect \"even the very faculty of sight,\" whether a\nman \"look forth,\" or \"dive into himself.[380]\" Again, he bids us seek\nfor real, and not fanciful analogies; no \"loose types of things\nthrough all degrees\"; no mythology; and no arbitrary symbolism. The\nsymbolic value of natural objects is not that they remind us of\nsomething that they are not, but that they help us to understand\nsomething that they in part are. They are not intended to transport us\naway from this earth into the clouds. \"This earth is the world of all\nof us,\" he says boldly, \"in which we find our happiness or not at\nall.[381]\" Lastly, and this is perhaps the most important of all, he\nrecognises that the still small voice of God breathes not out of\nnature alone, nor out of the soul alone, but from the contact of the\nsoul with nature. It is the marriage of the intellect of man to \"this\ngoodly universe, in love and holy passion,\" which produces these\nraptures. \"Intellect\" includes Imagination, which is but another name\nfor Reason in her most exalted mood;[382] these must assist the eye of\nsense.\n\nSuch is the discipline, and such are the counsels, by which the\npriest of Nature must prepare himself to approach her mysteries. And\nwhat are the truths which contemplation revealed to him?\n\nThe first step on the way that leads to God was the sense of the\n_boundless_, growing out of musings on the finite; and with it the\nconviction that the Infinite and Eternal alone can be our being's\nheart and home--\"we feel that we are greater than we know.[383]\" Then\ncame to him--\n\n\n                   \"The sense sublime\n  Of something far more deeply interfused,\n  Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,\n  And the round ocean and the living air,\n  And the blue sky, and in the mind of man;\n  A motion and a spirit, that impels\n  All thinking things, all objects of all thoughts,\n  And rolls through all things.[384]\"\n\n\nThe worldliness and artificiality which set us out of tune with all\nthis is worse than paganism.[385] Then this \"higher Pantheism\"\ndeveloped into the sense of an all-pervading Personality, \"a soul that\nis the eternity of thought.\" And with this heightened consciousness of\nthe nature of God came also a deeper knowledge of his own personality,\na knowledge which he describes in true mystical language as a \"sinking\ninto self from thought to thought.\" This may continue till man can at\nlast \"breathe in worlds to which the heaven of heavens is but a\nveil,\" and perceive \"the forms whose kingdom is where time and space\nare not.\" These last lines describe a state analogous to the [Greek:\nopsis] of the Neoplatonists, and the _excessus mentis_ of the Catholic\nmystics. At this advanced stage the priest of Nature may surrender\nhimself to ecstasy without mistrust. Of such minds he says--\n\n\n                  \"The highest bliss\n  That flesh can know is theirs--the consciousness\n  Of whom they are, habitually infused\n  Through every image and through every thought,\n  And all affections by communion raised\n  From earth to heaven, from human to divine;...\n  Thence cheerfulness for acts of daily life,\n  Emotions which best foresight need not fear,\n  Most worthy then of trust when most intense.[386]\"\n\n\nThere are many other places where he describes this \"bliss ineffable,\"\nwhen \"all his thoughts were steeped in feeling,\" as he listened to the\nsong which every form of creature sings \"as it looks towards the\nuncreated with a countenance of adoration and an eye of love,[387]\"\nthat blessed mood--\n\n\n  \"In which the affections gently lead us on,--\n   Until, the breath of this corporeal frame,\n   And even the motion of our human blood\n   Almost suspended, we are laid asleep\n   In body, and become a living soul:\n   While with an eye made quiet by the power\n   Of harmony, and the deep power of joy,\n   We see into the life of things.[388]\"\n\n\nIs it not plain that the poet of Nature amid the Cumberland hills, the\nSpanish ascetic in his cell, and the Platonic philosopher in his\nlibrary or lecture-room, have been climbing the same mountain from\ndifferent sides? The paths are different, but the prospect from the\nsummit is the same. It is idle to speak of collusion or insanity in\nthe face of so great a cloud of witnesses divided by every\ncircumstance of date, nationality, creed, education, and environment.\nThe Carmelite friar had no interest in confirming the testimony of the\nAlexandrian professor; and no one has yet had the temerity to question\nthe sanity of Wordsworth, or of Tennyson, whose description of the\nVision in his \"Ancient Sage\" is now known to be a record of personal\nexperience. These explorers of the high places of the spiritual life\nhave only one thing in common--they have observed the conditions laid\ndown once for all for the mystic in the 24th Psalm, \"Who shall ascend\ninto the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in His holy place? He\nthat hath clean hands and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his\nsoul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive the blessing\nfrom the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.\" The\n\"land which is very far off\" is always visible to those who have\nclimbed the holy mountain. It may be scaled by the path of prayer and\nmortification, or by the path of devout study of God's handiwork in\nNature (and under this head I would wish to include not only the way\ntraced out by Wordsworth, but that hitherto less trodden road which\nshould lead the physicist to God); and, lastly, by the path of\nconsecrated life in the great world, which, as it is the most exposed\nto temptations, is perhaps on that account the most blessed of the\nthree.[389]\n\nIt has been said of Wordsworth, as it has been said of other mystics,\nthat he averts his eyes \"from half of human fate.\" Religious writers\nhave explained that the neglected half is that which lies beneath the\nshadow of the Cross. The existence of positive evil in the world, as a\ngreat fact, and the consequent need of redemption, is, in the opinion\nof many, too little recognised by Wordsworth, and by Mysticism in\ngeneral. This objection has been urged both from the scientific and\nfrom the religious side. It is held by many students of Nature that\nher laws affirm a Pessimism and not an Optimism. \"Red in tooth and\nclaw with ravine,\" she shrieks against the creed that her Maker is a\nGod of love. The only morality which she inculcates is that of a tiger\nin the jungle, or at best that of a wolf-pack. \"It is not strange\n(says Lotze) that no nature-religions have raised their adherents to\nany high pitch of morality or culture.[390]\" The answer to this is\nthat Nature includes man as well as the brutes, and the merciful and\nmoral man as well as the savage. Physical science, at any rate, can\nexclude nothing from the domain of Nature. And the Christian may say\nwith all reverence that Nature includes, or rather is included by,\nChrist, the Word of God, by whom it was made. And the Word was made\nflesh to teach us that vicarious suffering, which we see to be the law\nof Nature, is a law of God, a thing not foreign to His own life, and\ntherefore for all alike a condition of perfection, not a _reductio ad\nabsurdum_ of existence. The _reductio ad absurdum_ is not of Nature,\nbut of selfish individualism, which suffers shipwreck alike in\nobjective and in subjective religion. It is precisely because the\nshadow of the Cross lies across the world, that we can watch Nature at\nwork with \"admiration, hope, and love,\" instead of with horror and\ndisgust.\n\nThe religious objection amounts to little more than that Mysticism has\nnot succeeded in solving the problem of evil, which no philosophy has\never attacked with even apparent success. It is, however, with some\nreason that this difficulty has been pressed against the mystics; for\nthey are bound by their principles to attempt some solution, and their\ntendency has been to attenuate the positive character of evil to a\nsomewhat dangerous degree. But if we sift the charges often brought\nby religious writers against Mysticism, we shall generally find that\nthere lies at the bottom of their disapproval a residuum of medi\u00e6val\ndualism, which wishes to see in Christ the conquering invader of a\nhostile kingdom. In practice, at any rate, the great mystics have not\ntaken lightly the struggle with the law of sin in our members, or\ntried to \"heal slightly\" the wounds of the soul.[391]\n\nIt is quite true that the later mystics have been cheerful and\noptimistic. But those who have found a kingdom in their own minds, and\nwho have enough strength of character \"to live by reason and not by\nopinion,\" as Whichcote says (in a maxim which was anticipated by that\narch-enemy of Mysticism--Epicurus), are likely to be happier than\nother men. And, moreover, Wordsworth teaches us that almost, if not\nquite, every evil may be so transmuted by the \"faculty which abides\nwithin the soul,\" that those \"interpositions which would hide and\ndarken\" may \"become contingencies of pomp, and serve to exalt her\nnative brightness\"; even as the moon, \"rising behind a thick and lofty\ngrove, turns the dusky veil into a substance glorious as her own.\" So\nthe happy warrior is made \"more compassionate\" by the scenes of horror\nwhich he is compelled to witness. Whether this healing and purifying\neffect of sorrow points the way to a solution of the problem of evil\nor not, it is a high and noble faith, the one and only consolation\nwhich we feel not to be a mockery when we are in great trouble.\n\nThese charges, then, do not seem to form a grave indictment against\nthe type of Mysticism of which Wordsworth is the best representative.\nBut he _does_ fall short of the ideal held up by St. John for the\nChristian mystic, in that his love and sympathy for inanimate Nature\nwere (at any rate in his poetry) deeper than for humanity. And if\nthere is any accusation which may justly be brought against the higher\norder of mystics (as opposed to representatives of aberrant types), I\nthink it is this: that they have sought and found God in their own\nsouls and in Nature, but not so often in the souls of other men and\nwomen: theirs has been a lonely religion. The grand old maxim, \"Vides\nfratrem, vides Dominum tuum,\" has been remembered by them only in acts\nof charity. But in reality the love of human beings must be the\nshortest road to the vision of God. Love, as St. John teaches us, is\nthe great hierophant of the Christian mysteries. It gives wings to\ncontemplation and lightens the darkness which hides the face of God.\nWhen our emotions are deeply stirred, even Nature speaks to us with\nvoices unheard before; while the man who is without human affection is\neither quite unmoved by her influences, or misreads all her lessons.\n\nThe spiritualising power of human love is the redeeming principle in\nmany sordid lives. Teutonic civilisation, which derives half of its\nrestless energy from ideals which are essentially anti-Christian, and\ntastes which are radically barbarous, is prevented from sinking into\nmoral materialism by its high standard of domestic life. The sweet\ninfluences of the home deprive even mammon-worship of half its\ngrossness and of some fraction of its evil. As a schoolmaster to bring\nmen and women to Christ, natural affection is without a rival. It is\nin the truest sense a symbol of our union with Him from whom every\nfamily in heaven and earth is named. It is needless to labour a thesis\non which nearly all are agreed; but it may be worth pointing out that,\nthough St. Paul felt the unique value of Christian marriage as a\nsymbol of the mystical union of Christ and the Church, this truth was\nfor the most part lost sight of by the medi\u00e6val mystics, who as monks\nand priests were, of course, cut off from domestic life. The romances\nof true love which the Old Testament contains were treated as\nprophecies wrapped up in riddling language, or as models for ecstatic\ncontemplation. Wordsworth, though his own home was a happy one, does\nnot supply this link in the mystical chain. The most noteworthy\nattempt to do so is to be found in the poetry of Robert Browning,\nwhose Mysticism is in this way complementary to that of\nWordsworth.[392] He resembles Wordsworth in always trying \"to see the\ninfinite in things,\" but considers that \"little else (than the\ndevelopment of a soul) is worth study.\" This is not exactly a return\nto subjective Mysticism, for Browning is as well aware as Goethe that\nif \"a talent grows best in solitude,\" a character is perfected only\n\"in the stream of the world.\" With him the friction of active life,\nand especially the experience of human love, are necessary to realise\nthe Divine in man. Quite in the spirit of St. John he asks, \"How can\nthat course be safe, which from the first produces carelessness to\nhuman love?\" \"Do not cut yourself from human weal ... there are\nstrange punishments for such\" as do so.[393] Solitude is the death of\nall but the strongest virtue, and in Browning's view it also deprives\nus of the strongest inner witness to the existence of a loving Father\nin heaven. For he who \"finds love full in his nature\" cannot doubt\nthat in this, as in all else, the Creator must far surpass the\ncreature.[394] Since, then, in knowing love we learn to know God, and\nsince the object of life is to know God (this, the mystic's minor\npremiss, is taken for granted by Browning), it follows that love is\nthe meaning of life; and he who finds it not \"loses what he lived for,\nand eternally must lose it.[395]\" \"The mightiness of love is curled\"\ninextricably round all power and beauty in the world. The worst fate\nthat can befall us is to lead \"a ghastly smooth life, dead at\nheart.[396]\" Especially interesting is the passage where he chooses or\nchances upon Eckhart's image of the \"spark\" in the centre of the soul,\nand gives it a new turn in accordance with his own Mysticism--\n\n\n  \"It would not be because my eye grew dim\n   Thou could'st not find the love there, thanks to Him\n   Who never is dishonoured in the spark\n   He gave us from His fire of fires, and bade\n   Remember whence it sprang, nor be afraid\n   While that burns on, though all the rest grow dark.[397]\"\n\n\nOur language has no separate words to distinguish Christian love\n([Greek: agap\u00ea]--_caritas_) from sexual love ([Greek: er\u00f4s]--_amor_);\n\"charity\" has not established itself in its wider meaning. Perhaps this\nis not to be regretted--at any rate Browning's poems could hardly be\ntranslated into any language in which this distinction exists. But let\nus not forget that the _ascetic_ element is as strong in Browning as in\nWordsworth. Love, he seems to indicate, is no exception to the rule that\nour joys may be \"three parts pain,\" for \"where pain ends gain ends\ntoo.[398]\"\n\n\n              \"Not yet on thee\n  Shall burst the future, as successive zones\n  Of several wonder open on some spirit\n  Flying secure and glad from heaven to heaven;\n  But thou shalt painfully attain to joy,\n  While hope and fear and love shall keep thee man.[399]\"\n\n\nHe even carries this law into the future life, and will have none of a\n\"joy which is crystallised for ever.\" Felt imperfection is a proof of\na higher birthright:[400] if we have arrived at the completion of our\nnature as men, then \"begins anew a tendency to God.\" This faith in\nunending progress as the law of life is very characteristic of our own\nage.[401] It assumes a questionable shape sometimes; but Browning's\ntrust in real success through apparent disappointments--a trust even\n_based_ on the consciousness of present failure--is certainly one of\nthe noblest parts of his religious philosophy.\n\nI have decided to end my survey of Christian Mysticism with these two\nEnglish poets. It would hardly be appropriate, in this place, to\ndiscuss Carlyle's doctrine of symbols, as the \"clothing\" of religious\nand other kinds of truth. His philosophy is wanting in some of the\nessential features of Mysticism, and can hardly be called Christian\nwithout stretching the word too far. And Emerson, when he deals with\nreligion, is a very unsafe guide. The great American mystic, whose\nbeautiful character was as noble a gift to humanity as his writings,\nis more liable than any of those whom we have described to the\nreproach of having turned his back on the dark side of life. Partly\nfrom a fastidiousness which could not bear even to hear of bodily\nailments, partly from the natural optimism of the dweller in a new\ncountry, and partly because he made a principle of maintaining an\nunruffled cheerfulness and serenity, he shut his eyes to pain, death,\nand sin, even more resolutely than did Goethe. The optimism which is\nbuilt on this foundation has no message of comfort for the stricken\nheart. To say that \"evil is only good in the making,\" is to repeat an\nancient and discredited attempt to solve the great enigma. And to\nassert that perfect justice is meted out to individuals in this world,\nis surely mere dreaming. Moreover, we can hardly acquit him of playing\nwith pantheistic Mysticism of the Oriental type, without seeing, or\nwithout caring, whither such speculations logically lead. \"Within\nman,\" he tells us, \"is the soul of the whole, the wise silence, the\nuniversal beauty, to which every part and particle is _equally_\nrelated--the eternal One.\" This is genuine Pantheism, and should carry\nwith it the doctrine that all actions are equally good, bad, or\nindifferent. Emerson says that his wife kept him from antinomianism;\nbut this is giving up the defence of his philosophy. He also differs\nfrom Christianity, and agrees with many Hegelians, in teaching that\nGod, \"the Over-Soul,\" only attains to self-consciousness in man; and\nthis, combined with his denial of _degrees_ in Divine immanence, leads\nhim to a self-deification of an arrogant and shocking kind, such as we\nfind in the Persian Sufis, and in some heretical mystics of the Middle\nAges. \"I, the imperfect, adore my own Perfect. I am receptive of the\ngreat soul. I become a transparent eyeball. I am nothing. I see all.\nThe currents of the universal Being circulate through me. I am part of\nGod\"; and much more to the same effect. This is not the language of\nthose who have travelled up the mystical ladder, instead of only\nwriting about it. It is far more objectionable than the bold phrases\nabout deification which I quoted in my fifth Lecture from the\nfourteenth century mystics; because with them the passage into the\nDivine glory is the final reward, only to be attained \"by all manner\nof exercises\"; while for Emerson it seems to be a state already\nexisting, which we can realise by a mere act of intellectual\napprehension. And the phrase, \"Man is a part of God,\"--as if the\nDivine Spirit were _divided_ among the organs which express its\nvarious activities,--has been condemned by all the great speculative\nmystics, from Plotinus downwards. Emerson is perhaps at his best when\nhe applies his idealism to love and friendship. The spiritualising and\nilluminating influence of pure comradeship has never been better or\nmore religiously set forth. And though it is necessary to be on our\nguard against the very dangerous tendency of some of his teaching, we\nshall find much to learn from the brave and serene philosopher whose\nfirst maxim was, \"Come out into the azure; love the day,\" and who\nduring his whole life fixed his thoughts steadily on whatsoever things\nare pure, lovely, noble, and of good report.\n\nThe constructive task which lies before the next century is, if I may\nsay so without presumption, to spiritualise science, as morality and\nart have already been spiritualised. The vision of God should appear\nto us as a triple star of truth, beauty, and goodness.[402] These are\nthe three objects of all human aspiration; and our hearts will never\nbe at peace till all three alike rest in God. Beauty is the chief\nmediator between the good and the true;[403] and this is why the great\npoets have been also prophets. But Science at present lags behind; she\nhas not found her God; and to this is largely due the \"unrest of the\nage.\" Much has already been done in the right direction by divines,\nphilosophers, and physicists, and more still, perhaps, by the great\npoets, who have striven earnestly to see the spiritual background\nwhich lies behind the abstractions of materialistic science. But much\nyet remains to be done. We may agree with Hinton that \"Positivism\nbears a new Platonism in its bosom\"; but the child has not yet come to\nthe birth.[404]\n\nMeanwhile, the special work assigned to the Church of England would\nseem to be the development of a _Johannine_ Christianity, which shall\nbe both Catholic and Evangelical without being either Roman or\nProtestant. It has been abundantly proved that neither Romanism nor\nProtestantism, regarded as alternatives, possesses enough of the truth\nto satisfy the religious needs of the present day. But is it not\nprobable that, as the theology of the Fourth Gospel acted as a\nreconciling principle between the opposing sections in the early\nChurch, so it may be found to contain the teaching which is most\nneeded by both parties in our own communion? In St. John and St. Paul\nwe find all the principles of a sound and sober Christian Mysticism;\nand it is to these \"fresh springs\" of the spiritual life that we must\nturn, if the Church is to renew her youth.\n\nI attempted in my second Lecture to analyse the main elements of\nChristian Mysticism as found in St. Paul and St. John. But since in\nthe later Lectures I have been obliged to draw from less pure sources,\nand since, moreover, I am most anxious not to leave the impression\nthat I have been advocating a vague spirituality tempered by\nrationalism, I will try in a few words to define my position\napologetically, though I am well aware that it is a hazardous and\ndifficult task.\n\nThe principle, \"Cuique in sua arte credendum est,\" applies to those\nwho have been eminent for personal holiness as much as to the leaders\nin any other branch of excellence. Even in dealing with arts which\nare akin to each other, we do not invite poets to judge of music, or\nsculptors of architecture. We need not then be disturbed if we\noccasionally find men illustrious in other fields, who are as\ninsensible to religion as to poetry. Our reverence for the character\nand genius of Charles Darwin need not induce us to lay aside either\nour Shakespeare or our New Testament.[405] The men to whom we\nnaturally turn as our best authorities in spiritual matters, are those\nwho seem to have been endowed with an \"anima naturaliter Christiana,\"\nand who have devoted their whole lives to the service of God and the\nimitation of Christ.\n\nNow it will be found that these men of acknowledged and pre-eminent\nsaintliness agree very closely in what they tell us about God. They\ntell us that they have arrived gradually at an unshakable conviction,\nnot based on inference but on immediate experience, that God is a\nSpirit with whom the human spirit can hold intercourse; that in Him\nmeet all that they can imagine of goodness, truth, and beauty; that\nthey can see His footprints everywhere in nature, and feel His\npresence within them as the very life of their life, so that in\nproportion as they come to themselves they come to Him. They tell us\nthat what separates us from Him and from happiness is, first,\nself-seeking in all its forms; and, secondly, sensuality in all its\nforms; that these are the ways of darkness and death, which hide from\nus the face of God; while the path of the just is like a shining\nlight, which shineth more and more unto the perfect day. As they have\ntoiled up the narrow way, the Spirit has spoken to them of Christ, and\nhas enlightened the eyes of their understandings, till they have at\nleast _begun_ to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, and\nto be filled with all the fulness of God.\n\nSo far, the position is unassailable. But the scope of the argument\nhas, of course, its fixed limits. The inner light can only testify to\nspiritual truths. It always speaks in the present tense; it cannot\nguarantee any historical event, past or future. It cannot guarantee\neither the Gospel history or a future judgment. It can tell us that\nChrist is risen, and that He is alive for evermore, but not that He\nrose again the third day. It can tell us that the gate of everlasting\nlife is open, but not that the dead shall be raised incorruptible. We\nhave other faculties for investigating the evidence for past events;\nthe inner light cannot certify them immediately, though it can give a\npowerful support to the external evidence. For though we are in no\nposition to dogmatise about the relations of the temporal to the\neternal, one fact does seem to stand out,--that the two are, _for us_,\nbound together. If, when we read the Gospels, \"the Spirit itself\nbeareth witness with our spirit\" that here are the words of eternal\nlife, and the character which alone in history is absolutely flawless,\nthen it is natural for us to believe that there has been, at that\npoint of time, an Incarnation of the Word of God Himself. That the\nrevelation of Christ is an absolute revelation, is a dogmatic\nstatement which, strictly speaking, only the Absolute could make. What\n_we_ mean by it is that after two thousand years we are unable to\nconceive of its being ever superseded in any particular. And if anyone\nfinds this inadequate, he may be invited to explain what higher degree\nof certainty is within our reach. With regard to the future life, the\nsame consideration may help us to understand why the Church has clung\nto the belief in a literal second coming of Christ to pronounce the\ndooms of all mankind. But our Lord Himself has taught us that in \"that\nday and that hour\" lies hidden a more inscrutable mystery than even He\nHimself, as man, could reveal.\n\nThere is one other point on which I wish to make my position clear.\nThe fact that human love or sympathy is the guide who conducts us to\nthe heart of life, revealing to us God and Nature and ourselves, is\nproof that part of our life is bound up with the life of the world,\nand that if we live in these our true relations we shall not entirely\ndie so long as human beings remain alive upon this earth. The progress\nof the race, the diminution of sin and misery, the advancing kingdom\nof Christ on earth,--these are matters in which we have a _personal_\ninterest. The strong desire that we feel--and the best of us feel it\nmost strongly--that the human race may be better, wiser, and happier\nin the future than they are now or have been in the past, is neither\ndue to a false association of ideas, nor to pure unselfishness. There\nis a sense in which death would not be the end of everything for us,\neven though in this life only we had hope in Christ.\n\nBut when this comforting and inspiring thought is made to form the\nbasis of a new Chiliasm--a belief in a millennium of perfected\nhumanity on this earth, and when this belief is substituted for the\nChristian belief in an eternal life beyond our bourne of time and\nplace, it is necessary to protest that this belief entirely fails to\nsatisfy the legitimate hopes of the human race, that it is bad\nphilosophy, and that it is flatly contrary to what science tells us of\nthe destiny of the world and of mankind. The human spirit beats\nagainst the bars of space and time themselves, and could never be\nsatisfied with any earthly utopia. Our true home must be in some\nhigher sphere of existence, above the contradictions which make it\nimpossible for us to believe that time and space are ultimate\nrealities, and out of reach of the inevitable catastrophe which the\nnext glacial age must bring upon the human race.[406] This world of\nspace and time is to resemble heaven as far as it can; but a fixed\nlimit is set to the amount of the Divine plan which can be realised\nunder these conditions. Our hearts tell us of a higher form of\nexistence, in which the doom of death is not merely deferred but\nabolished. This eternal world we here see through a glass darkly: at\nbest we can apprehend but the outskirts of God's ways, and hear a\nsmall whisper of His voice; but our conviction is that, though our\nearthly house be dissolved (as dissolved it must be), we have a home\nnot made with hands, eternal in the heavens. In this hope we may\ninclude all creation; and trust that in some way neither more nor less\nincomprehensible than the deliverance which we expect for ourselves,\nall God's creatures, according to their several capacities, may be set\nfree from the bondage of corruption and participate in the final\ntriumph over death and sin. Most firmly do I believe that this faith\nin immortality, though formless and inpalpable as the air we breathe,\nand incapable of definite presentation except under inadequate and\nself-contradictory symbols, is nevertheless enthroned in the centre of\nour being, and that those who have steadily set their affections on\nthings above, and lived the risen life even on earth, receive in\nthemselves an assurance which robs death of its sting, and is an\nearnest of a final victory over the grave.\n\nIt is not claimed that Mysticism, even in its widest sense, is, or can\never be, the whole of Christianity. Every religion must have an\ninstitutional as well as a mystical element. Just as, if the feeling\nof immediate communion with God has faded, we shall have a dead Church\nworshipping \"a dead Christ,\" as Fox the Quaker said of the Anglican\nChurch in his day; so, if the seer and prophet expel the priest, there\nwill be no discipline and no cohesion. Still, at the present time, the\ngreatest need seems to be that we should return to the fundamentals of\nspiritual religion. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that both the\nold seats of authority, the infallible Church and the infallible\nbook, are fiercely assailed, and that our faith needs reinforcements.\nThese can only come from the depths of the religious consciousness\nitself; and if summoned from thence, they will not be found wanting.\nThe \"impregnable rock\" is neither an institution nor a book, but a\nlife or experience. Faith, which is an affirmation of the basal\npersonality, is its own evidence and justification. Under normal\nconditions, it will always be strongest in the healthiest minds. There\nis and can be no appeal from it. If, then, our hearts, duly prepared\nfor the reception of the Divine Guest, at length say to us, \"This I\nknow, that whereas I was blind, now I see,\" we may, in St. John's\nwords, \"have confidence towards God.\"\n\nThe objection may be raised--\"But these beliefs change, and merely\nreflect the degree of enlightenment or its opposite, which every man\nhas reached.\" The conscience of the savage tells him emphatically that\nthere are some things which he _must not do_; and blind obedience to\nthis \"categorical imperative\" has produced not only all the complex\nabsurdities of \"taboo,\" but crimes like human sacrifice, and faith in\na great many things that are not. \"Perhaps we are leaving behind the\ntheological stage, as we have already left behind those superstitions\nof savagery.\" Now the study of primitive religions does seem to me to\nprove the danger of resting religion and morality on unreasoning\nobedience to a supposed revelation; but that is not my position. The\ntwo forces which kill mischievous superstitions are the knowledge of\nnature, and the moral sense; and we are quite ready to give both free\nplay, confident that both come from the living Word of God. The fact\nthat a revelation is progressive is no argument that it is not Divine:\nit is, in fact, only when the free current of the religious life is\ndammed up that it turns into a swamp, and poisons human society. Of\ncourse we must be ready to admit with all humility, that _our_ notions\nof God are probably unworthy and distorted enough; but that is no\nreason why we should not follow the light which we have, or mistrust\nit on the ground that it is \"too _good_ to be true.\"\n\nNor would it be fair to say that this argument makes religion depend\nmerely on _feeling_. A theology based on mere feeling is (as Hegel\nsaid) as much contrary to revealed religion as to rational knowledge.\nThe fact that God is present to our feeling is no proof that He\nexists; our feelings include imaginations which have no reality\ncorresponding to them. No, it is not feeling, but the _heart_ or\n_reason_ (whichever term we prefer), which speaks with authority. By\nthe heart or reason I mean the whole personality acting in concord, an\nabiding mood of thinking, willing, and feeling. The life of the spirit\nperhaps begins with mere feeling, and perhaps will be consummated in\nmere feeling, when \"that which is in part shall be done away\"; but\nduring its struggles to enter into its full inheritance, it gathers up\ninto itself the activities of all the faculties, which act\nharmoniously together in proportion as the organism to which they\nbelong is in a healthy state.\n\nOnce more, this reliance on the inner light does not mean that every\nman must be his own prophet, his own priest, and his own saviour. The\nindividual is not independent of the Church, nor the Church of the\nhistorical Christ. But the Church is a _living_ body and the\nIncarnation and Atonement are _living_ facts still in operation. They\nare part of the eternal counsels of God; and whether they are enacted\nin the Abyss of the Divine Nature, or once for all in their fulness on\nthe stage of history, or in miniature, as it were, in your soul and\nmine, the process is the same, and the tremendous importance of those\nhistorical facts which our creeds affirm is due precisely to the fact\nthat they are _not_ unique and isolated portents, but the supreme\nmanifestation of the grandest and most universal laws.\n\nThese considerations may well have a calming and reassuring influence\nupon those who, from whatever cause, are troubled by religious doubts.\nThe foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord\nknoweth, and is known by, them that are His. But we must not expect\nthat \"religious difficulties\" will ever cease. Every truth that we\nknow is but the husk of a deeper truth; and it may be that the Holy\nSpirit has still many things to say to us, which we cannot bear now.\nEach generation and each individual has his own problem, which has\nnever been set in exactly the same form before: we must all work out\nour own salvation, for it is God who worketh in us. If we have\nrealised the meaning of these words of St. Paul, which I have had\noccasion to quote so often in these Lectures, we cannot doubt that,\nthough we now see through a glass darkly, and know only in part, we\nshall one day behold our Eternal Father face to face, and know Him\neven as we are known.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 364: Horace, _Ep._ i. 12. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 365: [Greek: polypoikilos sophia], Eph. iii. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 366: Pindar, _Olymp._ ii. 154.]\n\n[Footnote 367: Barine in _Revue des Deux Mondes_, April 1891.]\n\n[Footnote 368: The latter, like Fechner in our own century, holds that\nthe stars are living organisms, whose \"sensibility is full of\npleasure.\"]\n\n[Footnote 369: See Illingworth's _Divine Immanence_, where this and\nother interesting passages are quoted. But Suso was, of course, _not_\na \"Protestant mystic.\" And I cannot agree with the author when he says\nthat Lucretius found no religious inspiration in Nature. The poet of\nthe _Nature of Things_ shows himself to have been a lonely man, who\nhad pondered much among the hills and by the sea, and who loved to\ntaste the pure delights of the spring. Thence came to him the \"holy\njoy and dread\" (\"qu\u00e6dam divina voluptas atque horror\") which pulsates\nthrough his great poem as he shatters the barbarous mythology of\npaganism, and then, in the spirit of a priest rather than of a\nphilosopher, turns the \"bright shafts of day\" upon the folly and\nmadness of those who are slaves to the world or the flesh. The spirit\nof Lucretius is the spirit of modern science, which tends neither to\nmaterialism nor to atheism, whatever its friends and enemies may say.]\n\n[Footnote 370: Christian Platonism has never been more beautifully set\nforth than in the poem of Spenser named above. Compare, especially,\nthe following stanzas:--\n\n\n  \"The means, therefore, which unto us is lent\n   Him to behold, is on His works to look,\n   Which He hath made in beauty excellent,\n   And in the same, as in a brazen book\n   To read enregistered in every nooke\n   His goodness, which His beauty doth declare:\n   For all that's good is beautiful and fair.\n\n   \"Thence gathering plumes of perfect speculation,\n   To imp the wings of thy high-flying mind,\n   Mount up aloft through heavenly contemplation,\n   From this dark world, whose damps the soul do blind,\n   On that bright Sun of glory fix thine eyes,\n   Cleared from gross mists of frail infirmities.\"\n\n\nShelley sums up a great deal of Plotinus in the following stanza of\n\"Adonais\":--\n\n\n  \"The One remains; the many change and pass;\n   Heaven's light for ever shines; earth's shadows fly;\n   Life, like a dome of many-coloured glass,\n   Stains the white radiance of eternity.\"\n\n\nCompare, too, the opening lines of \"Alastor.\"]\n\n[Footnote 371: Compare the following sentences in Bradley's\n_Appearance and Reality_: \"Nature viewed materialistically is only an\nabstraction for certain purposes, and has not a high degree of truth\nor reality. The poet's nature has much more.... Our principle, that\nthe abstract is the unreal, moves us steadily upward.... It compels us\nin the end to credit nature with our higher emotions. That process can\nonly cease when nature is quite absorbed into spirit, and at every\nstage of the process we find increase in reality.\"]\n\n[Footnote 372: \"Prelude,\" viii. 340 sq.]\n\n[Footnote 373: \"Prelude,\" viii. 668.]\n\n[Footnote 374: La Rochefoucauld.]\n\n[Footnote 375: These words, from Milton's \"Comus,\" are applied to\nWordsworth by Hazlitt.]\n\n[Footnote 376: \"Prelude,\" iv. 1207-1229. The ascetic element in\nWordsworth's ethics should by no means be forgotten by those who envy\nhis brave and unruffled outlook upon life. As Hutton says excellently\n(_Essays_, p. 81), \"there is volition and self-government in every\nline of his poetry, and his best thoughts come from the steady\nresistance he opposes to the ebb and flow of ordinary desires and\nregrets. He contests the ground inch by inch with all despondent and\nindolent humours, and often, too, with movements of inconsiderate and\nwasteful joy--turning defeat into victory, and victory into defeat.\"\nSee the whole passage.]\n\n[Footnote 377: \"Prelude,\" vi. 604-608.]\n\n[Footnote 378: \"Miscell. Sonnets,\" xii.]\n\n[Footnote 379: See the Essay in which he deals with Macpherson: \"In\nnature everything is distinct, yet nothing defined into absolute\nindependent singleness. In Macpherson's work it is exactly the\nreverse--everything is defined, insulated, dislocated, deadened--yet\nnothing distinct.\"]\n\n[Footnote 380: \"Excursion,\" v. 500-514.]\n\n[Footnote 381: This seemed flat blasphemy to Shelley, whose idealism\nwas mixed with Byronic misanthropy. \"Nor was there aught the world\ncontained of which he could approve.\"]\n\n[Footnote 382: \"Prelude,\" xiv. 192. Wordsworth's psychology is very\ninteresting. \"Imagination\" is for him (\"Miscellaneous Sonnets,\" xxxv.)\na \"glorious faculty,\" whose function it is to elevate the\nmore-than-reasoning mind; \"'tis hers to pluck the amaranthine flower\nof Faith,\" and \"colour life's dark cloud with orient rays.\" This\nfaculty is at once \"more than reason,\" and identical with \"Reason in\nher most exalted mood.\" I have said (p.21) that \"Mysticism is reason\napplied to a sphere above rationalism\" and this appears to be exactly\nWordsworth's doctrine.]\n\n[Footnote 383: \"Sonnets on the River Duddon,\" xxxiv.]\n\n[Footnote 384: \"Lines composed above Tintern Abbey,\" 95-102.]\n\n[Footnote 385: \"Miscell. Sonnets,\" xxxiii.]\n\n[Footnote 386: \"Prelude,\" xiv. 112-129.]\n\n[Footnote 387: \"Prelude,\" ii. 396-418.]\n\n[Footnote 388: \"Lines composed above Tintern Abbey,\" 35-48.]\n\n[Footnote 389: Wordsworth's Mysticism contains a few subordinate\nelements which are of more questionable value. The \"echoes from beyond\nthe grave,\" which \"the inward ear\" sometimes catches, are dear to most\nof us; but we must not be too confident that they always come from\nGod. Still less can we be sure that presentiments are \"heaven-born\ninstincts.\" Again, when the lonely thinker feels himself surrounded by\n\"huge and mighty forms, that do not move like living men,\" it is a\nsign that the \"dim and undetermined sense of unknown modes of being\"\nhas begun to work not quite healthily upon his imagination. And the\ndoctrine of pre-existence, which appears in the famous Ode, is one\nwhich it has been hitherto impossible to admit into the scheme of\nChristian beliefs, though many Christian thinkers have dallied with\nit. Perhaps the true lesson of the Ode is that the childish love of\nnature, beautiful and innocent as it is, has to die and be born again\nin the consciousness of the grown man. That Wordsworth himself passed\nthrough this experience, we know from other passages in his writings.\nIn his case, at any rate, the \"light of common day\" was, for a time at\nleast, more splendid than the roseate hues of his childish imagination\ncan possibly have been; and there seems to be no reason for holding\nthe gloomy view that spiritual insight necessarily becomes dimmer as\nwe travel farther from our cradles, and nearer to our graves. What\nfails us as we get older is only that kind of vision which is\nanalogous to the \"consolations\" often spoken of by monkish mystics as\nthe privilege of beginners. Amiel expresses exactly the same regret as\nWordsworth: \"Shall I ever enjoy again those marvellous reveries of\npast days?...\" See the whole paragraph on p. 32 of Mrs. Humphry Ward's\ntranslation.]\n\n[Footnote 390: These objections are pressed by Lotze, and not only by\navowed Pessimists. Lotze abhors what he calls \"sentimental symbolism\"\nbecause it interferes with his monadistic doctrines. I venture to say\nthat any philosophy which divides man, as a being _sui generis_, from\nthe rest of Nature, is inevitably landed either in Acosmism or in\nManichean Dualism.]\n\n[Footnote 391: This is perhaps the best place to notice the mystical\ntreatise of James Hinton, entitled _Man and his Dwelling-place_, which\nis chiefly remarkable for its attempt to solve the problem of evil.\nThis writer pushes to an extremity the favourite mystical doctrine\nthat we surround ourselves with a world after our own likeness, and\nconsiders that all the evil which we see in Nature is the \"projection\nof our own deadness.\" Apart from the unlikelihood of a theory which\nmakes man--\"the roof and crown of things\"--the only diseased and\ndiscordant element in the universe, the writer lays himself open to\nthe fatal rejoinder, \"Did Christ, then, see no sin or evil in the\nworld?\" The doctrines of sacrifice (vicarious suffering) as a blessed\nlaw of Nature (\"the secret of the universe is learnt on Calvary\"), and\nof the necessity of annihilating \"the self\" as the principle of evil,\nare pressed with a harsh and unnatural rigour. Our blessed Lord laid\nno such yoke upon us, nor will human nature consent to bear it. The\n\"atonement\" of the world by love is much better delineated by R.L.\nNettleship, in a passage which seems to me to exhibit the very kernel\nof Christian Mysticism in its social aspect. \"Suppose that all human\nbeings felt permanently to each other as they now do occasionally to\nthose they love best. All the pain of the world would be swallowed up\nin doing good. So far as we can conceive of such a state, it would be\none in which there would be no 'individuals' at all, but an universal\nbeing in and for another; where being took the form of consciousness,\nit would be the consciousness of 'another' which was also 'oneself'--a\n_common_ consciousness. Such would be the 'atonement' of the world.\"]\n\n[Footnote 392: Charles Kingsley is another mystic of the same school.]\n\n[Footnote 393: Browning, _Paracelsus_, Act i.]\n\n[Footnote 394: Browning, \"Saul,\" xvii.]\n\n[Footnote 395: Browning, \"Cristina.\"]\n\n[Footnote 396: Browning, \"Christmas Eve and Easter Day,\" xxx.,\nxxxiii.]\n\n[Footnote 397: Browning, \"_Any Wife to any Husband._\"]\n\n[Footnote 398: Compare Plato's well-known sentence: [Greek: di\nalg\u00eadon\u00f4n kai odyn\u00f4n gignetai h\u00ea \u00f4pheleia, ou gar oion te\nall\u00f4s adikias apallattesthai].]\n\n[Footnote 399: Browning, _Paracelsus_.]\n\n[Footnote 400: Compare Pascal: \"No one is discontented at not being a\nking, except a discrowned king.\"]\n\n[Footnote 401: It is almost as prominent in Tennyson as in Browning:\n\"Give her the wages of going on, and not to die,\" is his wish for the\nhuman soul.]\n\n[Footnote 402: I had written these words before the publication of\nPrincipal Caird's _Sermons_, which contain, in my judgment, the most\npowerful defence of what I have called Christian Mysticism that has\nappeared since William Law. On p. 14 he says: \"Of all things good and\nfair and holy there is a spiritual cognisance which precedes and is\nindependent of that knowledge which the understanding conveys.\" He\nshows how in the contemplation of nature it is \"by an organ deeper\nthan intellectual thought\" that \"the revelation of material beauty\nflows in upon the soul.\" \"And in like manner there is an apprehension\nof God and Divine things which comes upon the spirit as a living\nreality which it immediately and intuitively perceives.\" ... \"There is\na capacity of the soul, by which the truths of religion may be\napprehended and appropriated.\" See the whole sermon, entitled, _What\nis Religion?_ and many other parts of the book.]\n\n[Footnote 403: Cf. Hegel (_Philosophy of Religion_, vol. ii. p. 8):\n\"The Beautiful is essentially the Spiritual making itself known\nsensuously, presenting itself in sensuous concrete existence, but in\nsuch a manner that that existence is wholly and entirely permeated by\nthe Spiritual, so that the sensuous is not independent, but has its\nmeaning solely and exclusively in the Spiritual and through the\nSpiritual, and exhibits not itself, but the Spiritual.\"]\n\n[Footnote 404: Some reference ought perhaps to be made to Drummond's\n_Natural Law in the Spiritual World_. But Mysticism seeks rather to\nfind spiritual law in the natural world--and some better law than\nDrummond's Calvinism. (And I cannot help thinking that, though\nEvolution explains much and contradicts nothing in Christianity, it is\nin danger of proving an _ignis fatuus_ to many, especially to those\nwho are inclined to idealistic pantheism. There can be no progress or\ndevelopment in God, and the cosmic process as we know it cannot have a\nhigher degree of reality than the categories of time and place under\nwhich it appears. As for the millennium of perfected humanity on this\nearth, which some Positivists and others dream of,--Christianity has\nnothing to say against it, but science has a great deal.) See below,\np. 328.]\n\n[Footnote 405: In the Life of Charles Darwin there is an interesting\nletter, in which he laments the gradual decay of his taste for poetry,\nas his mind became a mere \"machine for grinding out general laws\" from\na mass of observations. The decay of religious _feeling_ in many men\nof high character may be accounted for in the same way. The really\ngreat man is conscious of the sacrifice which he is making. \"It is an\naccursed evil to a man,\" Darwin wrote to Hooker, \"to become so\nabsorbed in any subject as I am in mine.\" The common-place man is\n_not_ conscious of it: he obtains his heart's desire, if he works hard\nenough, and God sends leanness withal into his soul.]\n\n[Footnote 406: The metaphysical problem about the reality of time in\nrelation to evolution is so closely bound up with speculative\nMysticism, that I have been obliged to state my own opinion upon it.\nIt is, of course, one of the vexed questions of philosophy at the\npresent time; and I could not afford the space, even if I had the\nrequisite knowledge and ability, to argue it. The best discussion of\nit that I know is in M'Taggart's _Studies in Hegelian Dialectic_, pp.\n159-202. Cf. note on p. 23.]\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDICES\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX A\n\nDefinitions Of \"Mysticism\" And \"Mystical Theology\"\n\n\nThe following definitions are given only as specimens. The list might\nbe made much longer by quoting from other Roman Catholic theologians,\nbut their definitions for the most part agree closely enough with\nthose which I have transcribed from Corderius, John a Jesu Maria, and\nGerson.\n\n1. _Corderius_. \"Theologia mystica est sapientia experimentalis, Dei\naffectiva, divinitus infusa, qu\u00e6 mentem ab omni inordinatione puram\nper actus supernaturales fidei spei et caritatis cum Deo intime\nconiungit.... Mystica theologia, si vim nominis attendas, designat\nquandam sacram et arcanam de Deo divinisque rebus notitiam.\"\n\n2. _John a Jesu Maria_. \"[Theologia mystica] est c\u00e6lestis qu\u00e6dam Dei\nnotitia per unionem voluntatis Deo inh\u00e6rentis elicita vel lumine\nc\u00e6litus immisso producta.\"\n\n3. _Bonaventura_ (adopted also by Gerson). \"Est animi extensio in Deum\nper amoris desiderium.\"\n\n4. _Gerson_. \"Theologia mystica est motio anagogica in Deum per amorem\nfervidum et purum. Aliter sic: Theologia mystica est experimentalis\ncognitio habita de Deo per amoris unitivi complexum. Aliter sic: est\nsapientia, id est sapida notio habita de Deo, dum ei supremus apex\naffectiv\u00e6 potenti\u00e6 rationalis per amorem iungitur et unitur.\"\n\n5. _Scaramelli_. \"La theologia mistica esperimentale, secondo il suo\natto principale e pi\u00f9 proprio, \u00e8 una notizia pura di Dio che l' anima\nd'ordinario riceve nella caligine luminosa, o per di meglio nel chiaro\noscuro d' un' alta contemplazione, insieme con un amore esperimentale\nsi intimo, che la fa perdere tutta a s\u00e8 stessa per unirla e\ntransformarla in Dio.\"\n\n6. _Ribet_. \"La th\u00e9ologie mystique, au point de vue subjectif et\nexp\u00e9rimental, nous semble pouvoir \u00eatre d\u00e9finie: une attraction\nsurnaturelle et passive de l'\u00e2me vers Dieu, provenant d'une\nillumination et d'un embrasement int\u00e9rieurs, qui pr\u00e9viennent la\nr\u00e9flexion, surpassent l'effort humain, et pouvent avoir sur le corps\nun retentissement merveilleux et irr\u00e9sistible.... Au point de vue\ndoctrinal objectif, la mystique peut se d\u00e9finir: la science qui traite\ndes ph\u00e9nom\u00e8nes surnaturels, qui pr\u00e9parent, accompagnent, et suivent\nl'attraction passive des \u00e2mes vers Dieu et par Dieu, c'est \u00e0 dire la\ncontemplation divine; qui les coordonne et les justifie par l'autorit\u00e9\nde l'\u00c9criture, des docteurs et de la raison; les distingue des\nph\u00e9nom\u00e8nes parall\u00e8les dus a l'action de Satan, et des faits analogues\npurement naturels; enfin, qui trace des r\u00e8gles pratiques pour la\nconduite des \u00e2mes dans ces ascensions sublimes mais p\u00e9rilleuses.\"\n\n7. _L'Abb\u00e9 Migne_. \"La mystique est la science d'\u00e9tat sur naturel de\nl'\u00e2me humaine manifest\u00e9 dans le corps et dans l'ordre des choses\nvisibles par des effets \u00e9galement surnaturels.\"\n\nIn these scholastic and modern Roman Catholic definitions we may\nobserve (a) that the earlier definitions supplement without\ncontradicting each other, representing different aspects of Mysticism,\nas an experimental science, as a living sacrifice of the will, as an\nillumination from above, and as an exercise of ardent devotion; (b)\nthat symbolic or objective Mysticism is not recognised; (c) that the\nsharp distinction between natural and supernatural, which is set up by\nthe scholastic mystics, carries with it a craving for physical\n\"mystical phenomena\" to support the belief in supernatural\ninterventions. These miracles, though not mentioned in the earlier\ndefinitions, have come to be considered an integral part of Mysticism,\nso that Migne and Ribet include them in their definitions; (d)\nlastly, that those who take this view of \"la mystique divine\" are\nconstrained to admit by the side of true mystical facts a parallel\nclass of \"contrefa\u00e7ons diaboliques.\"\n\n8. _Von Hartmann_. \"Mysticism is the filling of the consciousness with\na content (feeling, thought, desire), by an involuntary emergence of\nthe same out of the unconscious.\"\n\nVon Hartmann's hypostasis of the Unconscious has been often and\njustly criticised. But his chapter on Mysticism is of great value. He\nbegins by asking, \"What is the _Wesen_ of Mysticism?\" and shows that\nit is not quietism (disproved by mystics like B\u00f6hme, and by many\nactive reformers), nor ecstasy (which is generally pathological), nor\nasceticism, nor allegorism, nor fantastic symbolism, nor obscurity of\nexpression, nor religion generally, nor superstition, nor the sum of\nthese things. It is healthy in itself, and has been of high value to\nindividuals and to the race. It prepared for the Gospel of St. John,\nfor the revolt against arid scholasticism in the Middle Ages, for the\nReformation, and for modern German philosophy. He shows the mystical\nelement in Hamann, Jacobi, Fichte, and Schelling; and quotes with\napproval the description of \"intellectual intuition\" given by the last\nnamed. We must not speak of thought as an antithesis to experience,\n\"for thought (including immediate or mystical knowledge) is itself\nexperience.\" This knowledge is not derived from sense-perception,--the\nconscious will has nothing to do with it,--\"it can only have arisen\nthrough inspiration from the Unconscious.\" He would extend the name of\nmystic to \"eminent art-geniuses who owe their productions to\ninspirations of genius, and not to the work of their consciousness\n(e.g. Phidias, \u00c6eschylus, Raphael, Beethoven)\", and even to every\n\"truly original\" philosopher, for every high thought has been first\napprehended by the glance of genius. Moreover, the relation of the\nindividual to the Absolute, an essential theme of philosophy, can\n_only_ be mystically apprehended. \"This feeling is the content of\nMysticism [Greek: kat exoch\u00ean], because it finds its existence _only_\nin it.\" He then shows with great force how religious and philosophical\nsystems have full probative force only for the few who are able to\nreproduce mystically in themselves their underlying suppositions, the\ntruth of which can only be mystically apprehended. \"Hence it is that\nthose systems which rejoice in most adherents are just the poorest of\nall and most unphilosophical (e.g. materialism and rationalistic\nTheism).\"\n\n9. _Du Prel_. \"If the self is not wholly contained in\nself-consciousness, if man is a being dualised by the threshold of\nsensibility, then is Mysticism possible; and if the threshold of\nsensibility is movable, then Mysticism is necessary.\" \"The mystical\nphenomena of the soul-life are anticipations of the biological\nprocess.\" \"Soul is our spirit within the self-consciousness, spirit is\nthe soul beyond the self-consciousness.\"\n\nThis definition, with which should be compared the passage from J.P.\nRitcher, quoted in Lecture I., assumes that Mysticism may be treated\nas a branch of experimental psychology. Du Prel attaches great\nimportance to somnambulism and other kindred psychical phenomena,\nwhich (he thinks) give us glimpses of the inner world of our _Ego_, in\nmany ways different from our waking consciousness. \"As the moon turns\nto us only half its orb, so our Ego.\" He distinguishes between the Ego\nand the subject. The former will perish at death. It arises from the\nfree act of the subject, which enters the time-process as a\ndiscipline. \"The self-conscious Ego is a projection of the\ntranscendental subject, and resembles it.\" \"We should regard this\nearthly existence as a transitory phenomenal form in correspondence\nwith our transcendental interest.\" \"Conscience is transcendental\nnature.\" (This last sentence suggests thoughts of great interest.) Du\nPrel shows how Schopenhauer's pessimism may be made the basis of a\nhigher optimism. \"The path of biological advance leads to the merging\nof the Ego in the subject.\" \"The biological aim for the race coincides\nwith the transcendental aim for the individual.\" \"The whole content of\nEthics is that the Ego must subserve the Subject.\" The disillusions of\nexperience show that earthly life has no value for its own sake, and\nis only a means to an end; it follows that to make pleasure our end is\nthe one fatal mistake in life. These thoughts are mixed with\nspeculations of much less value; for I cannot agree with Du Prel that\nwe shall learn much about higher and deeper modes of life by studying\nabnormal and pathological states of the consciousness.\n\n10. _Goethe_. \"Mysticism is the scholastic of the heart, the dialectic\nof the feelings.\"\n\n11. _Noack_. \"Mysticism is formless speculation.\"\n\nNoack's definition is, perhaps, not very happily phrased, for the\nessence of Mysticism is not speculation but intuition; and when it\nbegins to speculate, it is obliged at once to take to itself \"forms.\"\nEven the ultimate goal of the _via negativa_ is apprehended as \"a kind\nof form of formlessness.\" Goethe's definition regards Mysticism as a\nsystem of religion or philosophy, and from this point of view\ndescribes it accurately.\n\n12. _Ewald_. \"Mystical theology begins by maintaining that man is\nfallen away from God, and craves to be again united with Him.\"\n\n13. _Canon Overton_. \"That we bear the image of God is the\nstarting-point, one might almost say the postulate, of all Mysticism.\nThe complete union of the soul with God is the goal of all Mysticism.\"\n\n14. _Pfleiderer_. \"Mysticism is the immediate feeling of the unity of\nthe self with God; it is nothing, therefore, but the fundamental\nfeeling of religion, the religious life at its very heart and centre.\nBut what makes the mystical a special tendency inside religion, is the\nendeavour to fix the immediateness of the life in God as such, as\nabstracted from all intervening helps and channels whatever, and find\na permanent abode in the abstract inwardness of the life of pious\nfeeling. In this God-intoxication, in which self and the world are\nalike forgotten, the subject knows himself to be in possession of the\nhighest and fullest truth; but this truth is only possessed in the\nquite undeveloped, simple, and bare form of monotonous feeling; what\ntruth the subject possesses is not filled up by any determination in\nwhich the simple unity might unfold itself, and it lacks therefore the\nclearness of knowledge, which is only attained when thought harmonises\ndifferences with unity.\"\n\n15. _Professor A. Seth_. \"Mysticism is a phase of thought, or rather,\nperhaps, of feeling, which from its very nature is hardly susceptible\nof exact definition. It appears in connexion with the endeavour of the\nhuman mind to grasp the Divine essence or the ultimate reality of\nthings, and to enjoy the blessedness of actual communion with the\nhighest. The first is the philosophic side of Mysticism; the second,\nits religious side. The thought that is most intensely present with\nthe mystic is that of a supreme, all-pervading, and indwelling Power,\nin whom all things are one. Hence the speculative utterances of\nMysticism are always more or less pantheistic in character. On the\npractical side, Mysticism maintains the possibility of direct\nintercourse with this Being of beings. God ceases to be an object, and\nbecomes an experience.\"\n\nThis carefully-worded statement of the essence of Mysticism is\nfollowed by a hostile criticism. Professor Seth considers quietism the\ntrue conclusion from the mystic's premisses. \"It is characteristic of\nMysticism, that it does not distinguish between what is metaphorical\nand what is susceptible of a literal interpretation. Hence it is prone\nto treat a relation of ethical harmony as if it were one of\nsubstantial identity or chemical fusion; and, taking the sensuous\nlanguage of religious feeling literally, it bids the individual aim at\nnothing less than an interpenetration of essence. And as this goal is\nunattainable while reason and the consciousness of self remain, the\nmystic begins to consider these as impediments to be thrown aside....\nHence Mysticism demands a faculty above reason, by which the subject\nshall be placed in immediate and complete union with the object of his\ndesire, a union in which the consciousness of self has disappeared,\nand in which, therefore, subject and object are one.\" To this, I\nthink, the mystic might answer: \"I know well that interpenetration and\nabsorption are words which belong to the category of space, and are\nonly metaphors or symbols of the relation of the soul to God; but\nseparateness, impenetrability, and isolation, which you affirm of the\n_ego_, belong to the same category, and are no whit less metaphorical.\nThe question is, which of the two sets of words best expresses the\nrelation of the ransomed soul to its Redeemer? In my opinion, your\nphrase 'ethical harmony' is altogether inadequate, while the New\nTestament expressions, 'membership,' 'union,' 'indwelling,' are as\nadequate as words can be.\" The rest of the criticism is directed\nagainst the \"negative road,\" which I have no wish to defend, since I\ncannot admit that it follows logically from the first principles of\nMysticism.\n\n16. _R\u00e9c\u00e9jac_. \"Mysticism is the tendency to approach the Absolute\nmorally, and by means of symbols.\"\n\nR\u00e9c\u00e9jac's very interesting _Essai sur les Fondements de la\nConnaissance mystique_ has the great merit of emphasising the symbolic\ncharacter of all mystical phenomena, and of putting all such\nexperiences in their true place, as neither hallucinations nor\ninvasions of the natural order, but symbols of a higher reality. \"Les\napparitions et autres ph\u00e9nom\u00e8nes mystiques n'existent que dans\nl'esprit du voyant, et ne perdent rien pour cela de leur prix ni de\nleur v\u00e9rit\u00e9.... Et alors n'y a-t-il pas au fond des symboles autant\n_d'\u00eatre_ que sous les ph\u00e9nom\u00e8nes? Bien plus encore: car l'\u00eatre\nph\u00e9nom\u00e9nal, le r\u00e9el, se pose dans la conscience par un encha\u00eenement de\nfaits tellement successif que nous ne tenons jamais 'le m\u00eame'; tandis\nque sous les symboles, si nous tenons quelque chose, c'est l'identique\net le permanent.\" R\u00e9c\u00e9jac also insists with great force that the\nmotive power of Mysticism is neither curiosity nor self-interest, but\nlove: the intrusion of alien motives is at once fatal to it. \"Its\nlogic consists in having confidence in the rationality of the moral\nconsciousness and its desires.\" This agrees with what I have\nsaid--that Reason is, or should be, the logic of our entire\npersonality, and that if Reason is so defined, it does not come into\nconflict with Mysticism. R\u00e9c\u00e9jac also has much to say upon Free Will\nand Determinism. He says that Mysticism is an alliance between the\nPractical Reason (which he identifies with \"la Libert\u00e9\") and\nImagination. \"Determinism is the opposite, not of 'Liberty,' but of\n'indifference.' Liberty, as Fouill\u00e9e says, is only a higher form of\nDeterminism.\" \"The modern idea of liberty, and the mystical conception\nof Divine will, may be reconciled in the same way as inspiration and\nreason, on condition that both are discovered in the same fact\ninterior to us, and that, far from being opposed to each other, they\nare fused and distinguished together _dans quelque implicite\nr\u00e9ellement pr\u00e9sent a la conscience_.\" R\u00e9c\u00e9jac throughout appeals to\nKant instead of to Hegel as his chief philosophical authority, in this\ndiffering from the majority of those who are in sympathy with\nMysticism.\n\n17. _Bonchitt\u00e9_. \"Mysticism consists in giving to the spontaneity of\nthe intelligence a larger part than to the other faculties.\"\n\n18. _Charles Kingsley_. \"The great Mysticism is the belief which is\nbecoming every day stronger with me, that all symmetrical natural\nobjects are types of some spiritual truth or existence. When I walk\nthe fields, I am oppressed now and then with an innate feeling that\neverything I see has a meaning, if I could but understand it. And this\nfeeling of being surrounded with truths which I cannot grasp, amounts\nto indescribable awe sometimes. Everything seems to be full of God's\nreflex, if we could but see it. Oh, how I have prayed to have the\nmystery unfolded, at least hereafter! To see, if but for a moment, the\nwhole harmony of the great system! To hear once the music which the\nwhole universe makes as it performs His bidding! Oh, that heaven! The\nthought of the first glance of creation from thence, when we know even\nas we are known. And He, the glorious, the beautiful, the incarnate\nIdeal shall be justified in all His doings, and in all, and through\nall, and over all.... All day, glimpses from the other world, floating\nmotes from that inner transcendental life, have been floating across\nme.... Have you not felt that your real soul was imperceptible to your\nmental vision, except at a few hallowed moments? That in everyday life\nthe mind, looking at itself, sees only the brute intellect, grinding\nand working, not the Divine particle, which is life and immortality,\nand on which the Spirit of God most probably works, as being most\ncognate to Deity\" (_Life_, vol. i. p. 55). Again he says: \"This earth\nis the next greatest fact to that of God's existence.\"\n\nKingsley's review of Vaughan's _Hours with the Mystics_ shows that he\nretained his sympathy with Mysticism at a later period of his life. It\nwould be impossible to find any consistent idealistic philosophy in\nKingsley's writings; but the sentences above quoted are interesting as\na profession of faith in Mysticism of the _objective_ type.\n\n19. _R.L. Nettleship_. \"The cure for a wrong Mysticism is to realise\nthe facts, not particular facts or aspects of facts, but the whole\nfact: true Mysticism is the consciousness that everything that we\nexperience is an element, and only an element, in fact; i.e. that in\nbeing what it is, it is symbolic of something more.\"\n\nThe _obiter dicta_ on Mysticism in Nettleship's _Remains_ are of great\nvalue.\n\n20. _Lasson_. \"The essence of Mysticism is the assertion of an\nintuition which transcends the temporal categories of the\nunderstanding, relying on speculative reason. Rationalism cannot\nconduct us to the essence of things; we therefore need intellectual\nvision. But Mysticism is not content with symbolic knowledge, and\naspires to see the Absolute by pure spiritual apprehension.... There\nis a contradiction in regarding God as the immanent Essence of all\nthings, and yet as an abstraction transcending all things. But it is\ninevitable. Pure immanence is unthinkable, if we are to maintain\ndistinctions in things.... Strict 'immanence' doctrine tends towards\nthe monopsychism of Averroes.... Mysticism is often associated with\npantheism, but the religious character of Mysticism views everything\nfrom the standpoint of teleology, while pantheism generally stops at\ncausality.... Mysticism, again, is often allied with rationalism, but\ntheir ground-principles are different, for rationalism is deistic, and\nrests on this earth, being based on the understanding [as opposed to\nthe higher faculty, the reason].... Nothing can be more perverse than\nto accuse Mysticism of _vagueness_. Its danger is rather an\novervaluing of reason and knowledge.... Mysticism is only religious so\nlong as it remembers that we can here only see through a glass darkly;\nwhen it tries to represent the eternal _adequately_, it falls into a\nnew and dangerous retranslation of thought into images, or into bare\nnegation.... Religion is a relation of person to person, a life, which\nin its form is an analogy to the earthly, while its content is pure\nrelation to the eternal. Dogmatic is the skeleton, Mysticism the\nlife-blood, of the Christian body.... Since the Reformation,\nphilosophy has taken over most of the work which the speculative\nmystics performed in the Middle Ages\" (_Essay on the Essence and Value\nof Mysticism_).\n\n21. _Nordau_. \"The word Mysticism describes a state of mind in which\nthe subject imagines that he perceives or divines unknown and\ninexplicable relations among phenomena, discerns in things hints at\nmysteries, and regards them as symbols by which a dark power seeks to\nunveil, or at least to indicate, all sorts of marvels.... It is always\nconnected with strong emotional excitement.... Nearly all our\nperceptions, ideas, and conceptions are connected more or less closely\nthrough the association of ideas. But to make the association of ideas\nfulfil its function, one more thing must be added--_attention_, which\nis the faculty to suppress one part of the memory-images and maintain\nanother part.\" We must select the strongest and most direct images,\nthose directly connected with the afferent nerves; \"this Ribot calls\nadaptation of the whole organism to a predominant idea.... Attention\npresupposes strength of will. Unrestricted play of association, the\nresult of an exhausted or degenerate brain, gives rise to Mysticism.\nSince the mystic cannot express his cloudy thoughts in ordinary\nlanguage, he loves mutually exclusive expressions. Mysticism blurs\noutlines, and makes the transparent opaque.\"\n\nThe Germans have two words for what we call Mysticism--_Mystik_ and\n_Mysticismus_, the latter being generally dyslogistic. The long chapter\nin Nordau's _Degeneration_, entitled \"Mysticism,\" treats it throughout\nas a morbid state. It will be observed that the last sentence quoted\nflatly contradicts one of the statements copied from Lasson's essay. But\nNordau is not attacking religious Mysticism, so much as that unwholesome\ndevelopment of symbolic \"science, falsely so called,\" which has usurped\nthe name in modern France. Those who are interested in Mysticism should\ncertainly study the pathological symptoms which counterfeit mystical\nstates, and from this point of view the essay in _Degeneration_ is\nvaluable. The observations of Nordau and other alienists must lead us to\nsuspect very strongly the following kinds of symbolical representation,\nwhether the symbols are borrowed from the external world, or created by\nthe imagination:--(a) All those which include images of a sexual\ncharacter. It is unnecessary to illustrate this. The visions of monks\nand nuns are often, as we might expect, unconsciously tinged with a\nmorbid element of this kind. (b) Those which depend on mere verbal\nresemblances or other fortuitous correspondences. Nordau shows that the\ndiseased brain is very ready to follow these false trains of\nassociation. (c) Those which are connected with the sense of smell,\nwhich seems to be morbidly developed in this kind of degeneracy. (d)\nThose which in any way minister to pride or self-sufficiency.\n\n22. _Harnack_. \"Mysticism is rationalism applied to a sphere above\nreason.\"\n\nI have criticised this definition in my first Lecture, and have\nsuggested that the words \"rationalism\" and \"reason\" ought to be\ntransposed. Elsewhere Harnack says that the distinctions between\n\"Scholastic, Roman, German, Catholic, Evangelical, and Pantheistic\nMysticism\" are at best superficial, and in particular that it is a\nmistake to contrast \"Scholasticism and Mysticism\" as opposing forces\nin the Middle Ages. \"Mysticism,\" he proceeds, \"is Catholic piety in\ngeneral, so far as this piety is not merely ecclesiastical obedience,\nthat is, _fides implicita_. The Reformation element which is ascribed\nto it lies simply in this, that Mysticism, when developed in a\nparticular direction, is led to discern the inherent responsibility of\nthe soul, of which no authority can again deprive it.\" The conflicts\nbetween Mysticism and Church authority, he thinks, in no way militate\nagainst _both_ being Catholic ideals, just as asceticism and\nworld-supremacy are both Catholic ideals, though contradictory. The\nGerman mystics he disparages. \"I give no extracts from their\nwritings,\" he says, \"because I do not wish even to seem to countenance\nthe error that they expressed anything that one cannot read in Origen,\nPlotinus, the Areopagite, Augustine, Erigena, Bernard, and Thomas, or\nthat they represented religious progress.\" \"It will never be possible\nto make Mysticism Protestant without flying in the face of history and\nCatholicism.\" \"A mystic who does not become a Catholic is a\ndilettante.\"\n\nBefore considering these statements, I will quote from another attack\nupon Mysticism by a writer whose general views are very similar to\nthose of Harnack.\n\n23. _Herrmann_ (_Verkehr des Christen mit Gott_). \"The most\nconspicuous features of the Roman Catholic rule of life are obedience\nto the laws of cultus and of doctrine on the one side, and Neoplatonic\nMysticism on the other.... The essence of Mysticism lies in this: when\nthe influence of God upon the soul is sought and found solely in an\ninward experience of the individual; when certain excitements of the\nemotions are taken, with no further question, as evidence that the\nsoul is possessed by God: when at the same time nothing external to\nthe soul is consciously and clearly perceived and firmly grasped; when\nno thoughts that elevate the spiritual life are aroused by the\npositive contents of an idea that rules the soul,--then that is the\npiety of Mysticism.... Mysticism is not that which is common to all\nreligion, but a particular species of religion, namely a piety which\nfeels that which is historical in the positive religion to be\nburdensome, and so rejects it.\"\n\nThese extracts from Harnack and Herrmann represent the attitude\ntowards Mysticism of the Ritschlian school in Germany, of which Kaftan\nis another well-known exponent. They are neo-Kantians, whose religion\nis an austere moralism, and who seem to regard Christianity as a\nprimitive Puritanism, spoiled by the Greeks, who brought into it their\nintellectualism and their sacramental mysteries. True Christianity,\nthey say, is faith in the historic Christ. \"In the human Jesus,\" says\nHerrmann, \"we have met with a fact, the content of which is\nincomparably richer than that of any feelings which arise within\nourselves,--a fact, moreover, which makes us so certain of God that,\nour reason and conscience being judges, our conviction is only\nconfirmed that we are in communion with Him.\" \"The mystic's experience\nof God is a delusion. If the Christian has learnt how Christ alone has\nlifted him above all that he had even been before, he cannot believe\nthat another man might reach the same end by simply turning inward\nupon himself.\" \"The piety of the mystic is such that at the highest\npoint to which it leads Christ must vanish from the soul along with\nall else that is external.\" This curious view of Christianity quite\nfails to explain how \"our reason and conscience\" can detect the\n\"incomparable richness\" of a revelation altogether unlike \"the\nfeelings which arise within ourselves.\" It entirely ignores the\nPauline and Johannine doctrine of the mystical union, according to\nwhich Christ is _not_ \"external\" to the redeemed soul, and most\nassuredly can never \"vanish\" from it. Instead of the \"Lo I am with you\nalway\" of our blessed Lord, we are referred to \"history\"--that is,\nprimarily, the four Gospels confirmed by \"a fifth,\" \"the united\ntestimony of the first Christian community\" (Harnack, _Christianity\nand History_). We are presented with a Christianity without knowledge\n(Gnosis), without discipline, without sacraments, resting partly on a\nnarrative which these very historical critics tear in pieces, each in\nhis own fashion, and partly on a categorical imperative which is\nreally the voice of \"irreligious moralism,\" as Pfleiderer calls it.\nThe words are justified by such a sentence as this from Herrmann:\n\"Religious faith in God is, rightly understood, just the medium by\nwhich the universal law becomes individualised for the particular man\nin his particular place in the world's life, so as to enable him to\nrecognise its absoluteness as the ground of his self-certainty, and\nthe ideal drawn in it as his own personal end.\" Thus the school which\nhas shown the greatest animus against Mysticism unconsciously\napproaches very near to the atheism of Feuerbach. Indeed, what worse\natheism can there be, than such disbelief in the rationality of our\nhighest thoughts as is expressed in this sentence: \"Metaphysics is an\nimpassioned endeavour to obtain recognition for thoughts, the contents\nof which have no other title to be recognised than their value for\nus\"? As if faith in God had any other meaning than a confidence that\nwhat is of \"value for us\" is the eternally and universally good and\ntrue! Herrmann's attitude towards reason can only escape atheism by\naccepting in preference the crudest dualism, \"behind which\" (to quote\nPfleiderer again) lies concealed simply \"the scepticism of a\ndisintegrating Nominalism.\"\n\n24. _Victor Cousin_. \"Mysticism is the pretension to know God without\nintermediary, and, so to speak, face to face. For Mysticism, whatever\nis between God and us hides Him from us.\" \"Mysticism consists in\nsubstituting direct inspiration for indirect, ecstasy for reason,\nrapture for philosophy.\"\n\n25. _R.A. Vaughan_. \"Mysticism is that form of error which mistakes\nfor a Divine manifestation the operations of a merely human faculty.\"\n\nThis poor definition is the only one (except \"Mysticism is the romance\nof religion\") to be found in _Hours with the Mystics_, the solitary\nwork in English which attempts to give a history of Christian\nMysticism. The book has several conspicuous merits. The range of the\nauthor's reading is remarkable, and he has a wonderful gift of\nillustration. But he was not content to trust to the interest of the\nsubject to make his book popular, and tried to attract readers by\nplacing it in a most incongruous setting. There is something almost\noffensive in telling the story of men like Tauler, Suso, and Juan of\nthe Cross, in the form of smart conversations at a house-party, and\nthe jokes cracked at the expense of the benighted \"mystics\" are not\nalways in the best taste. Vaughan does not take his subject quite\nseriously enough. There is an irritating air of superiority in all his\ndiscussions of the lives and doctrines of the mystics, and his hatred\nand contempt for the Roman Church often warp his judgment. His own\nphilosophical standpoint is by no means clear, and this makes his\ntreatment of speculative Mysticism less satisfactory than the more\npopular parts of the book. It is also a pity that he has neglected the\nEnglish representatives of Mysticism; they are quite as interesting in\ntheir way as Madame Guyon, whose story he tells at disproportionate\nlength. At the same time, I wish to acknowledge considerable\nobligations to Vaughan, whose early death probably deprived us of even\nbetter work than the book which made his reputation.\n\n26. _James Hinton_. \"Mysticism is an assertion of a means of knowing\nthat must not be tried by ordinary rules of evidence--the claiming\nauthority for our own impressions.\"\n\nAnother poor and question-begging definition, on the same lines as the\nlast.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX B\n\nThe Greek Mysteries And Christian Mysticism\n\n\nThe connexion between the Greek Mysteries and Christian Mysticism is\nmarked not only by the name which the world has agreed to give to that\ntype of religion (though it must be said that [Greek: myst\u00earia] is not\nthe commonest name for the Mysteries--[Greek: orgia, teletai, tel\u00ea]\nare all, I think, more frequent), but by the evident desire on the\npart of such founders of mystical Christianity as Clement and\nDionysius the Areopagite, to emphasise the resemblance. It is not\nwithout a purpose that these writers, and other Platonising\ntheologians from the third to the fifth century, transfer to the faith\nand practice of the Church almost every term which was associated with\nthe Eleusinian Mysteries and others like them. For instance, the\nsacraments are regularly [Greek: myst\u00earia]; baptism is [Greek:\nmystikon loutron] (Gregory of Nyssa); unction, [Greek: chrisma\nmystikon] (Athanasius); the elements, [Greek: mystis ed\u00f4d\u00ea] (Gregory\nNaz.); and participation in them is [Greek: mystik\u00ea metal\u00eapsis].\nBaptism, again, is \"initiation\" [Greek: my\u00easis]; a baptized person is\n[Greek: memy\u00eamenos], [Greek: myst\u00eas] or [Greek: symmyst\u00eas] (Gregory Ny.\nand Chrysostom), an unbaptized person is [Greek: amy\u00eatos]. The\ncelebrant is [Greek: myst\u00eari\u00f4n lanthanont\u00f4n mystag\u00f4gos] (Gregory Ny.);\nthe administration is [Greek: paradosis], as at Eleusis. The\nsacraments are also [Greek: telet\u00ea] or [Greek: tel\u00ea], regular\nMystery-words; as are [Greek: telei\u00f4sis, teleiousthai, teleiopoios],\nwhich are used in the same connexion. Secret formulas (the notion of\nsecret formulas itself comes from the Mysteries) were [Greek:\naporr\u00eata]. (Whether the words [Greek: ph\u00f4tismos] and [Greek: sphragis]\nin their sacramental meaning come from the Mysteries seems doubtful,\nin spite of Hatch, _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 295.) Nor is the language of\nthe Mysteries applied only to the sacraments. Clement calls purgative\ndiscipline [Greek: ta katharsia], and [Greek: ta mikra myst\u00earia], and\nthe highest stage in the spiritual life [Greek: epopteia]. He also\nuses such language as the following: \"O truly sacred mysteries! O\nstainless light! My way is lighted with torches, and I survey the\nheavens and God! I am become holy while I am being initiated. The Lord\nis my hierophant,\" etc. (_Protr._ xii. 120). Dionysius, as I have\nshown in a note on Lecture III., uses the Mystery words frequently,\nand gives to the orders of the Christian ministry the names which\ndistinguished the officiating priests at the Mysteries. The aim of\nthese writers was to prove that the Church offers a mysteriosophy\nwhich includes all the good elements of the old Mysteries without\ntheir corruptions. The alliance between a Mystery-religion and\nspeculative Mysticism within the Church was at this time as close as\nthat between the Neoplatonic philosophy and the revived pagan Mystery\ncults. But when we try to determine the amount of direct _influence_\nexercised by the later paganism on Christian usages and thought, we\nare baffled both by the loss of documents, and by the extreme\ndifficulty of tracing the pedigree of religious ideas and customs. I\nshall here content myself with calling attention to certain features\nwhich were common to the Greek Mysteries and to Alexandrian\nChristianity, and which may perhaps claim to be in part a legacy of\nthe old religion to the new. My object is not at all to throw\ndiscredit upon modes of thought which may have been unfamiliar to\nPalestinian Jews. A doctrine or custom is not necessarily un-Christian\nbecause it is \"Greek\" or \"pagan.\" I know of no stranger perversity\nthan for men who rest the whole weight of their religion upon\n\"history,\" to suppose that our Lord meant to raise an universal\nreligion on a purely Jewish basis.\n\nThe Greek Mysteries were perhaps survivals of an old-world ritual,\nbased on a primitive kind of Nature-Mysticism. The \"public Mysteries,\"\nof which the festival at Eleusis was the most important, were so\ncalled because the State admitted strangers by initiation to what was\noriginally a national cult. (There were also private Mysteries,\nconducted for profit by itinerant priests [Greek: agyrtai] from the\nEast, who as a class bore no good reputation.) The main features of\nthe ritual at Eleusis are known. The festival began at Athens, where\nthe _myst\u00e6_ collected, and, after a fast of several days, were\n\"driven\" to the sea, or to two salt lakes on the road to Eleusis, for\na purifying bath. This kind of baptism washed away the stains of their\nformer sins, the worst of which they were obliged to confess before\nbeing admitted to the Mysteries. Then, after sacrifices had been\noffered, the company went in procession to Eleusis, where\nMystery-plays were performed in a great hall, large enough to hold\nthousands of people, and the votaries were allowed to handle certain\nsacred relics. A sacramental meal, in which a mixture of mint,\nbarley-meal, and water was administered to the initiated, was an\nintegral part of the festival. The most secret part of the ceremonies\nwas reserved for the [Greek: epoptai] who had passed through the\nordinary initiation in a previous year. It probably culminated in the\nsolemn exhibition of a corn-ear, the symbol of Demeter. The obligation\nof silence was imposed not so much because there were any secrets to\nreveal, but that the holiest sacraments of the Greek religion might\nnot be profaned by being brought into contact with common life. This\nfeeling was strengthened by the belief that _words_ are more than\nconventional symbols of things. A sacred formula must not be taken in\nvain, or divulged to persons who might misuse it.\n\nThe evidence is strong that the Mysteries had a real spiritualising\nand moralising influence on large numbers of those who were initiated,\nand that this influence was increasing under the early empire. The\nceremonies may have been trivial, and even at times ludicrous; but the\ndiscovery had been made that the performance of solemn acts of\ndevotion in common, after ascetical preparation, and with the aid of\nan impressive ritual, is one of the strongest incentives to piety.\nDiodorus is not alone in saying (he is speaking of the Samothracian\nMysteries) that \"those who have taken part in them are said to become\nmore pious, more upright, and in every way better than their former\nselves.\"\n\nThe chief motive force which led to the increased importance of\nMystery-religion in the first centuries of our era, was the desire for\n\"salvation\" ([Greek: s\u00f4t\u00earia]), which both with pagans and Christians\nwas very closely connected with the hope of everlasting life.\nHappiness after death was the great promise held out in the Mysteries.\nThe initiated were secure of blessedness in the next world, while the\nuninitiated must expect \"to lie in darkness and mire after their\ndeath\" (cf. Plato, _Ph\u00e6drus_, 69).\n\nHow was this \"salvation\" attained or conferred? We find that several\nconflicting views were held, which it is impossible to keep rigidly\nseparate, since the human mind at one time inclines to one of them, at\nanother time to another.\n\n(a) Salvation is imparted by _revelation_. This makes it to depend\nupon _knowledge_; but this knowledge was in the Mysteries conveyed by\nthe spectacle or drama, not by any intellectual process. Plutarch (_de\nDefect. Orac._ 22) says that those who had been initiated could\nproduce no demonstration or proof of the beliefs which they had\nacquired. And Synesius quotes Aristotle as saying that the initiated\ndo not _learn_ anything, but rather receive impressions ([Greek: ou\nmathein ti dein alla pathein]). The old notion that monotheism was\ntaught as a secret dogma rests on no evidence, and is very unlikely.\nThere was a good deal of [Greek: theokrasia], as the ancients called\nit, and some departures from the current theogonies, but such doctrine\nas there was, was much nearer to pantheism than to monotheism. Certain\ntruths about nature and the facts of life were communicated in the\n\"greatest mysteries,\" according to Clement, and Cicero says the same\nthing. And sometimes the [Greek: gn\u00f4sis s\u00f4t\u00earias] includes knowledge\nabout the whence and whither of man ([Greek: tines esmen kai ti\ngegonamen], Clem. _Exc. ex Theod._ 78). Some of the mystical formul\u00e6\nwere no doubt susceptible of deep and edifying interpretations,\nespecially in the direction of an elevated nature-worship.\n\n(b) Salvation was regarded, as in the Oriental religions, as\nemancipation from the fetters of human existence. Doctrines of this\nkind were taught especially in the Orphic Mysteries, where it was a\nsecret doctrine ([Greek: aporr\u00eatos logos], Plat. _Ph\u00e6dr._ 62) that\n\"we men are here in a kind of prison,\" or in a tomb ([Greek: s\u00eama\ntines to s\u00f4ma einai t\u00eas psych\u00eas, \u00f4s tethammen\u00eas en t\u00f4 paronti],\nPlat. _Crat._ 400). They also believed in transmigration of souls, and\nin a [Greek: kuklos t\u00eas genese\u00f4s] (rota fati et generationis). The\n\"Orphic life,\" or rules of conduct enjoined upon these mystics,\ncomprised asceticism, and, in particular, abstinence from flesh; and\nlaid great stress on \"following of God\" [Greek: epesthai] or\n[Greek: akolouthein t\u00f4 the\u00f4] as the goal of moral endeavour. This cult,\nhowever, was tinged with Thracian barbarism; its heaven was a kind of\nValhalla ([Greek: meth\u00ea ai\u00f4nios], Plat. _Rep._ ii. 363). Very similar\nwas the rule of life prescribed by the Pythagorean brotherhood, who\nwere also vegetarians, and advocates of virginity. Their system of\npurgation, followed by initiation, liberated men \"from the grievous\nwoeful circle\" ([Greek: kyklou d'exeptan Barypentheos argaleoio] on a\ntombstone), and entitled them \"to a happy life with the gods.\" (For\nthe conception of salvation as deification, see Appendix C.) Whether\nthese sects taught that our separate individuality must be merged is\nuncertain; but among the Gnostics, who had much in common with the\nOrphic _myst\u00e6_, the formula, \"I am thou, and thou art I,\" was common\n(_Pistis Sophia_; formul\u00e6 of the Marcosians; also in an invocation of\nHermes: [Greek: to son onoma emon kai to emon son. eg\u00f4 gar eimi to\neid\u00f4lon son]. Rohde, _Psyche_, vol. ii. p. 61). A foretaste of this\ndeliverance was given by initiation, which conducts the mystic to\n_ecstasy_, an [Greek: oligochronios mania] (Galen), in which \"animus\nita solutus est et vacuus ut ei plane nihil sit cum corpore\" (Cic. _De\nDivin._ i. I. 113); which was otherwise conceived as [Greek:\nenthousiasmos] ([Greek: enthousi\u00f4s\u00eas kai ouketi ous\u00eas en eaut\u00ea dianoias],\nPhilo).\n\n(c) The imperishable Divine nature is infused by mechanical means.\nSacraments and the like have a magical or miraculous potency. The\nHomeric hymn to Demeter insists only on _ritual_ purity as the\ncondition of salvation, and we hear that people trusted to the mystic\nbaptism to wash out all their previous sins. Similarly the baptism of\nblood, the _taurobolium_, was supposed to secure eternal happiness,\nat any rate if death occurred within twenty years after the ceremony;\nwhen that interval had elapsed, it was common to renew the rite. (We\nfind on inscriptions such phrases as \"arcanis perfusionibus in\n\u00e6ternum renatus.\") So mechanical was the operation of the Mysteries\nsupposed to be, that rites were performed for the dead (Plat. _Rep._\n364. St. Paul seems to refer to a similar custom in 1 Cor. xv. 29),\nand infants were appointed \"priests,\" and thoroughly initiated, that\nthey might be clean from their \"original sin.\" Among the Gnostics, a\nfavourite phrase was that initiation releases men \"from the fetters of\nfate and necessity\"; the gods of the intelligible world ([Greek:\ntheoi no\u00eatoi]) with whom we hold communion in the Mysteries being\nabove \"fate.\"\n\n(d) Salvation consists of moral regeneration. The efficacy of\ninitiation without moral reformation naturally appeared doubtful to\nserious thinkers. Diogenes is reported to have asked, \"What say you?\nWill Pat\u00e6cion the thief be happier in the next world than\nEpaminondas, because he has been initiated?\" And Philo says, \"It often\nhappens that good men are not initiated, but that robbers, and\nmurderers, and lewd women are, if they pay money to the initiators and\nhierophants.\" Ovid protests against the immoral doctrine of mechanical\npurgation with more than his usual earnestness (_Fasti_, ii. 35):--\n\n\n  \"Omne nefas omnemque mali purgamina causam\n     Credebant nostri tollere posse senes.\n   Gr\u00e6cia principium moris fuit; ilia nocentes\n     Impia lustratos ponere facta putat.\n   A! nimium faciles, qui tristia crimina c\u00e6dis\n     Fluminea tolli posse putetis aqua!\"\n\n\nSuch passages show that abuses existed, but also that it was felt to\nbe a scandal if the initiated person failed to exhibit any moral\nimprovement.\n\nThese different conceptions of the office of the Mysteries cannot, as\nI have said, be separated historically. They all reappear in the\nhistory of the Christian sacraments. The main features of the\nMystery-system which passed into Catholicism are the notions of\nsecrecy, of symbolism, of mystical brotherhood, of sacramental grace,\nand, above all, of the three stages in the spiritual life, ascetic\npurification, illumination, and [Greek: epopteia] as the crown.\n\nThe secrecy observed about creeds and liturgical forms had not much to\ndo with the development of Mysticism, except by associating sacredness\nwith obscurity (cf. Strabo, x. 467, [Greek: h\u00ea krypsis h\u00ea mystik\u00ea\nsemnopoiei to theion, mimoumen\u00ea t\u00ean physin autou ekpheugousan t\u00ean\naisth\u00easin]), a tendency which also showed itself in the love of\nsymbolism. This certainly had a great influence, both in the form of\nallegorism (cf. Clem. _Strom_, i. 1. 15, [Greek: esti de ha kai\nainixetai moi h\u00ea graph\u00ea; peirasetai de kai ganthanousa eipein kai\nepikryptomen\u00ea ekph\u00eanai kai deixai si\u00f4p\u00f4sa]), which Philo calls \"the\nmethod of the Greek Mysteries,\" and in the various kinds of\nNature-Mysticism. The great value of the Mysteries lay in the facilities\nwhich they offered for free symbolical interpretation.\n\nThe idea of mystical union by means of a common meal was, as we have\nseen, familiar to the Greeks. For instance, Plutarch says (_Non fosse\nsuav. vivi sec. Epic._ 21), \"It is not the wine or the cookery that\ndelights us at these feasts, but good hope, and the belief that God is\npresent with us, and that He accepts our service graciously.\" There\nhave always been two ideas of sacrifice, alike in savage and civilised\ncults--the mystical, in which it is a _communion_, the victim who is\nslain and eaten being himself the god, or a symbol of the god; and the\ncommercial, in which something valuable is offered to the god in the\nhope of receiving some benefit in exchange. The Mysteries certainly\nencouraged the idea of communion, and made it easier for the Christian\nrite to gather up into itself all the religious elements which can be\ncontained in a sacrament of this kind.\n\nBut the scheme of ascent from [Greek: katharsis] to [Greek: my\u00easis], and\nfrom [Greek: my\u00easis] to [Greek: epopteia], is the great contribution of\nthe Mysteries to Christian Mysticism. Purification began, as we have seen,\nwith confession of sin; it proceeded by means of fasting (with which was\ncombined [Greek: agneia apo synousias]) and meditation, till the second\nstage, that of illumination, was reached. The majority were content with\nthe partial illumination which belonged to this stage, just as in books of\nRoman Catholic divinity \"mystical theology\" is a summit of perfection to\nwhich \"all are not called.\" The elect advance, after a year's interval at\nleast, to the full contemplation ([Greek: epopteia]). This highest truth\nwas conveyed in various ways--by visible symbols dramatically displayed,\nby solemn words of mysterious import; by explanations of enigmas and\nallegories and dark speeches (cf. Orig. _Cels._ vii. 10), and perhaps\nby \"visions and revelations.\" It is plain that this is one of the\ncases in which Christianity conquered Hellenism by borrowing from it\nall its best elements; and I do not see that a Christian need feel any\nreluctance to make this admission.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX C\n\nThe Doctrine Of Deification\n\n\nThe conception of salvation as the acquisition by man of Divine\nattributes is common to many forms of religious thought. It was widely\ndiffused in the Roman Empire at the time of the Christian revelation,\nand was steadily growing in importance during the first centuries of\nour era. The Orphic Mysteries had long taught the doctrine. On\ntombstones erected by members of the Orphic brotherhoods we find such\ninscriptions as these: \"Happy and blessed one! Thou shalt be a god\ninstead of a mortal\" ([Greek: olbie kai makariste theos d' es\u00ea anti\nbrotoio]); \"Thou art a god instead of a wretched man\" ([Greek: theos\nei eleeinou ex anthr\u00f4pou]). It has indeed been said that \"deification\nwas the idea of salvation taught in the Mysteries\" (Harnack).\n\nTo modern ears the word \"deification\" sounds not only strange, but\narrogant and shocking. The Western consciousness has always tended to\nemphasise the distinctness of individuality, and has been suspicious\nof anything that looks like juggling with the rights of persons, human\nor Divine. This is especially true of thought in the Latin countries.\n_Deus_ has never been a fluid concept like [Greek: theos]. St.\nAugustine no doubt gives us the current Alexandrian philosophy in a\nLatin dress; but this part of his Platonism never became acclimatised\nin the Latin-speaking countries. The Teutonic genius is in this matter\nmore in sympathy with the Greek; but we are Westerns, while the later\n\"Greeks\" were half Orientals, and there is much in their habits of\nthought which is strange and unintelligible to us. Take, for instance,\nthe apotheosis of the emperors. This was a genuinely Eastern mode of\nhomage, which to the true European remained either profane or\nridiculous. But Vespasian's last joke, \"_Voe! puto Deus fio!_\" would\nnot sound comic in Greek. The associations of the word [Greek: theos]\nwere not sufficiently venerable to make the idea of deification\n([Greek: theopoi\u00easis]) grotesque. We find, as we should expect, that\nthis vulgarisation of the word affected even Christians in the\nGreek-speaking countries. Not only were the \"barbarous people\" of\nGalatia and Malta ready to find \"theophanies\" in the visits of\napostles, or any other strangers who seemed to have unusual powers,\nbut the philosophers (except the \"godless Epicureans\") agreed in\ncalling the highest faculty of the soul Divine, and in speaking of\n\"the God who dwells within us.\" There is a remarkable passage of\nOrigen (quoted by Harnack) which shows how elastic the word [Greek:\ntheos] was in the current dialect of the educated. \"In another sense\nGod is said to be an immortal, rational, moral Being. In this sense\nevery gentle ([Greek: asteia]) soul is God. But God is otherwise\ndefined as the self-existing immortal Being. In this sense the souls\nthat are enclosed in wise men are not gods.\" Clement, too, speaks of\nthe soul as \"training itself to be God.\" Even more remarkable than\nsuch language (of which many other examples might be given) is the\nfrequently recurring accusation that bishops, teachers, martyrs,\nphilosophers, etc., are venerated with Divine or semi-Divine honours.\nThese charges are brought by Christians against pagans, by pagans\nagainst Christians, and by rival Christians against each other. Even\nthe Epicureans habitually spoke of their founder Epicurus as \"a god.\"\nIf we try to analyse the concept of [Greek: theos], thus loosely and\nwidely used, we find that the prominent idea was that exemption from\nthe doom of death was the prerogative of a Divine Being (cf. 1 Tim.\nvi. 16, \"Who _only_ hath immortality\"), and that therefore the gift of\nimmortality is itself a deification. This notion is distinctly adopted\nby several Christian writers. Theophilus says (_ad Autol._ ii. 27)\n\"that man, by keeping the commandments of God, may receive from him\nimmortality as a reward ([Greek: misthon]), _and become God._\" And\nClement (_Strom._ v. 10. 63) says, \"To be imperishable ([Greek: to m\u00ea\nphtheiresthai]) is to share in Divinity.\" To the same effect\nHippolytus (_Philos._ x. 34) says, \"Thy body shall be immortal and\nincorruptible as well as thy soul. For _thou hast become God_. All the\nthings that follow upon the Divine nature God has promised to supply\nto thee, for _thou wast deified in being born to immortality_.\" With\nregard to later times, Harnack says that \"after Theophilus, Iren\u00e6us,\nHippolytus, and Origen, the idea of deification is found in all the\nFathers of the ancient Church, and that in a primary position. We have\nit in Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Apollinaris, Ephraem Syrus,\nEpiphanius, and others, as also in Cyril, Sophronius, and late Greek\nand Russian theologians. In proof of it, Ps. lxxxii. 6 ('I said, Ye\nare gods') is very often quoted.\" He quotes from Athanasius, \"He\nbecame man that we might be deified\"; and from Pseudo-Hippolytus, \"If,\nthen, man has become immortal, he will be God.\"\n\nThis notion grew within the Church as chiliastic and apocalyptic\nChristianity faded away. A favourite phrase was that the Incarnation,\netc., \"abolished death,\" and brought mankind into a state of\n\"incorruption\" ([Greek: aphtharsia]) This transformation of human\nnature, which is also spoken of as [Greek: theopoi\u00easis] is the\nhighest work of the Logos. Athanasius makes it clear that what he\ncontemplates is no pantheistic merging of the personality in the\nDeity, but rather a renovation after the original type.\n\nBut the process of deification may be conceived of in two ways: (a)\nas essentialisation, (b) as substitution. The former may perhaps be\ncalled the more philosophical conception, the latter the more\nreligious. The former lays stress on the high calling of man, and his\npotential greatness as the image of God; the latter, on his present\nmisery and alienation, and his need of redemption. The former was the\nteaching of the Neoplatonic philosophy, in which the human mind was\nthe throne of the Godhead; the latter was the doctrine of the\nMysteries, in which salvation was conceived of realistically as\nsomething imparted or infused.\n\nThe notion that salvation or deification consists in realising our\ntrue nature, was supported by the favourite doctrine that like only\ncan know like. \"If the soul were not essentially Godlike ([Greek:\ntheoeid\u00eas]), it could never know God.\" This doctrine might seem to\nlead to the heretical conclusion that man is [Greek: omoousios t\u00f4\nPatri] in the same sense as Christ. This conclusion, however, was\nstrongly repudiated both by Clement and Origen. The former (_Strom._\nxvi. 74) says that men are _not_ [Greek: meros theou kai t\u00f4 the\u00f4\nomoousioi]; and Origen (_in Joh._ xiii. 25) says it is very impious to\nassert that we are [Greek: omoousioi] with \"the unbegotten nature.\"\nBut for those who thought of Christ mainly as the Divine Logos or\nuniversal Reason, the line was not very easy to draw. Methodius says\nthat every believer must, through participation in Christ, be born as\na Christ,--a view which, if pressed logically (as it ought not to be),\nimplies either that our nature is at bottom identical with that of\nChrist, or that the life of Christ is substituted for our own. The\ndifficulty as to whether the human soul is, strictly speaking, \"divin\u00e6\nparticula aur\u00e6,\" is met by Proclus in the ingenious and interesting\npassage quoted p. 34; \"There are,\" he says, \"three sorts of _wholes_,\n(1) in which the whole is anterior to the parts, (2) in which the\nwhole is composed of the parts, (3) which knits into one stuff the\nparts and the whole ([Greek: h\u00ea tois holois ta mer\u00ea sunyphainousa]).\"\nThis is also the doctrine of Plotinus, and of Augustine. God is not\nsplit up among His creatures, nor are they essential to Him in the\nsame way as He is to them. Erigena's doctrine of deification is\nexpressed (not very clearly) in the following sentence (_De Div. Nat._\niii. 9): \"Est igitur participatio divin\u00e6 essenti\u00e6 assumptio.\nAssumptio vero eius divin\u00e6 sapienti\u00e6 fusio qu\u00e6 est omnium substantia\net essentia, et qu\u00e6cumque in eis naturaliter intelliguntur.\"\nAccording to Eckhart, the _Wesen_ of God transforms the soul into\nitself by means of the \"spark\" or \"apex of the soul\" (equivalent to\nPlotinus' [Greek: kentron psych\u00eas], _Enn._ vi. 9. 8), which is \"so\nakin to God that it is one with God, and not merely united to Him.\"\n\nThe history of this doctrine of the spark, and of the closely\nconnected word _synteresis_, is interesting. The word \"spark\" occurs\nin this connexion as early as Tatian, who says (_Or._ 13): \"In the\nbeginning the spirit was a constant companion of the soul, but forsook\nit because the soul would not follow it; yet it retained, as it were,\na spark of its power,\" etc. See also Tertullian, _De Anima_, 41. The\ncurious word _synteresis_ (often misspelt _sinderesis_), which plays a\nconsiderable part in medi\u00e6val mystical treatises, occurs first in\nJerome (on _Ezech._ i.): \"Quartamque ponunt quam Gr\u00e6ci vocant [Greek:\nsynt\u00ear\u00easin], qu\u00e6 scintilla conscienti\u00e6 in Cain quoque pectore non\nexstinguitur, et qua victi voluptatibus vel furore nos peccare\nsentimus.... In Scripturis [eam] interdum vocari legimus Spiritum.\"\nCf. Rom. viii. 26; 2 Cor. ii. 11. Then we find it in Alexander of\nHales, and in Bonaventura, who (_Itinerare_, c. I) defines it as \"apex\nmentis seu scintilla\"; and more precisely (_Breviloquium, Pars_ 2, c.\n11): \"Benignissimus Deus quadruplex contulit ei adiutorium, scilicet\nduplex natur\u00e6 et duplex grati\u00e6. Duplicem enim indidit rectitudinem\nipsi natur\u00e6, videlicet unam ad recte iudicandum, et h\u00e6c est rectitudo\nconscienti\u00e6, aliam ad recte volendum, et h\u00e6c est synteresis, cuius est\nremurmurare contra malum et stimulare ad bonum.\" Hermann of Fritslar\nspeaks of it as a power or faculty in the soul, wherein God works\nimmediately, \"without means and without intermission.\" Ruysbroek\ndefines it as the natural will towards good implanted in us all, but\nweakened by sin. Giseler says: \"This spark was created with the soul\nin all men, and is a clear light in them, and strives in every way\nagainst sin, and impels steadily to virtue, and presses ever back to\nthe source from which it sprang.\" It has, says Lasson, a double\nmeaning in mystical theology, (a) the ground of the soul; (b) the\nhighest ethical faculty. In Thomas Aquinas it is distinguished from\n\"intellectus principiorum,\" the former being the highest activity of\nthe moral sense, the latter of the intellect. In Gerson, \"synteresis\"\nis the highest of the affective faculties, the organ of which is the\nintelligence (an emanation from the highest intelligence, which is God\nHimself), and the activity of which is contemplation. Speaking\ngenerally, the earlier scholastic mystics regard it as a remnant of\nthe sinless state before the fall, while for Eckhart and his school it\nis the core of the soul.\n\nThere is another expression which must be considered in connexion with\nthe medi\u00e6val doctrine of deification. This is the _intellectus agens_,\nor [Greek: nous poi\u00eatikos], which began its long history in\nAristotle (_De Anima_, iii. 5). Aristotle there distinguishes two forms\nof Reason, which are related to each other as form and matter. Reason\n_becomes_ all things, for the matter of anything is potentially the\nwhole class to which it belongs; but Reason also _makes_ all things,\nthat is to say, it communicates to things those categories by which\nthey become objects of thought. This higher Reason is separate and\nimpassible ([Greek: ch\u00f4ristos kai amig\u00eas kai apath\u00eas]); it is\neternal and immortal; while the passive reason perishes with the body.\nThe creative Reason is immanent both in the human mind and in the\nexternal world; and thus only is it possible for the mind to know\nthings. Unfortunately, Aristotle says very little more about his\n[Greek: nous poi\u00eatikos], and does not explain how the two Reasons\nare related to each other, thereby leaving the problem for his\nsuccessors to work out. The most fruitful attempt to form a consistent\ntheory, on an idealistic basis, out of the ambiguous and perhaps\nirreconcilable statements in the _De Anima_, was made by Alexander of\nAphrodisias (about 200 A.D.), who taught that the Active Reason \"is\nnot a part or faculty of our soul, but comes to us from without\"--it\nis, in fact, identified with the Spirit of God working in us. Whether\nAristotle would have accepted this interpretation of his theory may be\ndoubted; but the commentary of Alexander of Aphrodisias was translated\ninto Arabic, and this view of the Active Reason became the basis of\nthe philosophy of Averroes. Averroes teaches that it is possible for\nthe passive reason to unite itself with the Active Reason, and that\nthis union may be attained or prepared for by ascetic purification and\nstudy. But he denies that the passive reason is perishable, not\nwishing entirely to depersonalise man. Herein he follows, he says,\nThemistius, whose views he tries to combine with those of Alexander.\nAvicenna introduces a celestial hierarchy, in which the higher\nintelligences shed their light upon the lower, till they reach the\nActive Reason, which lies nearest to man, \"a quo, ut ipse dicit,\neffluunt species intelligibiles in animas nostras\" (Aquinas). The\ndoctrine of \"monopsychism\" was, of course, condemned by the Church.\nAquinas makes both the Active and Passive Reason parts of the human\nsoul. Eckhart, as I have said in the fourth Lecture, at one period of\nhis teaching expressly identifies the \"intellectus agens\" with the\n\"spark,\" in reference to which he says that \"here God's ground is my\nground, and my ground God's ground.\" This doctrine of the Divinity of\nthe ground of the soul is very like the Cabbalistic doctrine of the\nNeschamah, and the Neoplatonic doctrine of [Greek: Nous] (cf.\nSt\u00f6ckl, vol. ii. p. 1007). Eckhart was condemned for saying, \"aliquid\nest in anima quod est increatum et increabile; si tota anima esset\ntalis, esset increata et increabilis. Hoc est intellectus.\" Eckhart\ncertainly says explicitly that \"as fire turns all that it touches into\nitself, so the birth of the Son of God in the soul turns us into God,\nso that God no longer knows anything in us but His Son.\" Man thus\nbecomes \"filius naturalis Dei,\" instead of only \"filius adoptivus.\" We\nhave seen that Eckhart, towards the end of his life, inclined more and\nmore to separate the spark, the organ of Divine contemplation, from\nthe reason. This is, of course, an approximation to the _other_ view\nof deification--that of substitution or miraculous infusion from\n_without_, unless we see in it a tendency to divorce the personality\nfrom the reason. Ruysbroek states his doctrine of the Divine spark\nvery clearly: \"The unity of our spirit in God exists in two ways,\nessentially and actively. The essential existence of the soul, _qu\u00e6\nsecundum \u00e6ternam ideam in Deo nos sumus, itemque quam in nobis\nhabemus, medii ac discriminis expers est_. Spiritus Deum in nuda\nnatura essentialiter possidet, et spiritum Deus. Vivit namque in Deo\net Deus in ipso; et _secundum supremam sui partem_ Dei claritatem\nsuscipere absque medio idoneus est; quin etiam per \u00e6terni exemplaris\nsui claritudinem _essentialiter ac personaliter in ipso lucentis,\nsecundum supremam vivacitatis su\u00e6 portionem, in divinam sese demittit\nac demergit essentiam_, ibidemque perseveranter secundum ideam manendo\n\u00e6ternam suam possidet beatitudinem; rursusque cum creaturis omnibus\nper \u00e6ternam Verbi generationem inde emanans, in esse suo creato\nconstituitur.\" The \"natural union,\" though it is the first cause of\nall holiness and blessedness, does not make us holy and blessed, being\ncommon to good and bad alike. \"Similitude\" to God is the work of\ngrace, \"qu\u00e6 lux qu\u00e6dam deiformis est.\" We cannot lose the \"unitas,\"\nbut we can lose the \"similitudo qu\u00e6 est gratia.\" The highest part of\nthe soul is capable of receiving a perfect and immediate impression of\nthe Divine essence; by this \"apex mentis\" we may \"sink into the Divine\nessence, and by a new (continuous) creation return to our created\nbeing according to the idea of God.\" The question whether the \"ground\nof the soul\" is created or not is obviously a form of the question\nwhich we are now discussing. Giseler, as I have said, holds that it\nwas created with the soul. Sterngassen says: \"That which God has in\neternity in uncreated wise, that has the soul in time in created\nwise.\" But the author of the _Treatise on Love_, which belongs to this\nperiod, speaks of the spark as \"the Active Reason, _which is God_.\"\nAnd again, \"This is the _Uncreated_ in the soul of which Master\nEckhart speaks.\" Suso seems to imply that he believed the ground of\nthe soul to be uncreated, an emanation of the Divine nature; and\nTauler uses similar language. Ruysbroek, in the last chapter of the\n_Spiritual Nuptials_, says that contemplative men \"see that they are\n_the same simple ground as to their uncreated nature_, and are one\nwith the same light by which they see, and which they see.\" The later\nGerman mystics taught that the Divine essence is the material\nsubstratum of the world, the creative will of God having, so to speak,\n_alienated_ for the purpose a portion of His own essence. If, then,\nthe created form is broken through, God Himself becomes the ground of\nthe soul. Even Augustine countenances some such notion when he says,\n\"From a good man, or from a good angel, take away 'man' or 'angel,'\nand you find God.\" But one of the chief differences between the older\nand later Mysticism is that the former regarded union with God as\nachieved through the faculties of the soul, the latter as inherent in\nits essence. The doctrine of _immanence_, more and more emphasised,\ntended to encourage the belief that the Divine element in the soul is\nnot merely something potential, something which the faculties may\nacquire, but is immanent and basal. Tauler mentions both views, and\nprefers the latter. Some hesitation may be traced in the _Theologia\nGermanica_ on this point (p. 109, \"Golden Treasury\" edition): \"The\ntrue light is that eternal Light which is God; _or else_ it is a\ncreated light, but yet Divine, which is called grace.\" Our Cambridge\nPlatonists naturally revived this Platonic doctrine of deification,\nmuch to the dissatisfaction of some of their contemporaries. Tuckney\nspeaks of their teaching as \"a kind of moral divinity minted only with\na little tincture of Christ added. Nay, _a Platonic faith unites to\nGod!_\" Notwithstanding such protests, the Platonists persisted that\nall true happiness consists in a participation of God; and that \"we\ncannot enjoy God by any external conjunction with Him.\"\n\nThe question was naturally raised, \"If man by putting on Christ's life\ncan get nothing more than he has already, what good will it do him?\"\nThe answer in the _Theologia Germanica_ is as follows: \"This life is\nnot chosen in order to serve any end, or to get anything by it, but\nfor love of its nobleness, and because God loveth and esteemeth it so\ngreatly.\" It is plain that any view which regards man as essentially\nDivine has to face great difficulties when it comes to deal with\ntheodicy.\n\nThe other view of deification, that of a _substitution_ of the Divine\nWill, or Life, or Spirit, for the human, cannot in history be sharply\ndistinguished from the theories which have just been mentioned. But\nthe idea of substitution is naturally most congenial to those who feel\nstrongly \"the corruption of man's heart,\" and the need of deliverance,\nnot only from our ghostly enemies, but from the tyranny of self. Such\nmen feel that there must be a _real_ change, affecting the very depths\nof our personality. Righteousness must be imparted, not merely\nimputed. And there is a death to be died as well as a life to be\nlived. The old man must die before the new man, which is \"not I but\nChrist,\" can be born in us. The \"birth of God (or Christ) in the soul\"\nis a favourite doctrine of the later German mystics. Passages from the\nfourteenth century writers have been quoted in my fourth and fifth\nLectures. The following from Giseler may be added: \"God will be born,\nnot in the Reason, not in the Will, but in the most inward part of the\nessence, and all the faculties of the soul become aware thereof.\nThereby the soul passes into mere passivity, and lets God work.\" They\nall insist on an immediate, substantial, personal indwelling, which is\nbeyond what Aquinas and the Schoolmen taught. The Lutheran Church\ncondemns those who teach that only the gifts of God, and not God\nHimself, dwell in the believer; and the English Platonists, as we have\nseen, insist that \"an infant Christ\" is really born in the soul. The\nGerman mystics are equally emphatic about the annihilation of the old\nman, which is the condition of this indwelling Divine life. In\nquietistic (Nominalist) Mysticism the usual phrase was that the will\n(or, better, \"self-will\") must be utterly destroyed, so that the\nDivine Will may take its place. But Crashaw's \"leave nothing of myself\nin me,\" represents the aspiration of the later Catholic Mysticism\ngenerally. St. Juan of the Cross says, \"The soul must lose entirely\nits human knowledge and human feelings, in order to receive Divine\nknowledge and Divine feelings\"; it will then live \"as it were outside\nitself,\" in a state \"more proper to the future than to the present\nlife.\" It is easy to see how dangerous such teaching may be to weak\nheads. A typical example, at a much earlier date, is that of Mechthild\nof Hackeborn (about 1240). It was she who said, \"My soul swims in the\nGodhead like a fish in water!\" and who believed that, in answer to her\nprayers, God had so united Himself with her that she saw with His\neyes, and heard with His ears, and spoke with His mouth. Many similar\nexamples might be found among the medi\u00e6val mystics.\n\nBetween the two ideas of essentialisation and of substitution comes\nthat of gradual _transformation_, which, again, cannot in history be\nseparated from the other two. It has the obvious advantage of not\nregarding deification as an _opus operatum_, but as a process, as a\nhope rather than a fact. A favourite maxim with mystics who thought\nthus, was that \"love changes the lover into the beloved.\" Louis of\nGranada often recurs to this thought.\n\nThe best mystics rightly see in the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ\nthe best safeguard against the extravagances to which the notion of\ndeification easily leads. Particularly instructive here are the\nwarnings which are repeated again and again in the _Theologia\nGermanica_. \"The false light dreameth itself to be God, and taketh to\nitself what belongeth to God as God is in eternity without the\ncreature. Now, God in eternity is without contradiction, suffering,\nand grief, and nothing can hurt or vex Him. But with God when He is\nmade man it is otherwise.\" \"Therefore the false light thinketh and\ndeclareth itself to be above all works, words, customs, laws, and\norder, and above that life which Christ led in the body which He\npossessed in His holy human nature. So likewise it professeth to\nremain unmoved by any of the creature's works; whether they be good or\nevil, against God or not, is all alike to it; and it keepeth itself\napart from all things, like God in eternity; and all that belongeth to\nGod and to no creature it taketh to itself, and vainly dreameth that\nthis belongeth to it.\" \"It doth not set up to be Christ, but the\neternal God. And this is because Christ's life is distasteful and\nburdensome to nature, therefore it will have nothing to do with it;\nbut to be God in eternity and not man, or to be Christ as He was after\nHis resurrection, is all easy and pleasant and comfortable to nature,\nand so it holdeth it to be best.\"\n\nThese three views of the manner in which we may hope to become\n\"partakers of the Divine nature,\" are all aspects of the truth. If we\nbelieve that we were made in the image of God, then in becoming like\nHim we are realising our true idea, and entering upon the heritage\nwhich is ours already by the will of God. On the other hand, if we\nbelieve that we have fallen very far from original righteousness, and\nhave no power of ourselves to help ourselves, then we must believe in\na deliverance from _outside_, an acquisition of a righteousness not\nour own, which is either imparted or imputed to us. And, thirdly, if\nwe are to hope for a real change in our relations to God, there must\nbe a real change _in_ our personality,--a progressive transmutation,\nwhich without breach of continuity will bring us to be something\ndifferent from what we were. The three views are not mutually\nexclusive. As Vatke says, \"The influence of Divine grace does not\ndiffer from the immanent development of the deepest Divine germ of\nlife in man, only that it here stands over-against man regarded as a\nfinite and separate being--as something external to himself. If the\nDivine image is the true nature of man, and if it only possesses\nreality in virtue of its identity with its type or with the Logos,\nthen there can be no true self-determination in man which is not at\nthe same time a self-determination of the type in its image.\" We\ncannot draw a sharp line between the operations of our own personality\nand those of God in us. Personality escapes from all attempts to limit\nand define it. It is a concept which stretches into the infinite, and\ntherefore can only be represented to thought symbolically. The\npersonality must not be identified with the \"spark,\" the \"Active\nReason,\" or whatever we like to call the highest part of our nature.\nNor must we identify it with the changing _Moi_ (as F\u00e9nelon calls it).\nThe personality, as I have said in Lecture I. (p. 33), is both the\nend--the ideal self, and the changing _Moi_, and yet neither. If\neither thesis is held divorced from its antithesis, the thought ceases\nto be mystical. The two ideals of self-assertion and self-sacrifice\nare both true and right, and both, separately, unattainable. They are\nopposites which are really necessary to each other. I have quoted from\nVatke's attempt to reconcile grace and free-will: another extract from\na writer of the same school may perhaps be helpful. \"In the growth of\nour experience,\" says Green, \"an animal organism, which has its\nhistory in time, gradually becomes the vehicle of an eternally\ncomplete consciousness. What we call our mental history is not a\nhistory of this consciousness, which in itself can have no history,\nbut a history of the process by which the animal organism becomes its\nvehicle. 'Our consciousness' may mean either of two things: either a\nfunction of the animal organism, which is being made, gradually and\nwith interruptions, a vehicle of the eternal consciousness; or that\neternal consciousness itself, as making the animal organism its\nvehicle and subject to certain limitations in so doing, but retaining\nits essential characteristic as independent of time, as the\ndeterminant of becoming, which has not and does not itself become. The\nconsciousness which varies from moment to moment ... is consciousness\nin the former sense. It consists in what may properly be called\nphenomena.... The latter consciousness ... constitutes our knowledge\"\n(_Prolegomena to Ethics_, pp. 72, 73). Analogous is our _moral_\nhistory. But no Christian can believe that our life, mental or moral,\nis or ever can be _necessary_ to God in the same sense in which He is\nnecessary to our existence. For practical religion, the symbol which\nwe shall find most helpful is that of a progressive transformation of\nour nature after the pattern of God revealed in Christ; a process\nwhich has as its end a real union with God, though this end is, from\nthe nature of things, unrealisable in time. It is, as I have said in\nthe body of the Lectures, a _progessus ad infinitum_, the consummation\nof which we are nevertheless entitled to claim as already ours in a\ntranscendental sense, in virtue of the eternal purpose of God made\nknown to us in Christ.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX D\n\nThe Mystical Interpretation Of The Song Of Solomon\n\n\nThe headings to the chapters in the Authorised Version give a sort of\nauthority to the \"mystical\" interpretation of Solomon's Song, a poem\nwhich was no doubt intended by its author to be simply a romance of\ntrue love. According to our translators, the Lover of the story is\nmeant for Christ, and the Maiden for the Church. But the tendency of\nCatholic Mysticism has been to make the individual soul the bride of\nChrist, and to treat the Song of Solomon as symbolic of \"spiritual\nnuptials\" between Him and the individual \"contemplative.\" It is this\nlatter notion, the growth of which I wish to trace.\n\nErotic Mysticism is no part of Platonism. That \"sensuous love of the\nunseen\" (as Pater calls it), which the Platonist often seems to aim\nat, has more of admiration and less of tenderness than the emotion\nwhich we have now to consider. The notion of a spiritual marriage\nbetween God and the soul seems to have come from the Greek Mysteries,\nthrough the Alexandrian Jews and Gnostics. Representations of\n\"marriages of gods\" were common at the Mysteries, especially at those\nof the least reputable kind (cf. Lucian, _Alexander_, 38). In other\ninstances the ceremony of initiation was made to resemble a marriage,\nand the [Greek: myst\u00eas] was greeted with the words [Greek: chaire,\nnymphie]. And among the Jews of the first century there existed a\nsystem of Mysteries, probably copied from Eleusis. They had their\ngreater and their lesser Mysteries, and we hear that among their\nsecret doctrines was \"marriage with God.\" In Philo we find strange and\nfantastic speculations on this subject. For instance, he argues that\nas the Bible does not mention Abraham, Jacob, and Moses as [Greek:\ngn\u00f4rizontas tas gynaikas], we are meant to believe that their children\nwere not born naturally. But he allegorises the women of the\nPentateuch in such a way ([Greek: log\u00f4 men eisi gynaikes, erg\u00f4 de\naretai]) that it is difficult to say what he wishes us to believe in a\nliteral sense. The Valentinian Gnostics seem to have talked much of\n\"spiritual marriage,\" and it was from them that Origen got the idea of\nelaborating the conception. But, curiously enough, it is Tertullian\nwho first argues that the body as well as the soul is the bride of\nChrist. \"If the soul is the bride,\" he says, \"the flesh is the dowry\"\n(_de Resurr._ 63). Origen, however, really began the mischief in his\nhomilies and commentary on the Song of Solomon. The prologue of the\ncommentary in Rufinus commences as follows: \"Epithalamium libellus\nhic, id est nuptiale carmen, dramatis in modum mihi videtur a Salomone\nconscriptus, quem cecinit instar nubentis spons\u00e6, et erga sponsum suum\nqui est sermo Dei c\u00e6lesti amore flagrantis. Adamavit enim eum _sive\nanima_, qu\u00e6 ad imaginem eius facta est, sive ecclesia.\" Harnack says\nthat Gregory of Nyssa exhibits the conception in its purest and most\nattractive form in the East, and adds, \"We can point to very few Greek\nFathers in whom the figure does not occur.\" (There is a learned note\non the subject by Louis de Leon, which corroborates this statement of\nHarnack. He refers to Chrysostom, Theodoret, Iren\u00e6us, Hilary, Cyprian,\nAugustine, Tertullian, Ignatius, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril, Leo,\nPhotius, and Theophylact as calling Christ the bridegroom of souls.)\nIn the West, we find it in Ambrose, less prominently in Augustine and\nJerome. Dionysius seizes on the phrase of Ignatius, \"My love has been\ncrucified,\" to justify erotic imagery in devotional writing.\n\nBernard's homilies on the Song of Solomon gave a great impetus to this\nmode of symbolism; but even he says that the Church and not the\nindividual is the bride of Christ. There is no doubt that the enforced\ncelibacy and virginity of the monks and nuns led them, consciously or\nunconsciously, to transfer to the human person of Christ (and to a\nmuch slighter extent, to the Virgin Mary) a measure of those feelings\nwhich could find no vent in their external lives. We can trace this,\nin a wholesome and innocuous form, in the visions of Juliana of\nNorwich. Quotations from Ruysbroek's _Spiritual Nuptials_, and from\nSuso, bearing on the same point, are given in the body of the\nLectures. Good specimens of devotional poetry of this type might be\nselected from Crashaw and Quarles. (A few specimens are included in\nPalgrave's _Golden Treasury of Sacred Song_.) F\u00e9nelon's language on\nthe subject is not quite so pleasing; it breathes more of\nsentimentality than of reverence. The contemplative, he says, desires\n\"une simple pr\u00e9sence de Dieu purement amoureuse,\" and speaks to Christ\nalways \"comme l'\u00e9pouse \u00e0 l'\u00e9poux.\"\n\nThe Sufis or Mohammedan mystics use erotic language very freely, and\nappear, like true Asiatics, to have attempted to give a sacramental or\nsymbolic character to the indulgence of their passions. From this\ndegradation the mystics of the cloister were happily free; but a\nmorbid element is painfully prominent in the records of many medi\u00e6val\nsaints, whose experiences are classified by Ribet. He enumerates--(1)\n\"Divine touches,\" which Scaramelli defines as \"real but purely\nspiritual sensations, by which the soul feels the intimate presence of\nGod, and tastes Him with great delight\"; (2) \"The wound of love,\" of\nwhich one of his authorities says, \"h\u00e6c poena tam suavis est quod\nnulla sit in hac vita delectatio qu\u00e6 magis satisfaciat.\" It is to this\nexperience that Cant. ii. 5 refers: \"Fulcite me floribus, stipate me\nmalis, quia amore langueo.\" Sometimes the wound is not purely\nspiritual: St. Teresa, as was shown by a post-mortem examination, had\nundergone a miraculous \"transverberation of the heart\": \"et pourtant\nelle surv\u00e9cut pr\u00e8s de vingt ans \u00e0 cette blessure mortelle\"! (3)\nCatherine of Siena was betrothed to Christ with a ring, which remained\nalways on her fingers, though visible to herself alone. Lastly, in the\nrevelations of St. Gertrude we read: \"Feria tertia Pasch\u00e6 dum\ncommunicatura desideraret a Domino ut per idem sacramentum vivificum\nrenovare dignaretur in anima eius matrimonium spirituale quod ipsi in\nspiritu erat desponsata per fidem et religionem, necnon per virginalis\npudiciti\u00e6 integritatem, Dominus blanda serenitate respondit: hoc,\ninquiens, indubitanter faciam. Sic inclinatus ad eam blandissimo\naffectu eam ad se stringens osculum pr\u00e6dulce anim\u00e6 eius infixit,\" etc.\n\nThe employment of erotic imagery to express the individual relation\nbetween Christ and the soul is always dangerous; but this objection\ndoes not apply to the statement that \"the Church is the bride of\nChrist.\" Even in the Old Testament we find the chosen people so spoken\nof (cf. Isa. liv. 5; Jer. iii. 14). Professor Cheyne thinks that the\nCanticles were interpreted in this sense, and that this is why the\nbook gained admission into the Canon. In the New Testament, St. Paul\nuses the symbol of marriage in Rom. vii. 1-4; 1 Cor. xi. 3; Eph. v.\n23-33. On the last passage Canon Gore says: \"The love of Christ--the\nremoval of obstacles to His love by atoning sacrifice--the act of\nspiritual purification--the gradual sanctification--the consummated\nunion in glory; these are the moments of the Divine process of\nredemption, viewed from the side of Christ, which St. Paul specifies.\"\nThis use of the \"sacrament\" of marriage (as a symbol of the mystical\nunion between Christ and the Church), which alone has the sanction of\nthe New Testament, is one which, we hope, the Church will always\ntreasure. The more personal relation also exists, and the fervent\ndevotion which it elicits must not be condemned; though we are forced\nto remember that in our mysteriously constituted minds the highest and\nlowest emotions lie very near together, and that those who have chosen\na life of detachment from earthly ties must be especially on their\nguard against the \"occasional revenges\" which the lower nature, when\nthwarted, is always plotting against the higher.","title":"Christian Mysticism","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":113950}