{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_50206/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_50206","id":"gutenberg_50206","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50206","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Biographies","Category: Psychiatry/Psychology","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Catherine, of Genoa, Saint, 1447-1510"],"text":"TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTE: Volume I is available as Project Gutenberg ebook\nnumber 50205.\n\n\n\n\n\n THE MYSTICAL ELEMENT\n OF RELIGION\n\n _All rights reserved._\n\n [Illustration: _The Venerable Battista Vernazza\n (Tommasina Vernazza)\n 1497-1587._]\n\n THE MYSTICAL ELEMENT\n OF RELIGION AS STUDIED\n IN SAINT CATHERINE OF\n GENOA AND HER FRIENDS\n\n BY BARON FRIEDRICH VON H\u00dcGEL\n MEMBER OF THE CAMBRIDGE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY\n\n [Illustration]\n\n VOLUME SECOND\n CRITICAL STUDIES\n\n LONDON: J. M. DENT & CO.\n NEW YORK: E. P. DUTTON & CO.\n MCMVIII\n\n RICHARD CLAY & SONS, LIMITED,\n BREAD STREET HILL, E.C., AND\n BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME\n\n\nThe frontispiece consists of a reduced facsimile, in photogravure, of\na lithograph by F. Scotto, entitled \u201cVen. Batta. Vernazza,\u201d which\nwas printed and owned by the firm of Gervasoni, and which appeared\nin the large 4to volume, _Ritratti, ed Elogi di Liguri Illustri_,\nwith the text printed by Ponthenier, all in Genoa. This book was\npublished there, in monthly parts, from 1823 to 1830. Scotto\u2019s highly\ncharacteristic lithograph no doubt reproduces an authentic likeness;\nand probably the original portrait was, in the first instance, owned\nby the Canonesses of S. Maria delle Grazie, Battista\u2019s own convent\nin Genoa. The picture now in the possession of the Nuns of S. Maria\nin Passione, the successors of those Canonesses, is of a quite\nconventional, secondary type.\n\n PAGE\n\n PART III.--CRITICAL\n\n CHAPTER IX.--PSYCHO-PHYSICAL AND TEMPERAMENTAL QUESTIONS 3-61\n\n Introductory 3-9\n\n I. Catherine\u2019s Third Period, 1497-1510 9-13\n\n II. Conclusions concerning Catherine\u2019s Psycho-physical\n Condition during this Last Period 14-21\n\n III. Catherine\u2019s Psycho-physical Condition, its Likeness and\n Unlikeness to Hysteria 22-27\n\n IV. First Period of Catherine\u2019s Life, 1447-1477, in its Three\n Stages 28-32\n\n V. The Second, Great Middle Period of Catherine\u2019s Life,\n 1477-1499 32-40\n\n VI. Three Rules which seem to govern the Relations between\n Psycho-physical Peculiarities and Sanctity in general 40-47\n\n VII. Perennial Freshness of the Great Mystics\u2019 Main Spiritual\n Test, in Contradistinction to their Secondary, Psychological\n Contention. Two Special Difficulties 47-61\n\n CHAPTER X.--THE MAIN LITERARY SOURCES OF CATHERINE\u2019S\n CONCEPTIONS 62-110\n\n Introductory 62, 63\n\n I. The Pauline Writings: the Two Sources of their\n Pre-Conversion Assumptions; Catherine\u2019s Preponderant\n Attitude towards each Position 63-79\n\n II. The Joannine Writings 79-90\n\n III. The Areopagite Writings 90-101\n\n IV. Jacopone da Todi\u2019s \u201cLode\u201d 102-110\n\n V. Points common to all Five Minds; and Catherine\u2019s Main\n Difference from her Four Predecessors 110\n\n CHAPTER XI.--CATHERINE\u2019S LESS ULTIMATE THIS-WORLD DOCTRINES 111-181\n\n Introductory 111, 112\n\n I. Interpretative Religion 112-121\n\n II. Dualistic Attitude towards the Body 121-129\n\n III. Quietude and Passivity. Points in this Tendency to be\n considered here 129-152\n\n IV. Pure Love, or Disinterested Religion: its Distinction\n from Quietism 152-181\n\n CHAPTER XII.--THE AFTER-LIFE PROBLEMS AND DOCTRINES 182-258\n\n I. The Chief Present-day Problems, Perplexities, and\n Requirements with Regard to the After-Life in General 182-199\n\n II. Catherine\u2019s General After-Life Conceptions 199-218\n\n III. Catherine and Eternal Punishment 218-230\n\n IV. Catherine and Purgatory 230-246\n\n V. Catherine and Heaven--Three Perplexities to be considered 246-258\n\n CHAPTER XIII.--THE FIRST THREE ULTIMATE QUESTIONS 259-308\n\n I. The Relations between Morality and Mysticism, Philosophy\n and Religion 259-275\n\n II. Mysticism and the Limits of Human Knowledge and Experience 275-290\n\n III. Mysticism and the Question of Evil 290-308\n\n CHAPTER XIV.--THE TWO FINAL PROBLEMS: MYSTICISM AND PANTHEISM,\n THE IMMANENCE OF GOD, AND SPIRITUAL PERSONALITY, HUMAN AND\n DIVINE 309-340\n\n Introductory 309, 310\n\n I. Relations between the General and the Particular, God and\n Individual Things, according to Aristotle, the Neo-Platonists,\n and the Medieval Strict Realists 310-319\n\n II. Relations between God and the Human Soul 319-325\n\n III. Mysticism and Pantheism: their Differences and Points of\n Likeness 325-335\n\n IV. The Divine Immanence; Spiritual Personality 336-340\n\n CHAPTER XV.--SUMMING-UP OF THE WHOLE BOOK. BACK THROUGH\n ASCETICISM, SOCIAL RELIGION, AND THE SCIENTIFIC HABIT OF MIND,\n TO THE MYSTICAL ELEMENT OF RELIGION 341-396\n\n I. Asceticism and Mysticism 341-351\n\n II. Social Religion and Mysticism 351-366\n\n III. The Scientific Habit and Mysticism 367-386\n\n IV. Final Summary and Return to the Starting-point of the Whole\n Inquiry: the Necessity, and yet the Almost Inevitable Mutual\n Hostility, of the Three Great Forces of the Soul and of the\n Three Corresponding Elements of Religion 387-396\n\n INDEX 397\n\n\n\n\nTHE MYSTICAL ELEMENT OF RELIGION\n\n\n\n\nPART III\n\nCRITICAL\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nPSYCHO-PHYSICAL AND TEMPERAMENTAL QUESTIONS\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY.\n\n\n1. _Plan of Part Three._\n\nThe picture of Catherine\u2019s life and teaching which was attempted in the\nprevious volume will, I hope, have been sufficiently vivid to stimulate\nin the reader a desire to try and go deeper, and to get as near as may\nbe to the driving forces, the metaphysical depths of her life. And\nyet it is obvious that, if we would understand something of these, we\nmust proceed slowly and thoroughly, and must begin with comparatively\nsuperficial questions. Or rather, we must begin by studying her\ntemperamental and psycho-physical endowment and condition, and then the\nliterary influences that stimulated and helped to mould these things,\nas though all this were not secondary and but the material and occasion\nof the forces and self-determinations to be considered later on.\n\n\n2. _Defects of ancient psycho-physical theory._\n\nNow as to those temperamental and neural matters, to which this chapter\nshall be devoted, the reader will, no doubt long ago, have discovered\nthat it is precisely here that not a little of the _Vita e Dottrina_\nis faded and withered beyond recall, or has even become positively\nrepulsive to us. The constant assumption, and frequent explicit\ninsistence, on the part of more or less all the contributors, upon the\nimmediate and separate significance, indeed the directly miraculous\ncharacter, of certain psycho-physical states--states which, taken\nthus separately, would now be inevitably classed as most explicable\nneural abnormalities,--all this atmosphere of nervous high-pitch and\ntremulousness has now become a matter demanding a difficult historical\nimagination and magnanimity, if we would be just to those who held such\nviews, and would thus benefit to the full from these past positions and\nmisconceptions.\n\nThus when we read the views of perhaps all her educated attendants:\n\u201cthis condition, in which her body remained alive without food or\nmedicine, was a supernatural thing\u201d; \u201cher state was clearly understood\nto be supernatural when, in so short a time, so great a change was\nseen\u201d; and \u201cshe became yellow all over,--a manifest sign that her\nhumanity was being entirely consumed in the fire of divine love\u201d:[1]\nwe feel indeed that we can no more follow. And when we read, as part\nof one of the late additions, the worthless legends gathered from, or\noccasioned by, the uneducated Argentina: \u201cin proof that she bore the\nstigmata within her,--on putting her hands in a cup of cold water, the\nlatter became so boiling hot that it greatly heated the very saucer\nbeneath it\u201d:[2] we are necessarily disgusted. And when, worst of all,\nshe is made, by a demonstrable, probably double misinterpretation of an\nexternally similar action, to burn her bare arm with a live charcoal\nor lighted candle, with intent to see which fire, this external one or\nthat interior one of the divine love, were the greater:[3] we can, even\nif we have the good fortune of being able, by means of the critical\nanalysis of the sources, to put this absurd story to the discredit of\nher eulogists, but feel the pathos of such well-meant perversity, which\ntook so sure a way for rendering ridiculous one who, take her all in\nall, is so truly great.[4]\n\n\n3. _Slow growth of Neurology._\n\nWe should, of course, be very patient in such matters: for\npsycho-physical knowledge was, as yet, in its very infancy, witness\nthe all-important fact that the nerves were, in our modern sense of\nthe term, still as unknown as they were to the whole of Graeco-Roman\nantiquity, with which \u201cneuron\u201d and \u201cnervus\u201d ever meant \u201cmuscle\u201d or\n\u201cligament\u201d and, derivatively, \u201cenergy,\u201d but never consciously what\nthey now mean in the strict medical sense. Thus the _Vita_ (1551)\nwrites: \u201cThere remained no member or muscle (nervo) of her body that\nwas not tormented by fire within it\u201d; \u201cone rib was separated from\nthe others, with great pains in the ligaments (_nervi_) and bones\u201d;\nand \u201call her body was excruciated and her muscles (_nervi_) were\ntormented\u201d:[5] where, in the first and last case, visible muscular\nconvulsive movements are clearly meant. St. Teresa, in her own _Life_\n(1561 or 1562), writes: \u201cNervous pains, according to the physicians,\nare intolerable; and all my nerves were shrunk\u201d; and \u201cif the rapture\nlasts, all the nerves are made to feel it.\u201d[6] Even F\u00e9nelon (died\n1715) can still write of the human body: \u201cThe bones sustain the flesh\nwhich envelops them; the nerves\u201d (ligaments, minor muscles) \u201cwhich\nare stretched along them, constitute all their strength; and the\nmuscles, by inflation and elongation at the points where the nerves\nare intertwined with them, produce the most precise and regular\nmovements.\u201d[7] Here the soul acts directly upon the muscles, and,\nthrough these and their dependent ligaments, upon the bones and the\nflesh.\n\n\n4. _Permanent values of the ancient theory._\n\nAnd yet that old position with regard to the rarer psycho-physical\nstates has a right to our respectful and sympathetic study.\n\nFor one thing, we are now coming again to recognize, more and more,\nhow real and remarkable are certain psycho-physical states and facts,\nwhether simply morbid or fruitfully utilized states, so long derided,\nby the bulk of Scientists, as mere childish legend or deliberate\nimposture; and to see how natural, indeed inevitable it was, that\nthese, at that time quite inexplicable, things should have been\nattributed to a direct and discontinuous kind of Divine intervention.\nWe, on our part, have then to guard against the Philistinism both\nof the Rationalists and of the older Supernaturalists, and will\nneither measure our assent to facts by our ability to explain them,\nnor postulate the unmediated action of God wherever our powers of\nexplanation fail us. On this point we have admirable models of\nsympathetic docility towards facts, in the works of Prof. Pierre Janet,\nin his medico-psychological investigations of present-day morbid\ncases; of Hermann Gunkel and Heinrich Weinel, in their examination of\nmostly healthy psycho-physical phenomena in early Christian times and\nwritings; and of William James, in his study of instances of various\nkinds, both past and present.[8]\n\nAnd next, these (at first sight physical) phenomena are turning out,\nmore and more, to be the direct or indirect consequence of the action\nof mind: no doubt, in the first instance, of the human mind, but still\nof mind, both free-willing and automatically operative. And at the same\ntime this action is, more and more, seen to be limited and variously\noccasioned by the physical organism, and to be accompanied or followed,\nin a determinist fashion, by certain changes in that organism. Yet if\nwe have now immeasurably more knowledge than men had, even fifty years\nago, of this latter ceaselessly active, limiting, occasioning influence\nof the body upon the mind, we have also immeasurably more precise and\nnumerous facts and knowledge in testimony of the all but boundless\neffect of mind over body. Here, again, Prof. Janet\u2019s writings, those\nof Alfred Binet, and the Dominican P\u00e8re Coconnier\u2019s very sensible book\nregister a mass of material, although of the morbid type.[9]\n\nAnd further, such remarkable peripheral states and phenomena are\ngetting again to be rightly looked for in at least some types of\nunusual spiritual insight and power (although such states are found to\nbe indicative, in exact proportion to the spiritual greatness of their\nsubject, of a substantially different mental and moral condition of\nsoul). Witness again the Unitarian Prof. James\u2019s _Varieties_, and the\nChurch-Historical works of the Broad Lutheran German scholars Weinel,\nBernoulli, and Duhm.[10]\n\nAnd lastly, the very closeness with which modern experimental and\nanalytical psychology is exploring the phenomena of our consciousness\nis once more bringing into ever-clearer relief the irrepressible\nmetaphysical apprehensions and affirmations involved and implied by\nthe experience of every human mind, from its first dim apprehension\nin infancy of a \u201csomething,\u201d as yet undifferentiated by it into\nsubjective and objective, up to its mature and reflective affirmation\nof the trans-subjective validity of its \u201cpositions,\u201d or at least of its\nnegations--pure scepticism turning out to be practically impossible.\nHere we have, with respect to that apprehension, such admirable workers\nas Henri Bergson in France, and Professors Henry Jones and James\nWard in England; and, for this affirmation, such striking thinkers\nas the French Maurice Blondel, and the Germans Johannes Volkelt and\nHugo M\u00fcnsterberg. And Mgr. Mercier of Louvain, now Cardinal Mercier,\nhas contributed some valuable criticism of certain points in these\npositions.[11]\n\n\n5. _Difficulties of this inquiry._\n\nNow here I am met at once by two special difficulties, the one\npersonal to myself and to Catherine, and the other one of method.\nFor, with regard to those three first sets of recent explorations of\na psycho-physical kind, I am no physician at all, and not primarily\na psychologist. And again, in Catherine\u2019s instance, the evidence as\nto her psycho-physical states is not, as with St. Teresa and some few\nother cases, furnished by writings from the pen of the very person who\nexperienced them, and it is at all copious and precise only for the\nperiod when she was admittedly ill and physically incapacitated.--And\nyet these last thirteen years of her life occupy a most prominent\nplace in her biography; it is during, and on occasion of, those\npsycho-physical states, and largely with the materials furnished by\nthem, that, precisely in those years, she built up her noblest legacy,\nher great Purgatorial teaching; the illness was (quite evidently) of a\npredominantly psychical type, and concerns more the psychologist than\nthe physician, being closely connected with her particular temperament\nand type of spirituality, a temperament and type to be found again and\nagain among the Saints. All this and more makes it simply impossible\nfor me to shrink from some study of the matter, and permits me to hope\nfor some success in attempting, slowly and cautiously, to arrive at\ncertain general conclusions of a spiritually important kind.\n\nBut then there is also the difficulty of method. For if we begin\nthe study of these psycho-physical peculiarities and states by\njudging them from the temperamental and psychological standpoint,\nwe can hardly escape from treating them, at least for the moment,\nas self-explanatory, and hence from using these our preliminary\nconclusions about such neural phenomena as the measure, type, and\nexplanation of and for all such other facts and apprehensions as our\nfurther study of the religious mind and experience may bring before\nus. In this wise, these our psychological conclusions would furnish\nnot only a negative test and positive material, but also the exclusive\nstandard for all further study. And such a procedure, until and unless\nit were justified in its method, would evidently be nothing but a\nsurreptitious begging of the question.--Yet to begin with the fullest\nanalysis of the elementary and normal phenomena of consciousness and\nof its implications and inviolable prerequisites, would too readily\nland us in metaphysics which have themselves to operate in and with\nthose immediate and continuous experiences; and hence these latter\nexperiences, whether normal and healthy, or, as here, unusual and in\npart _maladif_, must be carefully studied first. We have, however,\nto guard most cautiously against our allowing this, our preliminary,\nanalysis and description of psycho-physical states from imperceptibly\nblocking the way to, or occupying the ground of, our ultimate analysis\nand metaphysical synthesis and explanation. Only this latter will be\nable, by a final movement from within-outwards, to show the true place\nand worth of the more or less phenomenal series, passed by us in review\non our previous movement from outside-inwards.\n\n6. _Threefold division._\n\nI propose, then, in this chapter, to take, as separately as is\ncompatible with such a method, the temperamental, psycho-physical side\nof Catherine\u2019s life. I shall first take those last thirteen years\nof admitted illness, as those which are alone at all fully known to\nus by contemporary evidence.--I shall then make a jump back to her\nfirst period,--to the first sixteen years up to her marriage, with\nthe next ten years of relaxation, and the following four years of\nher conversion and active penitence. I take these next, because,\nof these thirty years, we have her own late memories, as registered\nfor us by her disciples, at the time of her narration of the facts\nconcerned.--And only then, with these materials and instruments thus\ngathered from after and before, shall I try to master the (for us\nvery obscure) middle period, and to arrive at some estimate of her\ntemperamental peripheral condition during these twenty years of her\nfullest expansion.--I shall conclude the chapter by taking Catherine\nin her general, lifelong temperament, and by comparing and contrasting\nthis type and modality of spiritual character and apprehension with the\nother rival forms of, and approaches to, religious truth and goodness\nas these are furnished for us by history.\n\nThe ultimate metaphysical questions and valuation are reserved for the\npenultimate chapter of my book.\n\n\nI. CATHERINE\u2019S THIRD PERIOD, 1497 TO 1510.\n\n\n1. _Increasing illness of Catherine\u2019s last years._\n\nBeginning with her third and last period (1497-1510), there can be no\ndoubt that throughout it she was ill and increasingly so. Her closest\nfriends and observers attest it. It is presumably Ettore Vernazza who\ntells us, for 1497, \u201cwhen she was about fifty years of age, she ceased\nto be able to attend either to the Hospital or to her own house, owing\nto her great bodily weakness. Even on Fast-days she was obliged, after\nHoly Communion, to take some food to sustain her strength.\u201d Probably\nMarabotto it is who tells us that, in 1499, \u201cafter twenty-five years\nshe could no further bear her spiritual loneliness, either because of\nold age or because of her great bodily weakness.\u201d We hear from a later\nRedactor that, \u201cabout nine years before her death (_i.e._ about 1501),\nthere came to her an infirmity.\u201d And then, especially from November\n1509, May 1510, and August 1510 onwards, she is declared and described\nas more and more ill.[12] Indeed she herself, both by her acts and by\nher words, emphatically admits her incapacitation. For it is clearly\nill-health which drives her to abandon the Matronship and even all\nminor continuous work for the Hospital. In her Wills we find indeed\nthat, as late as May 21, 1506, she was able to get to the neighbouring\nHospital for Incurables; and that even on November 27, 1508 she was\n\u201chealthy in mind and body.\u201d But her Codicil of January 5, 1503, was\ndrawn up in the presence of nine witnesses at midnight,--a sure sign of\nsome acute ill-health. Indeed already on July 23, 1484, she is lying\n\u201cinfirm in bed, in her room in the Women\u2019s quarter of the Hospital,\noppressed with bodily infirmity.\u201d[13]\n\n\n2. _Abnormal sensations, impressions and moods._\n\nHer attendants are all puzzled by the multitude and intensity, the\nmobility and the self-contradictory character of the psycho-physical\nmanifestations. Perhaps already before 1497 \u201cshe would press thorny\nrose-twigs in both her hands, and this without any pain\u201d; and so\nlate as about three weeks before her death \u201cshe remained paralyzed\n(_manca_),\u201d and no doubt anaesthetic \u201cin one (the right) hand and in\none finger of the other hand.\u201d--Probably again before 1497 \u201cher body\ncould not,\u201d at times, \u201cbe moved from the sitting posture without the\napplication of force.\u201d In February or March 1510 \u201cshe could not move\nout of her bed\u201d; in August, \u201con some occasions she could not move\nthe lips or the tongue, or the arms or legs, unless helped to do\nso,--especially on the left side,--and this would, at times, last three\nor four hours.\u201d--In December 1509 \u201cshe suffered from great cold,\u201d as\npart of her peculiar condition; on September 4, 1510, \u201cshe suffered\nfrom great cold in the right arm.\u201d[14]\n\nOn other occasions she is, on the contrary, intensely hyper-aesthetic.\nSome time in February or March 1510, \u201cfor a day and a night, her flesh\ncould not be touched, because of the great pain that such touching\ncaused her.\u201d At the end of August \u201cshe was so sensitive, that it was\nimpossible to touch her very bedclothes or the bedstead, or a single\nhair on her head, because in such case she would cry out as though she\nhad been grievously wounded.\u201d--These states seem to have been usually\naccompanied by sensations of great heat: for on the former occasion\n\u201cshe seemed like a creature placed in a great flame of fire\u201d; whilst on\nthe latter \u201cshe had her tongue and lips so inflamed, that they seemed\nas though actual fire.\u201d\n\nAnd movement appears to have been more often increased than diminished.\nIn the last case indeed \u201cshe did not move nor speak nor see; but, when\nthus immovable, she suffered more than when she could cry out and\nturn about in her bed.\u201d But in the former instance \u201cshe could not be\nkept in bed\u201d; and in April 1510 \u201cshe cried aloud, and could not keep\nherself from moving about, on her bed, on hands and feet.\u201d--There\nare curious localizations of apparently automatic movements. During\nan attack somewhere in March 1510 \u201cher flesh was all in a tremble,\nparticularly the right shoulder\u201d; on later occasions \u201can arm, a leg, a\nhand would tremble, and she would seem to have a spasm within her, with\nall-but-unbroken acute pains in the flanks, the shoulders, the abdomen,\nthe feet and the brain.\u201d On an earlier occasion \u201cher body writhed in\ngreat distress.\u201d On another day \u201cshe seemed all on fire and lost her\npower of speech, and made signs with her head and hands.\u201d On one day\nin February or March 1510 \u201cshe lost both speech and sight, though not\nher intelligence\u201d; and on September 12 \u201cher sight was so weak, that she\ncould hardly any further distinguish or recognize her attendants.\u201d--The\nheat is liable to be curiously localized. Early in September 1510 \u201cshe\nhad a great heat situated in and on her left ear, which lasted for\nthree hours; the ear was red and felt very hot to the touch of others.\u201d\n\nVarious kinds of haemorrhage are not uncommon. On the last-mentioned\noccasion bloody urine is passed; bleeding of the nose, with loss of\nbile, occurs in December 1509; very black blood is lost by the mouth,\nwhilst black spots appear all over her person, on September 12, 1510;\nand more blood is evacuated on the following day. In February or March\n1510 \u201cthere were in her flesh certain places which had become concave,\nlike as paste looks where a finger has been put into it.\u201d At the end of\nAugust 1510 \u201cher skin became saffron-yellow all over.\u201d\n\nTroubles of breathing and of heart-action are frequently acute.\nSomewhere about March 1510 \u201cshe had such a spasm in her throat and\nmouth as to be unable, for about an hour, to speak or to open her\neyes, and that she could hardly regain her breath.\u201d \u201cCupping-glasses\nwere applied to her side, to ease her heart, and lung-action, but with\nlittle effect.\u201d On one occasion \u201cshe made signs indicative of feeling\nas though burning pincers were seizing her heart\u201d; and on a day soon\nafter \u201cshe felt like a hard nail at her heart.\u201d[15]\n\nDisturbances of the power of swallowing and of nutrition are often\ngrave and sudden, and in curious contradiction to her abnormally acute\nand shifting longing for and revulsion from certain specific kinds of\nfood. On August 22, 1510, \u201cshe was so thirsty that she felt as though\nshe could drink up the very ocean\u201d; \u201cyet she could not,\u201d in fact,\n\u201cmanage to swallow even one little drop of water.\u201d On September 10\n\u201cher attendants continuously gave her drinking water; but she would\nstraightway return it from her mouth.\u201d And on September 12, \u201cwhilst\nher mouth was being bathed, she exclaimed, \u2018I am suffocating,\u2019--and\nthis because a drop of water had trickled down her throat--a drop which\nshe was unable to gulp down.\u201d And on a day in August \u201cshe saw a melon\nand had a great desire to eat it; but hardly did she have some of it\nin her mouth, when she rejected it with intense disgust.\u201d So too with\nodours. A little later, \u201con one day the smell of wine would please\nher, and she would bathe her hands and face in it with great relish;\nand next day she would so much dislike it, that she could not bear to\nsee or smell it in her room.\u201d--And so too with colours. On September\n2 \u201ca physician-friend came to visit her in his scarlet robes; and she\nbore the sight a little, so as not to pain him.\u201d But she then declared\nthat she could no longer bear it; and he went, and returned to her in\nhis ordinary black habit. And yet we have seen, from the Inventory of\nher effects, that she loved to have vermilion colour upon her bed and\nperson.[16]\n\nAnd her emotional moods are analogously intense and rapidly shifting.\nIn the spring of 1510 \u201cshe cried aloud because of the great pain: this\nattack lasted a day and a night\u201d; in the night of August 10 \u201cshe tossed\nabout with many exclamations\u201d; and at the beginning of September \u201cshe\ncried out with a loud voice.\u201d At other times, she laughs for joy. So at\nthe end of April \u201cshe would laugh without speaking\u201d; on August 11 \u201cshe\nfixed her eyes steadily on the ceiling; and for about an hour she abode\nall but immovable, and spoke not, but kept laughing in a very joyous\nfashion\u201d; on August 17 great interior jubilation \u201cexpressed itself in\nmerry laughter\u201d; and on the evening of September 7 \u201cher joy appeared\nexteriorly in laughter which lasted, with but small interruptions,\nfor some two hours.\u201d--And her entire apparent condition would shift\nfrom one such extreme to the other with extraordinary swiftness. In\nthe autumn of 1509 \u201cshe many times remained as though dead; and at\nother times she would appear as healthy,--as though she had never had\nanything the matter with her.\u201d Already in December 1509 she herself,\nafter much vomiting and loss of blood, had sent for her Confessor and\nhad declared that \u201cshe felt as though she must die in consequence of\nthese many accidents.\u201d Yet even on September 10, 1510, \u201cwhen she was\nnot being oppressed and tormented by her accidents (attacks), she\nseemed to be in good health; but when she was being suffocated by them,\nshe seemed as one dead.\u201d[17]\n\n\nII. CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING CATHERINE\u2019S PSYCHO-PHYSICAL CONDITION DURING\nTHIS LAST PERIOD.\n\n\n1. _Her illness not primarily physical. Her self-diagnosis._\n\nNow we saw, at the beginning of this chapter, how readily her\nattendants concluded, from all these extreme, multiple, swift-changing\nand self-contradictory states, to their directly and separately\nsupernatural origin.--And indeed the diagnosis and treatment of her\ncase showed clearly that it was not primarily physical. So in the\ncase, probably in November 1509, of the cupping-glasses, when \u201cshe got\nmedically treated for a bodily infirmity, whilst her real trouble was\nfire of the spirit\u201d; so with a medicine given to her by the resident\nHospital physician, some time in April 1510, \u201cfrom taking which she\nnearly died\u201d; so with Giovanni Boerio\u2019s three-weeks\u2019 treatment of her,\nin May 1510, a treatment which led to no other results than momentary\nadditional distress; and so with the declaration of the ten Physicians\nwho, even on September 10, four days before her death, \u201ccould find no\ntrace of disease in her pulse, secretions, or any other symptom,\u201d and\nwho consequently abstained from prescribing anything. And hence, more\nor less throughout her last nine years, \u201cthere was confusion in the\nmanagement of her, not on her own part, but on that of those who served\nher.\u201d[18]\n\nFor--and these two further points are of primary importance--the\ntending of her, as distinct from physic, was throughout held by herself\nto be of great importance; and yet this care was declared by her to\nbe often useless or harmful, owing to the powers of discrimination\npossessed by her attendants being as much below their good-will, as her\nown knowledge as to the differences between her healthy and _maladif_\nstates exceeded her power of herself acting upon this knowledge against\nthese sickly conditions. \u201cShe would often appear to be asleep; and\nwould awake from such a state, at one time, quite refreshed, and, at\nanother time, so limp and broken down as to be unable to move. Those\nthat served her knew not how to distinguish one state from the other;\nand on recovering from an attack of the latter sort, she would say to\nthem: \u2018Why did you let me continue in that state of quiet, from which\nI have all but died?\u2019\u201d So, on September 5, \u201cshe cried aloud on waking\nfrom a state of quiet, which had appeared to be (healthy) quietude, but\nhad not been so.\u201d And indeed, already on January 10 previous, she had\nshut herself off from her Confessor, \u201cbecause it seemed to her that he\nbore with her too much in her sayings and doings.\u201d\n\nYet, at least after this time, Marabotto does oppose her sometimes.\nThus on two, somewhat later, occasions she respectively makes signs,\nand asks, that Extreme Unction be given her; but only some four months\nlater did she actually receive it. In these cases, then, she either\nhad not, even at bottom, a correct physical self-knowledge; or her\nrequests had been prompted, at the time, by her secondary, _maladif_\nconsciousness alone.--When first visited by Boerio, she takes pleasure\nin the thought of getting possibly cured by him; but \u201cin the following\nnight, when great pain came upon her, she reproved herself, saying,\n\u2018You are suffering this, because you allowed yourself to rejoice\nwithout cause.\u2019\u201d But this declaration distinctly falls short of\nany necessary implication of a directly supernatural origin of her\nmalady, as the _Vita_ here will have it, and but refers, either to the\ncontinuance of earthly existence not deserving such joy, or to her\npersistent fundamental consciousness that the phenomena were partly\nthe fruitful, profitable occasions, and partly the price paid, for the\nmind\u2019s close intercourse with things divine.\n\nIndeed her (otherwise unbroken) attitude is one, both of quiet\nconviction that physic cannot help her, and of gentle readiness to let\nthe physicians try whatever they may think worth the trying: so with\nthe cupping-glasses, and the various examinations and physickings.\nEspecially is this disposition clear in her short dialogue with Boerio,\nwhere, in answer to his assertion that she ought to beware of giving\nscandal to all the world by saying that her infirmity had no need of\nremedies, and that she ought to look upon such an attitude as \u201ca kind\nof hypocrisy,\u201d she declares: \u201cI am sorry if any one is scandalized\nbecause of me; and I am ready to use any remedy for infirmity,\nsupposing that it can be found.\u201d[19]\n\n\n2. _Her preoccupation with the spiritual suggestions afforded by the\nphenomena._\n\nIt would, indeed, be a grave misreading of her whole character\nand habits of mind to think of her as at all engrossed in her\npsycho-physical states as such, and as having ever formally considered\nand decided that they must either come directly from God or be\namenable to medicine. On the contrary, she is too habitually absorbed\nin the consideration and contemplation of certain great spiritual\ndoctrines and realities, to have the leisure or inclination for any\nsuch questions.--Indeed it is this very absorption in those spiritual\nrealities which has ended by suggesting, with an extraordinary\nreadiness, frequency and vividness, through her mind to her senses,\nand by these back to her mind, certain psycho-physical images and\nillustrations for those very doctrines, until her whole psycho-physical\norganism has been, all but entirely, modified and moulded into an apt\ninstrument and manifestation for and of that world unseen.\n\nThus, after her greatest psycho-physical and spiritual experience\nin November 1509, she declares to Vernazza, when he urges her to\nlet him write down the graces she has received from God, that \u201cit\nwould, strictly speaking, be impossible to narrate those interior\nthings; whilst, of exterior ones, few or none have happened to\nme.\u201d And she never entirely loses her mental consciousness in any\nstate not recognized by herself as _maladif_. So, on a day of great\npsycho-physical trouble in February or March 1510, \u201cthey thought she\nmust expire; but, though she lost both sight and speech, she never\nlost her intelligence.\u201d And even on September 11 and 12, amidst\nfoodlessness and suffocations, her intelligence still persists.--In\nthe March previous \u201cher mind appeared to grow daily in contentment.\u201d\nSome days later, her attendants \u201csaw how, after an hour of spasm and\nbreathlessness, and then a great restriction of all her being, she\nreturned to her normal condition, and addressed many beautiful words\nto them.\u201d And later on, \u201cher attendants were amazed at seeing a body,\nwhich seemed to be healthy, in such a tormented condition.\u201d But \u201csoon\nafter she laughed and spoke as one in health, and told them not to\ndistress themselves about her, since she was very contented; but that\nthey should see to it that they did much good, since the way of God is\nvery narrow.\u201d[20]\n\n\n3. _Interaction and mutual suggestion of her spiritual and physical\nstates._\n\nAs to the extraordinary closeness and readiness for mutual response\nbetween her sensible impressions and her thoughts and emotions--her\nsensations turning, all but automatically, into religious emotions,\nand her thoughts and feelings translating themselves into appropriate\npsycho-physical states--we have a mass of interesting evidence.\n\nThus when, about the end of November 1509, in response to her seeing,\non some wall of the Hospital, a picture of Our Lord at the Well of\nSamaria, and to her asking Him for one drop of that Divine water,\n\u201cinstantly a drop was given to her which refreshed her within and\nwithout.\u201d The spiritual idea and emotion is here accompanied and\nfurther stimulated by the keenest psycho-physical impression of\ndrinking. And such an impression can even become painful through\nits excessive suggestiveness. Thus she herself explains to Maestro\nBoerio, on September 2, 1510, that she cannot long bear the sight\nof his scarlet robe \u201cbecause of what it suggests (represents) to my\nmemory,\u201d--no doubt the fire of divine love. Three days later, on the\ncontrary, \u201cshe mentally saw herself lying upon a bier, surrounded by\nmany Religious robed in black,\u201d and greatly rejoiced at the sight. Here\nthe very impression of black, the colour of death, will have conveyed,\nduring this special mood of hers, a downright psycho-physical pleasure,\nsomewhat as Boerio\u2019s reappearance, on the former occasion, in a black\ngown, had been a sensible relief to her.\n\nSo also with scents. When, certainly after 1499, \u201cshe perceived, on\nthe (right) hand of her Confessor, an odour which penetrated her very\nheart,\u201d and \u201cwhich abode with her and restored both mind and body for\nmany days,\u201d we have again a primarily mental act and state which she\nherself knows well to be untransferable, even to Don Marabotto himself.\nHere the association of ideas was, no doubt, the right hand of the\nPriest and her daily reception, by means of it, of the Holy Eucharist.\nFor the latter, \u201cthe Bread from heaven, having within it all manner\nof delight,\u201d is already connected in her mind with an impression of\nsweet odour. \u201cOne day, on receiving Communion, so much odour and\nsweetness came to her, that she seemed to herself to be in Paradise.\u201d\nProbably the love for, and then the disgust at, the smell of wine, was\nalso connected with her Eucharistic experiences. Certainly \u201cone day,\nhaving received Holy Communion, she was granted so great a consolation\nas to fall into an ecstasy, so that when the Priest wanted to give\nher to drink from the Chalice (with unconsecrated wine) she had to be\nbrought back by force to her ordinary consciousness.\u201d Vivid memories\nof both sets of psycho-physical impressions are, I think, at work\nwhen she says: \u201cIf a consecrated Host were to be given to me amongst\nunconsecrated ones, I should be able to distinguish it by the very\ntaste, as I do wine from water.\u201d And as the sight of red rapidly became\npainful from the very excess of its mental suggestiveness, so will the\nsmell of wine have been both specially dear and specially painful to\nher.[21]\n\nIndeed her psycho-physical troubles possess, for the most part, a\nstill traceable, most delicate selectiveness as to date, range, form,\ncombination, and other peculiarities. Thus some of the most acute\nattacks coincide, in their date of occurrence and general character, as\nthe biographers point out, with special saint\u2019s and holy days: so in\nthe night leading into St. Lawrence\u2019s day, August 9 and 10, 1510; so\non the Vigil of St. Bartholomew\u2019s day, August 24; and so in the night\nprevious to and on the Feast (August 28) of St. Augustine, special\nPatron of her only sister\u2019s Order and of the Convent in which her own\nConversion had taken place thirty-seven years before. Yet we have also\nseen how that these synchronisms did not rise to the heights which\nwere soon desired by her biographers, for we know that she died, not\n(as they would have it) on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross,\nSeptember 14, but early on the day following.\n\nThus too as to her incapacity to swallow and retain food, we find that,\nup to the end, with the rarest exceptions of a directly physical kind,\nshe retained the most complete facility in receiving Holy Communion:\nso on September 2, 1510, when \u201call ordinary food was returned, but\nthe Holy Eucharist she retained without any difficulty\u201d; and so too\non September 4, when, after \u201clying for close upon twelve hours with\nclosed eyes, speechless and all but immovable,\u201d Marabotto himself\nfeared to communicate her, but \u201cshe made a sign to him, with a joyous\ncountenance, to have no fear, and she communicated with ease, and\nsoon after began to speak, owing to the vigour given to her by the\nSacrament.\u201d Yet here too the abnormality is not complete: some ordinary\nfood is retained, now and then; so, minced chicken, specially mentioned\nfor December 1509, and on September 3, 1510.\n\nAs to her heat-attacks and the corresponding extreme--the sense of\nintense cold,--it is clear how close is their connection with her\nprofound concentration upon the conception of God as Love, and upon the\nimage of Love as fire. It is these sudden and intense psycho-physical,\nspiritually suggestive because spiritually suggested, heat-attacks\nwhich are, I think, always meant by the terms \u201cassault\u201d (_assalto_),\n\u201cstroke\u201d (_ferita_), and \u201carrow\u201d (_saetta_): terms which already\nindicate the mental quality of these attacks. And these heats are\nmostly localized in a doctrinally suggestive manner: they centre in and\naround the heart, or on the tongue and lips, or they envelop the whole\nperson \u201cas though it were placed in a great flame of fire,\u201d or \u201cin a\nglowing furnace.\u201d Indeed these heats are often so described, by her\nattendants or herself, as to imply their predominantly psycho-physical\nnature: \u201cit was necessary, with a view to prolonging her life, to\nuse many means for lightening the strain of that interior fire upon\nher mind\u201d; and \u201cI feel,\u201d she says herself, on occasion of such an\nattack, \u201cso great a contentment on the part of the spirit, as to be\nunutterable; whilst, on the part of my humanity, all the pains are, so\nto say, no pains.\u201d\n\nAs to her boundless thirst, her inability to drink, and her sense of\nstrangulation, their doctrinal suggestions are largely clear. Thus\nwhen \u201cshe was so thirsty as to feel able to drink up all the waters\nof the sea,\u201d and when she calls out \u201cI am suffocating\u201d (drowning, _io\naffogo_), we are at once reminded of her great saying: \u201cIf the sea\nwere all so much love, there would not live man or woman who would\nnot go to drown himself in it (_si affogasse_).\u201d And when, at the end\nof August 1510, unable to drink, she herself declares \u201call the water\nthat is on earth could not give me the least refreshment,\u201d there is,\nperhaps, an implied contrast to that \u201clittle drop of divine water\u201d\nwhich had so much refreshed her a year before.\n\nAnd finally, the various paralyses and death-like swoons seem, at least\nin part, to follow from, and to represent, the death of the spirit\nto the life of the senses, and to mirror the intensity with which\nperfection has been conceived and practised as \u201cLove going forth out\nof self, and abiding all in God and separated from man.\u201d Thus when, on\nAugust 22, 1510, \u201cshe had a day of great heat, and abode paralyzed in\none hand and in one finger of the other hand for about sixteen hours,\nand she was so greatly occupied (absorbed), that she neither spoke, nor\nopened her eyes, nor could take any food.\u201d[22]\n\n\n4. _Only two cases of spiritually unsuggestive impressions._\n\nIt is indeed profoundly instructive to note how that, in exact\nproportion as a human-mental mediation and suggestion of a religious\nkind is directly traceable or at least probable in any or all of\nthese things, is that thing also worthy of being considered as having\nultimately the Divine Spirit Itself for its first cause as well as last\nend; and that, in exact proportion as this kind of human mediation\nand suggestion is impossible or unlikely, the thing turns out to be\nunworthy of being attributed, in any special sense, to the spirit of\nGod Himself.\n\nOf such spiritually opaque, religiously unused and apparently\nunuseable, hysteriform impressions, I can, even during the last\ndays of these nine years of admitted infirmity, find but two clear\ninstances,--instances which, by their very unlikeness to the mass of\nher spiritually transparent, readily used impressions, strongly confirm\nour high estimate of the all but totality of her psycho-physical\nstates, as experienced and understood and used by herself. On September\n7, 1510, after having seen and wisely utilized the spiritually\nsuggestive image of \u201ca great ladder of fire,\u201d she ends by having so\nvivid an hallucination of the whole world being on fire \u201cthat she asked\nwhether it were not so, and caused her windows to be opened that the\nfacts might be ascertained;\u201d and \u201cshe abode the whole night, possessed\nby that imagination,\u201d as the _Vita_ itself calls this impression. At\nnight, on September 11, she complained of a very great heat, and cast\nforth from her mouth very black blood; and black spots came out all\nover her body. And on the 13th, \u201cshe was seen with her eyes fixed upon\nthe ceiling, and with much movement of the lips and hands; and she\nanswered her attendants\u2019 queries as to what she was seeing with \u2018Drive\naway that beast.\u2026\u2019 the remaining words being inaudible.\u201d[23]\n\nHere we have, I think, the only two merely factual, unsuggestive, and\nhence simply delusive, impressions really experienced by herself and\nrecorded in the _Vita_, a book whose very eagerness to discover things\nof this kind and readiness to take them as directly supernatural is a\nguarantee that no other marked instances of the kind have been omitted\nor suppressed. And these two impressions both take place within a week\nof her death, and respectively four days before, and two days after,\nthe first clear case of organic disease or lesion to be found anywhere\nin the life.\n\n\nIII. CATHERINE\u2019S PSYCHO-PHYSICAL CONDITION, ITS LIKENESS AND UNLIKENESS\nTO HYSTERIA.\n\nOnly by a quite unfair magnifying or multiplying of the two incidents\njust described could we come to hold, with Mr. Baring-Gould, that\nCatherine was simply a sufferer from hysteria, and that the Roman\nChurch did well to canonize her on the ground of her having, in spite\nof this malady, managed to achieve much useful work amongst the sick\nand poor.[24] Here we shall do well to consider three groups of facts.\n\n\n1. _Misapprehensions as to hysteria._\n\nThe first group gives the reasons why we should try and get rid of the\nterror and horror still so often felt in connection with the very name\nof this malady. This now quite demonstrably excessive, indeed largely\nmythical, connotation of the term springs from four causes.\n\nFirst, the very name still tends to suggest, as the causes or\nconditions of the malady, things fit only for discussion in medical\nreviews. But then, ever since 1855, all limitation to, or special\nconnection with, anything peculiarly female, or indeed generally\nsexual, has been increasingly shown to be false, until now no serious\nauthority on the matter can be found to espouse the old view. The\nmalady is now well known to attack men as well as women, and to have no\nspecial relation to things of sex at all.[25]\n\nNext, probably as a consequence from the initial error, this disorder\nwas supposed to predominantly come from, or to lead to, moral impurity,\nor at least to be ordinarily accompanied by strong erotic propensions.\nBut here the now carefully observed facts are imperatively hostile:\nof the 120 living cases most carefully studied by Prof. Janet, only\nfour showed the predominance of any such tendencies, a proportion\nundoubtedly not above the percentage to be found amongst non-hysterical\npersons.[26]\n\nAnd again, the term was long synonymous with untruthfulness and deceit.\nBut here again Prof. Janet shows how unfounded is this prejudice, since\nit but springs from the misplaced promptitude with which the earlier\nobservers refused to believe what they had not as yet sufficiently\nexamined and could not at all explain, and from the malady being itself\nequivalent to a more or less extensive breaking-up of the normal\ninter-connection between the several, successive or simultaneous\nstates, and, as it were, layers of the one personality. He is convinced\nthat real untruthfulness is no commoner among such patients than it is\namong healthy persons.[27]\n\nAnd, finally, it is no doubt felt that, apart from all such\nspecifically moral suspicions, the malady involves all kinds of fancies\nand inaccuracies of feeling and of perception, and that it frequently\npasses into downright insanity. And this is no doubt the one objection\nwhich does retain some of its old cogency. Still, it is well to note\nthat, as has now been fully established, the elements of the human mind\nare and remain the same throughout the whole range of its conditions,\nfrom the sanest to the maddest, whilst only their proportion and\nadmixture, and the presence or absence and the kind of synthesis\nnecessary to hold them together differentiate these various states of\nmind. In true insanity there is no such synthesis; in hysteria the\nsynthesis, however slight and peculiar, is always still traceable\nthroughout the widespread disgregation of the elements and states.[28]\nAnd it is this very persistence of the fundamental unity, together with\nthe strikingly different combination and considerable disaggregation\nof its elements, that makes the study of hysteria so fruitful for\nthe knowledge of the fully healthy mind and of its unity; whilst the\ncontinuance of all the elements of the normal intelligence, even in\ninsanity, readily explains why it is apparently so easy to see insanity\neverywhere, and to treat genius and sanctity as but so much degeneracy.\n\n\n2. _Hysteriform phenomena observable in Catherine\u2019s case._\n\nThe second group of facts consists in the phenomena which, in\nCatherine\u2019s case, are like or identical to what is observable in cases\nof hysteria.\n\nThere is, perhaps above all else, the anaesthetic condition, which was\npresumably co-extensive with her paralytic states. \u201cAnaesthesia,\u201d says\nProf. Janet, \u201ccan be considered as the type of the other symptoms of\nhysteria; it exists in the great majority of cases, it is thoroughly\ncharacteristic of the malady. In its most frequent localization\n(semi-anaesthesia) it affects one of the lateral halves of the body,\nand this half is usually the left side.\u201d Or, \u201ca finger or hand will be\naffected.\u201d Such \u201cinsensibility can be very frequent and very profound\u201d;\nbut \u201cit disappears suddenly\u201d and even \u201cvaries from one moment to\nanother.\u201d[29]\n\nThen there is the corresponding counter-phenomenon of hyper-aesthesia.\n\u201cThe slightest contact provokes great pains, exclamations, and spasms.\nThe painful zones have their seat mostly on the abdomen or on the\nhips.\u201d And \u201csensation in these states is not painful in itself, by its\nown intensity, but by its quality, its characteristics; it has become\nthe signal, by association of ideas, for the production of a set of\nextremely painful phenomena.\u201d So, with the colour-sense: \u201cone patient\nadores the colour red, and sees in its dullest shade \u2018sparkling rays\nwhich penetrate to her very heart and warm her through and through.\u2019\u201d\nBut \u201canother one finds this \u2018a repulsive colour and one capable\nof producing nausea.\u2019\u201d And similarly with the senses of taste and\nodour.[30]\n\nThen, too, the inability to stand or walk, with the conservation,\nat times, of the power to crawl; the acceptance, followed by the\nrejection, of food, because of certain spasms in the throat or stomach,\nand the curious, mentally explicable, exceptions to this incapacity;\nthe sense, even at other times, of strangulation; heart palpitations,\nfever heats, strange haemorrhages from the stomach or even from the\nlung; red patches on the skin and emotional jaundice all over it, and\none or two other peculiarities.[31]\n\nThen, as to a particular kind of quietude, from which Catherine warns\nher attendants to rouse her, we find a patient who \u201cceases her reading,\nwithout showing any sign of doing so. She gets taken to be profoundly\nattentive; it is, however, but one of her attacks of \u2018fixity.\u2019 And she\nhas promptly to be shaken out of this state, or, in a few minutes,\nthere will be no getting her out of it.\u201d\n\nAs to Catherine\u2019s consciousness of possessing an extraordinary fineness\nof discrimination between sensibly identical objects, we see that\n\u201cif one points out, to some of these patients, an imaginary portrait\nupon a plain white card, and mixes this card with other similar ones,\nthey will almost always find again the portrait on the same card.\u201d And\nsimilarly as to her attaching a particular quasi-sensible perception\nto Marabotto\u2019s hand alone, we find that, if M. Janet touches L\u00e9onie\u2019s\nhand, he having suggested a nosegay to her, she will henceforth, when\nhe touches the hand, see that nosegay; whereas, if another person\ntouches that same hand, L\u00e9onie will see nothing special.\n\nAs to Catherine\u2019s feelings of criminality and of being already dead, M.\nJanet quotes M., who says, \u201cI am like a criminal about to be punished\u201d;\nand R., who declares, \u201cIt seems to me that I am dead.\u201d As to the\nhallucination of a Beast, Marcelle suffers from the same impression.[32]\n\nAnd,--perhaps the most important of all these\nsurface-resemblances,--there is Catherine\u2019s apparent freedom from all\nemotion at the deaths of her brothers and sister, and her extraordinary\ndependence upon, and claimfulness towards, her Confessor alone. \u201cThese\npatients rapidly lose the social feelings: Berthe, who for some time\npreserved some affection for her brother, ends by losing all interest\nin him; Marcelle, at the very beginning of her illness, separates\nherself from every one.\u201d \u201cIt is always their own personality which\ndominates their thoughts.\u201d Yet these patients have \u201can extraordinary\nattachment to their physician. For him they are resolved to do all\nthings. In return, they are extremely exacting,--he is to occupy\nhimself entirely with each one alone. Only a very superficial observer\nwould ascribe this feeling to a vulgar source.\u201d[33]\n\n\n3. _Catherine\u2019s personality not disintegrated._\n\nBut a third group of facts clearly differentiates Catherine\u2019s case,\neven in these years of avowed ill-health, from such patients; and these\nfacts become clearer and more numerous in precise proportion as we move\naway from peripheral, psycho-physical phenomena and mechanisms, and\ndwell upon her practically unbroken mental and moral characteristics,\nand upon the use and meaning, the place and context of these things\nwithin her ample life.\n\nFor as to her relations with her attendants, even now it is still she\nwho leads, who suggests, who influences; a strong and self-consistent\nwill shows itself still, under all this shifting psycho-physical\nsurface. Thus Don Marabotto now administers, it is true, all her money\nand charitable affairs for her. But it is she who insists, alone and\nunaided, upon the true spiritual function of that impression of odour\non his hand.--Vernazza, no doubt, has now to help her in the fight\nagainst subtle scruples, on occasion of her deepest depressions. But\nher far more frequent times of light and joy are in nowise occasions\nof a simply subjective self-engrossment or of a purely psycho-physical\ninterest, for her mind is absorbed if in but a few, yet in\ninexhaustibly fruitful and universally applicable ideas and experiences\nof a spiritual kind, such as helped to urge this friend on to his\nworld-renewing impulses and determinations.--Her closest relations and\nfriends, one must admit, succeed by their action, taken eighteen months\nand then again two days before her death, in getting her to desist\nfrom ordering her burial by the side of her husband. But we have seen,\nin the one case, how indirectly, and, in the other case, how suddenly\nand even then quite informally, they had to gain their point.--Her\nattendants in general, and Marabotto in particular, certainly paid her\nan engrossed attention, and the all but endlessness of her superficial\nfancies and requirements have been chronicled by them with a na\u00efve and\nwearisome fulness. But then she herself is well aware that, had they\nbut the requisite knowledge as to how and when to apply them, some\nsturdy opposition and a greater roughness of handling would, on their\npart, be of the greatest use to her, in this her psychical infirmity;\nindeed her shutting herself away from Marabotto, as late as January\n1510, is directly caused by her sense and fear of being spoilt by him.\n\nIt is true again that, already in 1502, we hear, in a probably\nexaggerated but still possibly semi-authentic account, of her\nindifference of feeling with regard to the deaths of two brothers and\nof her only sister; and that, from January 1510 onwards, she gradually\nexcludes all her attendants from her sick-room, with, eventually, the\nsole exceptions of Marabotto or Carenzio and Argentina. But her Wills\nshow conclusively how persistent were her detailed interest in, and\ndispositions for, the requirements of her surviving brother, nephews,\nand nieces; of poor Thobia and the girl\u2019s hidden mother; of her\npriest-attendants, and of each and all of her humblest domestics; of\nthe natives in the far-away Greek Island of Scios; and, above all, of\nthe Hospital and its great work which she had ever loved so well.\n\nWe have indeed found two cases, both from within the last week of her\nlife, of mentally opaque and spiritually unsuggestive and unutilized\nimpressions which are truly analogous to those characteristic of\nhysteria. But we have also seen how forcibly these two solitary cases\nbring out, by contrast, the spiritual transparency and fruitfulness of\nher usual, finely reflective picturings of these last years. For here\nit is her own deliberate and spiritual mind which joyously greets, and\nstraightway utilizes and transcends, the psycho-physical occurrences;\nand it does so, not because these occurrences are, or are taken to be,\nthe causes or requisites or objects of her faith and spiritual insight,\nbut because, on the contrary, they meet and clothe an already exuberant\nfaith and insight--spiritual certainties derived from quite another\nsource.\n\nAnd finally, if the monotony and superficial pettiness of the sick-room\ncan easily pall upon us, especially when presented with the credulities\nand hectic exaggerations which disfigure so much of the _Vita\u2019s_\ndescription of it; we must, in justice, as I have attempted to do in my\nseventh and eighth chapters, count in, as part of her biography, her\ndeep affection for and persistent influence with Ettore and Battista\nVernazza, and the exemplification of her doctrine by these virile\nsouls, makers of history in the wide, varied world of men.[34]\n\nIn a word, it is plain at once that, given the necessarily limited\nnumber of ways in which the psycho-physical organism reacts under\nmental stimulations, certain neural phenomena may, in any two cases,\nbe, in themselves, perfectly similar, although their respective mental\ncauses or occasions may be as different, each from the other, as\nthe Moonlight Sonata of Beethoven, or the working out of the Law of\nGravitation by Newton, or the elaboration of the implications of the\nCategorical Imperative by Kant, are different from the sudden jumping\nof a live mouse in the face of an hysterically-disposed young woman, or\nas the various causes of tears and laughter throughout the whole world.\n\n\nIV. FIRST PERIOD OF CATHERINE\u2019S LIFE, 1447 TO 1477, IN ITS THREE STAGES.\n\nIf we next go back to the first period of her life, in its three stages\nof the sixteen years of her girlhood, 1447-1463, the first ten years\nof her married life, 1463-1473, and the four years of her Conversion\nand active Penitence, 1473-1477, we shall find, I think, in the matter\nof temperament and psycho-physical conditions, little or nothing\nbut a rare degree of spiritual sensitiveness, and an extraordinary\nclose-knittedness of body and mind.\n\n\n1. _From her childhood to her conversion._\n\nThus, already in her early childhood, that picture of the Piet\u00e0 seems\nto have suggested religious ideas and feelings with the suddenness\nand emotional solidity of a physical seizure--an impression still\nundimmed when she herself recounted it, some fifty years later, to her\ntwo intimates.--It is true that during those first, deeply unhappy\nten years of marriage, we cannot readily find more than indications\nof a most profound and brooding melancholy, the apparent result of\nbut two factors,--a naturally sad disposition and acutely painful\ndomestic circumstances. Yet it is clear, from the sequel, that more\nand other things lay behind. It is indeed evident that she possessed\na congenitally melancholy temperament; that nothing but the rarest\ncombination of conditions could have brought out, into something like\nelastic play and varied exercise, her great but few and naturally\nexcessive qualities of mind and heart; that these conditions were not\nonly absent, but were replaced by circumstances of the most painful\nkind; and that she will hardly, at this time, have had even a moment\u2019s\nclear consciousness of any other sources than just those conditions for\nher deep, keen, and ever-increasing dissatisfaction with all things,\nher own self included: all peace and joy, the very capacity for either\nseemed gone, and gone for ever. But it is only the third stage, with\nits sudden-seeming conversion on March 20, 1473, and the then following\nfour years of strenuously active self-immolation and dedication to the\nhumblest service of others, which lets us see deep into those previous\nyears of sullen gloom and apparently hopeless drift and dreary wastage.\n\nThe two stages really belong to one another, and the depth of the\nformer gloom and dreariness stood in direct proportion and relation to\nthe capacities of that nature and to the height of their satisfaction\nin the later light and vigour brought to and assimilated by them. It\nwas the sense, at that previous time still inarticulate, but none the\nless mightily operative, of the insufficiency of all things merely\ncontingent, of all things taken as such and inevitably found to be\nsuch, that had been adding, and was now discovered to have added, a\nquite determining weight and poignancy to the natural pressure of her\ntemperament and external lot. And this temperament and lot, which had\nnot alone produced that sadness, could still less of themselves remove\nit, whatever might be its cause. Her sense of emptiness and impotence\ncould indeed add to her sense of fulness and of power, once these\nlatter had come; but of themselves the former could no more give her\nthe latter, than hunger, which indeed makes bread to taste delicious,\ncan give us real bread and, with it, that delight.\n\nAnd it was such real bread of life and real power which now came to\nher. For if the tests of reality in such things are their persistence\nand large and rich spiritual applicability and fruitfulness,\nthen something profoundly real and important took place in the\nsoul of that sad and weary woman of six-and-twenty, within that\nConvent-chapel, at that Annunciation-tide. Her four years of heroic\npersistence; her unbroken Hospital service of a quarter of a century;\nher lofty magnanimity towards her husband, Thobia and Thobia\u2019s\nmother; her profound influence upon Vernazza, in urging him on to\nhis splendid labours throughout Italy, and to his grand death in\nplague-stricken Genoa; her daringly original, yet immensely persuasive,\ndoctrine,--nearly all this dates back, completely for her consciousness\nand very largely in reality, to those few moments on that memorable day.\n\n\n2. _Her conversion not sudden nor visionary._\n\nBut two points, concerning the manner and form of this experience,\nare, though of but secondary spiritual interest, far more difficult\nto decide. There is, for one thing, the indubitable impression, for\nher own mind and for ours, of complete suddenness and newness in her\nchange. Was this suddenness and newness merely apparent, or real as\nwell? And should this suddenness, if real, be taken as in itself and\ndirectly supernatural?\n\nNow it is certain that Catherine, up to ten years before, had been\nfull of definitely religious acts and dispositions. Had she not,\nalready at thirteen, wanted to be a Nun, and, at eight or so, been\ndeeply moved by a picture of the dead Christ in His Mother\u2019s lap?\nHence, ideas and feelings of self-dedication and of the Christ-God\u2019s\nhatred of sin and love for her had, in earlier and during longer times\nthan those of her comparative carelessness, soaked into and formed her\nmental and emotional bent, and will have in so far shaped her will,\nas to make the later determination along those earlier lines of its\noperation, comparatively easy, even after those years of relaxation and\ndeviation. Yet it is clear that there was not here, as indeed there\nis nowhere, any mere repetition of the past. New combinations and an\nindefinitely deeper apprehension of the great religious ideas and facts\nof God\u2019s holiness and man\u2019s weakness, of the necessity for the soul to\nreach its own true depth or to suffer fruitlessly, and of God having\nHimself to meet and feed this movement and hunger which He has Himself\nimplanted; new combinations and depths of emotion, and an indefinite\nexpansion and heroic determination of the will: were all certainly\nhere, and were new as compared with even the most religious moments in\nthe past.\n\nAs to the suddenness, we cannot but take it as, in large part, simply\napparent,--a dim apprehension of what then became clear having been\npreviously quite oppressively with her. And, in any case, this\nsuddenness seems to belong rather to the temperamental peculiarities\nand necessary forms of her particular experiences than to the essence\nand content of her spiritual life. For, whatever she thinks, feels,\nsays or does throughout her life, she does and experiences with actual\nsuddenness, or at least with a sense of suddenness; and there is\nclearly no more necessary connection between such suddenness and grace\nand true self-renouncement, than there is between gradualness and mere\nnature; both suddenness and gradualness being but simple modes, more or\nless fixed for each individual, yet differing from each to each, modes\nin which God\u2019s grace and man\u2019s will interact and manifest themselves in\ndifferent souls.[35]\n\nAnd then there is the question as to whether or not this\nconversion-experience took the form of a vision. We have seen, in\nthe Appendix, how considerable are the difficulties which beset the\naccount of the Bleeding Christ Vision in the Palace; and how the story\nof the previous visionless experience in the Chapel is free from all\nsuch objections. But, even supposing the two accounts to be equally\nreliable, it is the first, the visionless experience, which was\ndemonstrably the more important and the more abidingly operative of the\ntwo. More important, for it is during those visionless moments that\nher conversion is first effected; and more abiding, for, according to\nall the ancient accounts, the impression of the Bleeding Christ Vision\ndisappeared utterly at the end of at longest four years, whereas the\nmemory of the visionless conversion moments remained with her, as an\noperative force, up to the very last. Witness the free self-casting of\nthe soul into painful-joyous Purgation, into Love, into God (without\nany picturing of the historic Christ), which forms one of the two\nconstituents of her great latter-day teaching; and how entirely free\nfrom directly historic elements all her recorded visions of the middle\nperiod turn out to be.[36]\n\n\n3. _Peculiarities of her Active Penitence._\n\nAs to the four years of Active Penitence, we must beware of losing\nthe sense of the dependence, the simple, spontaneous instrumentality,\nin which the negative and restrictive side of of her action stood\ntowards the positive and expansive one. An immense affirmation, an\nanticipating, creative buoyancy and resourcefulness, had come full\nflood into her life; and had shifted her centre of deliberate interest\nand willing away from the disordered, pleasure-seeking, sore and\nsulky lesser self in which her true personality had for so long been\nenmeshed. Thus all this strenuous work of transforming and raising her\nlower levels of inclinations and of habit to the likeness and heights\nof her now deliberate loftiest standard was not taking place for the\nsake of something which actually was, or which even seemed to be, less\nthan what she had possessed or had, even dimly, sought before, nor with\na view to her true self\u2019s contraction. But, on the contrary, the work\nwas for the end of that indefinite More, of that great pushing upwards\nof her soul\u2019s centre and widening out of its circumference, which she\ncould herself confirm and increase only by such ever-renewed warfare\nagainst what she now recognized as her false and crippling self.\n\nAnd it is noticeable how soon and how largely, even still within this\nstage, her attitude became \u201cpassive.\u201d She pretty early came to do these\nnumerous definite acts of penance without any deliberate selection\nor full attention to them. As in her third period her absorption in\nlarge spiritual ideas spontaneously suggests certain corresponding\npsycho-physical phenomena, which then, in return, stimulate anew the\napprehensions of the mind; so here, towards the end of the first\nperiod, penitential love ends by quite spontaneously suggesting\ndivers external acts of penitence, which readily become so much fresh\nstimulation for love.\n\nI take this time to have been as yet free from visions or ecstasies--at\nleast of the later lengthy and specific type. For the Bleeding Christ\nexperience, even if fully historical, occurred within the first\nconversion-days, and only its vivid memory prolonged itself throughout\nthose penitential years; whilst all such other visions, as have been\nhanded down to us, do not treat of conversion and penance, at least in\nany active and personal sense. And only towards the end of these years\ndo the psycho-physical phenomena as to the abstention from food begin\nto show themselves. The consideration of both the Visions and the Fasts\nhad, then, better be reserved for the great central period.\n\n\nV. THE SECOND, GREAT MIDDLE PERIOD OF CATHERINE\u2019S LIFE, 1477 TO 1499.\n\nIt is most natural yet very regrettable that we should know so little\nas to Catherine\u2019s spiritual life, or even as to her psycho-physical\ncondition, during these central twenty-two years of her life. It is\nnatural, for she had, at this time, neither Physician nor Confessor\nbusy with her, and the very richness and balanced fulness of this epoch\nof her life may well have helped to produce but little that could have\nbeen specially seized and registered by either. Yet it is regrettable,\nsince here we have what, at least for us human observers, constitutes\nthe culmination and the true measure of her life, the first period\nlooking but like the preparation, and the third period, like the price\npaid for such a rich expansion.--Yet we know something about three\nmatters of considerable psycho-physical and temperamental interest,\nwhich are specially characteristic of this time: her attitude towards\nfood; her ecstasies and visions; and certain peculiarities in her\nconception and practice of the spiritual warfare.\n\n\n1. _Her extraordinary fasts._\n\nAs to food, it is clear that, however much we may be able or bound to\ndeduct from the accounts, there remains a solid nucleus of remarkable\nfact. During some twenty years she evidently went, for a fairly equal\nnumber of days,--some thirty in Advent and some forty in Lent, seventy\nin all annually,--with all but no food; and was, during these fasts,\nat least as vigorous and active as when her nutrition was normal.\nFor it is not fairly possible to make these great fasts end much\nbefore 1496, when she ceased to be Matron of the Hospital; and they\ncannot have begun much after 1475 or 1476: so that practically the\nwhole of her devoted service and administration in and of that great\ninstitution fell within these years, of which well-nigh one-fifth was\ncovered by these all but total abstentions from food. Yet here again\nwe are compelled to take these things, not separately, and as directly\nsupernatural, but in connection with everything else; and to consider\nthe resultant whole as the effect and evidence of a strong mind and\nwill operating upon and through an immensely responsive psycho-physical\norganism.\n\nFor here again we easily find a significant system and delicate\nselectiveness both in the constant approximate synchronisms--these\nincapacities occurring about Advent and Lent; and in the foods\nexempted--since there is no difficulty in connection with the daily\nHoly Eucharist, with the unconsecrated wine given to her, as to all\nCommunicants in that age at Genoa, immediately after Communion, or with\nwater when seasoned penitentially with salt or vinegar. And if the\nactual heightening of nervous energy and balance, recorded as having\ngenerally accompanied these two fasts, is indeed a striking testimony\nto the extraordinary powers of her mind and will, we must not forget\nthat these fruitful fasts were accompanied, and no doubt rendered\npossible, by the second great psychical peculiarity of these middle\nyears, her ecstasies.\n\n\n2. _Her ecstasies and visions._\n\nIt is indeed remarkable how these two conditions and functions, her\nfasts and her ecstasies of a definite, lengthy and strength-bringing\nkind, arise, persist and then fade out of her life together. And since,\nin ecstasy, the respiration, the circulation, and the other physical\nfunctions are all slackened and simplified; the mind is occupied with\nfewer, simpler, larger ideas, harmonious amongst themselves; and\nthe emotions and the will are, for the time, saved the conflict and\nconfusion, the stress and strain, of the fully waking moments; and\nconsidering that Catherine was peculiarly sensitive to all this flux\nand friction, and that she was now often in a more or less ecstatic\ntrance from two up to eight hours: it follows that the amount of food\nrequired to heal the breach made by life\u2019s wear and tear would, by\nthese ecstasies, be considerably reduced. And indeed it will have been\nthese contemplative absorptions which directly mediated for her those\naccessions of vigour: and that they did so, in such a soul and for the\nuses to which she put this strength, is their fullest justification as\nthoroughly wholesome, at least in their ultimate outcome, in and for\nthis particular life.\n\nAnd the visions recorded have these two characteristics, that they all\ndeal with metaphysical realities and relations--God as source and end\nof all things, as Light and food of the soul, and similar conceptions,\nand never directly with historical persons, scenes, or institutions;\nand that, whereas the non-ecstatic picturings of her last period\nare grandly original, and demonstrably based upon her own spiritual\nexperience, these second-period ecstatic visions are readily traceable\nto New Testament, Neo-Platonist, and Franciscan precursors, and have\nlittle more originality than this special selection from amongst other\npossible literary sources.\n\n\n3. _Special character of her spiritual warfare._\n\nCatherine\u2019s ecstasies lead us easily on to the special method of her\nspiritual warfare, which can, I think, be summed up in three maxims:\n\u201cOne thing, and only one at a time\u201d; \u201cEver fight self, and you\nneed not trouble about any other foe\u201d; and \u201cFight self by an heroic\nindirectness and by love, for love,--through a continuous self-donation\nto Pure Love alone.\u201d\n\nStudying here these great convictions simply in their temperamental\noccasions, colouring, and limitations, we can readily discover how the\n\u201cone thing at a time\u201d maxim springs from the same disposition as that\nwhich found such refreshment in ecstasy. For here too, partly from a\ncongenital incapacity to take things lightly, partly from an equally\ncharacteristic sensitiveness to the conflict and confusion incident\nto the introduction of any fresh multiplicity into the consciousness,\nshe requires, even in her non-ecstatic moments, to have her attention\nspecially concentrated upon one all-important idea, one point in the\nfield of consciousness. And, by a faithful wholeness of attention to\nthe successive spiritually significant circumstances and obligations,\ninterior impressions and lights, which her praying, thinking,\nsuffering, actively bring round to her notice, she manages, by such\nsingle steps, gradually to go a very long way, and, by such severe\nsuccessiveness, to build up a rich simultaneity. For each of these\nfaithfully accepted and fully willed and utilized acts and states,\nreceived into her one ever-growing and deepening personality, leave\nmemories and stimulations behind them, and mingle, as subconscious\nelements, with the conscious acts which follow later on.\n\n\n4. _Two remarkable consequences of this kind of warfare._\n\nThere were two specially remarkable consequences of this constant\nwatchful fixation of the one spiritually significant point in each\ncongeries of circumstances, and of the manner in which (partly perhaps\nas the occasion, but probably in great part as the effect of this\nattention) one interior condition of apparent fixity would suddenly\nshift to another condition of a different kind but of a similar\napparent stability. There was the manner in which, during these years,\nshe appears to have escaped the committing of any at all definite\noffences against the better and best lights of that particular moment;\nand there was the way in which she would realize the faultiness and\nsubtle self-seeking of any one state, only at the moment of its\ndisappearing to make room for another.\n\nI take the accounts of both these remarkable peculiarities to be\nsubstantially accurate, since, if the first condition had not obtained,\nwe should have found her practising more or less frequent Confession,\nas we find her doing in the first and third, but not in this period;\nand if the second condition had not existed, we should have had, for\nthis period also, some such vivid account of painful scruples arising\nfrom the impression of actually present unfaithfulnesses, such as has\nbeen preserved for her last years. And indeed, as soon as we have\nvividly conceived a state in which a soul (by a wise utilization of the\nquite exceptional successiveness and simplification to which it has\nbeen, in great part, driven by its temperamental requirements, and by\na constant heroic watchfulness) has managed to exclude from its life,\nduring a long series of years, all fully deliberate resistances to, or\nlapses from, its contemporaneous better insight: one sees at once that\na consciousness of faultiness could come to her only at those moments\nwhen, one state and level giving place to another, she could, for the\nmoment, see the former habits and their implicit defects in the clear\nlight of their contrast to her new, deeper insights and dispositions.\n\nNow it is evident that here again we have in part (in the curious\nquasi-fixity of each state, and then the sudden replacement of it\nby another) something which, taken alone, is simply psychically\npeculiar and spiritually indifferent. The persistent sense of gradual\nor of rapid change in the midst of a certain continuity and indeed\nabidingness, characteristic of the average moments of the average soul,\nis, taken in itself, more true to life and to the normal reaction of\nthe human mind, and not less capable of spiritual utilization, than is\nCatherine\u2019s peculiarity. Her heroic utilization of her special psychic\nlife for purposes of self-fighting, and the degree in which, as we\nshall find in a later chapter, she succeeded in moulding this life into\na shape representative of certain great spiritual truths: these things\nit is which constitute here the spiritually significant element.\n\nAnd her second peculiarity of religious practice was her great\nsimplification and intensification of the spiritual combat.\nSimplification: for she does not fight directly either the Devil or the\nWorld; she directly fights the \u201cFlesh\u201d alone, and recognizes but one\nimmediate opponent, her own lower self. Hence the references to the\nworld are always simply as to an extension or indefinite repetition\nof that same self, or of similar lower selves; and those to the devil\nare, except where she declares her own lower self \u201ca very devil,\u201d\nextraordinarily rare, and, in their authentic forms, never directly and\nformally connected with her own spiritual interests and struggles.\nAnd Intensification: for she conceives this lower self, against which\nall her fighting is turned, as capable of any enormity, as actually\ncloaking itself successively in every kind of disguise, and as more or\nless vitiating even the most spiritual-seeming of her states and acts.\n\nAnd here again we can, I think, clearly trace the influence of her\nspecial temperament and psycho-physical functioning, yet in a direction\nopposite to that in which we would naturally expect it. For it is not\nso much that this temperament led her to exaggerate the badness of her\nfalse self, or to elaborate a myth concerning its (all but completely\nseparate) existence, as that, owing in large part to that temperament\nand functioning, her false self _was_ both unusually distinct from her\ntrue self and particularly clamorous and claimful. It would indeed be\nwell for hagiography if, in all cases, at least an attempt were made to\ndiscover and present the precise and particular good and bad selves,\nworked for and fought by the particular saint: for it is just this\ndouble particularization of the common warfare in every individual soul\nthat gives the poignant interest and instructiveness, and a bracing\nsense of reality to these lonely yet typical, unique yet universal\nstruggles, defeats, and victories.\n\nAnd in Catherine\u2019s case her special temperament; her particular\nattitude during the ten years\u2019 laxity, and again during the last years\u2019\ntimes of obscurity and scruple; even some of her sayings probably\nstill belonging to this middle period; but above all the precise point\nand edge of her counter-ideal and _attrait_: all indicate clearly\nenough what was her congenital defect. A great self-engrossment of\na downrightly selfish kind; a grouping of all things round such a\nself-adoring _Ego_; a noiseless but determined elimination from\nher life and memory of all that would not or could not, then and\nthere, be drawn and woven into the organism and functioning of this\nimmensely self-seeking, infinitely woundable and wounded, endlessly\nself-doctoring \u201cI\u201d and \u201cMe\u201d: a self intensely, although not sexually,\njealous, envious and exacting, incapable of easy accommodation, of\npleasure in half successes, of humour and brightness, of joyous\n\u201conce-born\u201d creatureliness: all this was certainly to be found, in\nstrong tendency at least, in the untrained parts and periods of her\ncharacter and life.\n\nAnd then the same peculiarity and sensitiveness of her psycho-physical\norganism which, in her last period, ended by mirroring her mental\nspiritual apprehensions and picturings in her very body, and which,\neven at this time, has been traced by us in the curious long fixities\nand rapid changes of her fields of consciousness, clearly operates\nalso and already here, in separating off this false self from the good\none and in heightening the apprehension of that false self to almost a\nperception in space, or to an all but physical sensation.\n\nWe thus get something of which the interesting cases of \u201cdoubleness\nof personality,\u201d so much studied of late years, are, as it were,\npurely psychical, definitely _maladif_ caricatures; the great\ndifference consisting in Catherine herself possessing, at all times,\nthe consciousness and memory of both sides, of both \u201cselves,\u201d and of\neach as both actual and potential, within the range of her one great\npersonality. Indeed it is this very multiplicity thus englobed and\nutilized by that higher unity, which gives depth to her sanity and\nsanctity.[37]\n\n\n5. _Precise object and end of her striving._\n\nAnd all this is confirmed and completed, as already hinted, by the\nprecise object of her ideal, the particular means and special end of\nthe struggle. Here, at the very culmination of her inner life and\naim, we find the deepest traces of her temperamental requirements;\nand here, in what she seeks, there is again an immense concentration\nand a significant choice. The distinctions between obligation and\nsupererogation, between merit and grace, are not utilized but\ntranscended; the conception of God having anger as well as love arouses\nas keen a sense of intolerableness as that of God\u2019s envy aroused in\nPlato, and God appears to her as, in Himself, continuously loving.\n\nThis love of God, again, is seen to be present everywhere, and, of\nItself, everywhere to effect happiness. The dispositions of souls are\nindeed held to vary within each soul and between soul and soul, and to\ndetermine the differences in their reception, and consequently in the\neffect upon them, of God\u2019s one universal love: but the soul\u2019s reward\nand punishment are not something distinct from its state, they are but\nthat very state prolonged and articulated, since man can indeed go\nagainst his deepest requirements but can never finally suppress them.\nHeaven, Purgatory, Hell are thus not places as well as states, nor do\nthey begin only in the beyond: they are states alone, and begin already\nhere. And Grace and Love, and Love and Christ, and Christ and Spirit,\nand hence Grace and Love and Christ and Spirit are, at bottom, one, and\nthis One is God. Hence God, loving Himself in and through us, is alone\nour full true self. Here, in this constant stretching out and forward\nof her whole being into and towards the ocean of light and love, of\nGod the All in All, it is not hard to recognize a soul which finds\nhappiness only when looking out and away from self, and turning, in\nmore or less ecstatic contemplation and action, towards that Infinite\nCountry, that great Over-Againstness, God.\n\nAnd, in her sensitive shrinking from the idea of an angry God, we\nfind the instinctive reaction of a nature too naturally prone itself\nto angry claimfulness, and which had been too much driven out of\nits self-occupation by the painful sense of interior self-division\nconsequent upon that jealousy, not to find it intolerable to get out\nof that little Scylla of her own hungry self only to fall into a great\nCharybdis, an apparent mere enlargement and canonization of that same\nself, in the angry God Himself.\n\nAnd if her second peculiarity, the concentration of the fight upon an\nunusually isolated and intense false self, had introduced an element of\nat least relative Rigorism and contraction into her spirituality, this\nthird peculiarity brings a compensating movement of quasi-Pantheism,\nof immense expansion. Here the crushed plant expands in boundless\nair, light and warmth; the parched seaweed floats and unfolds itself\nin an immense ocean of pure waters--the soul, as it were, breathes\nand bathes in God\u2019s peace and love. And it is evident that the great\nsuper-sensible realities and relations adumbrated by such figures, did\nnot, with her, lead to mere dry or vague apprehensions. Even in this\nperiod, although here with a peaceful, bracing orderliness and harmony,\nthe reality thus long and closely dwelt on and lived with was, as it\nwere, physically seen and felt in these its images by a ready response\nof her immensely docile psycho-physical organism.\n\n\n6. _Catherine possessed two out of the three conditions apparently\nnecessary for stigmatization._\n\nAnd in this connection we should note how largely reasonable was\nthe expectation of some of her disciples of finding some permanent\nphysical effects upon her body; and yet why she not only had not the\nstigmata of the Passion, but why she could not have them. For, of the\nthree apparently necessary conditions for such stigmatization, she had\nindeed two--a long and intense absorption in religious ideas, and a\nspecially sensitive psycho-physical temperament and organization of\nthe ecstatic type; but the third condition, the concentration of that\nabsorption upon Our Lord\u2019s Passion and wounds, was wholly wanting--at\nleast after those four actively penitential and during those twenty-two\necstatic years. We can, however, say most truly that although, since\nat all events 1477, her visions and contemplations were all concerning\npurely metaphysical, eternal realities, or certain ceaselessly\nrepeated experiences of the human soul, or laws and types derived from\nthe greatest of Christian institutions, her daily solace, the Holy\nEucharist: yet that these verities ended by producing definite images\nin her senses, and certain observable though passing impressions upon\nher body, so that we can here talk of sensible shadows or \u201cstigmata\u201d of\nthings purely spiritual and eternal.\n\nAnd if, in the cases of some ecstatic saints, mental pathologists of\na more or less materialistic type have, at times, shown excessive\nsuspicion as to some of the causes and effects of these saints\u2019\ndevotion to Our Lord\u2019s Humanity under the imagery and categories of\nthe Canticle of Canticles--all such suspicions, fair or unfair, have\nabsolutely no foothold in Catherine\u2019s life, since not only is there\nhere no devotion to God or to Our Lord as Bridegroom of the Bridal\nsoul: there is no direct contemplative occupation with the historic\nChrist and no figuring of Him or of God under human attributes\nor relations at all. I think that her temperament and health had\nsomething to do with her habitual dwelling upon Thing-symbols of God:\nOcean--Air--Fire--picturings which, conceived with her psycho-physical\nvividness, must, in their expanse, have rested and purified her in a\nway that historical contingencies and details would not have done. The\ndoctrinal and metaphysical side of the matter will be considered later\non.\n\n\nVI. THREE RULES WHICH SEEM TO GOVERN THE RELATIONS BETWEEN\nPSYCHO-PHYSICAL PECULIARITIES AND SANCTITY IN GENERAL.\n\nIf we next inquire how matters stand historically with regard to the\nrelations between ecstatic states and psycho-physical peculiarities\non the one hand, and sanctity in general on the other hand, we shall\nfind, I think, that the following three rules or laws really cover, in\na necessarily general, somewhat schematic way, all the chief points,\nat all certain or practically important, in this complex and delicate\nmatter.\n\n\n1. _Intense spiritual energising is accompanied by auto-suggestion and\nmono-ideism._\n\nIt is clear, for one thing, that as simply all and every mental,\nemotional, and volitional energizing is necessarily and always\naccompanied by corresponding nerve-states, and that if we had\nnot some neural sensitiveness and neural adaptability, we could\nnot--whilst living our earthly life--think, or feel, or will in\nregard to anything whatsoever: a certain special degree of at least\npotential psycho-physical sensitiveness and adaptability must be\ntaken to be, not the productive cause, but a necessary condition for\nthe exercise, of any considerable range and depth of mind and will,\nand hence of sanctity in general; and that the actual aiming at,\nand gradual achievement of, sanctity in these, thus merely possible\ncases, spiritualizes and further defines this sensitiveness, as the\ninstrument, material, and expression of the soul\u2019s work.[38] And this\nwork of the heroic soul will necessarily consist, in great part, in\nattending to, calling up, and, as far as may be, both fixing and ever\nrenovating certain few great dominant ideas, and in attempting by every\nmeans to saturate the imagination with images and figures, historical\nand symbolic, as so many incarnations of these great verities.\n\nWe get thus what, taken simply phenomenally and without as yet any\ninquiry as to an ultimate reality pressing in upon the soul,--a divine\nstimulation underlying all its sincere and fruitful action,--is a\nspiritual mono-ideism and auto-suggestion, of a more or less general\nkind. But, at this stage, these activities and their psycho-physical\nconcomitants and results will, though different in kind, be no\nmore abnormal than is the mono-ideism and auto-suggestion of the\nmathematician, the tactician, and the constructive statesman. Newton,\nNapoleon, and Richelieu: they were all dominated by some great\ncentral idea, and they all for long years dwelt upon it and worked\nfor it within themselves, till it became alive and aflame in their\nimaginations and their outward-moving wills, before, yet as the means\nof, its taking external and visible shape. And, in all the cases\nthat we can test in detail, the psycho-physical accompaniments of\nall this profound mental-volitional energy were most marked. In the\ncases of Newton and Napoleon, for instance, a classification of their\nenergizings solely according to their neural accompaniments would\nforce us to class these great discoverers and organizers amongst\npsycho-physical eccentrics. Yet the truth and value of their work and\ncharacter has, of course, to be measured, not by this its neural fringe\nand cost, but by its central spiritual truth and fruitfulness.\n\n\n2. _Such mechanisms specially marked in Philosophers, Musicians, Poets,\nand Mystical Religionists._\n\nThe mystical and contemplative element in the religious life, and the\ngroup of saints amongst whom this element is predominant, no doubt give\nus a still larger amount of what, again taking the matter phenomenally\nand not ultimately, is once more mono-ideism and auto-suggestion,\nand entails a correspondingly larger amount of psycho-physical\nimpressionableness and reaction utilized by the mind. But here also,\nfrom the simplest forms of the \u201cprayer of quiet\u201d to absorptions of an\napproximately ecstatic type, we have something which, though different\nin kind and value, is yet no more abnormal than are the highest flights\nand absorptions of the Philosopher, the Musician, and the Poet. And\nyet, in such cases as Kant and Beethoven, a classifier of humanity\naccording to its psycho-physical phenomena alone would put these great\ndiscoverers and creators, without hesitation, amongst hopeless and\nuseless hypochondriacs. Yet here again the truth of their ideas and the\nwork of their lives have to be measured by quite other things than by\nthis their neural concomitance and cost.\n\n\n3. _Ecstatics possess a peculiar psycho-physical organization._\n\nThe downright ecstatics and hearers of voices and seers of visions\nhave all, wherever we are able to trace their temperamental and neural\nconstitution and history, possessed and developed a definitely peculiar\npsycho-physical organization. We have traced it in Catherine and\nindicated it in St. Teresa. We find it again in St. Maria Magdalena\ndei Pazzi and in St. Marguerite Marie Alacocque, in modern times,\nand in St. Catherine of Siena and St. Francis of Assisi in mediaeval\ntimes. For early Christian times we are too ignorant as regards the\npsycho-physical organization of St. Ignatius of Antioch, Hermas,\nand St. Cyprian, to be able to establish a connection between their\ntemperamental endowments and their hearing of voices and seeing of\nvisions--in the last two cases we get much that looks like more or less\nof a mere conventional literary device.[39]\n\nWe are, however, in a fair position for judging, in the typical and\nthoroughly original case of St. Paul. In 2 Cor. xiii, 7, 8, after\nspeaking of the abundant revelations accorded to him, he adds that\n\u201clest I be lifted up, a thorn\u201d (literally, a stake) \u201cin the flesh was\ngiven to me, an Angel of Satan to buffet me.\u201d And though \u201cI thrice\nbesought the Lord that it might depart from me, the Lord answered\nme, \u2018My grace is sufficient for thee; for grace is perfected in\ninfirmity.\u2019\u201d And he was consequently determined \u201crather\u201d to \u201cglory in\nhis infirmities, so that the power of Christ may dwell within\u201d him.\nAnd in Gal. iv, 14, 15, written about the same time, he reminds his\nreaders how he had \u201cpreached to them through the infirmity of the\nflesh,\u201d commending them because they \u201cdid not despise nor loathe their\ntemptation in his flesh\u201d (this is no doubt the correct reading), \u201cbut\nhad received him as an Angel of God, as Christ Jesus.\u201d\n\nNow the most ancient interpretation of this \u201cthorn\u201d or \u201cstake\u201d is some\nkind of bodily complaint,--violent headache or earache is mentioned by\nTertullian de Pudicitia, 13, and by St. Jerome, Comm. in Gal. _loc.\ncit._ Indeed St. Paul\u2019s own description of his \u201cbodily presence\u201d as\n\u201cweak,\u201d and his \u201cspoken word\u201d as \u201ccontemptible\u201d (2 Cor. x, 10), points\nthis way. It seems plain that it cannot have been carnal temptations\n(only in the sixth century did this interpretation become firmly\nestablished), for he could not have gloried in these, nor could they,\nhidden as they would be within his heart, have exposed him to the\ncontempt of others. Indeed he expressly excludes such troubles from his\nlife, where, in advising those who were thus oppressed to marry, he\ngives the preference to the single life, and declares, \u201cI would that\nall men were even as myself\u201d (1 Cor. vii, 7).\n\nThe attacks of this trouble were evidently acutely painful: note the\nmetaphor of a stake driven into the live flesh and the Angel of Satan\nwho buffeted him. (And compare St. Teresa\u2019s account: \u201cAn Angel of God\nappeared to me to be thrusting at times a long spear into my heart and\nto pierce my very entrails\u201d; \u201cthe pain was so great that it made me\nmoan\u201d; \u201cit really seems to the soul as if an arrow were thrust through\nthe heart or through itself; the suffering is not one of sense, neither\nis the wound physical\u201d; and how, on another occasion, she heard Our\nLord answer her: \u201cServe thou Me, and meddle not with this.\u201d)[40]\n\nThese attacks would come suddenly, even in the course of his public\nministry, rendering him, in so far, an object of derision and of\nloathing. (Compare here St. Teresa\u2019s declaration: \u201cDuring the rapture,\nthe body is very often perfectly powerless; it continues in the\nposition it was in when the rapture came upon it: if sitting, sitting;\nif the hands were open, or if they were shut, they will remain open or\nshut\u201d; \u201cif the body\u201d was \u201cstanding or kneeling, it remains so.\u201d)[41]\n\nYet these attacks were evidently somehow connected, both in fact and\nin his consciousness, with his Visions; and they were recurrent. The\nvision of the Third Heaven and his apparently first attack seem to have\nbeen practically coincident,--about A.D. 44. We find a second attack\nhanging about him for some time, on his first preaching in Galatia,\nabout A.D. 51 or 52 (see 1 Thess. ii, 18; 1 Cor. ii, 3). And a third\nattack appears to have come in A.D. 57 or 58, when the Second Epistle\nto the Corinthians and that to the Galatians were written; note the\nwords (2 Cor. i, 9), \u201cBut\u201d (in addition to his share in the public\npersecution) \u201cwe ourselves had the sentence of death within ourselves,\nin order that we might not trust in ourselves but in God who raiseth\nthe dead to life.\u201d (And compare here St. Teresa: in July 1547 \u201cfor\nabout four days I remained insensible. They must have regarded me as\ndead more than once. For a day and a half the grave was open in my\nmonastery, waiting for my body. But it pleased Our Lord I should come\nto myself.\u201d)[42] Dr. Lightfoot gives as a parallel the epileptiform\nseizures of King Alfred, which, sudden, acutely painful, at times\ndeath-like, and protracted, tended to render the royal power despicable\nin the eyes of the world.[43] Yet, except for the difference of sex and\nof relative privacy, St. Teresa\u2019s states, which I have given here, are\nmore closely similar, in so much as they are intimately connected with\nreligious visions and voices.\n\nAnd, amongst Old Testament figures, we can find a similar connection,\non a still larger scale, in the case of Ezekiel, the most definitely\necstatic, though (upon the whole) the least original, of the literary\nProphets. For, as to the visionary element, we have his own records\nof three visions of the glory of Jahve; of five other ecstasies,\nthree of which are accompanied by remarkable telepathic, second-sight\nactivities; and of twelve symbolic (better: representative) prophetic\nactions, which are now all rightly coming to be considered as having\nbeen externally carried out by him.[44] And we get psycho-physical\nstates, as marked as in any other ecstatic saint. For we hear how Jahve\non one occasion says to him: \u201cBut thou, son of man, lay thyself on\nthy left side\u201d (_i.e._ according to Jewish orientation, towards the\nNorth) \u201cand I shall lay the guilt of the house of Israel\u201d (the Northern\nKingdom) \u201cupon thee; the number of days that thou shalt lie upon it,\nshalt thou bear their guilt. But I appoint unto thee the years of their\nguilt, as a (corresponding) number of days, (namely) one hundred and\nfifty days.\u2026 And, when thou hast done with them, thou shalt lay thyself\non thy right side\u201d (_i.e._ towards the South), \u201cand thou shalt bear the\nguilt of the house of Judah\u201d (the Southern Kingdom); \u201cone day for each\nyear shall I appoint unto thee. And behold I shall lay cords upon thee,\nthat thou shalt be unable to turn from one side to the other, till thou\nhast ended the days of thy boundness\u201d (iv, 4-8). Kr\u00e4tzschmar, no doubt\nrightly, finds here a case of hemiplegia and anaesthesia, functional\ncataleptic paralysis lasting during five months on the left side, and\nthen shifting for about six weeks to the right side. And the _alalia_\n(speechlessness), which no doubt accompanied this state, is referred\nto on three other occasions: xxiv, 27; xxix, 31; xxxiii, 22. And note\nhow Jahve\u2019s address to Ezekiel, \u201cson of man,\u201d which occurs in this book\nover ninety times, and but once in the whole of the rest of the Old\nTestament (Dan. viii, 17), evidently stands here for the sense of his\ncreaturely nothingness, so characteristic of the true ecstatic.[45]\n\nNow, at this last stage, the analogy of the other non-religious\nactivities of the healthy mind and of their psycho-physical conditions\nand effects forsakes us; but not the principle which has guided us\nall along. For here, as from the very first, some such conditions\nand effects are inevitable; and the simple fact of this occurrence,\napart from the question of their particular character, is something\nthoroughly normal. And here again, and more than ever, the emphasis\nand decision have to lie with, and to depend upon, the mental and\nvolitional work and the spiritual truth and reality achieved in and for\nthe recipient, and, through him, in and for others.\n\nEven at the earlier stages, to cling to the form, as distinct from\nthe content and end, of these things was to be thoroughly unfair\nto this their content and end, within the spacious economy of the\nspirit\u2019s life; at this stage such clinging becomes destructive of all\ntrue religion. For if the mere psycho-physical forms and phenomena of\necstasy, of vision, of hearing of voices is, in proportion to their\npsycho-physical intensity and seeming automatism and quasi-physical\nobjectivity, to be taken as necessarily a means and mark of sanctity or\nof insight, or, at least, as something presumably sent direct by God\nor else as diabolical, something necessarily super- or preter-natural:\nthen the lunatic asylums contain more miracles, saints, and sages, or\ntheir direct, strangely similar antipodes, than all the most fervent or\nperverted churches, monasteries, and families upon God\u2019s earth. For in\nasylums we find ecstasies, visions, voices, all more, not less marked,\nall more, not less irresistibly objective-seeming to the recipient,\nthan anything to be found outside.\n\nYet apply impartially to both sets the test, not of form, but of\ncontent, of spiritual fruitfulness and of many-sided applicability--and\nthis surface-similarity yields at once to a fundamental difference.\nIndeed all the great mystics, and this in precise proportion to their\ngreatness, have ever taught that, the mystical capacities and habits\nbeing but means and not ends, only such ecstasies are valuable as\nleave the soul, and the very body as its instrument, strengthened and\nimproved; and that visions and voices are to be accepted by the mind\nonly in proportion as they convey some spiritual truth of importance to\nit or to others, and as they actually help it to become more humble,\ntrue, and loving.\n\nAnd there can be no doubt that these things worked thus with such\ngreat ecstatic mystics as Ezekiel, the man of the great prophetic\nschemes and the permanently fruitful picturing of the Good Shepherd;\nas St. Paul, the greatest missionary and organizer ever given to the\nChristian Church; as St. Francis of Assisi, the salt and leaven and\nlight of the Church and of society, in his day and more or less ever\nsince; as St. Catherine of Siena, the free-spoken, docile reinspirer\nof the Papacy; as Jeanne d\u2019Arc, the maiden deliverer of a Nation; as\nSt. Teresa, reformer of a great Order. All these, and countless others,\nwould, quite evidently, have achieved less, not more, of interior\nlight and of far-reaching helpfulness of a kind readily recognized by\nall specifically religious souls, had they been without the rest, the\nbracing, the experience furnished to them by their ecstasies and allied\nstates and apprehensions.\n\n\n\n\nVII. PERENNIAL FRESHNESS OF THE GREAT MYSTICS\u2019 MAIN SPIRITUAL TEST, IN\nCONTRADISTINCTION TO THEIR SECONDARY, PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTENTION. TWO\nSPECIAL DIFFICULTIES.\n\n\n1. _A false and a true test of mystical experience._\n\nNow it is deeply interesting to note how entirely unweakened, indeed\nhow impressively strengthened, by the intervening severe test of\nwhole centuries of further experience and of thought, has remained\nthe main and direct, the spiritual test of the great Mystics, in\ncontradistinction to their secondary psychological contention with\nrespect to such experiences. The secondary, psychological contention\nis well reproduced by St. Teresa where she says: \u201cWhen I speak, I go\non with my understanding arranging what I am saying; but, if I am\nspoken to by others, I do nothing else but listen without any labour.\u201d\nIn the former case, \u201cthe soul,\u201d if it be in good faith, \u201ccannot\npossibly fail to see clearly that itself arranges the words and utters\nthem to itself. How then can the understanding have time enough to\narrange these locutions? They require time.\u201d[46] Now this particular\nargument for their supernaturalness derived from the psychological\nform--from the suddenness, clearness, and apparent automatism of these\nlocutions--has ceased to carry weight, owing to our present, curiously\nrecent, knowledge concerning the subconscious region of the mind, and\nthe occasionally sudden irruption of that region\u2019s contents into the\nfield of that same mind\u2019s ordinary, full consciousness. In the Ven.\nBattista Vernazza\u2019s case we have a particularly clear instance of such\na long accumulation,--by means of much, in great part full, attention\nto certain spiritual ideas, words, and images,--in the subconscious\nregions of a particularly strong and deeply sincere and saintly mind;\nand the sudden irruption from those regions of certain clear and\napparently quite spontaneous words and images into the field of her\nmind\u2019s full consciousness.[47]\n\nBut the reference to the great Mystics\u2019 chief and direct test, upon\nwhich they dwell with an assurance and self-consistency far surpassing\nthat which accompanies their psychological argument,--the spiritual\ncontent and effects of such experiences,--this, retains all its\ncogency. St. Teresa tells us: \u201cWhen Our Lord speaks, it is both word\nand work: His words are deeds.\u201d \u201cI found myself, through these words\nalone, tranquil and strong, courageous and confident, at rest and\nenlightened: I felt I could maintain against all the world that my\nprayer was the work of God.\u201d \u201cI could not believe that Satan, if he\nwished to deceive me, could have recourse to means so adverse to his\npurpose as this, of rooting out my faults, and implanting virtues and\nspiritual strength: for I saw clearly that I had become another person,\nby means of these visions.\u201d \u201cSo efficacious was the vision, and such\nwas the nature of the words spoken to me, that I could not possibly\ndoubt that they came from Him.\u201d \u201cI was in a trance; and the effects of\nit were such, that I could have no doubt it came from God.\u201d On another\noccasion she writes less positively even of the great test: \u201cShe never\nundertook anything merely because it came to her in prayer. For all\nthat her Confessors told her that these things came from God, she never\nso thoroughly believed them that she could swear to it herself, though\nit did seem to her that they were spiritually safe, because of the\neffects thereof.\u201d[48] This doctrine is still the last word of wisdom in\nthese matters.\n\n\n2. _First special difficulty in testing ecstasies._\n\nYet it is only at this last stage that two special difficulties occur,\nthe one philosophical, the other moral. The philosophical difficulty\nis as follows. As long as the earlier stages are in progress, it is\nnot difficult to understand that the soul may be gradually building up\nfor herself a world of spiritual apprehensions, and a corresponding\nspiritual and moral character, by a process which, looked at merely\nphenomenally and separately, appears as a simple case of mono-ideism\nand auto-suggestion, but which can and should be conceived, when\nstudied in its ultimate cause and end, as due to the pressure and\ninfluence of God\u2019s spirit working in and through the spirit of\nman,--the Creator causing His own little human creature freely to\ncreate for itself some copy of and approach to its own eternally\nsubsisting, substantial Cause and Crown. There the operation of such an\nunderlying Supreme Cause, and a consequent relation between the world\nthus conceived and built up by the human soul and the real world of the\nDivine Spirit, appears possible, because the things which the soul is\nthus made to suggest to itself are ideas, and because even these ideas\nare clearly recognized by the soul as only instruments and approaches\nto the realities for which they stand. But here, in this last stage, we\nget the suggestion, not of ideas, but of psycho-physical impressions,\nand these impressions are, apparently, not taken as but distantly\nillustrative, but as somehow one with the spiritual realities for which\nthey stand. Is not, _e.g._, Catherine\u2019s joy at this stage centred\nprecisely in the downright feeling, smelling, seeing, of ocean waters,\npenetrating odours, all-enveloping light; and in the identification of\nthose waters, odours, lights, with God Himself, so that God becomes at\nlast an object of direct, passive, sensible perception? Have we not\nthen here at last reached pure delusion?\n\nNot so, in proportion as the mystic is great and spiritual, and as\nhe here still clings to the principles common to all true religion.\nFor, in proportion as he is and does this, will he find and regard the\nmind as deeper and more operative than sense, and God\u2019s Spirit as\npenetrating and transcending both the one and the other. And hence he\nwill (at least implicitly) regard those psycho-physical impressions\nas but sense-like and really mental; and he will consider this mental\nimpression and projection as indeed produced by the presence and\naction of the Spirit within his mind or of the pressure of spiritual\nrealities upon it, but will hold that this whole mental process, with\nthese its spacial- and temporal-seeming embodiments, these sights and\nsounds, has only a relation and analogical likeness to, and is not\nand cannot be identical with, those realities of an intrinsically\nsuper-spacial, super-temporal order.--And thus here as everywhere,\nalthough here necessarily more than ever, we find again the conception\nof the Transcendent yet also Immanent Spirit, effecting in the human\nspirit the ever-increasing apprehension of Himself, accompanied in\nthis spirit by an ever keener sense of His incomprehensibility for all\nbut Himself. And here again the truth, and more especially the divine\norigin of these apprehensions, is tested and guaranteed on and on by\nthe consequent deepening of that spiritual and ethical fruitfulness and\ndeath to self, which are the common aspirations of every deepest moment\nand every sincerest movement within the universal heart of man.\n\nThus, as regards the mentality of these experiences, Catherine\nconstantly speaks of seeing \u201cas though with the eyes of the body.\u201d And\nSt. Teresa tells us of her visions with \u201cthe eyes of the soul\u201d; of\nhow at first she \u201cdid not know that it was possible to see anything\notherwise than with the eyes of the body\u201d; of how, in reality \u201cshe\nnever,\u201d in her true visions and locutions, \u201csaw anything with her\nbodily eyes, nor heard anything with her bodily ears\u201d; and of how\nindeed she later on, on one occasion, \u201csaw nothing with the eyes of\nthe body, nothing with the eyes of the soul,\u201d--she \u201csimply felt Christ\nclose by her,\u201d--evidently again with the soul. Thus, too, Catherine\ntells us, that \u201cas the intellect exceeds language, so does love exceed\nintellection\u201d; and how vividly she feels that \u201call that can be said of\nGod,\u201d compared to the great Reality, \u201cis but tiny crumbs from the great\nMaster\u2019s table.\u201d[49]\n\nAnd, as to the inadequacy of these impressions, the classical authority\non such things, St. John of the Cross, declares: \u201cHe that will rely on\nthe letter of the divine locutions or on the intelligible form of the\nvision, will of necessity fall into delusion; for he does not yield to\nthe Spirit in detachment from sense.\u201d \u201cHe who shall give attention to\nthese motes of the Spirit alone will, in the end, have no spirituality\nat all.\u201d \u201cAll visions, revelations, and heavenly feelings, and whatever\nis greater than these, are not worth the least act of humility, bearing\nthe fruits of that charity which neither values nor seeks itself,\nwhich thinketh well not of self but of all others.\u201d Indeed \u201cvirtue\ndoes not consist in these apprehensions. Let men then cease to regard,\nand labour to forget them, that they may be free.\u201d For \u201cspiritual\nsupernatural knowledge is of two kinds, one distinct and special,\u201d\nwhich comprises \u201cvisions, revelations, locutions, and spiritual\nimpressions\u201d; \u201cthe other confused, obscure, and general,\u201d which \u201chas\nbut one form, that of contemplation which is the work of faith. The\nsoul is to be led into this, by directing it thereto through all the\nrest, beginning with the first, and detaching it from them.\u201d\n\nHence \u201cmany souls, to whom visions have never come, are incomparably\nmore advanced in the way of perfection than others to whom many\nhave been given\u201d; and \u201cthey who are already perfect, receive these\nvisitations of the Spirit of God in peace; ecstasies cease, for they\nwere only graces to prepare them for this greater grace.\u201d Hence, too,\n\u201cone desire only doth God allow and suffer in His Presence: that of\nperfectly observing His law and of carrying the Cross of Christ. In\nthe Ark of the Covenant there was but the Book of the Law, the Rod of\nAaron, and the Pot of Manna. Even so that soul, which has no other aim\nthan the perfect observance of the Law of God and the carrying of the\nCross of Christ, will be a true Ark containing the true Manna, which\nis God.\u201d And this perfected soul\u2019s intellectual apprehensions will,\nin their very mixture of light and conscious obscurity, more and more\napproach and forestall the eternal condition of the beatified soul.\n\u201cOne of the greatest favours, bestowed transiently on the soul in this\nlife, is to enable it to see so distinctly and to feel so profoundly,\nthat it cannot comprehend Him at all. These souls are herein, in\nsome degree, like the Saints in Heaven, where they who know Him most\nperfectly perceive most clearly that He is infinitely incomprehensible;\nfor those who have the less clear vision do not perceive so distinctly\nas the others how greatly He transcends their vision.\u201d[50]\n\n\n3. _Second special difficulty in testing ecstasies._\n\nThe second special difficulty is this. Have not at least some of the\nsaints of this definitely ecstatic type shown more psycho-physical\nabnormality than spiritually fruitful origination or utilization of\nsuch things, so that their whole life seems penetrated by a fantastic\nspirit? And have not many others, who, at their best, may not have been\namenable to this charge, ended with shattered nerve- and will-power,\nwith an organism apparently incapable of any further growth or use,\neven if we restrict our survey exclusively to strength-bringing ecstasy\nand to a contemplative prayer of some traceable significance?\n\n(1) As a good instance of the apparent predominance of psycho-physical\nand even spiritual strangeness, we can take the Venerable Sister\nLukardis, Cistercian Nun of Ober-Weimar, born probably in 1276.\nHer life is published from a unique Latin MS. by the Bollandists\n(_Analecta_, Vol. XVIII, pp. 305-367, Bruxelles, 1899), and presents us\nwith a mediaevally na\u00efve and strangely unanalytic, yet extraordinarily\nvivid picture of things actually seen by the writer. \u201cAlthough,\u201d say\nthe most competent editors, \u201cwe know not the name nor profession of\nthe Author, whether he belonged to the Friars or to the Monks,[51] it\nis certain that he was a contemporary of Lukardis, that he knew her\nintimately, and that he learnt many details from her fellow-nuns. And\nthough we shall be slow to agree with him when he ascribes all the\nstrange things which she experienced in her soul and body to divine\ninfluence, yet we should beware of considering him to be in bad faith.\nFor, though he erred perchance in ascribing to a divine operation\nthings which are simply the work of nature, such a vice is common\namongst those who transmit such things.\u201d[52] I take the chief points in\nthe order of their narration by the _Vita_.\n\n\u201cSoon after Lukardis had, at twelve years of age, taken the Cistercian\nhabit, her mother died,\u201d over twelve English miles away, at Erfurt, yet\nLukardis \u201csaw the scene\u201d in such detail \u201cin the spirit,\u201d that, when\nher sister came to tell her, she, Lukardis, \u201canticipated her with an\naccount of the day, the place and hour of the death, of the clothes\nthen being worn by their mother, of the precise position of the bed and\nof the hospital, and of the persons present at the time.\u201d\n\nShe soon suffered from \u201cstone\u201d in the bladder; \u201cquartan, tertian, and\ncontinuous fevers,\u201d and from fainting fits; also from contraction of\nthe muscles (_nervi_) of the hands, so that the latter were all but\nuseless and could not even hold the staff on which she had to lean in\nwalking, till they had been \u201ctightly wrapped round in certain clothes.\u201d\nYet \u201cshe would, at times, strike her hands so vehemently against each\nother, that they resounded as though they had been wooden boards.\u201d\n\u201cWhen lying in bed she would sometimes, as it were, plant her feet\nbeneath her, hang her head down\u201d backwards, \u201cand raise her abdomen and\nchest, making thus, as it were, a highly curved arch of her person.\u201d\nIndeed sometimes \u201cshe would for a long while stand upon her head and\nshoulders, with her feet up in air, but with her garments adhering to\nher limbs, as though they had been sewn on to them.\u201d \u201cOften, too, by\nday or night, she was wont to run with a most impetuous course;--she\nunderstood that, by this her course, she was compensating Christ for\nHis earthly course of thirty-three years.\u201d[53]\n\n\u201cOn one occasion she had a vision of Christ, in which He said to her:\n\u2018Join thy hands to My hands, and thy feet to My feet, and thy breast\nto My breast, and thus shall I be aided by thee to suffer less.\u2019 And\ninstantly she felt a most keen pain of wounds,\u201d in all three regions,\n\u201calthough wounds did not as yet appear to sight.\u201d But \u201cas she bore\nthe memory of the hammering of the nails into Christ upon the Cross\nwithin her heart, so did she exercise herself in outward deed. For she\nwas frequently wont, with the middle finger of one hand, impetuously\nto wound the other in the place appropriate to the stigmata; then to\nwithdraw her finger to the distance of a cubit, and straightway again\nimpetuously to wound herself. Those middle fingers felt hard like\nmetal. And about the sixth and ninth hour she would impetuously wound\nherself with her finger in the breast, at the appropriate place for the\nwound.\u201d--After about two years \u201cChrist appeared to her in the night of\nBlessed Gregory, Pope\u201d (St. Gregory VII, May 26?), \u201cpressed her right\nhand firmly in His, and declared, \u2018I desire thee to suffer with Me.\u2019\nOn her consenting, a wound instantly appeared in her right hand; about\nten days later a wound in the left hand; and thus successively the five\nwounds were found in her body.\u201d \u201cThe wounds of the scourging were also\nfound upon her, of a finger\u2019s length, and having a certain hard skin\naround them.\u201d[54]\n\n\u201cAt whiles she would lie like one dead throughout the day; yet her\ncountenance was very attractive, owing to a wondrous flushed look. And\neven if a needle was pressed into her flesh, she felt no pain.\u201d--\u201cOn\none occasion she was carried upon her couch by two sisters into the\nLady Chapel, to the very spot where her body now reposes. After having\nbeen left there alone for about an hour, the Blessed Virgin appeared\nto her, with her beloved Infant, Jesus, in her arms, and suckling Him.\nAnd Lukardis, contrary to the law of her strength\u201d--she had, by now,\nbeen long confined to a reclining posture--\u201carose from her couch and\nbegan to stand upright. And at this juncture one of the Sisters opened\nthe Chapel door a little, and, on looking in, marvelled at Lukardis\nbeing able to stand, but withdrew and forbade the other Sisters from\napproaching thither, since she feared that, if they saw her standing\nthus, they might declare her to be quite able, if she but chose, to\narise and stand at any time. Upon the Blessed Virgin twice insisting\nupon being asked for some special favour, and Lukardis declaring, \u2018I\ndesire that thou slake my thirst with that same milk with which I now\nsee thee suckling thy beloved Son,\u2019 the Blessed Virgin came up to her,\nand gave her to drink of her milk.\u201d And when later on Lukardis was\nfetched by the Sisters, she was \u201cfound reclining on her couch. And for\nthree days and nights she took neither food nor drink, and could not\nsee the light of day. And as a precaution, since her death was feared,\nExtreme Unction was administered to her. And, later on, the Sister who\nhad seen her standing in the Chapel, gradually drew the whole story\nfrom her.\u201d[55]\n\n\u201cAfter she had lain, very weak, and, as it were, in a state of\ncontracture, for eleven years, it happened that, about the ninth hour\nof one Good Friday, the natural bodily heat and colour forsook her;\nshe seemed nowise to breathe; her wounds bled more than usual; she\nappeared to be dead. And her fellow-Sisters wept greatly. Yet about\nVesper-time she opened her eyes and began to move; and her companions\nwere wondrously consoled. And then in the Easter night, about the hour\nof Christ\u2019s Resurrection, as, with the other sick Sisters, she lay in\nher bed placed so as to be able to hear the Divine Office, she felt\nall her limbs to be as it were suffused with a most refreshing dew.\nAnd straightway she saw stretched down to her from Heaven a hand, as\nit were of the Blessed Virgin, which stroked her wounds and all the\npainful places, the ligaments and joints of her members, gently and\ncompassionately. After which she straightway felt how that all her\nmembers, which before had for so long been severely contracted, and how\nthe knots, formed by the ligaments (_nervi_), were being efficaciously\nresolved and equally distended, so that she considered herself freed\nfrom her hard bondage. She arose unaided from her couch, proceeded to\nthe near-by entrance to the Choir, and prostrated herself there, in\nfervent orison, with her arms outstretched in cross-form, for a very\nlong hour. And then, commanded by the Abbess to rise, she readily arose\nwithout help, stood with pleasure, and walked whithersoever she would.\u201d\n\u201cAt all times she ever suffered more from the cold than any of her\ncompanions.\u201d[56]\n\n\u201cAs, during those eleven years that she lay like one paralyzed, she was\nwont, on every Friday, to lie with her arms expanded as though on the\nCross, and her feet one on the top of the other; so, after the Lord had\nso wonderfully raised her on that Paschal day, she, on every Friday\nand every Lenten day, would stand erect with her arms outstretched,\ncrosswise, and, without any support, on one foot only, with the\nother foot planted upon its fellow, from the hour of noon to that of\nVespers.\u201d--\u201cWhilst she was still uncured, and required some delicate\nrefection which the Convent could not afford, there came to her,\u201d one\nday, \u201cthe most loving Infant, bearing in His Hand the leg of a chicken,\nnewly roasted, and begging her to eat it for His sake.\u201d She did so,\nand was wonderfully strengthened. Apparently late on in her life \u201cthey\nprocured, with much labour and diligence, all kinds of drinkables from\ndifferent and even from distant places for her. But she, having tasted\nany one of them, would straightway shake her head, close her lips, and\nthen declare that she could not drink it up.\u201d \u201cHowever delicious in\nitself, it seemed to be so much gall and wormwood when applied to her\nmouth.\u201d[57]\n\nAnd if we look, not at seemingly childish fantasticalness in certain\nmystical lives, but at the later state of shattered health and\napparently weakened nerve- and will-power which appears so frequently\nto be the price paid for the definitely ecstatic type of religion, even\nwhere it has been spiritually fruitful, our anxiety is readily renewed.\nLook at the nine, possibly thirteen, last years of Catherine\u2019s, or at\nthe last period of St. Margaret Mary\u2019s life; note the similar cases\nof SS. Maria Magdalena de Pazzi and Juliana Falconieri. And we have\na figure of all but pure suffering and passivity in St. Lidwina of\nSchiedam (1380-1433), over which M. Huysmans has managed to be so\nthoroughly morbid.\n\n(2) And if such lives strike us as too exceptional to be taken, with\nwhatever deductions, as a case in point, we can find a thoroughly fair\ninstance in the life of Father Isaac Hecker. Here we have a man of\nextraordinary breadth, solidity, and activity of mind and character,\nand whose mysticism is of the most sober and harmonious kind. Yet his\nclose companion and most faithful chronicler, Father Walter Elliott,\ntells us: \u201cFrom severe colds, acute headaches, and weakness of the\ndigestive organs, Father Hecker was at all times a frequent sufferer.\nBut, towards the end of the year 1871, his headaches became much more\npainful, his appetite forsook him, and sleeplessness and excitability\nof the nervous system were added to his other ailments. Remedies of\nevery kind were tried, but without permanent relief. By the summer\nof 1872 he was wholly incapacitated.\u201d \u201cThe physical sufferings of\nthose last sixteen\u201d (out of the sixty-nine) \u201cyears of his life were\nnever such as to impair his mental soundness \u2026 though his organs of\nspeech were sometimes too slow for his thoughts.\u201d His digestion and\nnervous system had been impaired by excessive abstinence in early\nmanhood, and by excessive work in later life, \u201ctill at last the body\nstruck work altogether. During the sixteen years of his illness every\nsymptom of bodily illness was aggravated by the least attention to\ncommunity affairs or business matters, and also by interior trials,\u201d\nalthough he still managed, by heroic efforts, at times directly to\nserve his congregation and to write some remarkable papers. Yet this\nstate continued, practically unbroken, up to the end, on December 22,\n1888.[58] And although the various proximate causes, indicated by\nFather Elliott, had no doubt been operative here, there can, in view of\nthe numerous similar cases, be no question that the most fundamental\nof the reasons of this general condition of health was his strongly\nmystical type and habit of mind and his corresponding psycho-physical\norganization.\n\n(3) In view of those fantasticalnesses and of these exhaustions, we\ncannot but ask whether these things are not a terrible price to pay\nfor such states? whether such states should not be disallowed by\nall solid morality, and should not prompt men of sense to try and\nstamp them out? And, above all, we seem placed once more, with added\nanxiety, before the question whether what is liable to end in such sad\ngeneral incapacitation was not, from the first, directly productive\nof, and indeed simply produced by, some merely subjective, simply\npsycho-physical abnormality and morbidness?\n\n(4) Three points here call for consideration. Let us, for one thing,\nnever forget that physical health is not the true end of human life,\nbut only one of its most important means and conditions. The ideal man\nis not, primarily and directly, a physical machine, perfect as such\nin its development and function, to which would be tacked on, as a\nsort of concomitant or means, the mental, moral, and spiritual life\nand character. But the ideal man is precisely this latter life and\ncharacter, with the psycho-physical organism sustained and developed in\nsuch, and only such, a degree, direction, and combination, as may make\nit the best possible substratum, stimulus, instrument, material, and\nexpression for and of that spiritual personality.[59] Hence, the true\nquestion here is not whether such a type of life as we are considering\nexacts a serious physical tribute or not, but whether the specifically\nhuman effects and fruits of that life are worth that cost.\n\nNo one denies that mining, or warfare, or hospital work, both spiritual\nand medical, involve grave risks to life, nor that the preparation\nof many chemicals is directly and inevitably injurious to health.\nYet no one thinks of abolishing such occupations or of blaming those\nwho follow them, and rightly so; for instant death may and should be\nrisked, the slow but certain undermining of the physical health may be\nlaudably embarked on, if only the mind and character are not damaged,\nand if the end to be attained is found to be necessary or seriously\nhelpful, and unattainable by other means.\n\nThe simple fact, then, of frequent and subsequent, or even of universal\nand concomitant ill-health in such mystical cases, or even the proof\nof this ill-health being a direct consequence or necessary condition\nof that mystical life, can but push back the debate, and simply raises\nthe question as to the serious value of that habit and activity. Only\na decision adverse to that serious value would constitute those facts\ninto a condemnation of that activity itself.\n\nAnd, next, it must be plain to any one endowed with an appreciable dose\nof the mystical sense, and with a sufficiently large knowledge of human\nnature and of religious apprehension in the past and present,--that, if\nit is doubtless possible quite erroneously to treat all men as having\na considerable element of mysticism in them, and hence to strain and\nspoil souls belonging to one of the other types: it is equally possible\nto starve those that possess this element in an operative degree.\nAtrophy is as truly a malady as plethora.\n\nAnd here the question is an individual one: would that particular\ntemperament and psycho-physical organism congenial to Sister Lukardis,\nto Catherine Fiesca Adorna, to Marguerite Marie Alacocque, and to Isaac\nHecker, have--taking the whole existence and output together--produced\nmore useful work, and have apprehended and presented more of abiding\ntruth, had their ecstatic states or tendencies been, if possible,\nabsent or suppressed? Does not this type of apprehension, this, as\nit were, incubation, harmonization, and vivifying of their otherwise\npainfully fragmentary and heavy impressions, stand out,--in their\ncentral, creative periods,--as the one thoroughly appropriate means and\nform of their true self-development and self-expression, and of such\nan apprehension and showing forth of spiritual truth as to them,--to\nthem and not to you and me,--was possible? And if we are bound to admit\nthat, even in such cases, ecstasy appears, psycho-physically, as a kind\nof second state, and that these personalities find or regain their\nfullest joy and deepest strength only in and from such a state; yet we\nknow too that such ecstasy is not, as in the trances of hysteria and\nof other functional disorders, simply discontinuous from the ordinary,\nprimary state of such souls; and that,--again contrary to those\n_maladif_ trances,--whenever the ecstasy answers to the tests insisted\nupon by the great mystics, viz. a true and valuable ethico-spiritual\ncontent and effect, it also, in the long run, leaves the very body\nstrengthened and improved.\n\nAnd if, after this, their productive period, some of these persons end\nby losing their psycho-physical health, it is far from unreasonable\nto suppose that the actual alternative to those ecstasies and this\nbreak-up, would, _for them_, have been a lifelong dreary languor and\nmelancholy self-absorption, somewhat after the pattern of Catherine\u2019s\nlast ten pre-conversion years. Thus for her, and doubtless for most of\nthe spiritually considerable ecstatics, life was, taken all in all,\nindefinitely happier, richer, and more fruitful in religious truth and\nholiness, with the help of those ecstatic states, than it would have\nbeen if these states had been absent or could have been suppressed.\n\nAnd thirdly, here again, even from the point of view of psycho-physical\nhealth and its protection, it is precisely the actual practice and,\nas interpreted by it, the deepest sayings of the standard Christian\nmystics which are being most powerfully confirmed,--although\nnecessarily by largely new reasons and with important modifications\nin the analysis and application of their doctrine,--by all that we\nhave gained, during the last forty years, in definite knowledge of\nthe psycho-physical regions and functions of human nature, and,\nduring two centuries and more, in enlargement and precision of our\nreligious-historical outlook.\n\nIf we consider the specific health-dangers of this way, we shall find,\nI think, that their roots are ever two. These dangers, and with them\nthe probability of delusion or at least of spiritual barrenness, always\nbecome actual, and often acute, the minute that we allow ourselves to\nattach a primary and independent importance to the psycho-physical\nform and means of these things, as against their spiritual-ethical\ncontent, suggestions, and end; or that we take the whole man, or at\nleast the whole of the religious man, to consist of the specifically\nmystical habits and life alone. Now the first of these dangers has\nbeen ceaselessly exposed and fought by all the great ethical and\nChristian mystics of the past, _e.g._ St. John of the Cross and St.\nTeresa; and the latter has been ever enforced by the actual practice,\nas social religionists, of these same mystics, even if and when some\nof their sayings, or the logical drift of their speculative system,\nleft insufficient room or no intrinsic necessity and function for such\nthings.\n\n(5) And everything that has happened and is happening in the world\nof psychological and philosophical research, in the world of\nhistorico-critical investigation into the past history and modalities\nof religion, and in the world of our own present religious experience\nand requirements, has but brought to light fresh facts, forces,\nand connections, in proof both of the right and irreplaceableness\nof the Mystical element in life and religion, and of the reality\nand constant presence of these its two dangers. For, as to these\ndangers, we now know, with extraordinary clearness and certainty, how\nnecessary, constant and far-reaching is, on its phenomenal surface,\nthe auto-suggestive, mono-ideistic power and mechanism of the mind;\nyet how easily, in some states, too much can be made of such vivid\napprehensions and quasi-sensible imagings of invisible reality,--things\nadmirable as means, ruinous as ends. And we also know, with an\nastonishing universality of application, how great a multiplicity in\nunity is necessarily presented by every concrete object and by every\nmental act and emotional state of every sane human being throughout\nevery moment of his waking life; and how this unity is actually\nconstituted and measured by the multiplicity of the materials and\nby the degree of their harmonization.--Hence, not the absence of\nthe Mystical element, but the presence both of it and of the other\nconstituents of religion, will turn out to be the safeguard of our\ndeepest life and of its sanity, a sanity which demands a balanced\nfulness of the soul\u2019s three fundamental pairs of activities: sensible\nperception and picturing memory; reflection, speculative and analytic;\nand emotion and volition, all issuing in interior and exterior acts,\nand these latter, again, providing so much fresh material and occasions\nfor renewed action and for a growing unification in an increasing\nvariety, on and on.\n\nThe metaphysical and faith questions, necessarily raised by the\nphenomenal facts and mechanisms here considered, but which cannot\nbe answered at this level, will be discussed in a later chapter.\nHere we can but once more point out, in conclusion, that no amount\nof admitted or demonstrated auto-suggestion or mono-ideism in the\nphenomenal reaches and mechanism of the mind decides, of itself,\nanything whatsoever about, and still less against, the objective truth\nand spiritual value of the ultimate causes, dominant ideas, and final\nresults of the process; nor as to whether and how far the whole great\nmovement is, at bottom, occasioned and directed by the Supreme Spirit,\nGod, working, in and through man, towards man\u2019s apprehension and\nmanifestation of Himself.[60]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nTHE MAIN LITERARY SOURCES OF CATHERINE\u2019S CONCEPTIONS\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY.\n\n\n1. _The main literary sources of Catherine\u2019s teaching are four._\n\nThe main literary sources of Catherine\u2019s conceptions can be grouped\nunder four heads: the New Testament, Pauline and Joannine writings;\nthe Christian Neo-Platonist, Areopagite books; and the Franciscan,\nJacopone da Todi\u2019s teachings. And here, as in all cases of such\npartial dependence, we have to distinguish between the apparently\naccidental occasions (her seemingly fortuitous acquaintance with these\nparticular writings), and the certainly necessary causes (the intrinsic\nrequirements of her own mind and soul, and its special reactions under,\nand transformations of, these materials and stimulations). And during\nthis latter process this mind\u2019s original trend itself undergoes, in its\nturn, not only much development, but even some modification. She would\nno doubt owe her close knowledge of the first two sets of writings to\nthe Augustinian Canonesses, (her sister Limbania amongst them,) and to\ntheir Augustinian-Pauline tradition; her acquaintance with the third\nset, to her Dominican cousin; and her intimacy with the fourth, to the\nFranciscans of the Hospital. Yet only her own spiritual affinity for\nsimilar religious states and ideals, and her already at least partial\nexperience of them, could ever have made these writings to her what\nthey actually became: direct stimulations, indeed considerable elements\nand often curiously vivid expressions, of her own immediate interior\nlife.\n\n\n2. _Plan of the following study of these sources._\n\nI shall, in this chapter, first try to draw out those characteristics\nof each group, which were either specially accepted or transformed,\nneglected or supplanted by her, and carefully to note the particular\nnature of these her reactions and refashionings. And I shall end up\nby a short account of what she and all four sets have got in common,\nand of what she has brought, as a gift of her own, to that common\nstock which had given her so much. And since her distinct and direct\nuse of the Pauline and Joannine writings is quite certain, whereas\nall her knowledge of Neo-Platonism seems to have been mediated by\npseudo-Dionysius alone, and all her Franciscanism appears, as far as\nliterary sources go, to take its rise from Jacopone, I shall give four\ndivisions to her chief literary sources, and a fifth section to the\nstream common to them all.[61]\n\n\nI. THE PAULINE WRITINGS: THE TWO SOURCES OF THEIR PRE-CONVERSION\nASSUMPTIONS; CATHERINE\u2019S PREPONDERANT ATTITUDE TOWARDS EACH POSITION.\n\nIt is well that the chronological order requires us to begin with\nSt. Paul, for he is probably, if not the most extensive, yet the\nmost intense of all these influences upon Catherine\u2019s mind. I here\ntake the points of his experience and teaching which thus concern\nus in the probable order of their development in the Apostle\u2019s own\nconsciousness,--his pre-conversion assumptions and positions, first\nand the convictions gained at and after his conversion or clarified\nlast;[62] and under each heading I shall group together, once for all,\nthe chief reactions of Catherine\u2019s religious consciousness.\n\nNow those Pauline pre-conversion assumptions and positions come from\ntwo chief sources--Palestinian, Rabbinical Judaism, (for he was the\ndisciple of the Pharisee, Gamaliel, at Jerusalem), and a Hellenistic\nreligiousness closely akin to, though not derived from, Philo, (for he\nhad been born in the intensely Hellenistic Cilician city Tarsus, at\nthat time a most important seat of Greek learning in general and of\nthe Stoic philosophy in particular). And we shall find that Catherine\nappropriates especially this, his Hellenistic element; indeed, that at\ntimes she sympathizes rather with the still more intensely Hellenistic\nattitude exemplified by Philo, than with the limitations introduced by\nSt. Paul.\n\n\n1. _St. Paul\u2019s Anthropology in general._\n\nIf we take the Pauline Anthropology first, we at once come upon a\nprofoundly dualistic attitude.\n\n(1) There is, in general, \u201cthe outer\u201d and \u201cthe inner\u201d man, 2 Cor. iv,\n16; and the latter is not the exclusive privilege of the redeemed,--the\ncontrast is that between the merely natural individual and the moral\npersonality. And this contrast, foreign to the ancient Hebrews, is\nfirst worked out, with clear consciousness, by Plato, who, _e.g._,\nin his _Banquet_, causes one of the characters to say: \u201cSocrates has\nthrown this Silenus-like form around himself externally, as in the case\nof those Silenus-statues which enclose a statuette of Apollo; but, when\nhe is opened, how full is he found to be of temperance within\u201d; and who\ntreats this contrast as typical of the dualism inherent to all human\nlife here on earth.[63]--This contrast exists throughout Catherine\u2019s\nteaching as regards the thing itself, although her terms are different.\nShe has, for reasons which will appear presently, no one constant term\nfor \u201cthe inner man,\u201d but \u201cthe outer man\u201d is continuously styled \u201cla\numanit\u00e0.\u201d\n\n(2) The \u201couter man\u201d consists for St. Paul of the body\u2019s earthly\nmaterial, \u201cthe flesh\u201d; and of the animating principle of the flesh,\n\u201cthe psyche,\u201d which is inseparably connected with that flesh, and\nwhich dies for good and all at the death of the latter; whereas the\nform of \u201cthe body\u201d is capable of resuscitation, and is then filled out\nby a finer material, \u201cglory.\u201d[64]--Here Catherine has no precise or\nconstant word for the \u201cpsyche\u201d; her \u201cumanit\u00e0\u201d generally stands for the\n\u201cpsyche\u201d _plus_ body and flesh, all in one; and her \u201canima\u201d practically\nalways means part or the whole of \u201cthe inner man,\u201d and mostly stands\nfor \u201cmind.\u201d And there is no occasion for her to reflect upon any\ndistinction between the form and the matter of the body, since she\nnowhere directly busies herself with the resurrection.\n\nThe \u201cinner man\u201d consists for St. Paul in the Mind, the Heart, and the\nConscience. The Mind (_no\u00fbs_), corresponding roughly to our theoretical\nand practical Reason, has a certain tendency towards God: \u201cThe\ninvisible things of God are seen by the mind in the works of creation,\u201d\nRom. i, 20; and there is \u201ca law of the mind\u201d which is fought by \u201cthe\nlaw of sin,\u201d Rom. vii, 23; and this, although there is also a \u201cmind\nof the flesh,\u201d Col. ii, 18; \u201ca reprobate mind,\u201d Rom. i, 28; and a\n\u201crenovation of the mind,\u201d Rom. xii, 2.--Catherine clings throughout\nmost closely to the Pauline use of the term, as far as that use is\nfavourable: note how she perceives invisible things \u201ccolla mente mia.\u201d\n\nThe Heart is even more accessible to the divine influence,--at least,\nit is to it that God gives \u201cthe first fruits of the Spirit\u201d and \u201cthe\nSpirit of His Son, crying Abba, Father,\u201d Gal. iv, 6; 2 Cor. i, 22. As\nan organ of immediate perception it is so parallel to the Mind, that we\ncan hear of \u201ceyes of the heart\u201d; yet it is also the seat of feeling,\nof will, and of moral consciousness, Eph. i, 18; 2 Cor. ii, 4; 1 Cor.\niv, 5; Rom. ii, 15. It can stand for the inner life generally; or,\nlike the Mind, it can become darkened and impenitent; whilst again,\nover the heart God\u2019s love is poured out, God\u2019s peace keeps guard, and\nwe believe with the heart, 1 Cor. xiv, 25; Rom. i, 21; ii, 5; v, 5;\nPhil. iv, 7; Rom. x, 9.--All this again, as far as it is favourable, is\nclosely followed by Catherine; indeed the persistence with which she\ncomes back to certain effects wrought upon her heart by the Spirit,\nChrist,--effects which some of her followers readily interpreted as so\nmany physical miracles,--was no doubt occasioned or stimulated by 2\nCor. iii, 3, \u201cBe ye an epistle of Christ, written by the Spirit of the\nliving God \u2026 upon the fleshly tables of the heart.\u201d\n\nAnd Conscience, \u201cSyneid\u0113sis\u201d--that late Greek word introduced\nby St. Paul as a technical term into the Christian\nvocabulary--includes our \u201cconscience,\u201d but is as comprehensive as\nour \u201cconsciousness.\u201d--Catherine practically never uses the term: no\ndoubt because, in the narrower of the two senses which had become\nthe ordinary one, it was too predominantly ethical to satisfy her\noverwhelmingly religious preoccupations.\n\n(3) Now, with regard to this whole dualism of the \u201couter\u201d and the\n\u201cinner man,\u201d its application to the resurrection of the body in\nSt. Paul and in St. Catherine shall occupy us in connection with\nher Eschatology; here I would but indicate the two Pauline moods\nor attitudes towards the earthly body, and Catherine\u2019s continuous\nreproduction of but one of these. For his magnificent conception of the\nChristian society, in which each person, by a different specific gift\nand duty, co-operates towards the production of an organic whole, a\nwhole which in return develops and dignifies those its constituents,\nis worked out by means of the image of the human earthly body, in\nwhich each member is a necessary part and constituent of the complete\norganism, which is greater than, and which gives full dignity to,\neach and all these its factors (1 Cor. xii). And he thus, in his most\ndeliberate and systematic mood, shows very clearly how deeply he has\nrealized the dignity of the human body, as the instrument both for the\ndevelopment of the soul itself and for the work of that soul in and\nupon the visible world.\n\nBut in his other mood, which remains secondary and sporadic throughout\nhis writings, his attitude is acutely dualistic. His one direct\nexpression of it occurs in 2 Cor. v, 1-4: \u201cFor we know that, if our\nearthly house of this tent be dissolved, we have a building of God, a\nhouse not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this also we\ngroan, desiring to be clothed upon with our habitation that is from\nheaven. We who are in this tabernacle do groan, being burthened.\u201d Now\nthis passage is undoubtedly modelled by St. Paul upon the Book of\nWisdom, ix, 15: \u201cFor the corruptible body is a load upon the soul, and\nthe earthly habitation presseth down the mind that museth upon many\nthings.\u201d And this latter saying again is as certainly formed upon Plato\n(_Phaedo_, 81 _c_): \u201cIt behoves us to think of the body as oppressive\nand heavy and earthlike and visible. And hence the soul, being of\nsuch a nature as we have seen, when possessing such a body, is both\nburthened and dragged down again into the visible world.\u201d[65] And it is\nthis conception of the Hellenic Athenian Plato (about 380 B.C.) which,\npassing through the Hellenistic Alexandrian Jewish Wisdom-writer (80\nB.C.?) and then through the Hellenistically tinctured ex-Rabbi, Paul\nof Tarsus (52 A.D.), still powerfully, indeed all but continuously,\ninfluences the mind of the Genoese Christian Catherine, especially\nduring the years from A.D. 1496 to 1510.\n\nCatherine\u2019s still more pessimistic figure of the body as a prison-house\nand furnace of purification for the soul, is no doubt the resultant of\nsuggestions received, probably in part through intermediary literature,\nfrom the following three passages:--(1) Plato, in his _Cratylus_\n(400 B.C.), makes Socrates say: \u201cSome declare that the body (_s\u014dma_)\nis the grave (_s\u0113ma_) of the soul, as she finds herself at present.\nThe Orphite poets seem to have invented the appellation: they held\nthat the soul is thus paying the penalty of sin, and that the body is\nan enclosure which may be likened to a prison, in which the soul is\nenclosed until the penalty is paid.\u201d (2) St. Matt. v, 25, 26, gives\nOur Lord\u2019s words: \u201cBe thou reconciled with thine adversary whilst he\nis still with thee on the way \u2026 lest the Judge hand thee over to the\nprison-warder, and thou be cast into prison.\u2026 Thou shalt not go forth\nthence, until thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.\u201d And (3) St.\nPaul declares, 1 Cor. iii, 15: \u201cEvery man\u2019s work shall be tested by\nfire. If a man\u2019s work be burnt, he shall suffer loss; yet he himself\nshall be saved, yet so as by fire.\u201d These three passages combined will\nreadily suggest, to a soul thirsting for purification and possessed of\nan extremely sensitive psycho-physical organization with its attendant\nliability to fever heats, the picture of the body as a flame-full\nprison-house,--a purgatory of the soul.\n\n\n2. _St. Paul\u2019s conception of \u201cSpirit.\u201d_\n\nA very difficult complication and varying element is introduced into\nSt. Paul\u2019s Anthropology by the term into which he has poured all\nthat is most original, deepest, most deliberate and abiding in his\nteaching,--the Spirit, \u201cPneuma.\u201d For somewhat as he uses the term\n\u201cSarx,\u201d the flesh, both in its loose popular signification of \u201cmankind\nin general\u201d; and in a precise, technical sense of \u201cthe matter which\ncomposes the earthly body\u201d; so also he has, occasionally, a loose\npopular use of the term \u201cspirit,\u201d when it figures as but a fourth\nparallel to \u201cmind,\u201d \u201cheart,\u201d and \u201cconscience\u201d; and, usually, a very\nstrict and technical use of it, when it designates the Spirit, God\nHimself.\n\n(1) Now it is precisely in the latter case that his doctrine attains\nits fullest depth and its greatest difficulty. For here the Spirit,\nthe Pneuma, is, strictly speaking, only one--the Spirit of God, God\nHimself, in His action either outside or inside the human mind, No\u00fbs.\nAnd in such passages of St. Paul, where man seems to possess a distinct\npneuma of his own, by far the greater number only apparently contradict\nthis doctrine. For in some, so in 1 Cor. ii, the context is dominated\nby a comparison between the divine and the human consciousness, so\nthat, in v. 11, man\u2019s No\u00fbs is designated Pneuma, and in v. 16, and\nRom. xi, 34, the Lord\u2019s Pneuma is called His No\u00fbs. And the \u201cspirit of\nthe world\u201d contrasted here, in v. 11, with the \u201cSpirit of God,\u201d is\na still further deliberate laxity of expression, similar to that of\nSatan as \u201cthe God of this world,\u201d 2 Cor. iv, 4. In other passages,--so\nRom. viii, 16; i, 9; viii, 10, and even in 1 Cor. v, 5 (the \u201cspirit\u201d\nof the incestuous Corinthian which is to be saved),--we seem to have\n\u201cspirit\u201d either as the mind in so far as the object of the Spirit\u2019s\ncommunications, or as the mind transformed by the Spirit\u2019s influence.\nAnd if we can hear of a \u201cdefilement of the spirit,\u201d 2 Cor. vii, 1, we\nare also told that we can forget the fact of the body being the temple\nof the holy Spirit, 1 Cor. vi, 19; and that this temple\u2019s profanation\n\u201cgrieves the holy Spirit,\u201d Eph. iv, 30. Very few, sporadic, and short\npassages remain in which \u201cthe spirit of man\u201d cannot clearly be shown to\nhave a deliberately derivative sense.\n\nCatherine, in this great matter, completely follows St. Paul. For she\ntoo has loosely-knit moods and passages, in which \u201cspirito\u201d appears\nas a natural endowment of her own, parallel to, or identical with,\nthe \u201cmente.\u201d But when speaking strictly, and in her intense moods,\nshe means by \u201cspirito,\u201d the Spirit, Christ, Love, God, a Power which,\nthough in its nature profoundly distinct and different from her entire\nself-seeking self, can and does come to dwell within, and to supplant,\nthis self. Indeed her highly characteristic saying, \u201cmy Me is God,\u201d\nwith her own explanations of it, expresses, if pressed, even more than\nthis. In these moods, the term \u201cmente\u201d is usually absent, just as in\nSt. Paul.\n\nNow in his formally doctrinal _Loci_, St. Paul defines the Divine\nPneuma and the human sarx, not merely as ontologically contrary\nsubstances, but as keenly conflicting, ethically contradictory\nprinciples. An anti-spiritual power, lust, possesses the flesh and the\nwhole outer man, whilst, in an indefinitely higher degree and manner,\nthe Spirit, which finds an echo in the mind, the inner man, is a\nspontaneous, counter-working force; and these two energies fight out\nthe battle in man, and for his complete domination, Rom. vi, 12-14;\nvii, 22, 23; viii, 4-13. And this dualistic conception is in close\naffinity to all that was noblest in the Hellenistic world of St. Paul\u2019s\nown day; but is in marked contrast to the pre-exilic, specifically\nJewish Old Testament view, where we have but the contrast between\nthe visible and transitory, and the Invisible and Eternal; and the\nconsciousness of the weakness and fallibility of \u201cflesh and blood.\u201d And\nthis latter is the temper of mind that dominates the Synoptic Gospels:\n\u201cThe spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak\u201d; and \u201cFather,\nforgive them, for they know not what they do,\u201d are here the divinely\nserene and infinitely fruitful leading notes.--And Catherine, on this\npoint, is habitually on the Synoptist side: man is, for her, far more\nweak and ignorant than forcibly and deliberately wicked. Yet her\ndetailed intensity towards the successive cloaks of self-love is still,\nas it were, a shadow and echo of the fierce, and far more massive,\nflesh-and-spirit struggle in St. Paul.\n\n\n3. _The Angry and the Loving God._\n\nAnd, as against the intense wickedness of man, we find in St. Paul an\nemphatic insistence--although this is directly derived from the Old\nTestament and Rabbinical tradition--upon the anger and indignation\nof God, Rom. ii, 8, and frequently.--Here Catherine is in explicit\ncontrast with him, in so far as the anger would be held to stand for\nan emotion not proceeding from love and not ameliorative in its aim\nand operation. This attitude sprang no doubt, in part, from the strong\ninfluence upon her of the Dionysian teaching concerning the negative\ncharacter of evil; possibly still more from her continuous pondering\nof the text, \u201cAs a father hath compassion upon his children, so hath\nthe Lord compassion on them that fear Him; for He knoweth our frame, He\nremembereth that we are dust,\u201d Ps. ciii, 13, 14,--where she dwells upon\nthe fact that we are all His children rather than upon the fact that\nwe do not all fear Him; but certainly, most of all, from her habitual\ndwelling upon the other side of St. Paul\u2019s teaching, that concerning\nthe Love of God.\n\nNow the depth and glow of Paul\u2019s faith and love goes clearly back to\nhis conversion, an event which colours and influences all his feeling\nand teaching for some thirty-four years, up to the end. And similarly\nCatherine\u2019s conversion-experience has been found by us to determine the\nsequence and all the chief points of her Purgatorial teaching, some\nthirty-seven years after that supreme event.\n\nAlready Philo had, under Platonic influence, believed in an Ideal\nMan, a Heavenly Man; had identified him with the Logos, the Word\nor Wisdom of God; and had held him to be in some way ethereal and\nluminous,--never arriving at either a definitely personal or a simply\nimpersonal conception of this at one time intermediate Being, at\nanother time this supreme attribute of God. St. Paul, under the\nprofound impression of the Historic Christ and the great experience\non the road to Damascus, perceives the Risen, Heavenly Jesus as\npossessed of a luminous, ethereal body, a body of \u201cglory,\u201d Acts xxii,\n11. And this Christ is, for St. Paul, identical with \u201cthe Spirit\u201d:\n\u201cthe Lord is the Spirit,\u201d 2 Cor. iii, 17; and \u201cto be in Christ\u201d and\n\u201cChrist is in us\u201d are parallel terms to those of \u201cto be in the Spirit\u201d\nand \u201cthe Spirit is within us\u201d respectively. In all four cases we get\nChrist or the Spirit conceived as an element, as it were an ocean of\nethereal light, in which souls are plunged and which penetrates them.\nIn Catherine we have, at her conversion, this same perception and\nconception of Spirit as an ethereal light, and of Christ as Spirit;\nand up to the end she more and more appears to herself to bathe, to be\nsubmerged in, an ocean of light, which, at the same time, fills her\nwithin and penetrates her through and through.\n\nBut again, and specially since his conversion, St. Paul thinks of God\nas loving, as Love, and this conception henceforth largely supplants\nthe Old Testament conception of the angry God. This loving God is\nchiefly manifested through the loving Christ: indeed the love of Christ\nand the love of God are the same thing. And this Christ-Love dwells\nwithin us.[66] And Catherine, since her mind has perceived Love to be\nthe central character of God, and has adopted fire as love\u2019s fullest\nimage, cannot but hold,--God and Love and Christ and Spirit being all\none and the same thing,--that Christ-Spirit-Fire is in her and she\nin It. The yellow light-image, which all but alone typifies God\u2019s\nfriendliness in the Bible, is thus turned into a red fire-image. And\nyet this latter in so far retains with Catherine something of its older\nconnotation of anger, that the Fire and Heat appear in her teaching\nmore as symbols of the suffering caused by the opposition of man\u2019s\nat least partial impurity to the Spirit, Christ, Love, God, and of\nthe pain attendant upon that Spirit\u2019s action, even where it can still\npurify; whereas the Light and Illumination mostly express the peaceful\npenetration of man\u2019s spirit by God\u2019s Spirit, and the blissful gain\naccruing from such penetration.\n\n\n4. _The Risen Christ and the Heavenly Adam._\n\nSt. Paul dwells continuously upon the post-earthly, the Risen Christ,\nand upon Him in His identity with the pre-earthly, the Heavenly Man:\nso that the historical Jesus tends to become, all but for the final\nacts in the Supper-room and upon the Cross, a transitory episode;--a\nsuper-earthly biography all but supplants the earthly one, since His\ndeath and resurrection and their immediate contexts are all but the\nonly two events dwelt upon, and form but the two constituents of one\ninseparable whole.--Here Catherine is deeply Pauline in her striking\nnon-occupation with the details of the earthly life (the scene\nwith the Woman at the Well being the single exception), and in her\ncontinuous insistence upon Christ as the life-giving Spirit. Indeed,\neven the death is strangely absent. There is but the one doubtful\ncontrary instance, in any case a quite early and sporadic one, of the\nVision of the Bleeding Christ. The fact is that, in her teaching,\nthe self-donation of God in general, in His mysterious love for each\nindividual soul, and of Christ in particular, in His Eucharistic\npresence as our daily food, take all their special depth of tenderness\nfrom her vivid realization of the whole teaching, temper, life, and\ndeath of Jesus Christ; and that teaching derives its profundity of\nfeeling only from all this latter complexus of facts and convictions.\n\n\n5. _Reconciliation, Justification, Sanctification._\n\n(1) St. Paul has two lines of thought concerning Reconciliation. In\nthe objective, juridical, more Judaic conception, the attention is\nconcentrated on the one moment of Christ\u2019s death, and the consequences\nappear as though instantaneous and automatic; in the other, the\nsubjective, ethical, more Hellenistic conception, the attention\nis spread over the whole action of the Christ\u2019s incarnational\nself-humiliation, and the consequences are realized only if and when we\nstrive to imitate Him,--they are a voluntary and continuous process.\nCatherine\u2019s fundamental conversion-experience and all her later\nteachings attach her Reconciliation to the entire act of ceaseless\nDivine \u201cecstasy,\u201d self-humiliation, and redemptive immanence in Man,\nof which the whole earthly life and death of Christ are the centre\nand culmination; but though the human soul\u2019s corresponding action is\nconceived as continuous, once it has begun, she loves to dwell upon\nthis whole action as itself the gift of God and the consequence of His\nprevenient act.\n\n(2) As to Justification, we have again, in St. Paul, a preponderatingly\nJewish juridical conception of adoption, in which a purely vicarious\njustice and imputed righteousness seem to be taught; and an ethical\nconception of immanent justice, based on his own experience and\nexpressed by means of Hellenistic forms, according to which \u201cthe\nlove of God is poured out in our hearts,\u201d Rom. v, 5. And he often\ninsists strenuously upon excluding every human merit from the moment\nand act of justification, insisting upon its being a \u201cfree gift\u201d of\nGod.--Catherine absorbs herself in the second, ethical conception,\nand certainly understands this love of God as primarily God\u2019s, the\nSpirit\u2019s, Christ\u2019s love, as Love Itself poured out in our hearts; and\nshe often breaks out into angry protests against the very suggestion of\nany act, or part of an act, dear to God, proceeding from her natural or\nseparate self, indeed, if we press her expressions, from herself at all.\n\n(3) As to Sanctification, St. Paul has three couples of contrasted\nconceptions. The first couple conceives the Spirit, either Old\nTestament-wise, as manifesting and accrediting Itself in extraordinary,\nsudden, sporadic, miraculous gifts and doings--_e.g._ in ecstatic\nspeaking with tongues; or,--and this is the more frequent and the\ndecisive conception,--as an abiding, equable penetration and spiritual\nreformation of its recipient. Here the faithful \u201clive and walk in the\nspirit,\u201d are \u201cdriven by the spirit,\u201d \u201cserve God in the spirit,\u201d are\n\u201ctemples of the Spirit,\u201d Gal. v, 25; Rom. viii, 14; vii, 6; 1 Cor.\nvi, 19: the Spirit has become the creative source of a supernatural\ncharacter-building.[67]--Here Catherine, in contrast to most of her\nfriends, who are wedded to the first view, is strongly attached to the\nsecond view, perhaps the deepest of St. Paul\u2019s conceptions.\n\nThe second couple conceives Sanctification either juridically, and\nmoves dramatically from act to act,--the Sacrifice on the Cross and\nthe Resurrection of the Son of God, the sentence of Justification and\nthe Adoption as sons of God; or ethically, and presupposes everywhere\ncontinuous processes,--beginning with the reception of the Spirit, and\nending with \u201cthe Lord of the Spirit.\u201d--Here Catherine has curiously\nlittle of the dramatic and prominently personal conception: only in\nthe imperfect soul\u2019s acutely painful moment, of standing before and\nseeing God immediately after death, do we get one link in this chain,\nin a somewhat modified form. For the rest, the ethical and continuous\nconception is present practically throughout her teaching, but in a\ncurious, apparently paradoxical form, to be noticed in a minute.\n\nAnd the third couple either treats Sanctification as, at each moment of\nits actual presence, practically infallible and complete: \u201cWe who have\ndied to sin, how shall we further live in it?\u201d \u201cFreed from sin, ye have\nbecome the servants of Justice\u201d; \u201cnow we are loosed from the law of\ndeath, so as to serve in newness of spirit\u201d; \u201cthose who are according\nto the flesh, mind the things of the flesh; but they that are according\nto the Spirit, mind the things of the Spirit,\u201d Rom. vi, 2, 18; vii, 6;\nviii, 5. Or it considers Sanctification as only approximately complete,\nso long as man has to live here below, not only in the Spirit, Rom.\nviii, 9, but also in the flesh, Gal. ii, 20. The faithful have indeed\ncrucified the flesh once for all, Gal. v, 24: yet they have continually\nto mortify their members anew, Col. iii, 5, and by the Spirit to\ndestroy the works of the flesh, Rom. viii, 13. The \u201cfear of the Lord,\u201d\n\u201cof God,\u201d does not cease to be a motive for the sanctified, 2 Cor. v,\n11; vii, 1. To \u201cwalk in the Spirit,\u201d \u201cin the light,\u201d has to be insisted\non (1 Thess. v, 4-8; Rom. xiii, 11-14; 2 Cor. vi, 14), as long as the\neternal day has not yet arisen for us. And even in Romans, chapter\nvi, we find admonitions, vv. 12, 13, 19, which, if we press the other\nconception, are quite superfluous.[68]\n\nAnd here Catherine, in her intense sympathy with each of these\ncontrasted conceptions, offers us a combination of both in a state\nof unstable equilibrium and delicate tension. I take it that it is\nnot her immensely impulsive and impatient temperament, nor survivals\nof the Old Testament idea as to instantaneousness being the special\ncharacteristic of divine action, but her deep and noble sense of the\ngivenness and pure grace of religion, and of God\u2019s omnipotence being,\nif possible, exceeded only by His overflowing, self-communicative\nlove, which chiefly determine her curious presentation and emotional\nexperience of spiritual growth and life as a movement composed of\nsudden shiftings upwards, with long, apparently complete pauses in\nbetween. For here this form (of so many instants, of which each is\ncomplete in itself) stands for her as the least inadequate symbol, as a\nkind of shattered mirror, not of time at all, but of eternity; whilst\nthe succession and difference between these instants indicates a growth\nin the apprehending soul, which has, in reality, been proceeding also\nin between these instants and not only during them. And this remarkable\nscheme presents her conviction that, in principle, the work of the\nall-powerful, all-loving Spirit cannot, of itself, be other than final\nand complete, and yet that, as a matter of fact, it never is so, in\nweak, self-deceptive, and variously resisting man, but ever turns\nout to require a fresh and deeper application. And this succession\nof sudden jerks onwards and upwards, after long, apparently complete\npauses between them, gives to her fundamentally ethical and continuous\nconception something of the look of the forensic, dramatic series,\nwith its separate acts,--a series which would otherwise be all but\nunrepresented in her picture of the soul\u2019s life on this side of death\nand of its life (immediately after its vivid sight of God and itself,\nand its act of free-election) in the Beyond.\n\n\n6. _Pauline Social Ethics._\n\nAs to Social Ethics, St. Paul\u2019s worldward movement is strongly\nrepresented in Catherine\u2019s teaching. Her great sayings as to God being\nservable not only in the married state, but in a camp of (mercenary)\nsoldiers; and as to her determination violently to appropriate the\nmonk\u2019s cowl, should this his state be necessary to the attainment of\nthe highest love of God, are full of the tone of Rom. xiv, 14, 20,\n\u201cnothing is common in itself, but to him who considereth anything to be\ncommon, to him it is common,\u201d--\u201call things are clean\u201d; and of 1 Cor.\nx, 26, 28, \u201cthe earth is the Lord\u2019s, and the fulness thereof.\u201d And her\nsense of her soul\u2019s positive relation to nature, _e.g._ trees, was no\ndoubt in part awakened by that striking passage, Rom. viii, 19, \u201cthe\nexpectation of the creature awaiteth the revelation of the sons of God;\nfor the creature was made subject to vanity not willingly.\u201d\n\nOn the other hand, it would be impossible confidently to identify\nher own attitude concerning marriage with that of St. Paul, since,\nas we know, her peculiar health and her unhappiness with Giuliano\nmake it impossible to speak here with any certainty of the mature\nwoman\u2019s deliberate judgment concerning continence and marriage. Yet\nher impulsive protestation, in the scene with the monk, against any\nidea of being debarred by her state from as perfect a love of God as\nhis,--whilst, of course, not in contradiction with the Pauline and\ngenerally Catholic positions in the matter, seems to imply an emotional\nattitude somewhat different from that of some of the Apostle\u2019s\nsayings. Indeed, in her whole general and unconscious position as to\nhow a woman should hold herself in religious things it is interesting\nto note the absence of all influence from those Pauline sayings which,\nherein like Philo (and indeed the whole ancient world) treat man alone\nas \u201cthe (direct) image and glory (reflex) of God,\u201d and the woman as but\n\u201cthe glory (reflex) of the man,\u201d 1 Cor. xi, 7. Everywhere she appears\nfull, on the contrary, of St. Paul\u2019s other (more characteristic and\ndeliberate) strain, according to which, as there is \u201cneither Jew nor\nGentile, bond nor free\u201d before God, so \u201cneither is the man without the\nwoman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord,\u201d 1 Cor. xi, 11.--And\nin social matters generally, Catherine\u2019s convert life and practice\nshows, in the active mortifications of its first penitential part, in\nher persistent great aloofness from all things of sense as regards\nher own gratification, and in the ecstasies and love of solitude\nwhich marked the zenith of her power, a close sympathy with, and no\ndoubt in part a direct imitation of, St. Paul\u2019s Arabian retirement,\nchastisement of his body, and lonely concentration upon rapt communion\nwith God. Yet she as strongly exemplifies St. Paul\u2019s other, the\noutward movement, the love-impelled, whole-hearted service of the\npoorest, world-forgotten, sick and sorrowing brethren. And the whole\nresultant rhythmic life has got such fine spontaneity, emotional and\nefficacious fulness, and expansive joy about it, as to suggest at once\nthose unfading teachings of St. Paul which had so largely occasioned\nit,--those hymns in praise of that love \u201cwhich minds not high things\nbut consenteth to the humble,\u201d Rom. xii, 16; \u201cbecomes all things to\nall men,\u201d 1 Cor. ix, 22; \u201cweeps with those that weep and rejoices with\nthose that rejoice,\u201d _ibid._ xii, 26; and which, as the twin love of\nGod and man, is not only the chief member of the central ethical triad,\nbut, already here below, itself becomes the subject which exercises the\nother two virtues, for it is \u201clove\u201d that \u201cbelieveth all things, hopeth\nall things,\u201d even before that eternity in which love alone will never\nvanish away, _ibid._ xiii, 7, 8. Here Catherine with Paul triumphs\ncompletely over time: their actions and teaching are as completely\nfresh now, after well-nigh nineteen and four centuries, as when they\nfirst experienced, willed, and uttered them.\n\n\n7. _Sacramental Teachings._\n\nIn Sacramental matters it is interesting to note St. Paul\u2019s close\ncorrelation of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist: \u201cAll (our fathers) were\nbaptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same\nspiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink,\u201d 1 Cor. x, 3;\n\u201cin one Spirit we have all been baptized into one body, and we have all\nbeen made to drink one Spirit,\u201d Christ, His blood, _ibid._ xii, 13.\nAnd Catherine is influenced by these passages, when she represents the\nsoul as hungering for, and drowning itself in, the ocean of spiritual\nsustenance which is Love, Christ, God: but she attaches the similes,\nwhich are distributed by St. Paul among the two Rites, to the Holy\nEucharist alone. Baptism had been a grown man\u2019s deliberate act in\nPaul\u2019s case,--an act immediately subsequent to, and directly expressive\nof, his conversion, the culminating experience of his life; and, as a\ngreat Church organizer, he could not but dwell with an equal insistence\nupon the two chief Sacraments.\n\nCatherine had received baptism as an unconscious infant, and the event\nlay far back in that pre-conversion time, which was all but completely\nousted from her memory by the great experience of some twenty-five\nyears later. And in the latter experience it was (more or less from the\nfirst and soon all but exclusively) the sense of a divine encirclement\nand sustenance, of an addition of love, rather than a consciousness of\nthe subtraction of sins or of a divine purification, that possessed\nher. In her late, though profoundly characteristic Purgatorial\nteaching, the soul again plunges into an ocean; but now, since the soul\nis rather defiled than hungry, and wills rather to be purified than\nto be fed, this plunge is indeed a kind of Baptism by Immersion. Yet\nwe have no more the symbol of water, for the long state and effects\nto which that swift act leads, but we have, instead, fire and light,\nand, in one place, once again bread and the hunger for bread. And\nthis is no doubt because, in these Purgatorial picturings, it is her\nconversion-experience of love under the symbols of light and of fire,\nand her forty years of daily hungering for the Holy Eucharist and Love\nIncarnate, which furnish the emotional colours and the intellectual\noutlines.\n\n\n8. _Eschatological matters._\n\nIn Eschatological matters the main points of contact and of contrast\nappear to be four; and three of the differences are occasioned by St.\nPaul\u2019s preoccupation with Christ\u2019s Second Coming, with the Resurrection\nof the body, and with the General Judgment, mostly as three events in\nclose temporal correlation, and likely to occur soon; whilst Catherine\nabstracts entirely from all three.\n\n(1) Thus St. Paul is naturally busy with the question as to the Time\nwhen he shall be with Christ. In 1 Thess. iv, 15, he speaks of \u201cwe\nwho are now living, who have been left for the coming of the Lord,\u201d\n_i.e._ he expects this event during his own lifetime; whilst in Phil.\ni, 23, he \u201cdesires to be dissolved and to be with Christ,\u201d _i.e._ he\nhas ceased confidently to expect this coming before his own death.\nBut Catherine dwells exclusively, with this latter conception, upon\nthe moment of death, as that when the soul shall see, and be finally\nconfirmed in its union with, Love, Christ, God; for into her earthly\nlifetime Love, Christ, God, can and do come, but invisibly, and she may\nstill lose full union with them for ever.\n\n(2) As to the Place, it is notoriously obscure whether St. Paul thinks\nof it, as do the Old Testament and the Apocalypse, as the renovated\nearth, or as the sky, or as the intervening space. The risen faithful\nwho \u201cshall be caught in the clouds to meet Christ,\u201d 1 Thess. iv, 16,\nseem clearly to be meeting Him, in mid-air, as He descends upon earth;\nand \u201cJerusalem above,\u201d Gal. iv, 26, may well, as in Apoc. iii, 12; xxi,\n2, be conceived as destined to come down upon earth. But Catherine,\nthough she constantly talks of Heaven, Purgatory, Hell as \u201cplaces,\u201d\nmakes it plain that such \u201cplaces\u201d are for her but vivid symbols for\nstates of soul. God Himself repeatedly appears in her sayings as \u201cthe\nsoul\u2019s place\u201d; and it is this \u201cplace,\u201d the soul\u2019s true spiritual\nbirthplace and home, which, ever identical and bliss-conferring in\nitself, is variously experienced by the soul, in exact accordance\nwith its dispositions,--as that profoundly painful, or that joyfully\ndistressing, or that supremely blissful \u201cplace\u201d which respectively we\ncall Hell, and Purgatory, and Heaven.\n\n(3) As to the Body, we have already noted St. Paul\u2019s doctrine,\nintermediate between the Palestinian and Alexandrian Jewish teaching,\nthat it will rise indeed, but composed henceforth of \u201cglory\u201d and\nno more of \u201cflesh.\u201d It is this his requirement of a body, however\nspiritual, which underlies his anxiety to be \u201cfound clothed, not\nnaked,\u201d at and after death, 2 Cor. v, 3. Indeed, in this whole passage,\nv, 1-4, \u201cour earthly house of this habitation,\u201d and \u201ca building of God\nnot made with hands,\u201d no doubt mean, respectively, the present body\nof flesh and the future body of glory; just as the various, highly\ncomplex, conceptions of \u201cclothed,\u201d \u201cunclothed,\u201d \u201cclothed upon,\u201d refer\nto the different conditions of the soul with a body of flesh, without a\nbody at all, and with a body of glory.--Now this passage, owing to its\nextreme complication and abstruseness of doctrine, has come down to us\nin texts and versions of every conceivable form; and this uncertainty\nhas helped Catherine towards her very free utilization of it. For she\nnot only, as ever, simply ignores all questions of a risen body, and\ntransfers the concept of a luminous ethereal substance from the body to\nthe soul itself, and refers the \u201cnakedness,\u201d \u201cunclothing,\u201d \u201cclothing,\u201d\nand \u201cclothing upon\u201d to conditions obtaining, not between the soul and\nthe body, but between the soul and God; but she also, in most cases,\ntakes the nakedness as the desirable state, since typical of the soul\u2019s\nfaithful self-exposure to the all-purifying rays of God\u2019s light and\nfire, and interprets the \u201cunclothing\u201d as the penitential stripping from\noff itself of those pretences and corrupt incrustations which prevent\nGod\u2019s blissful action upon it.\n\n(4) And, finally, as to the Judgment, we have in St. Paul a double\ncurrent,--the inherited Judaistic conception of a forensic retribution;\nChrist, the divine Judge, externally applying such and such statutory\nrewards and punishments to such and such good and evil deeds,--so\nin Rom. ii, 6-10; and the experimental conception, helped on to\narticulation by Hellenistic influences, of the bodily resurrection and\nman\u2019s whole final destiny as the necessary resultant and manifestation\nof an internal process, the presence of the Spirit and of the power\nof God,--so in the later parts of Romans, in Gal. vi, 8, and in 1\nCor. vi, 14; 2 Cor. xiii, 4.--Among Catherine\u2019s sayings also we\nfind some passages--but these the less characteristic and mostly\nof doubtful authenticity,--where reward and punishment, indeed the\nthree \u201cplaces\u201d themselves, appear as so many separate institutions\nof God, which get externally applied to certain good and evil deeds.\nBut these are completely overshadowed in number, sure authenticity,\nemotional intensity, and organic connection with her other teachings,\nby sayings of the second type, where the soul\u2019s fate is but the\nnecessary consequence of its own deliberate choice and gradually\nformed dispositions, the result, inseparable since the first from\nits self-identification with this or that of the various possible\nwill-attitudes towards God.\n\n(5) We can then sum up the main points of contact and of difference\nbetween Paul and Catherine, by saying that, in both cases, everything\nleads up to, or looks back upon, a great culminating, directly\npersonal experience of shortest clock-time duration, whence all\ntheir doctrine, wherever emphatic, is but an attempt to articulate\nand universalize this original experience; and that if in Paul there\nremains more of explicit occupation with the last great events of\nthe earthly life of Jesus, yet in both there is the same insistence\nupon the life-giving Spirit, the eternal Christ, manifesting His\ninexhaustible power in the transformation of souls, on and on, here and\nnow, into the likeness of Himself.\n\n\nII. THE JOANNINE WRITINGS.\n\nOn moving now from the Pauline to the Joannine writings, we shall\nfind that Catherine\u2019s obligations to these latter are but rarely as\ndeep, yet that they cover a wider reach of ideas and images. I take\nthis fresh source of influence under the double heading of the general\nrelations of the Joannine teaching to other, previous or contemporary,\nconceptions; and of this same teaching considered in itself.[69]\n\n\n1. _Joannine teaching contrasted with other systems._\n\n(1) As to the general relations towards other positions, we get here,\ntowards Judaism and Paganism, an emphatic insistence upon the novelty\nand independence of Christianity as regards not only Paganism, but even\nthe previous Judaism, \u201cThe law was given by Moses, but grace and truth\ncame by Jesus Christ,\u201d i, 17; and upon the Logos, Christ, as \u201cthe Light\nthat enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world,\u201d \u201cunto his\nown,\u201d _i.e._ men in general; for this Light \u201cwas in the world, and the\nworld was made by Him,\u201d i, 9-11. There is thus a divinely-implanted,\ninnate tendency towards this light, extant in man prior to the explicit\nact of faith, and operative outside of the Christian body: \u201cEvery\nman who is from the truth, heareth my voice,\u201d xviii, 37: \u201che who\ndoeth the truth, cometh to the light,\u201d in, 21: \u201cbegotten,\u201d as he is,\nnot of man but \u201cof God,\u201d i, 13; 1 John iii, 9. And thus Samaritans,\nGreeks, and Heathens act and speak in the best dispositions, iv, 42;\nxii, 20-24; x, 16; whilst such terms and sayings as \u201cthe Saviour of\nthe World,\u201d \u201cGod so loved the world,\u201d iv, 42, iii, 16, are the most\nuniversalistic declarations to be found in the New Testament.--And\nthis current dominates the whole of Catherine\u2019s temper and teaching:\nthis certainty as to the innate affinity of every human soul to the\nLight, Love, Christ, God, gives a tone of exultation to the musings\nof this otherwise melancholy woman. Whereas the Joannine passages of\na contrasting exclusiveness and even fierceness of tone, such as \u201call\nthey that came before Me, were thieves and robbers,\u201d x, 8; \u201cye are\nfrom your father, the devil,\u201d viii, 44; \u201cye shall die in your sins,\u201d\nviii, 21; \u201cyour sin remains,\u201d ix, 41, are without any parallel among\nCatherine\u2019s sayings. Indeed it is plain that Catherine, whilst as sure\nas the Evangelist that all man\u2019s goodness comes from God, nowhere,\nexcept in her own case, finds man\u2019s evil to be diabolic in character.\n\n(2) With regard to Paulinism, the Joannine writings give us a\ncontinuation and extension of the representation of the soul\u2019s mystical\nunion with Christ, as a local abiding in the element Christ. Indeed\nit is in these writings that we find the terms \u201cto abide in\u201d the\nlight, 1 John ii, 10, in God, 1 John iv, 13, in Christ, 1 John ii, 6,\n24, 27, iii, 6, 24, and in His love, John xv, 9, 1 John iv, 16; the\ncorresponding expressions, \u201cGod abideth in us,\u201d 1 John iv, 12, 16,\n\u201cChrist abideth in us,\u201d 1 John iii, 24, and \u201clove abideth in us,\u201d 1\nJohn iv, 16; the two immanences coupled together, where the communicant\n\u201cabideth in Me and I in him,\u201d vi, 56, and where the members of His\nmystical body are bidden to \u201cabide in Me and I in you,\u201d xv, 4; and the\nsupreme pattern of all these interpenetrations, \u201cI am in the Father,\nand the Father is in Me,\u201d xiv, 10.--And it is from here that Catherine\nprimarily gets the literary suggestions for her images of the soul\nplunged into, and filled by, an ocean of Light, Love, Christ, God; and\nagain from here, more than from St. Paul, she gets her favourite term\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (It. _restare_), around which are grouped, in her mind, most of\nthe quietistic-sounding elements of her teaching.\n\n(3) As to the points of contact between the Joannine teaching and\nAlexandrianism, we find that three are vividly renewed by Catherine.\n\nPhilo had taught: \u201cGod ceases not from acting: as to burn is the\nproperty of fire, so to act is the property of God,\u201d _Legg. Alleg._ I,\n3. And in John we find: \u201cGod is a Spirit,\u201d and \u201cMy Father worketh ever\nand I work ever,\u201d iv, 24; v, 17. And God as pure Spiritual Energy, as\nthe _Actus Purus_, is a truth and experience that penetrates the whole\nlife of Catherine.\n\nThe work of Christ is not dwelt on in its earthly beginnings; but it is\ntraced up and back, in the form of a spiritual \u201cGenesis,\u201d to His life\nand work as the Logos in Heaven, where He abides \u201cin the bosom of the\nFather,\u201d and whence He learns what He \u201chath declared\u201d to us, i, 18;\njust as, in his turn, the disciple whom Jesus loved \u201cwas reclining\u201d at\nthe Last Supper \u201con the bosom of Jesus,\u201d and later on \u201cbeareth witness\nconcerning the things\u201d which he had learnt there, xiii, 23; xxi, 24. So\nalso Catherine transcends the early earthly life of Christ altogether,\nand habitually dwells upon Him as the Light and as Love, as God in His\nown Self-Manifestation; and upon the ever-abiding sustenance afforded\nby this Light and Life and Love to the faithful soul reclining and\nresting upon it.\n\nAnd the contrast between the Spiritual and the Material, the Abiding\nand the Transitory, is symbolized throughout John, in exact accord\nwith Philo, under the spacial categories of upper and lower, and of\nextension: \u201cYe are from below, I am from above,\u201d viii, 23; \u201cHe that\ncometh from above, is above all,\u201d iv, 31; and \u201cin my Father\u2019s house,\u201d\nthat upper world, \u201cthere are many mansions,\u201d abiding-places, xiv,\n2. Hence all things divine here below have descended from above:\nregeneration, iii, 3; the Spirit, i, 32; Angels, i, 51; the Son of God\nHimself, iii, 13: and they mount once more up above, so especially\nChrist Himself, iii, 13; vi, 62. And the things of that upper world\nare the true things: \u201cthe true light,\u201d \u201c the true adorers,\u201d \u201cthe\ntrue vine,\u201d \u201cthe true bread from Heaven,\u201d i, ix; iv, 23; xv, 1; vi,\n32: all this in contrast to the shadowy semi-realities of the lower\nworld.--Catherine is here in fullest accord with the spacial imagery\ngenerally; she even talks of God Himself, not only as in a place, but\nas Himself a place, as the soul\u2019s \u201cloco.\u201d But she has, for reasons\nexplained elsewhere, generally to abandon the upper-and-lower category\nwhen picturing the soul\u2019s self-dedication to purification, since, for\nthis act, she mostly figures a downward plunge into suffering; and\nshe gives us a number of striking sayings, in which she explicitly\nre-translates all this quantitative spacial imagery into its underlying\nmeaning of qualitative spiritual states.\n\n(4) As to the Joannine approximations and antagonisms to Gnosticism,\nCatherine\u2019s position is as follows. In the Synoptic accounts, Our Lord\nmakes the acquisition of eternal life depend upon the keeping of the\ntwo great commandments of the love of God and of one\u2019s neighbour, Luke\nx, 26-28, and parallels. In John Our Lord says: \u201cthis is eternal life,\nthat they may know Thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom Thou\nhast sent,\u201d xvii, 3. To \u201cknow,\u201d \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, occurs twenty-five times in\n1 John alone. Here the final object of every soul is to believe and to\nknow: \u201cthey received and knew truly and believed,\u201d xvii, 8; \u201cwe have\nbelieved and have known,\u201d vi, 69; or \u201cwe have known and have believed,\u201d\n1 John iv, 16. And Catherine also lays much stress upon faith ending,\neven here below, in a certain vivid knowledge; but this knowledge is,\nwith her, less doctrinally articulated, no doubt in part because there\nwas no Gnosticism fronting her, to force on such articulation.\n\nAnd the Joannine writings compare this higher mental knowledge to the\nlower, sensible perception: \u201cHe who cometh from heaven, witnesseth to\nwhat he hath seen and heard,\u201d iii, 31; \u201cwhen He shall become manifest,\nwe shall see Him as He is,\u201d 1 John iii, 2. And they have three special\nterms, in common with Gnosticism, for the object of such knowledge:\nLife, Light, and Fulness (_Pler\u014dma_),--the latter, as a technical term,\nappearing in the New Testament only in John i, 16, and in the Epistles\nto the Colossians and Ephesians. Catherine, also, is ever experiencing\nand conceiving the mental apprehensions of faith, as so many\nquasi-sensible, ocular, perceptions; and Life and Light are constantly\nmentioned, and Fulness is, at least, implied in the psycho-physical\nconcomitants or consequences of her thinkings.\n\nOn the other hand, she does not follow John in the intensely dualistic\nelements of his teaching,--the sort of determinist, all but innate,\ndistinction between \u201cthe darkness,\u201d \u201cthe men who loved the darkness\nrather than the light,\u201d and the Light itself and those who loved it, i,\n4, 5; iii, 19,--children of God and children of the devil--the latter\nall but incapable of being saved, viii, 38-47; x, 26; xi, 52; xiv,\n17. Rather is she like him in his all but complete silence as to \u201cthe\nanger of God,\u201d--a term which he uses once only, iii, 36, as against the\ntwenty-two instances of it in St. Paul.\n\nAnd she is full to overflowing of the great central, profoundly un- and\nanti-Gnostic, sensitively Christian teachings of St. John: as to the\nLight, the only-begotten Son, having been given by God, because God so\nloved the world; as to Jesus having loved his own even to the end; as\nto the object of Christ\u2019s manifestation of His Father\u2019s name to men,\nbeing that God\u2019s love for Christ, and indeed Christ Himself, might\nbe within them; and as to how, if they love Him, they will keep His\ncommandments,--His commandment to love each other as He has loved them,\niii, 21; iii, 16; xiii, 1; xvii, 26; xiv, 15; xv, 17. In this last\ngreat declaration especially do we find the very epitome of Catherine\u2019s\nlife and spirit, of her who can never think of Him as Light and\nKnowledge only, but ever insists on His being Fire and Love as well;\nand who has but one commandment, that of Love-impelled, Love-seeking\nloving.\n\n(5) And lastly, in relation to organized, Ecclesiastical Christianity,\nthe Joannine writings dwell, as regards the more general principles, on\npoints which, where positive, are simply presupposed by Catherine; and,\nwhere negative, find no echo within her.\n\nThe Joannine writings insist continually upon the unity and\ninter-communion of the faithful: \u201cThere shall be one fold, one\nshepherd\u201d; Christ\u2019s death was in order \u201cthat He might gather the\nscattered children of God into one\u201d; He prays to the Father that\nbelievers \u201cmay be one, as we are one\u201d; and He leaves as His legacy\nHis seamless robe, x, 16; xi, 52; xvii, 21; xix, 24. And these same\nwritings have a painfully absolute condemnation for all outside of\nthis visible fold: \u201cThe whole world lies in evil\u201d; its \u201cPrince is the\nDevil\u201d; \u201cthe blood of Jesus cleanseth us from all sin,\u201d within the\ncommunity alone; false prophets, those who have gone forth from the\ncommunity, are not to be prayed for, are not even to be saluted, 1\nJohn, v, 19; John xii, 31; John i, 7; v, 16; 2 John, 10. For the great\nand necessary fight with Gnosticism has already begun in these writings.\n\nBut Catherine dies before the unity of Christendom is again in jeopardy\nthrough the Protestant Reformation, and she never dwells--this is\ndoubtless a limit--upon the Christian community, as such. And her\nenthusiastic sympathy with the spiritual teachings of Jacopone da\nTodi, who, some two centuries before, had, as one of the prophetic\nopposition, vehemently attacked the intensely theocratic policy of\nPope Boniface VIII, and had suffered a long imprisonment at his hands;\nher tender care for the schismatic population of the far-away Greek\nisland of Chios; and her intimacy with Dre. Tommaso Moro, who, later\non, became for a while a Calvinist; all indicate how free from all\nsuspiciousness towards individual Catholics, or of fierceness against\nother religious bodies and persons, was her deeply filial attachment to\nthe Church.\n\nIn the Synoptists Our Lord declares, as to the exorcist who worked\ncures in His name, although not a follower of His, that \u201che that is\nnot against us, is for us,\u201d and refuses to accede to His disciples\u2019\nproposal to interfere with his activity, Mark ix, 38-41; and He points,\nas to the means of inheriting eternal life, to the keeping of the\ntwo great commandments, as these are already formulated in the Old\nTestament, and insists that this neighbour, whom here we are bidden\nto love, is any and every man, Luke x, 25-37. The Joannine writings\ninsist strongly upon the strict necessity of full, explicit adhesion:\nthe commandment of love which Our Lord gives is here \u201cMy commandment,\u201d\n\u201ca new commandment,\u201d one held \u201cfrom the beginning\u201d--in the Christian\ncommunity; and the command to \u201clove one another\u201d is here addressed to\nthe brethren in their relations to their fellow-believers only, xiii,\n34; xiii, 35; xv, 12, 17. Catherine\u2019s feeling, in this matter, is\nclearly with the Synoptists.\n\n\n2. _Joannine teaching considered in itself._\n\nIf we next take the Joannine teachings in themselves, we shall find the\nfollowing interesting points of contact or contrast to exist between\nJohn and Catherine.\n\n(1) In matters of Theology proper, she is completely penetrated by\nthe great doctrine, more explicit in St. John even than in St. Paul,\nthat \u201cGod is Love,\u201d 1 John iv, 8; and by the conceptions of God and of\nChrist \u201cworking always\u201d as Life, Light, and Love.--But whereas, in the\nfirst Epistle of John, God Himself is \u201ceternal life\u201d and \u201clight,\u201d v,\n20; i, 5; and, in the Gospel, it is Christ Who, in the first instance,\nappears as Life and as Light, xi, 25; viii, 12: Catherine nowhere\ndistinguishes at all between Christ and God. And similarly, whereas in\nSt. John \u201cGod doth not give\u201d unto Christ \u201cthe Spirit by measure\u201d; and\nChrist promises to the disciples \u201canother Paraclete,\u201d _i.e._ the Holy\nSpirit, iii, 34; xiv, 16; and indeed the Son and the Spirit appear,\nthroughout, as distinct from one another as do the Son and the Father:\nin Catherine we get, practically everywhere, an exclusive concentration\nupon the fact, so often implied or declared by St. Paul, of Love,\nChrist, being Himself Spirit.\n\n(2) The Joannine Soteriology has, I think, influenced Catherine as\nfollows. Christ\u2019s redemptive work appears, in the more original current\nof that teaching, under the symbols of the Word, Light, Bread, as\nthe self-revelation of God. For in proportion that this Logos-Light\nand Bread enlightens and nourishes, does He drive away darkness and\nweakness, and, with them, sin, and this previously to any historic\nacts of His earthly life. And, in this connection, there is but little\nstress laid upon penance and the forgiveness of sins as compared\nwith the Synoptic accounts, and the term of turning back, \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\nis absent here.--But that same redemptive work appears, in the more\nPauline of the two Joannine currents, as the direct result of so many\nvicarious, atoning deeds, the historic Passion and Death of Our Lord.\nHere there is indeed sin, a \u201csin of the world,\u201d and specially for this\nsin is Christ the propitiation: \u201cGod so loved the world, as to give His\nonly-begotten Son\u201d--Him \u201cthe Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of\nthe world,\u201d i, 29; 1 John ii, 2; John ii, 16; i, 29, 36.\n\nCatherine, with the probably incomplete exception of her Conversion\nand Penance-period, concentrates her attention, with a striking degree\nof exclusiveness, upon the former group of conceptions. With her too\nthe God-Christ is--all but solely--conceived as Light which, in so far\nas it is not hindered, operates the healing and the growth of souls.\nAnd in her great picture of all souls inevitably hungering for the\nsight of the One Bread, God, she has operated a fusion between two of\nthe Joannine images, the Light which is seen and the Bread which is\neaten: here the bare sight (in reality, a satiating sight) of the Bread\nsuffices. If, for the self-manifesting God-Christ, she has, besides the\nJoannine Light-image, a Fire-symbol, which has its literary antecedents\nrather in the Old Testament than in the New, this comes from the fact\nthat she is largely occupied with the pain of the impressions and\nprocesses undergone by already God-loving yet still imperfectly pure\nsouls, and that fierce fire is as appropriate a symbol for such pain as\nis peaceful light for joy.\n\nNow this painfulness is, in Catherine\u2019s teaching, the direct result\nof whatever may be incomplete and piecemeal in the soul\u2019s state and\nprocess of purification. And this her conception, of Perfect Love being\nmostly attained only through a series of apparently sudden shifts,\neach seemingly final, is no doubt in part moulded upon the practically\nidentical Joannine teaching as to Faith.\n\nTrue, we have already seen that her conception of the nature of God\u2019s\naction upon the soul, and of the soul\u2019s reaction under this His\ntouch, is more akin to the rich Synoptic idea of a disposition and\ndetermination of the soul\u2019s whole being, (a cordial trust at least as\nmuch as an intellectual apprehension and clear assent), than to the\nJoannine view, which lays a predominant stress upon mental apprehension\nand assent. And again, she nowhere presents anything analogous to the\nJoannine, already scholastic, formulations of the object of this Faith\nand Trust,--all of them explicitly concerned with the nature of Christ.\n\nBut, everywhere in the Joannine writings, the living Person and Spirit\naimed at by these definitions is considered as experienced by the\nsoul in a succession of ever-deepening intuitions and acts of Faith.\nAlready at the Jordan, Andrew and Nathaniel have declared Jesus to be\nthe Christ, the Son of God, i, 41, 49; yet they, His disciples, are\nsaid to have believed in Him at Cana, in consequence of His miracle\nthere, ii, 11. Already at Capernaum Peter asserts for the twelve, \u201cWe\nhave believed and known that Thou art the Holy One of God,\u201d vi, 69;\nyet still, at the Last Supper, Christ exhorts them to believe in Him,\nxiv, 10, 11, and predicts future events to them, in order that, when\nthese predictions come true, their faith may still further increase,\nxiii, 19; xiv, 29. And, as far on as after the Resurrection we hear\nthat the Beloved Disciple \u201csaw\u201d (the empty tomb) \u201cand believed,\u201d xx,\n8, 29. We thus get in John precisely the same logically paradoxical,\nbut psychologically and spiritually most accurate and profound,\ncombination of an apparent completeness of Faith at each point of\nspecial illumination, with a sudden re-beginning and impulsive upward\nshifting of the soul\u2019s Light and Believing, which is so characteristic\nof Catherine\u2019s experience and teaching as to the successive levels of\nthe soul\u2019s Fire, Light and Love. And the opposite movement--of the\nfading away of the Light and the Faith--can be traced in John, as the\ncorresponding doctrine of the going out of the Fire, Light and Love\nwithin the Soul can be found in Catherine.\n\nAgain, both John and Catherine are penetrated with the sense that this\nFaith and Love is somehow waked up in souls by a true touch of God, a\ntouch to which they spontaneously respond, because they already possess\na substantial affinity to Him. \u201cHis,\u201d the Good Shepherd\u2019s, \u201csheep hear\nHis voice,\u201d x, 16; they hear it, because they are already His: the\nLight solicits and is accepted by the soul, because the soul itself\nis light-like and light-requiring, and because it proceeds originally\nfrom this very Light which would now reinforce the soul\u2019s own deepest\nrequirements. This great truth appears also in those profound Joannine\npassages: \u201cNo man can come to Me, unless the Father Who sent Me draw\nhim\u201d; and \u201cI have manifested Thy name, to those men whom Thou didst\ngive Me from out of the world,\u201d vi, 44; xvii, 6.\n\nAnd this attractive force is also a faculty of Christ: \u201cI shall draw\nall men unto Myself,\u201d xii, 32. And note how Catherine, ever completely\nidentifying God, Christ, Light, Love, and, where these work in\nimperfectly pure souls, Fire, is stimulated by the last-quoted text\nto extend God\u2019s, Christ\u2019s, Love\u2019s drawing, attraction, to all men;\nto limit only, in various degrees, these various men\u2019s response to\nit; and to realize so intensely that a generous yielding to this our\nineradicable deepest _attrait_ is our fullest joy, and the resisting it\nis our one final misery, as to picture the soul, penitent for this its\nmad resistance, plunging itself, now eagerly responsive to that intense\nattraction, into God and a growing conformity with Him.\n\n(3) As to points concerning the Sacraments where Catherine is\ninfluenced by John, we find that here again Baptismal conceptions are\npassed over by her. She does not allude to the water in the discourse\nto Nicodemus, iii, 5, although she is full of other ideas suggested\nthere; but she dwells upon the water in the address to the Woman at\nthe Well, iv, 10-15, that \u201cliving water,\u201d which is, for her, the\nspirit\u2019s spiritual sustenance, Love, Christ, God, and insensibly glides\nover into the images and experiences attaching, for her, to the Holy\nEucharist.\n\nBut, as to this the greatest of the Sacraments and the all-absorbing\ndevotion of her life, her symbols and concepts are all suggested by\nthe Fourth Gospel, in contrast to the Synoptists and St. Paul. For the\nHoly Eucharist is, with her, ever detached from any direct memory of\nthe Last Supper, Passion, and Death, the original, historical, unique\noccasions which still form its setting in the pre-Joannine writings,\nalthough those greatest proofs of a divinely boundless self-immolation\nundoubtedly give to her devotion to the Blessed Sacrament its beautiful\nenthusiasm and tenderness. The Holy Eucharist ever appears with her,\nas with St. John, attached to the scene of the multiplication of the\nbreads,--a feast of joy and of life, with Christ at the zenith of His\nearthly hope and power. For not \u201ca shewing of the death\u201d in \u201cthe\neating of this bread,\u201d 1 Cor. xi, 26, is dwelt on by John; but we have:\n\u201cI am the Bread of Life; he that eateth this bread, shall live for\never,\u201d John vi, 51, 52.\n\nAnd Catherine follows John in thinking predominantly of the single\nsoul, when dwelling upon the Holy Eucharist. For if John presents\na great open-air Love-Feast in lieu of Paul\u2019s Upper Chamber and\nSupper with the twelve, he, as over against Paul\u2019s profoundly social\nstandpoint, has, throughout this his Eucharistic chapter, but three\nindications of the plural as against some fourteen singulars.\n\nAnd, finally, John\u2019s change from the future tense, with its reference\nto a coming historic institution, \u201cthe food which \u2026 the Son of Man\nwill give you,\u201d vi, 27, to the present tense, with its declaration\nof an eternal fact and relation, \u201cI am\u201d (now and always) \u201cthe living\nbread which hath come down from heaven,\u201d vi, 51, will have helped\nCatherine towards the conception of the eternal Christ-God offering\nHimself as their ceaseless spiritual food to His creatures, possessed\nas they are by an indestructible spiritual hunger for Himself. For if\nthe Eucharistic food, Bread, Body, has already been declared by St.\nPaul to be \u201cspiritual,\u201d 2 Cor. iii, 17, in St. John also it has to be\nspiritual, for it is here \u201cthe true bread from heaven\u201d and \u201cthe bread\nof life\u201d; and Christ declares here \u201cit is the Spirit that giveth life,\nthe flesh (alone) profiteth nothing,\u201d vi, 61, 69. Hence Catherine is,\nagain through the Holy Eucharist and St. John, brought back to her\nfavourite Pauline conception of the Lord as Himself \u201cSpirit,\u201d \u201cthe\nLife-giving Spirit,\u201d 2 Cor. iii, 17; 1 Cor. xv, 45.\n\n(4) And if we conclude with the Joannine Eschatology, we shall find\nthat Catherine has penetrated deep into the following conceptions,\nwhich undoubtedly, even in their union, present us with a less rich\noutlook than that furnished by the Synoptists, but which may be said to\nconstitute the central spirit of Our Lord\u2019s teaching.\n\nLike John, who has but two mentions of \u201cthe Kingdom of God,\u201d iii, 3,\n5, and who elsewhere ever speaks of \u201cLife,\u201d Catherine has nowhere \u201cthe\nKingdom,\u201d but everywhere \u201cLife.\u201d Like him she conceives the process of\nConversion as a \u201cmaking alive\u201d of the moribund, darkened, cold soul, by\nthe Light, Love, Christ, God, v, 21-29, when He, Who is Himself \u201cthe\nLife,\u201d xi, 25, and \u201cthe Spirit,\u201d iv, 24, speaks to the soul \u201cwords\u201d\nthat are \u201cspirit and life,\u201d vi, 63; for then the soul that gives ear\nto His words \u201chath eternal life,\u201d v, 24.\n\nAgain Catherine, for the most part, appropriates and develops that one\nout of the two Joannine currents of doctrine concerning the Judgment,\nwhich treats the latter as already determined and forestalled by Man\u2019s\npresent personal attitude towards the Light. The judgment is thus\nsimply a discrimination, according to the original meaning of the noun\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2--like when God in the beginning \u201cdiscriminated the light from\nthe darkness,\u201d Gen. i, 5; a discrimination substantially effected\nalready here and now, \u201che that believeth in Him, is not judged; he\nthat believeth not, is already judged,\u201d iii, 18. But the other current\nof doctrine, so prominent in the Synoptists, is not absent from St.\nJohn,--the teaching as to a later, external and visible, forensic\njudgment. And Catherine has a similar intermixture of two currents, yet\nwith a strong predominance of the immanental, present conception of the\nmatter.\n\nAnd even for that one volitional act in the beyond, which, according\nto her doctrine, has a certain constitutive importance for the whole\neternity of all still partially impure souls--for that voluntary\nplunge--we can find an analogue in the Joannine writings, although here\nthere is no reference to the after life. For throughout the greater\npart of his teaching--from iii, 15, 16, apparently up to the end of the\nGospel,--the possession of spiritual Life is consequent upon the soul\u2019s\nown acts of Faith, and not, as one would expect from his other, more\ncharacteristic teaching, upon its Regeneration from above, iii, 3. And\nthe result of such acts of Faith is a \u201cMetabasis,\u201d a \u201cpassing over from\ndeath to life,\u201d v, 24; 1 John iii, 14. Catherine will have conceived\nsuch an act of Faith as predominantly an act of Love, and the act as\nitself already that Metabasis; and will, most characteristically,\nhave quickened the movement, and have altered its direction from the\nhorizontal to the vertical, so that the \u201cpassing, going over,\u201d becomes\na \u201cplunge down into\u201d Life. For indeed the Fire she plunges into is, in\nher doctrine, Life Itself; since it is Light, Love, Christ, and God.\n\nCatherine, once more, is John\u2019s most faithful disciple, where he\ndeclares that Life to stream out immediately from the life-giving\nobject of Faith into the life-seeking subject of that Faith, from the\nbelieved God into the believing soul: \u201cI am the Bread of Life; he who\ncometh to Me, shall not hunger\u201d; \u201che who abideth in Me, and I in him,\nbeareth much fruit\u201d; vi, 35; xv, 5.\n\nAnd finally, she follows John closely where he insists upon\nSimultaneity and Eternity as contrasted with Succession and\nImmortality, so as even to abstract from the bodily resurrection. He\nwho \u201chath passed over from death to life\u201d (already) \u201cpossesses eternal\nlife\u201d; \u201cevery one who liveth and believeth in Me, shall not die for\never (at any time)\u201d; \u201cthis,\u201d already and of itself, \u201cis eternal life,\nto know Thee, the one true God and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent\u201d;\nand the soul\u2019s abiding in such an experience is Christ\u2019s own joy,\ntransplanted into it, and a joy which is full, v, 24; xi, 26; xvii, 3;\nxv, 11. And there is here such an insistence upon an unbroken spiritual\nlife, in spite of and right through physical death, that, to Martha\u2019s\ndeclaration that her brother will arise at the last day, xi, 24, Jesus\nanswers, \u201cI am the Resurrection and the Life: he who believeth in Me,\neven if he die\u201d the bodily death, \u201cshall live\u201d on in his soul; indeed\n\u201cevery man who liveth\u201d the life of the body, \u201cand who believeth in Me,\nshall not die for ever (at any time)\u201d in his soul, xi, 25, 26. John\u2019s\nother line of thought, in which the bodily resurrection is prominent,\nremains without any definite or systematic response in Catherine\u2019s\nteaching.\n\n(5) We can then summarize the influence exercised by John upon\nCatherine by saying that he encouraged her to conceive religion as\nan experience of eternity; as a true, living knowledge of things\nspiritual; indeed as a direct touch of man\u2019s soul by God Himself,\nculminating in man\u2019s certainty that God is Love.\n\n\nIII. THE AREOPAGITE WRITINGS.\n\nCatherine\u2019s close relations to the Areopagite, the Pseudo-Dionysius,\nare of peculiar interest, in their manifold agreement, difference, or\nnon-responsiveness; and this although the ideas thus assimilated are\nmostly of lesser depth and importance than those derived from the New\nTestament writings just considered. They can be grouped conveniently\nunder the subject-matters of God\u2019s creative, providential, and\nrestorative, outgoing, His action upon souls and all things extant,\nand of the reasons for the different results of this action; of\ncertain symbols used to characterize that essential action of God\nupon His creatures; of the states and energizings of the soul, in so\nfar as it is responsive to that action; of certain terms concerning\nthese reactions of the soul; and of the final result of the whole\nprocess. I shall try and get back, in most cases, to the Areopagite\u2019s\nNeo-Platonist sources, the dry, intensely scholastic Proclus, and that\ngreat soul, the prince of the non-Christian Mystics, Plotinus.[70]\n\n\n1. _God\u2019s general action._\n\nAs to God\u2019s action, we have in Dionysius the Circle with the\nthree stages of its movement,--a conception so dear to Catherine.\n\u201cTheologians call Him the Esteemed and the Loved, and again Love and\nLoving-kindness, as being a Power at once propulsive and leading up\u201d\nand back \u201cto Himself; a loving movement self-moved, which pre-exists in\nthe Good, and bubbles forth from the Good to things existing, and which\nagain returns to the Good--as it were a sort of everlasting circle\nwhirling round, because of the Good, from the Good, in the Good, and\nto the Good,--ever advancing and remaining and returning in the same\nand throughout the same.\u201d This is \u201cthe power of the divine similitude\u201d\npresent throughout creation, \u201cwhich turns all created things to their\ncause.\u201d[71] The doctrine is derived from Proclus: \u201cEverything caused\nboth abides in its cause and proceeds from it and returns to it\u201d;\nand \u201ceverything that proceeds from something returns, by a natural\ninstinct, to that from which it proceeds.\u201d[72] And Plotinus had led\nthe way: \u201cthere\u201d in the super-sensible world, experienced in moments\nof ecstasy, \u201cin touch and union with the One, the soul begets Beauty,\nJustice, and Virtue: and that place and life is, for it, its principle\nand end: principle, since it springs from thence; end, because the Good\nis there, and because, once arrived there, the soul becomes what it was\nat first.\u201d[73]\n\nAnd Dionysius has the doctrine, so dear to Catherine, that \u201cthe Source\nof Good is indeed present to all, but all are not,\u201d by their intention,\n\u201cpresent to It; yet, by our aptitude for Divine union, we all,\u201d in a\nsense, \u201care present to It.\u201d \u201cIt shines, on Its own part, equally upon\nall things capable of participation in It.\u201d[74] Already Plotinus had\nfinely said: \u201cThe One is not far away from any one, and yet is liable\nto be far away from one and all, since, present though It be, It is\u201d\nefficaciously \u201cpresent only to such as are capable of receiving It, and\nare so disposed as to adapt themselves to It and, as it were, to seize\nand touch It by their likeness to It, \u2026 when, in a word, the soul is in\nthe state in which it was when it came from It.\u201d[75]\n\nWe have again in Dionysius the combination, so characteristic of\nCatherine, of a tender respect for the substance of human nature, as\ngood and ever respected by God, and of a keen sense of the pathetic\nweakness of man\u2019s sense-clogged spirit here below. \u201cProvidence, as\nbefits its goodness, provides for each being suitably: for to destroy\nnature is not a function of Providence.\u201d \u201cAll those who cavil at the\nDivine Justice, unconsciously commit a manifest injustice. For they\nsay that immortality ought to be in mortals, and perfection in the\nimperfect \u2026 and perfect power in the weak, and that the temporal should\nbe eternal \u2026 in a word, they assign the properties of one thing to\nanother.\u201d[76]\n\n\n2. _Symbols of God\u2019s action._\n\n(1) As to the symbols of God\u2019s action, we have first the Chain or Rope,\nCatherine\u2019s \u201cfune,\u201d that \u201crope of His pure Love,\u201d of which \u201can end was\nthrown to her from heaven.\u201d[77] This symbol was no doubt suggested by\nDionysius: \u201cLet us then elevate our very selves by our prayers to the\nhigher ascent of the Divine \u2026 rays; as though a luminous chain (rope,\n\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac) were suspended from the celestial heights and reached down\nhither, and we, by ever stretching out to it up and up \u2026 were thus\ncarried upwards.\u201d[78] And this passage again goes back to Proclus,\nwho describes the \u201cchain (rope) of love\u201d as \u201chaving its entirely\nsimple and hidden highest point fixed amongst the very first ranks of\nthe Gods\u201d; its middle effluence \u201camongst the Gods higher than the\n(sensible) world\u201d; and its third, lowest, part, as \u201cdivided multiformly\nthroughout the (sensible) world.\u201d \u201cThe divine Love implants one common\nbond (chain) and one indissoluble friendship in and between each soul\n(that participates in its power), and between all and the Beautiful\nItself.\u201d[79] And this simile of a chain from heaven, which in Dionysius\nis luminous, and in Catherine and Proclus is loving, goes back, across\nPlato (_Theaetetus_ 153_c_ and _Republic_, X, 61_b_, 99_c_) to Homer,\nwhere it again is luminous (golden). For, in the _Iliad_, viii, 17-20,\nZeus says to the Gods in Olympus, \u201cSo as to see all things, do you, O\nGods and Goddesses all, hang a golden chain from heaven, and do you all\nseize hold of it\u201d--so as thus to descend to earth.\n\n(2) We have next the symbol of the Sun and its purifying, healing\nLight, under which God and His action are rapturously proclaimed by\nDionysius. \u201cEven as our sun, by its very being, enlightens all things\nable to partake of its light in their various degrees, so also the\nGood, by its very existence, sends unto all things that be, the rays\nof its entire goodness, according to their capacity for them. By means\nof these rays they are purified from all corruption and death \u2026 and\nare separated from instability.\u201d \u201cThe Divine Goodness, this our great\nsun, enlightens \u2026 nourishes, perfects, renews.\u201d Even the pure can\nthus be made purer still. \u201cHe, the Good, is called spiritual light\n\u2026 he cleanses the mental vision of the very angels: they taste, as\nit were, the light.\u201d[80] All this imagery goes back, in the first\ninstance, to Proclus. For Proclus puts in parallel \u201csun\u201d and \u201cGod,\u201d and\n\u201cto be enlightened\u201d and \u201cto be deified\u201d; makes all purifying forces\nto coalesce in the activity of the Sun-God, Apollo Katharsios, the\nPurifier, who \u201ceverywhere unifies multiplicity \u2026 purifying the entire\nheaven and all living things throughout the world\u201d; and describes how\n\u201cfrom above, from his super-heavenly post, Apollo scatters the arrows\nof Zeus,--his rays upon all the world.\u201d[81] The Sun\u2019s rays, here as\npowerful as the bolts of Zeus, thus begin to play the part still\nassigned to them in Catherine\u2019s imagery of the \u201cSa\u00ebtte\u201d and \u201cRadii\u201d of\nthe divine Light and Love. And the substance of the whole symbol goes\nback, through fine sayings of Plotinus and through Philo, to Plato, who\ncalls the Sun \u201cthe offspring of the Good and analogous to it,\u201d and who\n(doubtless rightly) takes Homer\u2019s \u201cgolden chain\u201d to be nothing but the\nSun-rays,--thus identifying the two symbols.[82]\n\n(3) Fire, as a symbol for God and His action, is thus praised by\nDionysius: \u201cThe sacred theologians often describe the super-essential\nEssence in terms of Fire.\u2026 For sensible fire is, so to say, present\nin all things, and pervades them all without mingling with them, and\nis received by all things; \u2026 it is intolerable yet invisible; it\nmasters all things by its own might, and yet it but brings the things\nin which it resides to (the development of) their own energy; it has\na transforming power; it communicates itself to all who approach it\nin any degree; \u2026 it has the power of dividing (what it seizes); it\nbears upwards; it is penetrating; \u2026 it increases its own self in a\nhidden manner; it suddenly shines forth.\u201d[83]--All these qualities,\nand the delicate transitions from fire to light and from light back to\nfire, and from heat immanent to heat applied from without, we can find\nagain, vividly assimilated and experienced, in Catherine\u2019s teaching\nand emotional life. But the Sun-light predominates in Dionysius, the\nFire-heat in Catherine; and whereas the former explicitly attaches\npurification only to the Sun-light, the latter connects the cleansing\nchiefly with Fire-heat, no doubt because the Greek man is busy chiefly\nwith the intellectually cognitive, and the Italian woman with the\nmorally ameliorative, activities and interests of the mind and soul.\n\n\n3. _The soul\u2019s reaction._\n\n(1) As to the soul\u2019s reaction under God\u2019s action, and its return to\nHim, we first get, in Dionysius, the insistence upon Mystical Quietude\nand Silence, which, according to him, are strictly necessary, since\nonly like can know and become one with like, and God is \u201cPeace and\nRepose\u201d and, \u201cas compared with every known progression, Immobility,\u201d\nand \u201cthe one all-perfect source and cause of the Peace of all\u201d; and\nHe is Silence, \u201cthe Angels are, as it were, the heralds of the Divine\nSilence,\u201d--teaching not unlike that of St. Ignatius of Antioch,\n\u201cJesus Christ \u2026 the Word which proceeds from Silence.\u201d[84] Hence \u201cin\nproportion as we ascend to the higher designations of God, do our\nexpressions become more and more circumscribed\u201d; and at last \u201cwe shall\nfind, not a little speaking, but a complete absence of speech and\nof conception.\u201d[85] As Proclus has it: \u201cLet this Fountain of Godhead\nbe honoured on our part by silence and by the union which is above\nsilence.\u201d[86] And Plotinus says: \u201cThis,\u201d the Divine, \u201cLight comes not\nfrom anywhere nor disappears any whither, but simply shines or shines\nnot: hence we must not pursue after it, but must abide in quietness\ntill it appears.\u201d And when it does appear, \u201cthe contemplative, as one\nrapt and divinely inspired, abides here with quietude in a motionless\ncondition, \u2026 being entirely stable, and becoming, as it were, stability\nitself.\u201d[87]--All this still finds its echo in Catherine.--But the\ntreble (cognitive) movement of the Angelic and human mind,--the\ncircular, the straight-line, and the spiral,--which Dionysius, in\ndirect imitation of Proclus, carefully develops throughout three\nsections, is quite absent from Catherine\u2019s mind.[88]\n\n(2) We next get, in Dionysius, the following teachings as to Mystical\nVision and Union. \u201cThe Unity-above-Mind is placed above the minds;\nand the Good-above-word is unutterable by word.\u201d \u201cThere is, further,\nthe most divine knowledge of Almighty God, which is known through\nnot knowing \u2026 when the mind, having stood apart from all existing\nthings, and having then also dismissed itself, has been made one with\nthe super-luminous rays.\u201d \u201cWe must contemplate things divine by our\nwhole selves standing out of our whole selves, and becoming wholly\nof God.\u201d \u201cBy the resistless and absolute ecstasy, in all purity,\nfrom out of thyself and all things, thou wilt be carried on high, to\nthe super-essential ray of the divine darkness.\u201d \u201cIt is during the\ncessation of every mental energizing, that such a union of the deified\nminds and of the super-divine light takes place.\u201d[89] And the original\ncause and final effect of such a going forth from self, are indicated\nin words which were worked out in a vivid fulness by Catherine\u2019s whole\nconvert life: \u201cDivine Love is ecstatic, not permitting any lovers to\nbelong to themselves, but only to those beloved by them. And this\nlove, the superior beings show by being full of forethought for their\ninferiors; those equal in rank, by their mutual coherence; and the\ninferior by a looking back and up to the superior ones.\u201d[90]\n\nDionysius here everywhere follows Proclus. Yet the noblest\nNeo-Platonist sayings are again furnished by Plotinus: \u201cWe are not cut\noff or severed from the Light, but we breathe and consist in It, since\nIt ever enlightens and bears us, as long as It is what It is.\u201d In the\nmoments of Union, \u201cwe are able to see both Him and ourself,--ourself\nin dazzling splendour, full of spiritual light, or rather one with the\npure Light Itself \u2026 our life\u2019s flame is then enkindled.\u201d \u201cThere the\nsoul rests, after it has fled up, away from evil, to the place which\nis free from evils \u2026 and the true life is there.\u201d \u201cArrived there,\nthe soul becomes that which she was at first.\u201d[91] And if Plotinus\nhas thus already got the symbolism of place, he is as fully aware as\nCatherine herself that, for purposes of vivid presentation, he is\nspacializing spiritual, that is, unextended, qualitative states and\nrealities. \u201cThings incorporeal do not get excluded by bodies; they are\nsevered only by otherness and difference: hence, when such otherness is\nabsent, they, not differing, are near each other.\u201d And already, as with\nCatherine, there is the apparent finality, and yet also the renewed\nsearch for more. \u201cThe seer and the seen have become one, as though it\nwere a case not of vision but of union.\u201d \u201cWhen he shall have crossed\nover as the image to its Archetype, then he will have reached his\njourney\u2019s end.\u201d And yet this \u201cecstasy, simplification, and donation of\none\u2019s self,\u201d this \u201cquiet,\u201d is still also \u201ca striving after contact,\u201d \u201ca\nmusing to achieve union.\u201d[92]\n\n\n4. _Terminology of the soul\u2019s reaction._\n\n(1) Certain terms and conceptions in connection with the soul\u2019s return\nto God, which are specially dear to Catherine, already appear, fully\ndeveloped, in Dionysius, Proclus, and Plotinus; in part, even in Plato.\nHer \u201csuddenly \u201c (_subito_) appears but rarely in Dionysius, _e.g._ in\n_Heavenly Hierarchy_ xv, 2; but it is carefully explained by him in\nhis Third Epistle, specially devoted to the subject.[93] It is common\nin Plotinus: \u201cSuddenly the soul saw, without seeing how it saw\u201d;\n\u201csuddenly thou shalt receive light,\u201d \u201csuddenly shining.\u201d[94] And in\nPlato we find: \u201cHe who has learnt to see the Beautiful in due order\nand succession, when he comes towards the end, will suddenly perceive\na Nature of wondrous beauty--Beauty alone, absolute, separate, simple\nand everlasting\u201d: a passage which derives its imagery from the Epopteia\nof the Eleusynian Mysteries,--the sudden appearance, the curtain being\nwithdrawn, upon the stage whereon the Heathen Mystery-play was being\nperformed, under a peculiar fairy-illumination, of the figures of\nDemeter, Kore, and Iacchus, as the culmination of a long succession of\npurifications and initiations.[95]\n\nCatherine\u2019s \u201cwound,\u201d or \u201cwounding stroke,\u201d (_ferita_), is, in part, the\nnecessary consequence of the \u201carrow\u201d conception already considered;\nin part, the echo of that group of terms which, in Dionysius and\nProclus even more than in Plotinus, express the painfully sudden\nand overwhelming, free-grace character of God\u2019s action upon the\nsoul,--especially of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae, \u201cimmissio,\u201d a \u201ccoming-upon,\u201d a \u201chitting,\u201d\na very common word in the Areopagite; \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae, \u201ccommunication,\u201d and\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae, \u201creception,\u201d being the corresponding terms for God\u2019s and the\nsoul\u2019s share in this encounter respectively. Thus: \u201cUnions, whether we\ncall them immissions or receptions from God.\u201d[96]\n\n\u201cPresence,\u201d \u201cpresenza,\u201d \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ac, is another favourite term, as with\nCatherine so also with Dionysius and Proclus. Thus the Areopagite:\n\u201cThe presence of the spiritual light causes recollection and unity in\nthose that are being enlightened with it,\u201d \u201cHis wholly inconceivable\npresence.\u201d[97] And Proclus: \u201cEvery perfect spiritual contact and\ncommunion is owing to the presence of God.\u201d[98] And the conception of a\nsudden presence goes back, among the Neo-Platonists, to Plato and the\nGreek Mysteries, in which the God was held suddenly to arrive and to\ntake part in the sacred dance. Such rings of sacred dancers, \u201cchoirs,\u201d\nare still characteristic of Dionysius--_e.g._ _Heavenly Hierarchy_,\nvii, 4--but they are quite wanting in Catherine.--But \u201ccontact,\u201d\n\u201ctouch,\u201d \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03c6\u03ae,--said of God\u2019s direct action upon the soul,--a\nconception so intensely active in Catherine\u2019s mind and life, is again\na favourite term with Dionysius and Proclus. The former declares this\n\u201ctouch\u201d to be neither \u201csensible\u201d nor \u201cintelligible\u201d and that \u201cwe are\nbrought into contact with things unutterable\u201d; the latter talks of\n\u201cperfect spiritual contact.\u201d[99]\n\nThe symbols of \u201cNakedness\u201d and \u201cGarments,\u201d as indicative respectively\nof the soul\u2019s purity and impurity or self-delusion, are, though most\nprominent in Catherine, rare in Dionysius. But his declaration:\n\u201cThe nakedness of the (Angels\u2019) feet indicates purification from\nthe addition of all things external and assimilation to the divine\nsimplicity\u201d exactly expresses her idea.[100] And Proclus has it more\nfully: The soul, on descending into the body, forsakes unity, \u201cand\naround her, from all sides, there grow multiform kinds of existence\nand manifold garments\u201d; \u201clove of honour is the last garment of souls\u201d;\nand \u201cwhen,\u201d in mounting up, \u201cwe lay aside our passions and garments\nwhich, in coming down, we had put on, we must also strip off that\nlast garment, in order that, having become (entirely) naked, we may\nestablish ourselves before God, having made ourselves like to the\ndivine life.\u201d[101]\n\n(2) Again, as to Triads, it is interesting to note that Catherine has\nnothing about the three stages or ways of the inner life,--purgative,\nilluminative, unitive,--of which Dionysius is full, and which are\nalready indicated in Proclus; for we can find but two in her life, the\npurgative and unitive, and in her teaching these two alone appear,\nmostly in close combination, sometimes in strong contrast. Nor has\nshe anything about the three degrees or kinds of prayer,--Meditation,\nContemplation, Union,--as indicated in Dionysius: \u201cIt behoves us, by\nour prayers, to be lifted into proximity with the Divine Trinity; and\nthen, by still further approaching it, to be initiated\u2026; and (lastly)\nto make ourselves one with it\u201d; and as taught by Proclus: \u201cKnowledge\nleads, then follows proximity, and then union.\u201d[102] With her we\nonly get Contemplation and Union.--Nor do we get in her anything\nabout thrice three choirs of Angels, or three orders of Christian\nMinistrants, or three classes of Christian people, or thrice three\ngroups of Sacraments and Sacramental acts. For she is too intensely\nbent upon immediate intercourse with God, and too much absorbed in the\nsense of profound unity and again of innumerable multiplicity, to be\nattracted by Dionysius\u2019s Neo-Platonist ladder of carefully graduated\nintermediaries, or by his continuous interest in triads of every kind.\nCatherine thus follows the current in Dionysius which insists upon\ndirect contact between the soul and the transcendent God, and ignores\nthe other, which bridges over the abyss between the two by carefully\ngraduated intermediaries: these intermediaries having become, with her,\nsuccessive stages of purification and of ever more penetrating union of\nthe one soul with the one God.\n\n\n5. _Deification, especially through the Eucharist._\n\nAs to the end of the whole process, we find that Deification, so\nfrequently implied or suggested by Catherine, is formally taught by\nDionysius: \u201cA union of the deified minds\u201d (\u1f10\u03ba\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd); the heavenly\nand the earthly Hierarchy have the power and task \u201cto communicate\nto their subjects, according to the dignity of each, the sacred\ndeification\u201d (\u1f10\u03ba\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2); \u201cwe are led up, by means of the multiform of\nsensible symbols, to the uniform Deification.\u201d[103] \u201cThe One is the\nvery God,\u201d says Proclus, \u201cbut the Mind (the No\u00fbs) is the divinest of\nbeings, and the soul is divine, and the body is godlike.\u2026 And every\nbody that is God-like is so through the soul having become divine; and\nevery soul that is divine, is so through the Mind being very divine;\nand every Mind that is thus very divine, is so through participation\nin the Divine One.\u201d[104] There are preformations of this doctrine in\nPlotinus and echoes of it throughout Catherine\u2019s sayings.\n\nAnd the Areopagite\u2019s teaching that the chief means and the culmination\nof this deification are found and reached in the reception of the\nHoly Eucharist will no doubt also have stimulated Catherine\u2019s mind:\n\u201cThe Communicant is led to the summit of deiformation, as far as this\nis possible for him.\u201d[105] And her soul responds completely to the\nbeautiful Dionysian-Proclian teaching concerning God\u2019s presence in all\nthings, as the cause of the profound sympathy which binds them all\ntogether. \u201cThey say,\u201d declares Dionysius, \u201cthat He is in minds \u2026 and\nin bodies, and in heaven and in earth; (indeed that He is) sun, fire,\nwater, spirit \u2026 all things existing, and yet again not one of all\nthings existing.\u201d \u201cThe distribution of boundless power passes from\nAlmighty God all things, and no single being but has intellectual,\nor rational, or sensible, or vital, or essential power.\u201d \u201cThe gifts\nof the unfailing Power pass on to men and (lesser) living creatures,\nto plants, and to the entire nature of the Universe.\u201d[106] This\nlatter passage was suggested by Proclus: \u201cOne would say that, through\nparticipation in the One, all things are deified, each according to\nits rank, inclusive of the very lowest of beings.\u201d \u201cThe image of the\nOne and the inter-communion existing through it,--this it is that\nproduces the extant sympathy\u201d which permeates all things.[107]--But\nCatherine has nowhere the term \u201cecho,\u201d which is so dear to Dionysius:\n\u201cHis all-surpassing power holds together and preserves even the\nremotest of its echoes\u201d; \u201cthe sun and plants are or hold most distant\nechoes of the Good and of Life\u201d; indeed even the licentious man still\npossesses, in his very passion, \u201cas it were a faint echo of Union and\nof Friendship.\u201d[108]\n\n\n6. _Dionysius and Catherine; three agreements and differences._\n\nI conclude with three important points of difference and similarity\nbetween Catherine and Dionysius.\n\n(1) Catherine abstains from the use of those repulsive, impossibly\nhyperbolic epithets such as \u201cthe Super-Good,\u201d \u201cthe Above-Mind,\u201d which\nDionysius is never weary of applying to God, and is content with ever\nfeeling and declaring how high above the very best conception which\nshe can form of mind and of goodness He undoubtedly is; thus wisely\nmoderated, I take it, by her constant experience and faith as to\nGod\u2019s immediate presence within the human soul, which soul cannot,\nconsequently, be presented as entirely remote from the nature of God.\n\n(2) Catherine transforms over-intense and impoverishing insistence upon\nthe pure Oneness of God, such as we find it even in Dionysius and still\nmore in Proclus, into a, sometimes equally over-intense, conception as\nto the oneness of our union with Him, leaving Him to be still conceived\nas an overflowing richness of all kinds.\n\n(3) And Catherine keeps, in an interesting manner, Hellenic, and\nspecifically Platonic, formulation for the deepest of her experiences\nand teachings, since her standing designation of God and of Our\nLord is never personal, \u201cMy Lover\u201d or \u201cMy Friend\u201d; but, as it were,\nelemental, \u201cLove\u201d or \u201cMy Love.\u201d Her keen self-purifying instinct\nand reverence for God will have spontaneously inclined her thus to\nconsider Him first as an Ocean of Being in which to quench and drown\nher small, clamorous individuality, and this as a necessary step\ntowards reconstituting that true personality, which, itself spirit,\nwould be penetrated and sustained by the Spirit, Christ, God. And then\nthe Pauline-Joannine picturings of God as a quasi-place and extended\nsubstance (\u201cfrom Him and in Him and to Him,\u201d \u201cin the Spirit,\u201d \u201cin\nChrist,\u201d \u201cGod is Charity and he that abideth in Charity, abideth in\nHim\u201d) will have strongly confirmed this trend. Yet Dionysius too must\nhave greatly helped on this movement of her mind. For in Dionysius\nthe standing appellations for God are, in true Neo-Platonist fashion,\nderived from extended or diffusive material substances or conditions,\nLight, Fire, Fountain, Ocean; and from that pervasive emotion, Love,\nstrictly speaking Desire, Eros.\n\nNow this, for our modern and Christian feeling, curiously impersonal,\ngeneral and abstract method goes back, through Proclus and Plotinus,\nto Plato, who, above all in his _Symposium_, is dominated by the two\ntendencies and requirements, of identifying the First and Perfect\nwith the most General and the most Abstract; and of making the very\nprerequisites and instruments of the search for It,--even the earthly\nEros, still so far from the Heavenly Eros and from the Christian\nAgap\u0113,--into occasions, effects or instalments of and for the great\nReality sought by them. And since it is thus the love, the desire, the\neros, of things beautiful, and true, and good,--a love first sensible,\nthen intellectual, and at last spiritual, which makes us seek and find\nIt, the Beauty, Truth, and Goodness which is First Cause and Final End\nof the whole series, this Cause and End will be considered not as a\nLover but as Love Itself. It is plain, I think, that it is specially\nthis second motive, this requirement of a pervading organization and\ncircle of and within the life of spirits and of the Spirit, which has\nalso determined Catherine to retain Plato\u2019s terminology.\n\n\nIV. JACOPONE DA TODI\u2019S \u201cLODE.\u201d\n\nIn the case of Jacopone, the suddenly wife-bereft and converted lawyer,\nan ardent poet doubled by a soaring, daring mystic, with an astonishing\nrichness of simultaneous symbols and conceptions and rapidity of\nsuccessive complements and contrasts, it will really be simplest if\nI take the chief touches which have characteristically stimulated\nCatherine or have left her unaffected, in the order and grouping in\nwhich they appear in his chief \u201cLode,\u201d as these latter are given in the\nfirst printed edition, probably the very one used by Catherine.[109]\n\n\n1. _Lode XIII, XXIII, XXXV, XLV._\n\nIn Loda XIII \u201cthe vicious soul is likened unto Hell,\u201d vv. 1-7; and \u201cthe\nsoul that yesterday was Hell, to-day has turned into Heaven,\u201d v. 8. We\nthus get here, precisely as in Catherine, the spaceless conditions of\nthe soul and their modifications treated under the symbols of places\nand of the spacial change from one place to the other.\n\nIn Loda XXIII we first have five successive purifications and purities\nof Love, \u201ccarnal, counterfeit, self-seeking, natural, spiritual,\ntransformed,\u201d vv. 1-6; and then the symbols of spacial location\nand movement reappear, \u201cif height does not abase itself, it cannot\nparticipate with, nor communicate itself to, the lowest grade\u201d; all\nwhich is frequent with Catherine. But she nowhere echoes the teaching\nreproduced here, v. 10, as to the Divine Trinity being figured in man\u2019s\nthree faculties of soul.\n\nLoda XXXV gives us a sort of Christian Stoicism very dear dear to\nCatherine: \u201cThou, my soul, hast been created in great elevation; thy\nnature is grounded in great nobility (_gentilezza_),\u201d v. 7; \u201cthou hast\nnot thy life in created things; it is necessary for thee to breathe in\nother countries, to mount up to God thine inheritance, Who (alone) can\nsatisfy thy poverty,\u201d v. 10; \u201cgreat is the honour which thou doest to\nGod, when thou abidest (stare) in Him, in thy (true) nobility,\u201d v. 11.\n\nLoda XLV gives \u201cthe Five Modes in which God appears in the Soul\u201d--\u201cthe\nstate of fear\u201d; mercenary, \u201cbeggar-love\u201d; \u201cthe way of love\u201d; \u201cthe\npaternal mode\u201d; \u201cthe mode of espousals.\u201d Catherine leaves the last two,\nanthropomorphic and familial, conceptions quite unused, and passes in\nher life, at one bound, from the first to the third mode.\n\n\n2. _Lode LVIIIa, LVIIIb._\n\nThe fine Loda LVIII_a_, \u201cOf Holy Poverty, Mistress of all Things,\u201d has\nevidently suggested much to Catherine. \u201cWaters, rivers, lakes, and\nocean, fish within them and their swimming; airs, winds, birds, and all\ntheir flying: all these turn to jewels for me,\u201d v. 10. How readily the\nsense of water, and of rapid movement within it, passes here into that\nof air, and of swift locomotion within _it_! And both these movements,\nare felt to represent, in vivid fashion, certain very different\nexperiences of the soul.--\u201cMoon, Sun, Sky, and Stars,--even these are\n_not_ amongst my treasures; above the very sky those things abide,\nwhich are the object of my song,\u201d v. 11. The positive, \u201canalogic\u201d\nmethod has here turned suddenly into the negative, \u201capophatic\u201d one;\nand yet, even here, we still have the spacial symbolism, for the best\nis the highest up,--indeed it is this very symbolism which is made to\nadd point to the negative declaration, a declaration which nevertheless\nclearly implies the mere symbolism of that spacialization. All this is\nfully absorbed by Catherine.--\u201cSince God has my will, \u2026 my wings have\nsuch feathers that from earth to heaven there is no distance for me,\u201d\nv. 12. Here we see how Plato filters through, complete, to Jacopone;\nbut only in his central idea to Catherine. For the _Phaedrus_, 246_b_,\n_c_, teaches: \u201cThe perfect soul then, having become winged, soars\nupwards, and is the ruler of the universe; whilst the imperfect soul\nsheds her feathers and is borne downwards, till it settles on the solid\nground.\u201d Catherine never mentions wings nor feathers, but often dwells\nupon flying.\n\nThe great Loda LVIII_b_, \u201cOf Holy Poverty and its Treble Heaven,\u201d\n(one passage of which is formally quoted and carefully expounded\nby Catherine), is a combination of Platonism, Paulinism, and\nFranciscanism, and has specially influenced her through its Platonist\nelement. Verses 1-9 contain a fine apostrophe to Poverty. \u201cO Love of\nPoverty, Reign of tranquillity! Poverty, high Wisdom! to be subject\nto nothing; through despising to possess all things created!\u201d v. 1:\nall this is echoed by Catherine. But the ex-lawyer\u2019s declaration that\nsuch a soul \u201chas neither judge nor notary,\u201d v. 3, did certainly not\ndetermine her literally, for we have had before us some fifteen cases\nin which she had recourse to lawyers. \u201cGod makes not His abode in a\nnarrow heart; thou art, oh man, precisely as great as thine affection\nmay be. The spirit of poverty possesses so ample a bosom, that Deity\nItself takes up its dwelling there,\u201d v. 8. Catherine\u2019s deepest self\nseems to breathe from out of this profound saying.\n\nVerses 10 to 30 describe the three heavens of successive\nself-despoilments. The firmamental heaven, which typifies the four-fold\nrenouncement,--of honour, riches, science, reputation of sanctity,\nhas left no echo in Catherine. The stellar heaven is \u201ccomposed of\nsolidified clear waters (_aque solidate_)\u201d; here \u201cthe four winds\u201d\ncease \u201cthat move the sea,--that perturb the mind: fear and hope, grief\nand joy,\u201d 11-14. Here Plato again touches Catherine through Jacopone.\nFor the _Symposium_, 197_a_, declares: \u201cLove it is that produces\npeace among men and calm on the sea, a cessation of the winds, and\nrepose and sleep even in trouble\u201d; and Jacopone identifies the middle\n\u201ccrystalline\u201d heaven, (\u201cthe waters above\u201d of Genesis, chap, i,) with\nPlato\u2019s \u201csea\u201d; takes Plato\u2019s (four) winds as the soul\u2019s chief passions;\nand considers Plato\u2019s \u201cpeace\u201d and \u201cwindlessness\u201d as equivalent to the\n\u201cmuch silence,\u201d which, says the Apocalypse, \u201carose in heaven,\u201d viii, 1,\ninterpreted here as \u201cin mid-heaven.\u201d \u201cNot to fear Hell, nor to hope for\nHeaven, to rejoice in no good, to grieve over no adversity,\u201d v. 16, is\na formulation unlike Catherine, although single sayings of hers stand\nfor sentiments analogous to the first and last.--\u201cIf the virtues are\nnaked, and the vices are not garmented,--mortal wounds get given to the\nsoul,\u201d v. 19, has a symbolism exactly opposite to Catherine\u2019s, who, we\nknow, loves to glorify \u201cnakedness\u201d as the soul\u2019s purity.--\u201cThe highest\nheaven\u201d is \u201cbeyond even the imagings of the mortified fancy\u201d; \u201cof every\ngood it has despoiled thee, and has expropriated thee from all virtue:\nlay up as a treasure this thy gain,--the sense of thine own vileness.\u201d\n\u201cO purified Love! it alone lives in the truth!\u201d These verses, 20-22,\nhave left a deep impress upon Catherine, although she wisely does\nnot press that \u201cexpropriation from virtue,\u201d which goes back at least\nto Plotinus, for whom the true Ecstatic is \u201cbeyond the choir of the\nvirtues.\u201d[110]\n\n\u201cThat which appears to thee (as extant), is not truly, existent:\nso high (above) is that which truly is. True elevation of soul\n(_la superbia_) dwells in heaven above, and baseness of mind\n(_humilitade_) leads to damnation,\u201d v. 24, is a saying to which we\nstill have Catherine\u2019s detailed commentary. In its markedly Platonic\ndistinction between an upper true and a lower seeming world, and in its\ncharacteristically mystical love of paradox and a play upon words, it\nis more curious than abidingly important; but in its deeply Christian\nconsciousness of \u201cpride\u201d and \u201chumility,\u201d in their ordinary ethical\nsense, being respectively the subtlest vice and the noblest virtue, it\nrises sheer above all Platonist and Neo-Platonist apprehension.\n\n\u201cLove abides in prison, in that darksome light! All light there is\ndarkness, and all darkness there is as the day,\u201d vv. 26, 27. Here\nCatherine no doubt found aids towards her prison-conception,--of the\nloving soul imprisoned in the earthly body, and of the imperfect,\nyet loving, disembodied souls imprisoned in Purgatory; and towards\narticulating her strong sense of the change in the meaning and value of\nthe same symbols, as the soul grows in depth and experience. But her\nsymbolization of God, and of our apprehension of Him as Light and Fire,\nis too solidly established in her mind, to allow her to emphasize the\ndarkness-symbol with any reference to Him.\n\n\u201cThere where Christ is enclosed (in the soul), all the old is changed\nby Him,--the one is transformed into the Other, in a marvellous union.\nTo live as I and yet not I; and my very being to be not mine: this is\nso great a cross-purpose (_traversio_), that I know not how to define\nit,\u201d vv. 28-30. This vivid description, based of course upon St. Paul,\nof the apparent shifting of the very centre of the soul\u2019s personality,\nhas left clear echoes in Catherine\u2019s sayings; but the explicit\nreference to Christ is here as characteristically Franciscan as it is\nunlike Catherine\u2019s special habits.--And the great poem ends with a\n_refrain_ of its opening apostrophe.\n\n\n3. _Lode LXXIV, LXXIX, LXXXI, LXXXIII._\n\nIn the dramatically vivid Dialogue between the Old and the Young Friar\n\u201cConcerning the divers manners of contemplating the Cross,\u201d Loda\nLXXIV, the elder says to the younger man: \u201cAnd I find the Cross full\nof arrows, which issue from its side: they get fixed in my heart. The\nArcher has aimed them at me; He causes me to be pierced,\u201d v. 6. The\nCross is here a bow; and yet the arrows evidently issue not from it,\nbut, as so many rays, from the Sun, the Light-Christ, Who is laid upon\nit,--from the heart of the Crucified. Catherine maintains the rays and\narrows, and the Sun and Fire from which they issue; but the Cross and\nthe Crucified, presupposed here throughout, appear not, even to this\nextent, in her post-conversion picturings.--\u201cYou abide by the warmth,\nbut I abide within the fire; to you it is delight, but I am burning\nthrough and through, I cannot find a place of refuge in this furnace,\u201d\nv. 13. All this has been echoed throughout by Catherine.\n\nLoda LXXIX, \u201cOf the Divine Love and its Praises,\u201d has evidently much\ninfluenced her. \u201cO joyous wound, delightful wound, gladsome wound, for\nhim who is wounded by Thee, O Love!\u201d \u201cO Love, divine Fire! Love full\nof laughter and playfulness!\u201d \u201cO Love, sweet and suave; O Love, Thou\nart the key of heaven! Ship that Thou art, bring me to port and calm\nthe tempest,\u201d vv. 3, 6, 16. All this we have found reproduced in her\nsimiles and experiences. \u201cLove, bounteous in spending Thyself; Love\nwith widespread tables!\u201d \u201cLove, Thou art the One that loves, and the\nMeans wherewith the heart loves Thee!\u201d vv. 24, 26. These verses give us\nthe wide, wide world outlook, the connection between Love and the Holy\nEucharist, and the identity of the Subject, Means, and Object of Love,\nwhich are all so much dwelt upon by Catherine.\n\nLoda LXXXI is interesting by the way in which, although treating of\n\u201cthe love of Christ upon the Cross,\u201d it everywhere apostrophizes Love\nand not the Lover, and treats the former, again like Catherine, as a\nkind of boundless living substance; indeed v. 17 must have helped to\nsuggest one of her favourite conceptions: \u201cO great Love, greater than\nthe great sea! Oh! the man who is drowned within it, under it, and with\nit all around him, whilst he knows not where he is!\u201d\n\nLoda LXXXIII has two touches dear to Catherine. \u201cO Love, whose name is\n\u2018I love\u2019--the plural is never found,\u201d v. 5,--a saying which evidently\nis directed, not against a social conception of religion, but against\na denial of the Divine Love being Source as well as Object of our\nlove; and \u201cI did not love Thee with any gain to myself, until I loved\nThee for Thine own sake,\u201d v. 15,--a declaration of wondrous depth and\nsimplicity.\n\n\n4. _Lode LXXXVIII, LXXXIX, LXXXX, LXXXXVIII, LXXXXIX._\n\nThe great Loda LXXXVIII, \u201cHow the soul complains to God concerning\nthe excessive ardours of the love infused into it,\u201d contains numerous\ntouches which have been interestingly responded to or ignored by\nCatherine. \u201cAll my will is on fire with Love, is united, transformed\n(into It); who can bear such Love? Nor fire nor sword can part the\nloving soul and her Love; a thing so united cannot be divided; neither\nsuffering nor death can henceforth mount up to that height where the\nsoul abides in ecstasy,\u201d vv. 5, 6: a combination of St. Paul and\nPlotinus, quite after Catherine\u2019s heart. But \u201cthe light of the sun\nappears to me obscure, now that I see that resplendent Countenance,\u201d\nv. 7, has an anthropomorphic touch to which she does not respond;\nand \u201cI have given all my heart, that it may possess that Lover who\nrenews me so,--O Beauty ancient and ever new!\u201d v. 10, has the personal\ndesignation \u201cLover,\u201d which, again, is alien to her vocabulary.\n\n\u201cSeeing such Beauty, I have been drawn out of myself \u2026 and the heart\nnow gets undone, melted as though it were wax, and finds itself again,\nwith the likeness of Christ upon it,\u201d v. 11, must have stimulated, by\nits first part, some of her own experiences, and will, by its second\npart, taken literally, have helped on the fantastic expectations of\nher attendants. \u201cLove rises to such ardour, that the heart seems to\nbe transfixed as with a knife,\u201d v. 14, no doubt both expressed an\nexperience of Jacopone and helped to constitute the form of a similar\nexperience on the part of Catherine. \u201cAs iron, which is all on fire,\nas dawn, made resplendent by the sun, lose their own form (nature) and\nexist in another, so is it with the pure mind, when clothed by Thee, O\nLove,\u201d v. 21, contains ideas, (all but the symbol of clothing,) very\ndear to Catherine. But the astonishingly daring words: \u201cSince my soul\nhas been transformed into Truth, into Thee, O Christ alone, into Thee\nWho art tender Loving,--not to myself but to Thee can be imputed what I\ndo. Hence, if I please Thee not, Thou dost not please Thine Own Self,\nO Love!\u201d v. 22, remain unechoed by her, no doubt because her states\nshift from one to another, and she wisely abstains from pushing the\narticulation of any one of them to its own separate logical limit.\n\n\u201cThou wast born into the world by love and not by flesh, O Love\nbecome Man (_humanato Amore_),\u201d v. 27, is like her in its interesting\npersistence in the \u201cLove\u201d (not \u201cLover\u201d) designation, but is unlike her\nin its definite reference to the historic Incarnation. \u201cLove, O Love,\nJesus, I have reached the haven,\u201d v. 32, is closely like her, all but\nthe explicit mention of the historic name; and \u201cLove, O Love, Thou art\nthe full-orbed circle,\u201d \u201cThou art both warp and woof,\u201d beginning and\nend, material and transforming agency, v. 33, is Catherine\u2019s central\nidea, expressed in a form much calculated to impress it upon her.\n\nThe daring and profound Loda LXXXIX, \u201cHow the soul, by holy\nself-annihilation and love, reaches an unknowable and indescribable\nstate,\u201d contains again numerous touches which have been assimilated by\nCatherine. So with: \u201cDrawn forth, out of her natural state, into that\nunmeasurable condition whither love goes to drown itself, the soul,\nhaving plunged into the abyss of this ocean, henceforth cannot find,\non any side, any means of issuing forth from it,\u201d vv. 12, 13. So also\nwith: \u201cSince thou dost no longer love thyself, but alone that Goodness\n\u2026 it has become necessary for thee again to love thyself, but with\nHis Love,--into so great an unity hast thou been drawn by Him,\u201d vv.\n52-54. So too with: \u201cAll Faith ceases for the soul to whom it has been\ngiven to see; and all Hope, since it now actually holds what it used\nto seek,\u201d v. 70, although this is more absolute than are her similar\nutterances.--But especially are the startling words interesting: \u201cIn\nthis transformation, thou drinkest Another, and that Other drinketh\nthee (_tu bevi e sei bevuto, in transformazione_),\u201d v. 98, which, in\ntheir second part, are identical with R. Browning\u2019s \u201cMy end, to slake\nThy thirst\u201d:[111] for they will have helped to support or to encourage\nCatherine\u2019s corresponding inversion--the teaching of an eating, an\nassimilation, not of God by man, but of man by God. Both sets of images\ngo back, of course, to the Eucharistic reception by the soul of the\nGod-man Christ, under the forms of Bread eaten and of Wine drunk.\n\nThe striking Loda LXXXX, \u201cHow the soul arrives at a treble state of\nannihilation,\u201d has doubtless suggested much to Catherine. \u201cHe who\nhas become the very Cause of all things\u201d (_chi \u00e8 cosa d\u2019ogni cosa_)\n\u201ccan never more desire anything,\u201d v. 4, is, it is true, more daring,\nbecause more quietly explicit, than any saying of hers. But v. 13 has\nbeen echoed by her throughout: \u201cThe heavens have grown stagnant; their\nsilence constrains me to cry aloud: \u2018O profound Ocean, the very depth\nof Thine Abyss has constrained me to attempt and drown myself within\nit,\u2019\u201d--where note the interestingly antique presupposition of the music\nof the spheres, which has now stopped, and of the watery constitution\nof the crystalline heaven, which allows of stagnation; and the rapidity\nof the change in the impressions,--from immobility to silence, and from\nair to water. Indeed that Ocean is one as much of air as of water, and\nas little the one as the other; and its attractive force is still that\ninnate affinity between the river-soul and its living Source and Home,\nthe Ocean God, which we have so constantly found in Plotinus, Proclus,\nand Dionysius. \u201cThe land of promise is, for such a soul, no longer one\nof promise only: for the perfect soul already reigns within that land.\nMen can thus transform themselves, in any and every place,\u201d v. 18, has,\nin its touching and lofty Stoic-Christian teaching, found the noblest\nresponse and re-utterance in and by Catherine\u2019s words and life.\n\nLoda LXXXXVIII, \u201cOf the Incarnation of the Divine Word,\u201d full though\nit is of beautiful Franciscanism, has left her uninfluenced. But the\nfine Loda LXXXXIX, \u201cHow true Love is not idle,\u201d contains touches which\nhave sunk deep into her mind. \u201cSplendour that givest to all the world\nits light, O Love Jesus \u2026 heaven and earth are by Thee; Thine action\nresplends in all things and all things turn to Thee. Only the sinner\ndespises Thy Love and severs himself from Thee, his Creator,\u201d v. 6,\nis, in its substance, taken over by her. \u201cO ye cold sinners!\u201d v. 12,\nis her favourite epithet. And vv. 13, 14, with their rapid ringing of\nthe changes on the different sense-perceptions, will, by their shifting\nvividness, have helped on a similar iridescence in her own imagery: \u201cO\nOdour, that transcendest every sweetness! O living river of Delight \u2026\nthat causest the very dead to return to their vigour! In heaven Thy\nlovers possess Thine immense Sweetness, tasting there those savoury\nmorsels.\u201d\n\nAnd finally Loda LXXXVII, \u201cOf true and false discretion,\u201d which, in vv.\n12-20, consists of a dialogue between \u201cthe Flesh\u201d and \u201cthe Reason,\u201d\nwill have helped to suggest the slight beginnings of this form of\napprehension to Catherine which we have found amongst her authentic\nsayings and experiences, and which were, later on, developed on so\nlarge a scale, by Battista Vernazza, throughout her long _Dialogo della\nBeata Caterina_.\n\n5. Jacopone it is, then, who furnished Catherine with much help towards\nthat rare combination of deep feeling with severely abstract thinking\nwhich, if at times it somewhat strains and wearies us moderns who would\never end with the concrete, gives a nobly virile, bracing note to even\nthe most effective of her sayings.\n\n\nV. POINTS COMMON TO ALL FIVE MINDS; AND CATHERINE\u2019S MAIN DIFFERENCE\nFROM HER FOUR PREDECESSORS.\n\nIf we now consider for a moment the general points common to the four\nwriters just considered and to Catherine, we readily note that all\nfive are profoundly reflective and interpretative in their attitude\ntowards the given contingencies of traditional religion; that they\nall tend to find the Then and There of History still at work, in\nvarious degrees, Here and Now, throughout Time and Space, and in the\nlast resort, above and behind both these categories, in a spaceless,\ntimeless Present. And if only three, Paul, Jacopone, and Catherine,\nbear marks, throughout all they think and feel and do and are, of the\ncataclysmic conversion-crisis through which they had passed,--the\ntemporally intermediate two, John and Dionysius, have also got, but in\na more indirect form, much of a similar Dualism. All five are, in these\nand other respects, indefinitely closer to each other than any one of\nthem is to the still richer, more complete, and more entirely balanced\nthough less articulated, Synoptic teaching, which enfolds all that\nis abiding in those other five, whilst they, even if united, do not\napproximately exhaust the substance of that teaching.\n\nAnd if we would briefly define the main point on which Catherine holds\nviews additional to, or other than, those other four, we must point to\nher Purgatorial teaching, which has received but little or no direct\nsuggestion from any one of them, and which, whatever may have been its\nliterary precursors and occasions, gives, perhaps more than anything\nelse, a peculiarly human and personal, original and yet still modern,\ntouch to what would otherwise be, to our feeling, too abstract and\nantique a spiritual physiognomy.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nCATHERINE\u2019S LESS ULTIMATE THIS-WORLD DOCTRINES\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY: CATHERINE\u2019S LESS ULTIMATE POSITIONS, CONCERNING OUR LIFE\nHERE, ARE FOUR.\n\nWe have now attempted, (by means of a doubtless more or less artificial\ndistinction between things that, in real life, constitute parts of one\nwhole in a state of hardly separable inter-penetration,) a presentation\nof Catherine\u2019s special, mental and psycho-physical, character and\ntemperament, and of the principal literary stimulations and materials\nwhich acted upon, and in return were refashioned by, that character;\nand we have also given, in sufficient detail, the resultant doctrines\nand world-view acquired and developed by that deep soul and noble mind.\nThe most important and difficult part of our task remains, however,\nstill to be accomplished,--the attempt to get an (at least approximate)\nestimate of the abiding meaning, place, and worth of this whole, highly\nsynthesized position, for and within the religious life generally and\nour present-day requirements in particular. For the general outline of\nthe Introduction, (intended there more as an instrument of research\nand classification for the literature and history then about to be\nexamined, than as this history\u2019s final religious appraisement,) cannot\ndispense us from now attempting something more precise and ultimate.--I\npropose, then, to give the next four chapters to an examination\nof Catherine\u2019s principal positions and practices, the first two,\nrespectively, to \u201cthe less ultimate This-World Doctrines\u201d; and \u201cthe\nOther-World Doctrines,\u201d or \u201cthe Eschatology\u201d; and the last two to \u201cthe\nUltimate Implications and Problems\u201d underlying both. The last chapter\nshall then sum up the whole book, and consider the abiding place and\nfunction of Mysticism, in its contrast to, and supplementation of,\nAsceticism, Institutionalism, and the Scientific Habit and Activity of\nthe Mind.\n\nNow I think the less ultimate spiritual positions, as far as they\nconcern our life here below, which are specially represented, or at\nleast forcibly suggested by, Catherine, can reasonably be accounted as\nfour: Interpretative Religion; a strongly Dualistic attitude towards\nthe body; Quietude and Passivity; and Pure Love. I shall devote a\nsection to each position.\n\n\nI. INTERPRETATIVE RELIGION.\n\n\n1. _Difficulties of the Subjective element of Religion._\n\nNow, by Interpretative Religion, I do not mean to imply that there\nis anywhere, in _rerum natura_, such a thing as a religion which is\nnot interpretative, which does not consist as truly of a reaction on\nthe part of the believing soul to certain stimulations of and within\nit, as of these latter stimulations and actions. As every (even\nbut semi-conscious) act and state of the human mind, ever embraces\nboth such action of the object and such reaction of the subject,--a\nrelatively crude fact of sensation or of feeling born in upon it, and\nan interpretation, an incorporation of this fact by, and into, the\nliving tissue and organism of this mind: so is it also, necessarily\nand above all, with the deepest and most richly complex of all human\nacts and states,--the specifically religious ones. But if this\ninterpretative activity of the mind was present from the very dawn of\nhuman reason, and exists in each individual in the precise proportion\nas mind can be predicated as operative within him at all: this mental\nactivity is yet the last element in the compound process and result\nwhich is, or can be, perceived as such by the mind itself. The process\nis too near to the observer, even when he is once awake to its\nexistence; he is too much occupied with the materials brought before\nhis mind and with moulding and sorting them out; and this moulding and\nsorting activity is itself too rapid and too deeply independent of\nthose materials as to its form, and too closely dependent upon them as\nto its content, for the observation by the mind of this same mind\u2019s\ncontributions towards its own affirmations of reality and of the nature\nof this reality, not ever to appear late in the history of the human\nrace or in the life of any human individual, or not to be, even when it\nappears difficult, a fitful and an imperfect mental exercise.\n\nAnd when the discovery of this constant contribution of the mind to\nits own affirmations of reality is first made, it can hardly fail,\nfor the time being, to occasion misgivings and anxieties of a more or\nless sceptical kind. Is not the whole of what I have hitherto taken\nto be a solid world of sense outside me, and the whole of the world\nof necessary truth and of obligatory goodness within me,--is it not,\nperhaps, all a merely individual creation of my single mind--a mind cut\noff from all effective intercourse with reality,--my neighbour\u2019s mind\nincluded? For all having, so far, been held to be objective, the mind\nreadily flies to the other extreme, and suspects all to be subjective.\nOr if all my apprehensions and certainties are the resultants from the\ninteraction between impressions received by my senses and mind and\nreactions and elaborations on the part of this mind with regard to\nthose impressions, how can I be sure of apprehending rightly, unless\nI can divide each constituent off from the other? And yet, how can I\neffect such a continuous discounting of my mind\u2019s action by means of my\nown mind itself?\n\nAnd this objection is felt most keenly in religion, when the religious\nsoul first wakes up to the fact that itself, of necessity and\ncontinuously, contributes, by its own action, to the constitution of\nthose affirmations and certainties, which, until then, seemed, without\na doubt, to be directly borne in upon a purely receptive, automatically\nregistering mind, from that extra-, super-human world which it thus\naffirmed. Here also, all having for so long been assumed to be purely\nobjective, the temptation now arises to consider it all as purely\nsubjective. Or again, if we insist upon holding that, here too, there\nare both objective and subjective elements, we readily experience keen\ndistress at our inability clearly to divide off the objective, which is\nsurely the reality, from the subjective, which can hardly fail to be\nits travesty.\n\nAnd finally, this doubt and trouble would seem to find specially ready\nmaterial in the mystical element and form of religion. For here, as we\nhave already seen, psycho-physical and auto-suggestive phenomena and\nmechanisms abound; here especially does the mind cling to an immediate\naccess to Reality; and here the ordinary checks and complements\nafforded by the Historical and Institutional, the Analytically\nRational, and the Volitional, Practical elements of Religion are at\na minimum. Little but the Emotional and the Speculatively Rational\nelements seems to remain; and these, more than any others, appear\nincapable of admitting that they are anything other than the pure and\ndirect effects and expressions of spiritual Reality.\n\nWhat, then, shall we think of all this?\n\n\n2. _Answers to the above difficulties._\n\nWe evidently must, in the first instance, guard against any attempt\nat doing a doctrinaire violence to the undeniable facts of our\nconsciousness or of its docile analysis, by explaining all our\nknowledge, or only even all our knowledge of any single thing, as\neither of purely subjective or of purely objective provenance; for\neverywhere and always these two elements co-exist in all human\napprehension, reason, feeling, will, and faith. We find, throughout, an\norganization, an indissoluble organism, of subjective and objective,\nhence a unity in diversity, which is indeed so great that (for our\nown experience and with respect to our own minds at all events), the\nSubjective does not and cannot exist without the Objective, nor the\nObjective without the Subjective.\n\nIn the next place, we must beware against exalting the Objective\nagainst the Subjective, or the Subjective against the Objective, as\nif Life, Reality, and Truth consisted in the one rather than the\nother. Because the subjective element is, on the first showing, a work\nof our own minds, it does not follow (as we shall see more clearly\nwhen studying the ultimate problems) that its operations are bereft\nof correspondence with reality, or, at least, that they are further\nfrom reality than are our sense-perceptions. For just as the degree\nof worth represented by these sense-perceptions can range from the\ncrudest delusion to a stimulation of primary importance and exquisite\nprecision, so also our mental and emotional reaction and penetration\nrepresent almost any and every degree of accuracy and value.\n\nAnd, above all, as already implied, the true priority and superiority\nlies, not with one of these constituents against the other, but with\nthe total subjective-objective interaction and resultant, which is\nsuperior, and indeed gives their place and worth to, those ever\ninterdependent parts.\n\nNow, in the general human experience, the Objective element is\nconstituted, in the first instance and for clear and ready analysis,\nby the sense-stimulations; and, after some mental response to and\nelaboration of these, by the larger psychic moods; and later still, by\nthe examples of great spiritual attitudes and of great personalities\noffered by other souls to the soul that keeps itself open to such\nimpressions. And though the sense of Reality (as contrasted with\nAppearance), of the Abiding and Infinite (as different from the\nPassing and the Finite), are doubtless awakened, however faintly and\ninarticulately, in the human soul from the first, as the background and\npresupposition of the foreground and the middle-distances of its total\nworld of perceptions and aspirations: yet all these middle-distances,\nas well as that great background and groundwork, would remain\nunawakened but for those humble little sense-perceptions on the one\nhand, and intercourse with human fellow-creatures on the other. And in\nsuch intercourse with the minds and souls, or with the literary remains\nand other monuments of souls, either still living here or gone hence\nsome two thousand years or more, a mass of mental and moral impressions\nand stimulations, which, in those souls, were largely their own\nelaborations, offer themselves to any one human mind, or to the minds\nof a whole generation or country, with the apparent homogeneity of a\npurely objective, as it were a sense-impression.\n\nEspecially in Religion the Historical and Institutional (as Religion\u2019s\nmanifestation in space and time), come down to us thus from the past\nand surround us in the present, and either press in upon us with a\npainful weight, or support us with a comforting solidity, thus giving\nthem many of the qualities of things physically seen and touched,\nsay, a mystery play or a vast cathedral. And, on the other hand,\nthe Rational, (whether Analytic or Synthetic,) and the Emotional\nand Volitional Elements, whenever they are at all preponderant or\nrelatively independent of the other, more objective ones, are liable,\nin Religion, to look quite exceptionally subjective,--and this in\nthe unfavourable sense of the word, as though either superfluous and\nfantastic, or as dangerous and destructive.--And yet both that look of\nthe objective elements being, in Religion, more self-sufficing than\nthey appear to be in the ordinary psychic, or the artistic, or social,\nor scientific life; and that impression conveyed by the subjective\nelements in Religion, as being there less necessary or more dangerous\nthan elsewhere, are doubtless deceptive. These impressions are simply\ncaused by two very certain facts. Religion is the deepest and most\ninclusive of all the soul\u2019s energizings and experiences, and hence\nall its constituents reveal a difference, at least in amount and\ndegree, when compared with the corresponding constituents of the more\nsuperficial and more partial activities of the soul; and Religion,\njust because of this, requires the fullest action and co-operation, the\nmost perfect unity, in and through diversity, of all the soul\u2019s powers,\nand all mere non-use of any of these forces, even any restriction to\nthe use of but one or two, is here, more readily and extensively than\nelsewhere, detrimental both to the non-exercised and to the exercised\nforces, and, above all, is impoverishing to the soul itself and to its\nreligion.\n\nHence, here as elsewhere, but more than anywhere, our ideal standard\nwill be the greatest possible development of, and inter-stimulation\nbetween, each and all of the religious elements, with the greatest\npossible unity in the resulting organism. And yet,--in view of the\nvery greatness of the result aimed at, and of the fact that its even\napproximate attainment can, even for any one age of the world, be\nreasonably expected only from the co-operation of the differently\nendowed and attracted races and nations, social and moral grades,\nsexes, ages and individuals that make up mankind,--we shall not\nonly be very tolerant of, we shall positively encourage, largely\none-sided developments, provided that each keeps some touch with the\nelements which itself knows not how to develop in abundance, and that\nit considers its own self, and works out its own special gift and\n_attrait_, as but one out of many variously gifted and apportioned\nfellow-servants in the Kingdom,--as only one of the countless, mutually\ncomplementary, individually ever imperfect, part-expressions of the\nmanifold greatness, of the rich unity of spiritual humanity as willed\nby God, and of God Himself.\n\n\n3. _Partial developments of the full Gospel Ideal._\n\nNow in the New Testament we have a most instructive, at first sight\npuzzling phenomenon, illustrative of the positions just taken up.\nFor here it is clear that, with regard to the distinction between\nrichly many-sided but as yet unarticulated religion, and comparatively\none-sided and limited but profoundly developed religion, we have two\nconsiderably contrasted types of spiritual tone and teaching. We get\nthe predominantly \u201cObjective\u201d strand of life and doctrine, in the\npre-Pauline parts and in their non-Pauline echoes, _i.e._ in the\nsubstance of the Synoptic tradition, and in the Epistles of St. James\nand of St. Peter; and we find the predominantly \u201cSubjective\u201d strain\nin the \u201cPauline\u201d parts, St. Paul\u2019s Epistles and the Joannine Gospel\nand Letters.--And it has become more and more clear that it is the\npre-Pauline parts which give us the most immediately and literally\nfaithful, and especially the most complete and many-sided, picture of\nOur Lord\u2019s precise words and actions; whereas the Pauline parts give\nus rather what some of these great creative forces were and became for\nthe first generations of Christians and for the most penetrating of\nChrist\u2019s early disciples and lovers. And yet it is the latter documents\nwhich, at first sight, appear to be the deeper, the wider, and the more\nprofoundly spiritual; whereas the former look more superficial, more\ntemporal and local, and more simply popular and material.\n\nAnd yet,--though this first impression has been held to be finally\ntrue by large masses of Christians; although the Greek Fathers\npredominantly, and, in the West, the great soul of an Augustine, and\nthe powerful but one-sided personalities of a Luther and a Calvin\nhave, in various degrees and ways, helped to articulate and all but\nfinally fix it for the general Christian consciousness: this view is\nyielding, somewhat slowly but none the less surely, to the sense that\nit is the Synoptic, the pre-Pauline tradition which contains the fuller\narsenal of the spiritual forces which have transfigured and which still\ninspire the world of souls. This, of course, does not mean that the\nPauline-Joannine developments were not necessary, or are not abiding\nelements towards the understanding of the Christian spirit.\n\nAnd, to come to the true answer to our objection, such a judgment\ndoes not mean that the reflective penetration and reapplication of\nthe original more spontaneous message was, from the very nature of\nthe case, inferior to the first less articulated announcement of the\nGood Tidings. But it merely signifies that this necessary process of\nreflection could only be applied to parts of the original, immensely\nrich and varied, because utterly living, divinely spiritual, whole; and\nthat, thus, the special balance and tension which characterized the\noriginal, complete spirit and temper, could, however profoundly, be\nreproduced only in part. For the time being this later penetration and\nresetting of some elements from among the whole of Our Lord\u2019s divinely\nrich and simple life and teaching, necessarily and rightly, yet none\nthe less most really, ignored, or put for the time into some other\ncontext, certain other sides and aspects of that primitive treasure\nof inexhaustible experience. Only the full, equable, and simultaneous\nunfolding of all the petals could have realized the promise and\ncontent of the bud; whereas the bud, holding enfolded within itself\nsuch various elements and combinations of truth, could not expand its\npetals otherwise than successively, hence, at any one moment only\nsomewhat one-sidedly and partially. Each and all of these unfoldings\nbring some further insight into, and articulation of, the original\nspiritual organism; and that they are not more, but less, than the\ntotality of that primitive experience and revelation, does not prove\nthat such reflective work is wrong or even simply dispensable,--for, on\nthe contrary, in some degree or form it was and ever is necessary to\nthe soul\u2019s apprehension of that life and truth,--but simply implies the\nimmensity of the spiritual light and impulsion given by Our Lord, and\nthe relative smallness of even the greatest of His followers.\n\nThus only if it could be shown that those parts of the New Testament\nwhich doubtless give us the nearest approach to the actual words and\ndeeds of Our Lord require us to conceive them as having been without\nthe reflective and emotional element; or again that, in the case of the\nmore derivative parts of the New Testament, it is their reflectiveness,\nand not their relative incompleteness and one-sidedness, that cause\nthem to be more readily englobed in the former world, than that former\nworld in the latter: could the facts here found be used as an argument\nagainst the importance and strict necessity for religion of the\nreflective and emotional, the \u201cSubjective\u201d elements, alongside of the\n\u201cObjective,\u201d the Historical and Institutional ones.\n\nIt is a most legitimate ground for consolation to a Catholic when\nhe finds the necessities of life and those of learned research both\ndriving us more and more to this conclusion; for it is not deniable\nthat Catholicism has ever refused to do more than include the Pauline\nand Joannine theologies amongst its earliest and most normative\nstimulations and expressions; and that it has ever retained, far\nmore than Protestantism, the sense, which (upon the whole) is most\nunbrokenly preserved by the Synoptists, of, if I may so phrase it, the\nChristianity of certain true elements in the pre- and extra-Christian\nreligions. For it is in the Synoptists that we get the clear\npresentation of Our Lord\u2019s attitude towards the Jewish Church of His\ntime, as one, even at its keenest, analogous to that of Savonarola, and\nnot to that of a Luther, still less of a Calvin, towards the Christian\nChurch of their day.--Indeed in these documents all idea of limiting\nChristianity to what He brought of new, appears as foreign to His mind\nas it ever has been to that of the Catholic Church. Here we get the\nmost spontaneous and many-sided expression of that divinely human,\nwidely traditional and social, all-welcoming and all-transforming\nspirit, which embraces both grace _and_ nature, eternity _and_ time,\nsoul _and_ body, attachment _and_ detachment. The Pauline strain stands\nfor the stress necessary to the full spiritualization of all those\noccasions and materials, as against all, mere unregenerate or static,\nretention of the simple rudiments or empty names of those things;\nand predominantly insists upon grace, _not_ nature; eternity, _not_\ntime; soul, _not_ body; the cross and death here, the Crown and Life\nhereafter. No wonder it is this latter strain that gets repeated,\nwith varying truth and success, in times of acute transition, and by\ncharacters more antithetic than synthetic, more great at developing a\npart of the truth than the whole.\n\nThinkers, of such wide historical outlook and unimpeachable detachment\nfrom immediate controversial interest as Prof. Wilhelm Dilthey and\nDr. Edward Caird, have brought out, with admirable force, this\ngreater fulness of content offered by the Synoptists, and how the\nPauline-Joannine writings give us the first and most important of\nthose concentrations upon, and in part philosophic and mystical\nreinterpretations of, certain constituents of the original happenings,\nactions and message, as apprehended and transmitted by the first\neye-witnesses and believers.[112]--Here I would but try and drive\nhome the apparently vague, but in reality ever pressing and concrete,\nlesson afforded by the clear and dominant fact of these two groups\nwithin the New Testament itself:--of how no mere accumulation of\nexternal happenings, or of external testimony as to their having\nhappened,--no amount of history or of institutionalism, taken as sheer,\npurely positive givennesses,--can anywhere be found, or can anywhere\nsuffice for the human mind and conscience, in the apprehension and\nembodiment of the truth. For although, in Our Lord\u2019s most literally\ntransmitted sayings and doings, this continuous and inalienable element\nof the apprehending, organizing, vitalizing mind and heart,--on\nHis part above all, but also on the part of His several hearers and\nchroniclers,--can mostly still be traced and must everywhere be\nassumed: yet it is in the Pauline-Joannine literature that the ever\nimportant, the rightly and fruitfully \u201csubjective,\u201d the speculative and\nemotional, the mystical and the volitional strain can best be studied,\nboth as to its necessity and as to its special character and dangers,\nbecause here it is developed to the relative exclusion of the other\nfactors of complete religion.\n\n\n4. _The exclusive emotionalism of Dionysius and Jacopone._\n\nNow if even in St. Paul and St. John there is a strong predominance of\nthese reflective-emotional elements, in Dionysius and Jacopone they\nthreaten to become exclusive of everything else. Especially is this\nthe case with the Pseudo-Areopagite, steeped as he is in reflection\nupon reflections and in emotion upon emotions, often of the most\nsubtle kind: a Christian echo, with curiously slight modifications,\nof Neo-Platonism in its last stage,--hence, unfortunately, of the\nover-systematic and largely artificial Proclus, instead of the\npredominantly experimental and often truly sublime Plotinus. And even\nJacopone, although he has distinctly more of the historic element, is\nstill predominantly reflective-emotional, and presents us with many a\nhardly modified Platonic or Stoic doctrine, derived no doubt from late\nGraeco-Roman writers and their mediaeval Christian echoes.\n\n\n5. _Catherine\u2019s interpretation of the Gospel Ideal._\n\nCatherine herself, although delightfully free from the long scale of\nmediations between the soul and God which forms one of the predominant\ndoctrines of the Areopagite, continues and emphasizes most of what is\ncommon, and much of what is special to, all and each of these four\nwriters; she is a reflective saint, if ever there was one. And of her\ntoo we shall have to say that she is great by what she possesses, and\nnot by what she is without: great because of her noble embodiment of\nthe reflective and emotional, the mystical and volitional elements\nof Christianity and Religion generally. Religion is here, at first\nsight at least, all but entirely a thought and an emotion; yet all\nthis thought and emotion is directed to, and occasioned by, an\nabiding Reality which originates, sustains, regulates, and fulfils\nit. And although this Reality is in large part conceived, in Greek\nand specially in Neo-Platonist fashion, rather under its timeless and\nspaceless, or at least under its cosmic aspect, rather as Law and\nSubstance, than as Personality and Spirit: yet, already because of the\nstrong influence upon her of the noblest Platonic doctrine, it is loved\nas overflowing Love and Goodness, as cause and end of all lesser love\nand goodness; and the real, though but rarely articulated, acceptance\nand influence of History and Institutions, above all the enthusiastic\ndevotion to the Holy Eucharist with all its great implications, gives\nto the whole a profoundly Christian tone and temper.\n\nTrue, the Church at large, indeed the single soul (if we would take\nsuch a soul as our standard of completeness) requires a larger\nproportion of those crisp, definite outlines, of those factual,\nhistorical, and institutional elements; a very little less than what\nremains in Catherine of these elements, and her religion would be\na simple, even though deep religiosity, a general aspiration, not\na definite finding, an explicit religion. Yet it remains certain,\nalthough ever readily forgotten by religious souls, especially by\ntheological apologists, that without some degree and kind of those\noutgoing, apprehending, interpreting activities, no religion is\npossible. Only the question as to what these activities should be, and\nwhat is their true place and function within the whole religious life,\nremains an open one. And this question we can study with profit in\nconnection with such a life and teaching as Catherine\u2019s, which brings\nout, with a spontaneous, childlike profundity and daring, the elemental\nreligious passion, the spiritual hunger and thirst of man when he is\nonce fully awake; the depths within him anticipating the heights above\nhim; the affinity to and contact with the Infinite implied and required\nby that nobly incurable restlessness of his heart, which finds its rest\nin Him alone Who made it.\n\n\nII. DUALISTIC ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE BODY.\n\nAnd if Catherine is profoundly reflective, that reflection is, in its\ngeneral drift, deeply dualistic,--at least in the matter of body and\nspirit. Their difference and incompatibility; the spirit\u2019s fleeing of\nthe body; the spirit\u2019s getting outside of it,--by ecstasy, for a little\nwhile, even in this earthly life, and by this earthly body\u2019s death, for\ngood and all; the body a prison-house, a true purgatory to the soul:\nall this hangs well together, and is largely, in its very form, of\nultimately Neo-Platonist or Platonic origin.\n\n\n1. _New Testament valuations of the body._\n\nNow here is one of the promised instances of a double type--if not of\ndoctrine, yet at least of emotional valuation in the New Testament.\n\n(1) In the Synoptist documents, (with the but apparent, or at least\nsolitary, exceptions, of Jesus\u2019 Fasting in the Desert and of His\ncommendation of those who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom\nof Heaven),[113] we find no direct or acute antagonism to the body,\neven to the average earthly human body, in the teaching and practice\nof Our Lord. The Second Coming and its proximity do indeed, here\nalso, dwarf all earthly concerns, in so far as earthly.[114] This\nbackground to the teaching and its tradition was, in course of time,\nin part abstracted from, in part restated.--The entrance into life is\nthrough the narrow gate and the steep way; only if a man turn, can he\nenter into the Kingdom of God; only if he lose his soul, can he find\nit:[115] this great teaching and example, as to life and joy being ever\nreached through death to self and by the whole-hearted turning of the\nsoul from its false self to its true source, God: remains, in the very\nform of its promulgation as given by the Synoptists, the fundamental\ntest and standard of all truly spiritual life and progress. But as to\nthe body in particular, Jesus here knows indeed that \u201cthe flesh is\nweak,\u201d and that we must pray for strength against its weakness:[116]\nbut He nowhere declares it evil--an inevitable prison-house or a\nnatural antagonist to the spirit. The beautiful balance of an unbroken,\nunstrained nature, and a corresponding doctrine as full of sober\nearnestness as it is free from all concentrated or systematic dualism,\nare here everywhere apparent.\n\n(2) It is St. Paul, the man of the strongest bodily passions\nand temptations, he who became suddenly free from them by the\nall-transforming lightning-flash of his conversion, who, on and on,\nremained vividly conscious of what he had been and, but for that\ngrace, still would be, and of what, through that grace, he had become.\nThe deepest shadows are thus ever kept in closest contrast to the\nhighest lights; and the line of demarcation between them runs here\nalong the division between body and soul. \u201cUnhappy man that I am, who\ncan liberate me from this body of sin?\u201d \u201cIn my flesh dwelleth no good\nthing\u201d:[117] are sayings which are both keener in their tone and more\nlimited in their range than are Our Lord\u2019s. And we have seen how, in\none of his most depressed moods, he transiently adopts and carries\non a specifically Platonist attitude towards the body\u2019s relation to\nthe soul, as he finds it in that beautiful, profoundly Hellenistic\ntreatise, the Book of Wisdom.[118] This attitude evidently represents,\nin his strenuous and deeply Christian character, only a passing\nfeeling; for, if we pressed it home, we could hardly reconcile it with\nhis doctrine as to the reality and nature of the body\u2019s resurrection.\nIt is indeed clear how the Platonist, and especially the Neo-Platonist,\nmode of conceiving that relation excludes any and every kind of body\nfrom the soul\u2019s final stage of purification and happiness; and how\nthe Synoptic, and indeed the generally Christian conception of it,\nnecessarily eliminates that keen and abiding dualism characteristic of\nthe late Greek attitude.\n\n\n2. _Platonic, Synoptic, and Pauline elements in Catherine\u2019s view._\n\nNow in Catherine we generally find an interesting combination of the\nPlatonic form with the Synoptic substance and spirit: and this can, of\ncourse, be achieved only because that abiding form itself is made to\nsignify a changed set and connection of ideas.\n\n(1) We have seen how she dwells much, Plotinus-like, upon the soul\u2019s\nstripping itself of all its numerous garments, and exposing itself\nnaked to the rays of God\u2019s healing light. Yet in the original Platonic\nscheme these garments are put on by the soul in its descent from\nspirit into matter, and are stripped off again in its ascent back out\nof matter into spirit; in both cases, they stand for the body and its\neffects. In Catherine, even more than in Plotinus, the garments stand\nfor various evil self-attachments and self-delusions of the soul;\nand against these evils and dangers the Synoptists furnish endless\nwarnings. And yet she insists upon purity, clear separation, complete\nabstraction of the soul, in such terms as still to show plainly enough\nthe originally Neo-Platonist provenance of much of her form; for\nin the Neo-Platonists we get, even more markedly than here, a like\ninsistence upon the natural dissimilarity of the body and the soul,\nand a cognate longing to get away from it in ecstasy and death. But\nwhilst in the Neo-Platonists there is, at the bottom of all this, a\npredominant belief that the senses are the primary source and occasion\nof all sin, so that sin is essentially the contamination of spirit\nby matter: in Catherine, (although she shares to the full Plotinus\u2019s\nthirst for ecstasy, as the escape from division and trouble into unity\nand peace), impurity stands primarily for self-complacency,--belief in,\nand love of, our imaginary independence of even God Himself; and purity\nmeans, in the first instance, the loving Him and His whole system of\nsouls and of life, and one\u2019s own self only in and as part of that\nsystem.\n\nIt is very instructive to note, in this connection, how, after her four\nyears of directly penitential and ascetical practice, (an activity\nwhich, even then, extended quite as much to matters of decentralization\nof the self as of bodily mortification), her warfare is, in the first\ninstance, all but exclusively directed against the successive refuges\nand ambushes of self-complacency and self-centredness. Thus there is\nsignificance in the secondary place occupied, (even in the _Vita_, and\ndoubtless still more in her own mind), by the question of continence;\nindeed her great declaration to the Friar indicates plainly her\nprofound concentration upon the continuous practice of, and growth in,\nLove Divine, and her comparative indifference to the question of the\nsystematic renunciation of anything but sin and selfish attachments and\nself-centrednesses of any kind. Her conception of sinners as \u201ccold,\u201d\neven more than as dark or stained; of God as Fire, even more than\nas Light; and of purity as indefinitely increasable, since Love can\ngrow on and on: all similarly point to this finely positive, flame-,\nnot snow-conception, in which purity has ceased to be primarily, as\nwith the Greeks, a simple absence of soiledness, even if it be moral\nsoiledness, and has become, as with the Synoptic teaching, something\nprimarily positive, love itself.\n\nIn her occasionally intense insistence upon herself as being all evil,\na very Devil, and in some of her picturings of her interior combat,\nwe get, on the other hand, echoes, not of Plato, nor again of the\nSynoptist teaching, but of St. Paul\u2019s \u201cin my flesh there dwelleth no\ngood thing,\u201d and of his combat between flesh and spirit.--Yet the evil\nwhich she is thus conscious of, is not sensual nor even sensible evil\nand temptation, but consists in her unbounded natural claimfulness and\nintense inclination to sensitive self-absorption.--And this gives,\nindeed, to these feminine echoes of St. Paul a certain thin shrillness\nwhich the original tones have not got, standing there for the massive\nexperiences of a man violently solicitated by both sense and spirit.\nBut it leaves her free to note, as regards the flesh, the whole bodily\norganism, (and this in beautiful sympathy with Our Lord\u2019s own genially\nfervent, homely heroic spirit), not its wickedness, but its weakness,\nits short-livedness, and its appeal for merciful allowance to God,\n\u201cWho knows that we are dust.\u201d Instead of a direct and pointed dualism\nof two distinct substances informed by all but incurably antagonistic\nprinciples, we thus get a direct conflict between two dispositions of\nthe soul, and a but imperfect correspondence between the body and that\nsoul.\n\n(2) There is, indeed, no doubt that the very ancient association of the\nideas of Fire and of spiritual Purification goes back, in the first\ninstance, to the conception of the soul being necessarily stained by\nthe very fact of its connection with the body, and of those stains\nbeing finally removed by the body\u2019s death and cremation. We find\nthis severely self-consistent view scattered up and down Hellenic\nreligion and literature.[119] And even in Catherine the fire, a sense\nof fever-heat, still seizes the body, and this body wastes away,\nand leaves the soul more and more pure, during those last years of\nillness.--Yet the striking identity, between that old cluster of ideas\nand her own forms of thought, brings out, all the more clearly, the\nimmense road traversed by spirituality between the substance of those\nideas and the essence of this thought. For in her teaching, which\nis but symbolized or at most occasioned by those physico-psychical\nfever-heats, the Fire is, at bottom, so spiritual and so directly\nbusy with the soul alone, that it is ever identical with itself in\nHeaven, Hell, Purgatory, and on earth, and stands for God Himself; and\nthat its effects are not the destruction of a foreign substance, but\nthe bringing back, wherever and as far as possible, of the fire-like\nsoul\u2019s disposition and quality to full harmony with its Fire-source and\nParent, God Himself.\n\n(3) Only the Prison-house simile for the body, as essentially an\nearthly purgatory for the soul, must be admitted, I think, to remain\na primarily Platonic, not fully Christianizable conception; just as\nthe absence of all reference by her to the resurrection of the body\nwill have been, in part, occasioned by the strong element of Platonism\nin her general selection and combination of ideas. Yet it would\nobviously be unfair to press these two points too much, since, as to\nthe resurrection, her long illness and evidently constant physical\ndiscomfort must, even of themselves, have disinclined her to all\npicturing of an abiding, even though highly spiritualized, bodily\norganization; and as to the likeness of her body to a prison and\npurgatory of the soul, we are expressly told that it began only with\nthe specially suffering last part of her life.\n\n\n3. _Dualism pragmatic, not final. Its limits._\n\nNow, for this whole matter of the right conception as to the relations\nof body and soul, it is clear that any more than partial and\nincreasingly superable antagonism between body and spirit cannot be\naccepted.\n\n(1) A final Dualism is unsound in Psychology, since all the first\nmaterials, stimulations, and instruments for even our most abstract\nthinking are supplied to us by our sense-perceptions, hence also\nthrough the body. It is narrow in Cosmology, for we do not want to\nisolate man in this great universe of visible things; and his link\nwith animal- and plant-life, and even with the mineral creation, is,\nincreasingly as we descend in the scale of beings, his body. It is\nruinous for Ethics, because purity, in such a physical-spiritual being\nas is man, consists precisely in spiritual standards and laws extending\nto and transforming his merely physical inclinations. It is directly\ncontradictory of the central truth and temper of Christianity, since\nthese require a full acceptance of the substantial goodness and the\nthorough sanctifiableness of man\u2019s body; of God\u2019s condescension to\nman\u2019s whole physico-spiritual organism; and of the persistence or\nreanimation of all that is essential to man\u2019s true personality across\nand after death. And it is, at bottom, profoundly un-Catholic; the\nwhole Sacramental system, the entire deep and noble conception of the\nnormal relations between the Invisible and the Visible being throughout\nof the Incarnational type,--an action of the one in the other, which\ndevelops the agent and subject at the same time that it spiritualizes\nthe patient, the object, is in direct conflict with it. Neo-Platonism\ncame more and more to treat the body and the entire visible creation\nas an intrinsic obstacle to spirit, to be eliminated by the latter as\ncompletely as possible; at least this very prominent strain within it\nwas undoubtedly pushed on to this extreme by the Gnostic sects. But\nChristianity has ever to come back to its central presupposition--the\nsubstantial goodness and spiritual utility and transfigurableness of\nbody and matter; and to its final end,--the actual transformation of\nthem by the spirit into ever more adequate instruments, materials, and\nexpressions of abiding ethical and religious values and realities.\n\n(2) The fact is that here, as practically at every chief turning-point\nin ethical and religious philosophy, the movement of the specifically\nChristian life and conviction is not a circle round a single\ncentre,--detachment; but an ellipse round two centres,--detachment and\nattachment. And precisely in this difficult, but immensely fruitful,\noscillation and rhythm between, as it were, the two poles of the\nspiritual life; in this fleeing and seeking, in the recollection back\nand away from the visible (so as to allay the dust and fever of growing\ndistraction, and to reharmonize the soul and its new gains according\nto the intrinsic requirements and ideals of the spirit), and in the\nsubsequent, renewed immersion in the visible, (in view both of gaining\nfresh concrete stimulation and content for the spiritual life, and of\ngradually shaping and permeating the visible according to and with\nspiritual ends and forces): in this combination, and not in either\nof these two movements taken alone, consists the completeness and\nculmination of Christianity.[120]\n\n(3) It no doubt looks, at first sight, as though the Church, by her\ncanonization of the Monastic Ideal, gave us, for the ultimate pattern\nand measure of all Christian perfection, as pure and simple a flight of\nthe soul from the body and the world, as (short of insanity or suicide)\ncan be made in this life. But here we have to remember three things.\n\nIn the first place, the Church not only forbids all attacks upon\nthe legitimacy, indeed sanctity of marriage, or upon its necessity,\nindeed duty, for mankind at large; but St. Augustine and St. Thomas\nonly articulate her ordinary, strenuously anti-Manichean teaching,\nin declaring that man was originally created by God, in body and in\nsoul, not for celibacy but for marriage; and that only owing to the\naccidental event of the Fall and of its effects,--the introduction of\ndisorder and excess into human nature, but not any corruption of its\nsubstance and foundations,--does any inferiority,--the dispositions,\nmotives, and circumstances being equal,--attach to marriage as compared\nwith virginity.[121] Hence, still, the absolute ideal would be that man\ncould and did use marriage as all other legitimate functions and things\nof sense, as a necessary, and ever more and more perfected, means and\nexpression of truly human spirituality, a spirituality which ever\nrequires some non-spiritual material in which to work, and by working\nin which the soul itself, not only spiritualizes it, but increasingly\ndevelops its own self.\n\nAnd secondly, detachment, unification, spiritual recollection is the\nmore difficult, and the less obviously necessary, of the two movements,\nand yet is precisely the one which (by coming upon the extant or\ninchoate attachments, and by suppressing or purifying them according\nas they are bad or good) first stamps any and every life as definitely\nreligious at all. No wonder, then, that it is this sacred detachment\nand love of the Cross that we notice, first of all, in the life and\ndoctrine of Our Lord and of all His followers, indeed in all truly\nreligious souls throughout the world; and that the Church should, by\nher teaching and selection of striking examples, ever preach and uphold\nthis most necessary test and ingredient, this very salt of all virile\nand fruitful spirituality.\n\nBut, in the third place, a man need only directly attack the family,\nsociety, the state; or art, literature, science,--as intrinsically\nevil or even as, in practice, true hindrances to moral and religious\nperfection,--and the Church,--both the learning and experimenting,\nand the official and formulating Church,--will at once disavow him:\nso strong is, at bottom, the instinct that attachment and variety\nof interests,--variety both in kind and in degree--that materials,\noccasions, and objects for spirituality to leaven and to raise, and to\nwork on in order to be itself deepened and developed,--are as truly\nessential to the spiritual life as are detachment, and unity, and\ntranscendence of ultimate motive and aim; these latter furnishing to\nthe soul the power gradually to penetrate all that material, and, in\nand through this labour, more and more to articulate its own spiritual\ncharacter.\n\n(4) No man can become, or is proclaimed to have become, a Christian\nsaint, who has not thus achieved a profound spiritualization and\nunification of a more or less recalcitrant material and multiplicity.\nIn some cases, it is the unity and detachment that greatly predominate\nover the multiplicity and attachment,--as, say, in the Fathers of the\nDesert. In other cases, it is the variety and attachment that strikes\nus first of all,--as, for instance, in Sir Thomas More and Edmund\nCampion. And, in a third set of cases, it is the depth of the unity and\ndetachment, in the breath of the variety and attachment, which is the\ndominant characteristic, so with St. Paul and St. Augustine. Catherine\nherself belongs, for her great middle period, rather to the third\ngroup than to either of the other two; only during her penitential\nperiod and her last long illness does she clearly belong to the group\nof intensely detached and unified saints.--It is evidently impossible\nin such a matter to do more than insist upon the necessity of both\nmovements; upon the immensely fruitful friction and tension which\ntheir well-ordered alternation introduces into the soul\u2019s inner life;\nand upon the full ideal and ultimate measure for the complete and\nperfected man, humanity at large, being a maximum of multiplicity and\nattachment permeated and purified by a maximum of unity and detachment.\nThe life which can englobe and organize both these movements, with\ntheir manifold interaction, will have a multitude of warm attachments,\nwithout fever or distraction, and a great unity of pure detachment,\nwithout coldness or emptiness: it will have the, winning because rich,\nsimplicity and wondrous combination of apparent inevitableness and of\nseeming paradox furnished by all true life, hence exhibited in its\ngreatest fulness by the religious life which, at its deepest, is deeper\nany other kind of life.\n\n\nIII. QUIETUDE AND PASSIVITY. POINTS IN THIS TENDENCY TO BE CONSIDERED\nHERE.\n\nWe have inevitably somewhat anticipated another matter, in which\nCatherine shows all the true Mystic\u2019s affinities: the craving for\nsimplification and permanence of the soul\u2019s states,--her practice\nand teaching as to Quietude and Passivity. Pushed fully home, this\ntendency involves four closely related, increasingly profound,\nconvictions and experiences. Utter unification of the soul\u2019s functions,\nindeed utter unity of its substance: _i.e._ the soul does one single\nthing, and seems to do it by one single act; itself is simply one, and\nexpresses itself by one sole act. Passivity of the soul: _i.e._ the\nsoul does not apparently act at all, it simply _is_ and receives--it\nis now nothing but one pure immense recipiency. Immediacy of contact\nbetween the soul and God: _i.e._ there seems to be nothing separating,\nor indeed in any way between, the soul and God. And, finally, an\napparent coalescence of the soul and God: _i.e._ the soul _is_ God, and\nGod _is_ the soul.--Only the first two points, and then the closely\nrelated question of Pure Love, shall occupy us here; the last two\npoints must stand over for our penultimate chapter.\n\n\n1. _Distinction between experiences, their expression, and their\nanalysis._\n\nWe have already studied the psycho-physical occasions, concomitants,\nand embodiments of Catherine\u2019s keen desire for, and profound experience\nof, spiritual unification and passivity; and we can have no kind of\ndoubt as to the factual reality and the practical fruitfulness of the\nstate so vividly described by her. Here we have only to inquire into\nthe accuracy of the analysis and terminology effected and employed by\nher, in so far as they seem to claim more than simply to describe the\nsoul\u2019s own feeling and impression as to these states thus experienced\nby itself. We have then to consider the nature and truth of what can\nroughly be styled Quietism and Passivity.\n\nNow here especially will it be necessary for us carefully to\ndistinguish between the direct experiences, impressions, and\ninstinctive requirements of the soul,--here all souls, in precise\nproportion to their depth and delicacy of holiness and of\nself-knowledge are our masters, and furnish us with our only materials\nand tests; and, on the other hand, the implications and analysis of\nthese states, as, in the first instance, psychological, and then as\nrequiring elucidation with regard to their ontological cause and\nreality by means of a religious philosophy,--here, psychology, and\nreligious philosophy, especially also the discriminations and decisions\nof theologians and Church authorities as expressive of these ultimate\nquestions, will be our guides.[122]\n\n(1) If we start from the history of the nomenclature which, (though\npresent only partially in Catherine\u2019s sayings, for she nowhere uses the\nterm \u201cpassivity\u201d), runs, with however varying a completeness, right\nthrough the Christian Mystics more or less from the first, we shall\nfind that it consists, roughly, of three stages, and, throughout,\nof two currents. There is the Pre-Pauline and Pre-Philonian stage;\nthe stage of Paul, Philo, and John, through Clement and Origen,\non to Gregory of Nyssa and St. Augustine; and the stage from the\nPseudo-Dionysius onward, down to Nicolas of Coes inclusive, and which,\nto this hour, still largely influences us all.--And there are the two\ncurrents. The one tends so to emphasize the sense and reality of the\nsoul\u2019s simple receptivity, and of what the soul receives at such,\napparently, purely receptive times, as to ignore, or even practically\ndeny, the undeniable fact that this very receptivity is, inevitably,\nan act of its own. Its decisive terms are Passivity, Fixedness,\nOneness. The other current realizes that Grace does not destroy,\nviolate, or supplant Nature, either entirely or in part, but that it\nawakens, purifies, and completes it, so that every divine influx is\nalso ever a stimulation of all the good and true energy already, even\nthough latently, present in the soul. And its characteristic terms are\n\u201cAction\u201d (as distinguished from \u201cActivity\u201d), Growth, Harmony.\n\n(2) And we should note with care that these two currents are not simply\nHeathen and Christian respectively. For if that great, indeed all but\ncentral, term and conception of \u201cAction\u201d has been wisely generalized\nby most Christian Mystics, as the truly Christian substitute for the\nstrongly Neo-Platonist term \u201cPassivity\u201d: that term and conception of\n\u201cAction\u201d was first fixed and elucidated by Aristotle, who, as Mr.\nSchiller well puts it, \u201chas packed into his technical term \u2018Energeia,\u2019\nand especially into the combination \u2018Unmoving Energy,\u2019 all that\nwas most distinctive, most original, most fundamental, and most\nprofound in his philosophy\u201d;[123] whilst the second term, \u201cPassivity,\u201d\ngoes on figuring in Christian Mystics and Mystical Theologies--(in\nspite of its demonstrably dangerous suggestions and frequently\nscandalous history)--because the religious, especially the Christian,\nconsciousness requires a term for the expression of one element of all\nits deepest experiences, that character of \u201cgiveness\u201d and of grace, of\nmerciful anticipation by God, which marks all such states, in exact\nproportion to their depth and to the soul\u2019s awakeness.\n\n(3) Now Aristotle\u2019s conception of God\u2019s Unmoving Energy, is taken over\nby St. Thomas in the form of God being One Actus Purus,--sheer Energy,\nHis very peace and stillness coming from the brimming fulness of His\ninfinite life. And even finite spirit, whilst fully retaining, indeed\ndeepening, its own character, can and does penetrate finite spirit\nthrough and through,--the law of Physics, which does not admit more\nthan one body in any one place, having here no kind of application,--so\nthat the Infinite Spirit is at once conceived unspiritually, if He\nis conceived as supplanting, and not as penetrating, stimulating,\nand transforming the finite spirits whom He made into an increasing\nlikeness to Him, their Maker. And hence according to the unanimous\nteaching of the most experienced and explicit of the specifically\nTheistic and Christian Mystics, the appearance, the soul\u2019s own\nimpression, of a cessation of life and energy of the soul in periods\nof special union with God or of great advance in spirituality, is an\nappearance only. Indeed this, at such times strong, impression of rest\nsprings most certainly from an unusually large amount of actualized\nenergy, an energy which is now penetrating, and finding expression\nby, every pore and fibre of the soul. The whole moral and spiritual\ncreature expands and rests, yes; but this very rest is produced by\nAction \u201cunperceived because so fleet,\u201d so near, so all fulfilling; or\nrather by a tissue of single acts, mental, emotional, volitional, so\nfinely interwoven, so exceptionally stimulative and expressive of the\nsoul\u2019s deepest aspirations, that these acts are not perceived as so\nmany single acts, indeed that their very collective presence is apt to\nremain unnoticed by the soul itself.\n\n(4) Close parallels to such a state are abundant in all phases and\ndirections of the soul\u2019s life. The happiest and most fruitful moments\nfor our aesthetic sense, those in which our mind expands most and\ngrows most, hence is most active in aesthetic \u201caction\u201d (though not\n\u201cactivity\u201d) are those in which we are unforcedly and massively absorbed\nin drinking in, with a quiet intentness, the contrasts and harmonies,\nthe grand unity in variety, the very presence and spirit of an alpine\nupland, or of a river\u2019s flowing, or of the ocean\u2019s outspread, or of\nthe Parthenon sculptures or of Rafael\u2019s madonnas. At such moments\nwe altogether cease to be directly conscious of ourselves, of time\nor of the body\u2019s whereabouts; and when we return to our ordinary\npsychical and mental condition, we do so with an undeniable sense\nof added strength and youthfulness,--somewhat as though our face,\nold and haggard, were, after gazing in utter self-oblivion upon some\nresplendent youthfulness, to feel, beyond all doubt, all its many\nwrinkles to have gone. And so too with the mind\u2019s absorption in some\ngreat poem or philosophy or character.--In all these cases, the mind or\nsoul energizes and develops, in precise proportion as it is so absorbed\nin the contemplation of these various over-againstnesses, these\n\u201ccountries\u201d of the spirit, as to cease to notice its own overflowing\naction. It is only when the mind but partially attends that a part of\nit remains at leisure to note the attention of the other part; when\nthe mind is fully engrossed, and hence most keenly active, there is no\npart of it sufficiently disengaged to note the fact of the engrossment\nand action of, now, the whole mind. And, with the direct consciousness\nof our mind\u2019s action, we lose, for the time being, all clear\nconsciousness of the mind\u2019s very existence. And let it be carefully\nnoted, this absence of the direct consciousness of the self is as\ntruly characteristic of the deepest, most creative, moments of full\nexternal action: the degree of mind and will-force operating in Nelson\nat Trafalgar and in Napoleon at Waterloo, or again in St. Ignatius\nof Antioch in the Amphitheatre, and in Savonarola at the stake, was\nevidently in the precisely contrary ratio to their direct consciousness\nof it or of themselves at all.\n\n\n(5) Now if such \u201cPassivity,\u201d or Action, is in reality the condition\nin which the soul attains to its fullest energizing, we can argue\nback, from this universal principle, to the nature of the various\nstages and kinds of the Prayer and States of Quiet. In each case, that\nis, we shall combat the still very common conception that,--though\northodoxy, it is admitted, requires _some_ human action to remain\nthroughout,--such Prayer and States consist (not only as to the\nimmediate feeling of their subjects, but in reality and in their\nultimate analysis) in an ever-increasing preponderance of divine action\nwithin the soul, and an ever-decreasing remnant of acts of the soul\nitself. For such a view assumes that God supplants man, and that, so\nto speak, His Hand appears unclothed alongside of the tissue woven by\nman\u2019s own mind; whereas God everywhere but stimulates and supports man\nwhom He has made, and His Hand moves ever underneath and behind the\ntissue,--a tissue which, at best, can become as it were a glove, and\nsuggest the latent hand. The Divine Action will thus stimulate and\ninform the human action somewhat like the force that drives the blood\nwithin the stag\u2019s young antlers, or like the energy that pushes the\ntender sap-full fern-buds up through the hard, heavy ground.\n\nThus a special intensity of divine help and presence, and an unusual\ndegree of holiness and of union, have nothing to do with the fewness\nof the soul\u2019s own acts at such times, but with their quality,--with\nthe preponderance amongst them of divinely informed acts as against\nmerely natural, or wrongly self-seeking, or downrightly sinful acts.\nAnd since it is certain that living simplicity is but the harmony and\nunification, the synthesis, of an organism, and hence is great in\nprecise proportion to the greater perfection of that synthesis, it\nfollows that the living, utterly one-seeming Action or State will,\nat such times, contain a maximum number of interpenetrating acts and\nenergies, all worked up into this harmonious whole.\n\n\n2. _Four causes of inadequate analysis._\n\nIt is plain, I think, that one thoroughly normal, one accidental, and\ntwo mischievous, causes have all conspired to arrest or to deflect the\nanalysis of most of the Mystics themselves concerning Simplicity.\n\nFor one thing, the soul, as has just been shown, at such moments of\nharmonious concentration and of willing and thinking in union with\nGod\u2019s Light and Will, necessarily ceases, more or less, to be conscious\nof its own operations, and, in looking back, braced and rested as it\nnow is, it cannot but think that it either did not act at all, or that\nits action was reduced to a minimum. For how otherwise could it now\nfeel so rested, when, after its ordinary activity, it feels so tired\nand dissatisfied? and how otherwise could it be so unable to give\nany clear account of what happened in those minutes of union? Yet it\nis, on the contrary, the very fulness of the action which has rested,\nby expanding, the soul; and which has made the soul, returned to its\nordinary distractedness, incapable of clearly explaining that, now\npast, concentration.\n\nThe accidental cause has been the fairly frequent, though not\nnecessary, connection of the more pronounced instances of such habits\nof mind with more or less of the psycho-physical phenomena of ecstasy,\nin the technical sense of the word. For, in such trances, the breathing\nand circulation are retarded, and the operation of the senses is in\npart suspended. And it was easy to reason, from such visible, literal\nsimplification of the physical life, to a similar modification of\nthe soul\u2019s action at such times; and, from the assumed desirableness\nof that psycho-physical condition, to the advantage of the supposed\ncorresponding state of the soul itself. Any tendency to an extreme\ndualism, as to the relations between body and soul, would thus\ndirectly help on an inclination to downright Quietism.--Here it is,\non the contrary, certain that only in so far as those psycho-physical\nsimplifications are the results of, or conditions for, a deepening\nmultiplicity in unity, a fuller synthetic action of the soul, or,\nat least, of a fuller penetration by the soul of even one limited\nexperience or idea--an operation which entails not less, but more,\nenergizing of the soul,--are such psycho-physical simplifications of\nany spiritual advantage or significance. And in such cases they could\nnot be indications of the cessation or diminution of the deepest and\nmost docile energizing of the soul.\n\nAnd the mischievous causes were a mistake in Psychology and a mistake\nin Theology. For, as to Psychology, not only was simplicity assumed,\n(through a mistaken acceptance of the soul\u2019s own feeling, as furnishing\nthe ultimate analysis of its state), to consist, at any one moment,\nof an act materially and literally one, instead of a great organism\nof various simultaneous energizings; but this one act was often\nheld to require no kind of repetition. Since the act was one as\nagainst any simultaneous multiplicity, so was it one as against any\nsuccessive multiplicity, even if this latter were taken as a repetition\ndifferentiated by number alone. And yet here again energizing _is_\nenergizing; and though the soul\u2019s acts overlap and interpenetrate\neach other, and though when, by their number and harmony, they\ncompletely fill and pacify the soul, many of them are simultaneously\nor successively present to the soul in their effects alone: it is\nnevertheless the renewal, however peaceful and unperceived, of these\nacts, which keeps the state of soul in existence. For these acts are\nnot simply unowned acts that happen to be present within the soul; they\nare the soul\u2019s own acts, whether, in addition, the soul is directly\nconscious of them or not.\n\nAnd, theologically, the idea was often at work that it was more\nworthy of God to operate alone and, as it were, _in vacuo_; and more\ncreaturely of man to make, or try to make, such a void for Him. Yet\nthis is in direct conflict with the fundamental Christian doctrine,\nof the Condescension, the Incarnation of God to and in human nature,\nand of the persistence, and elevation of this humanity, even in the\ncase of Christ Himself. God\u2019s action does not keep outside of, nor\ndoes it replace, man\u2019s action; but it is,--Our Lord Himself has told\nus,--that of yeast working in meal, which manifests its hidden power in\nproportion to the mass of meal which it penetrates and transforms.\n\n\n3. _Four Quietistic aberrations._\n\nNow it is certain that the error of Quietism has, in no doubt many\ncases, not remained confined to such mistakes in psychological analysis\nand theological doctrine, but that these have joined hands with, and\nhave furnished a defence to, sloth and love of dreamy ease, or to some\nimpatience of the necessary details of life, or to fanatical attachment\nto some one mood and form of experience; and that they have, thus\nreinforced, ravaged not a few wills and souls.\n\nFour chief Quietistic aberrations can be studied in history.\n\n(1) The neglect or even contempt of vocal prayer, and of the historical\nand institutional elements of religion, at least in the case of\nmore advanced souls, is one of these abuses.--Now it is true, and\nCatherine has been a striking instance, that the proportion of all\nthese different elements towards one another vary, and should vary,\nconsiderably between soul and soul, according to the _attrait_ and\ndegree of advance of each; that the soul\u2019s most solid advance is in the\ndirection of an ever-deepened spiritual devotedness, and not in that of\na multiplication of particular devotions; that the use of even the more\ncentral of those elements and means may, for souls called to the prayer\nof Quiet, become remarkably elastic and largely unmethodized; and that,\nfor such souls (and, in various degrees and ways, sooner or latter, for\nperhaps most other souls), a prayer of peacefully humble expectation\nand of all but inarticulate, practically indescribable, brooding of\nlove, and of dim, expansive trust and conformity is possible, sometimes\nalone possible, and is proved right and useful, if it leaves them\nstrengthened to act and to suffer, to help and to devote themselves to\ntheir fellows, to Christ, and to God.\n\nBut it remains equally true, even for these as for all other souls,\nthat the historical and institutional elements must ever remain\nrepresented, and sufficiently represented; indeed the persistence in\nthese elements of religion will be one of the chief means for avoiding\ndelusion. We have St. Teresa\u2019s experience and teaching here, as a truly\nclassical instance. And if the prayer of Quiet will give a special\ncolour, depth, and unity to those more contingent-seeming practices,\nthese practices will, in return, give a particular definiteness,\ncontent, and creaturely quality to that prayer. And thus too the\nuniversally and profoundly important union and interchange with souls\nof other, equally legitimate, kinds and degrees of spirituality will\nbe kept up. Only the sum-total of all these souls, only the complete\ninvisible Church, is the full Bride of Christ; and though the souls\ncomposing her may and should each contribute a varying predominance of\ndifferent elements, no soul should be entirely without a certain amount\nof each of these constituents.\n\n(2) Another abuse is the neglect, contempt, or misapplied fear\nof not directly religious occupations and labours which, however\notherwise appropriate or even necessary to this soul\u2019s growth and\ndestination, tend to disturb its quiet and to absorb a part of its\ntime and attention. Here it is doubtless true that the other elements\nof religion are also all more or less apprehensive and jealous with\nregard to actual, or even only possible, non-religious rival interests.\nAnd it is certain that they are all right in so far as that a certain\ninterior leisureliness and recollection, a certain ultimate preference\nfor the spiritualizing religious force of the soul as against the\nmaterials, non-religious and other, which that force is to penetrate,\nare necessary to the soul that would advance.\n\nBut the fear that characterizes the Historical and Institutional\nelements is rather a fear, respectively, of error and of disobedience\nand singularity, whereas on the part of the Mystical element it is a\nfear of distraction and absorption away from the _Unum Necessarium_ of\nthe soul. Perhaps even among the Canonized Mystics there is none that\nhas more impressively warned us, both by word and example, against\nthis insidious danger, than the distinguished Platonist scholar and\ndeep spiritual writer, P\u00e8re Jean Nicolas Grou, who, right through the\nlong mystical period of his life, alternated his prayer of Quiet with\nextensive and vigorous critical work on the Graeco-Latin classics,\nand whose practice only wants further expansion and application,\n(according to the largely increased or changed conditions of such not\ndirectly religious work), in order to bear much fruit, not only for\ncriticism and science, but, (by the return-effect of such occupations\nupon the soul\u2019s general temper and particular devotional habits), for\nspirituality itself. But we must return to this point more fully in our\nlast chapter.\n\n(3) The third abuse is the neglect or contempt of morality, especially\non its social, visible, and physical sides. Particular Mystics, and\neven whole Mystical schools and movements, have undoubtedly in some\ninstances, and have, possibly, in many more cases, been maligned on\nthis point, since even such a spotless life as F\u00e9nelon\u2019s, and that of\nsuch a profoundly well-intentioned woman as Madame Guyon, did not,\nfor a time, escape the most unjust suspicions. It is also true that,\nas a man advances in spirituality, he lays increasing stress upon the\nintention and general attitude of the agent, and increasingly requires\nto be judged by the same interior standard, if he is to be rightly\nunderstood at all. God may and does, to humble and purify him, allow\npainful temptations and trials from within to combine, apparently,\nagainst him, with persecutions and much isolation from without. And\nthe difference, rather than the similarity, between Religion and\nMorality,--the sense of pure grace, of free pardon, of the strange\nprofound \u201cgivenness\u201d of even our fullest willings and of our most\nemphatically personal achievements,--can and should grow in him more\nand more.\n\nAnd yet it is clear that there must have been some fire to account\nfor all that smoke of accusation; that the material and the effect\noutwards, the _body_ of an action, do matter, as well as does that\naction\u2019s _spirit_; that this body does not only act thus outwards,\nbut also inwards, back upon the spirit of the act and of the agent;\nand that temptations and trials are purifying, not by their simple\npresence but in proportion as they are resisted, or, if they have been\nyielded to, in proportion as such defeats are sincerely deplored and\nrenounced. Thus everywhere the full development of any one part of\nlife, and the true unity of the whole, have to be achieved through the\ngradual assimilation of at first largely recalcitrant other elements,\nand within an ever-abiding multiplicity--a maximum number of parts and\nfunctions interacting within one great organism. And hence not the\noutrage, neglect, or supersession of morality, but, on the contrary,\nits deeper development, by more precise differentiation from, and more\norganic integration into, religion proper, must, here again and here\nabove all, be the final aim. Once more again it is the Incarnational\ntype which is the only fully true, the only genuinely Christian one.\n\n(4) And, finally, there are certain hardly classifiable fanaticisms,\nwhich are nevertheless a strictly logical consequence from a wrongly\nunderstood Quiet and Passivity,--from Quietism in its unfavourable,\ncondemned sense. I am thinking of such a case as that of Margarethe\nPeters, a young Quietist, who caused herself to be crucified by her\ngirl-companions, at Wildenspuch, near Schaffhausen, in 1823,--in order\nto carry out, in full literalness and separateness, the utmost and\nmost painful passivity and dependence and resistless self-donation, in\ndirect imitation of the culminating act of Christ\u2019s life on earth and\nof His truest followers.[124] Here, in the deliberate suicide of this\nundoubtedly noble Lutheran girl, we get an act which but brings out\nthe strength and weakness of Quietism wherever found. For the greatest\nconstituents of the Christian spirit are undoubtedly there: free\nself-sacrifice, impelled by love of God, of Christ, and of all men,\nand by hatred of self.--Yet, because they here suppress other, equally\nnecessary, constituents, and are out of their proper context and bereft\nof their proper checks, they but render possible and actual a deed of\npiteous self-delusion. How terrible is false simplification, the short\ncut taken by pure logic, operating without a sufficient induction from\nfacts, and within an ardent, self-immolating temperament!\n\n\n4. _Rome\u2019s condemnation of Quietism._\n\nAll this is abundantly sufficient to explain and justify Rome\u2019s\ncondemnation of Quietism. The term \u201cQuietists\u201d appears, I think, for\nthe first time,--at least in an invidious sense,--in the Letter which\nCardinal Caraccioli, Archbishop of Naples, addressed to Pope Innocent\nXI (Odescalchi) on June 30, 1682, and in which he graphically describes\nthe abuses which, (under pretext or through the misapplication of\nspiritual Quiet and Passivity), had now appeared in his Diocese: souls\napparently incapable of using their beads or making the sign of the\nCross; or which will neither say a vocal prayer nor go to Confession;\nor which, when in this prayer of Quiet, even when at Holy Communion,\nwill strive to drive away any image, even of Our Lord Himself, that may\npresent itself to their imagination; or which tear down a Crucifix, as\na hindrance to union with God; or which look upon all the thoughts that\ncome to them in the quietude of prayer, as so many rays and effluences\nfrom God Himself, exempting them henceforth from every law.[125]\n\nYet it is important to bear well in mind, the special circumstances,\nthe admitted limits, and the probable signification of Rome\u2019s\ncondemnations.\n\n(1) As to the circumstances of the time, it appears certain that it was\nthe ready circulation of the doctrines of the Spanish priest, Miguel de\nMolinos in the _Guida Spirituale_, 1675, and the abuses of the kind we\nhave just now detailed, and that sprang from this circulation, which\nformed the primary reason and motive for the otherwise excessively\nsevere treatment of a man and a book, which had both received the very\nhighest and the most deliberate ecclesiastical approbations. That these\ntwo circumstances were the determining causes of at least the severity\nof his condemnation is well brought out by the circumstance that,\nduring his two years\u2019 trial (1685-1687), not only the short _Guida_ but\nhis whole obtainable correspondence (some twenty thousand letters) were\nexamined, and that it is at least as much on such occasional manuscript\nmaterial, and on Molinos\u2019s own oral admissions,--in prison and\ndoubtless, in part at least, under torture,--that the condemnation was\nbased, containing, as it does, certain revoltingly immoral propositions\nand confessions, admittedly absent from his published writings.\n\nBut if at least some shadow of doubt rests upon the moral character\nof Molinos, not a shadow of such suspicion or of doubt concerning his\nperfectly Catholic intentions can, in justice, be allowed to rest\nupon his chief follower and the most distinguished apologist for his\ndoctrine, the saintly Oratorian and Bishop, the much-tried Cardinal\nPetrucci; any more than F\u00e9nelon\u2019s moral and spiritual character, or\ndeeply Catholic spirit and intentions, can, (in spite of the painfully\nfierce and unjust attack upon both by Bossuet in his formally classic\ninvective, _Relation sur le Qui\u00e9tisme_), for one moment be called\nin question.[126] Other admittedly deeply spiritual and entirely\nwell-intentioned Catholics, whose writings were also condemned during\nthis time when devotional expressions having an at all quietistic tinge\nor drift were very severely judged, are M\u00e8re Marie de l\u2019Incarnation\n(Marie Guyard), a French Ursuline Religious, who died in Canada in\n1672, and the process of whose Beatification has been introduced; the\nsaintly French layman, Jean de Berni\u00e8res-Louvigny, much admired by\nF\u00e9nelon, who died in 1659; the very interior, though at times somewhat\nfantastic, Secular Priest, Henri Marie Boudon, who died in 1702; and\nthe very austere but highly experienced ascetical writer, the Jesuit\nP\u00e8re Joseph Surin, whom Bossuet had formally approved, and who died in\n1668.[127] But Madame Guyon herself, that much-tried and vehemently\nopposed woman, was held, by many an undoubtedly Catholic-minded,\nexperienced and close observer, to be (in spite of the largely\nmisleading and indeed incorrect character of many of her analyses and\nexpressions) a truly saintly, entirely filial Catholic.[128]\n\n(2) As to the limits of these condemnations, we must remember that only\ntwo of them,--those of Molinos and of F\u00e9nelon,--claim to be directly\ndoctrinal at all; and that F\u00e9nelon was never really compromised in\nthe question of Quietism proper, but was condemned on questions of\nPure Love alone. Bossuet himself was far less sound as against the\ncentral Quietist doctrine of the One Act, which, unless formally\nrevoked, lasts on throughout life, and hence need never be repeated;\nF\u00e9nelon\u2019s early criticism of the Molinos propositions remains one of\nthe clearest extant refutations of that error. Again in the matter of\nthe Passivity of advanced souls, Bossuet was distinctly less normal and\nsober than F\u00e9nelon: for whilst F\u00e9nelon taught that in no state does\nthe soul lose all capacity, although the facility may greatly vary,\nto produce distinct acts of the virtues or vocal prayers and other\npartially external exercises, Bossuet taught that, in some cases, all\ncapacity of this kind is abolished.[129] \u201cI take,\u201d says F\u00e9nelon, \u201cthe\nterms \u2018Passive\u2019 and \u2018Passivity\u2019 as they actually appear everywhere\nin the language of the (sound) Mystics, as something opposed to the\nterms \u2018active\u2019 and \u2018activity\u2019: \u2018Passivity,\u2019 taken in the sense of an\nentire inaction of the will, would be a heresy.\u201d And he then opposes\n\u201cPassivity,\u201d not to \u201cAction,\u201d but to that \u201cActivity,\u201d which is a merely\nnatural, restless, and hurried excitation.[130]\n\n(3) And as to the abiding significance of the whole anti-quietist\ndecisions and measures, we shall do well to consider the following\nlarge facts. From St. Paul and St. John to Clement of Alexandria and\nOrigen; from these to Dionysius the Areopagite; from the Areopagite to\nSt. Bernard of Clairvaux and then the Franciscan and Dominican Mystics;\nfrom these, again, on to the great Renaissance and Counter-Reformation\nsaints and writers of this type,--the German Cardinal Nicolas of Coes\nand the Italian St. Catherine of Genoa, the Spaniards St. Teresa and\nSt. John of the Cross, and the French Saint Francis de Sales and\nSaint Jane Frances de Chantal, we get a particular type of religious\nexperience and doctrine, which but unfolds and concentrates, with an\nunusual articulation, breadth, and depth, what is to be found, on\nsome sides of their spiritual character and teaching, among Saints\nand religious souls of the more mixed type, such as St. Augustine,\nSt. Anselm, St. Thomas of Aquin, and St. Ignatius Loyola. And this\nmixed type, bearing within it a considerable amount of that mystical\nquiet and emotional-speculative element, is again but a deepening, a\npurification and a realization of one of the profoundest affinities and\nconstituents of every human heart and will.\n\nHence, even in the thickest of the quietist controversy, when that\nmystical element must have seemed, to many, to be discredited once for\nall, those best acquainted with the rich history of the Church, and\nwith the manifold requirements of the abiding religious consciousness,\ncould not and did not doubt that all that was good, deep, and true\nin that element would continue to be upheld by, and represented in,\nthe Church.--And it is not difficult to point to the more or less\nMystical souls furnished by the Monks, the Friars; the Clerks-Regular,\nspecially the Jesuits; the Secular Clergy; and the Laity, down to\nthe present day. Such writers and Saints as P\u00e8re de Caussade (_d._\nabout 1770) on the one hand, and P\u00e8re Jean N. Grou (_d._ 1803) and\nthe Cur\u00e9 d\u2019Ars (_d._ 1859) on the other hand, carry on the two\nstreams of the predominantly mystical and of the mixed type,--streams\nso clearly observable before 1687 and 1699. Quietism, the doctrine\nof the One Act; Passivity in a literal sense, as the absence or\nimperfection of the power and use of initiative on the soul\u2019s part in\nany and every state: these doctrines were finally condemned, and most\nrightly and necessarily condemned; the Prayer of Quiet, and various\nstates and degrees of an ever-increasing predominance of Action over\nActivity,--an Action which is all the more the soul\u2019s very own,\nbecause the more occasioned, directed, and informed by God\u2019s action\nand stimulation,--these, and the other chief lines of the ancient\nexperience and practice, remain as true, correct, and necessary as ever.\n\n\n5. _Rome\u2019s alleged change of front._\n\nAnd yet it is undeniable that the Roman events between 1675 and 1688 do\nseem, at first sight, to justify the strongly Protestant Dr. Heppe\u2019s\ncontention that those twelve years,--not to speak of the later troubles\nof Madame Guyon and of F\u00e9nelon--witnessed a complete _volte face_, a\nformal self-stultification, of the Roman teaching and authority, on\nthese difficult but immediately important matters.\n\n(1) Let us put aside the many passages in Molinos\u2019s _Guida_ which\nwere but (more or less) literal reproductions of the teachings\nof such solemnly approved authorities as Saints Teresa, Peter of\nAlcantara, John of the Cross, Francis de Sales and Jane Frances de\nChantal,--passages which, of course, remained uncondemned even in\nMolinos\u2019s pages, but which it would often be difficult to distinguish\nfrom the parts of his book that were censured. Yet there still remain\nsuch facts as the following.\n\nJuan Falconi\u2019s _Alfabeto_ and _Lettera_ were at their Fifth Italian\nedition, 1680, and all five editions had been approved by the Master\nof the Apostolic Palace; but only in 1688 were these writings\nforbidden. Yet the _Lettera_ contains, with unsurpassed directness and\nclearness, the central doctrine of Quietism: an exhortation to the\nproduction of one single lively Act of Faith, which will then continue\nuninterruptedly through the whole earthly life into eternity, and\nwhich, consequently, is not to be repeated.[131]\n\nMolinos\u2019s _Guida_ and _Breve Trattato_ appeared in Rome, respectively\nin 1675 and 1681, with the approbations of five theologians, four of\nwhom were Consultors of the Holy Office,--the Archbishop of Reggio;\nthe Minister-General of the Franciscans; the late General of the\nCarmelites; Father Martin Esparza, the same Jesuit Theologian-Professor\nof the Roman College who, some years before, had been one of those who\nhad examined and approved St. Catherine\u2019s _Vita ed Opere_; and the\nactual General of the Carmelites.[132]\n\nEven after these two writings of Molinos had been criticised by the\nJesuits Bell Huomo and Segneri and the Clerk Regular Regio, (Segneri\nenjoying a deservedly immense reputation, and showing in this affair\nmuch moderation and a strong sense of the legitimate claims of\nMysticism), the Inquisition examined these criticisms, and forbade, not\nthe incriminated writings of Molinos and Petrucci, but the critique of\nBell Huomo _donec corrigatur_, and those of Regio and of Segneri (in\nhis _Lettera_ of 1681) absolutely. Segneri\u2019s subsequent _Concordia_\nalmost cost him his life, so strong was the popular veneration of\nMolinos.\n\nMolinos indeed was the guest of Pope Innocent XI himself, and the\nfriend and confidant, amongst countless other spiritually-minded souls,\nof various Cardinals, especially of the deeply devout Petrucci, Bishop\nof Jesi, who was raised to the Cardinalate eighteen months after the\nbeginning of Molinos\u2019s trial. The imprisonment of Molinos began in May\n1685, but the trial did not end till August 1687, when (after nineteen\n\u201cPrincipal Errors of the New Contemplation\u201d had been censured by the\nHoly Office in February 1687) sixty-eight propositions, out of the\ntwo hundred and sixty-three which had been urged against him, were\nsolemnly condemned: of these the clearly and directly immoral ones\nbeing admittedly not derived from any printed book, or indeed any ever\npublished letter of his Molinos.[133]\n\n(2) To estimate Rome\u2019s attitude (as far as it concerns the ultimate\ntruth and completeness of these doctrines, taken in their most\ncharacteristic and explicit forms) fairly, we shall have to put aside\nall questions as to the motives that impelled, and the methods that\nwere employed, by either side against the other. Molinos may have been\neven worse than the condemned propositions represent, and yet Petrucci\nwould remain a saintly soul; and we certainly are driven to ask with\nLeibniz: \u201cSi Molinos a cach\u00e9 du venin sous ce miel, est-il juste que\nPetrucci et autres personnes de m\u00e9rite en soient responsables?\u201d[134]\nBut neither the wickedness of the one nor the sanctity of the other\nwould make the doctrines propounded by them, objectively, any less\nsolid or more spiritual than they are in themselves. The acutely\nanti-Roman Anglican Bishop Burnet may not have invented or exaggerated\nwhen he wrote from Rome, during those critical years, that one of the\nchief motives which actuated the opponents of the Quietists was the\nfact that, though the latter \u201cwere observed to become more strict in\ntheir lives, more retired and serious in their mental devotions, yet \u2026\nthey were not so assiduous at Mass, nor so earnest to procure Masses to\nbe said for their friends: nor \u2026 so frequently either at Confession or\nin processions\u201d: and so \u201cthe trade of those that live by these things\nwas sensibly sunk.\u201d[135] And the cruel injustice of many details and\nprocesses of the movement against the Quietists,--a movement which soon\nhad much of the character of a popular scare and panic, in reaction\nagainst a previous, in part, heedless enthusiasm,--are beyond dispute\nor justification. Yet mercenary and ruthless as part of the motives and\nmuch of the action of the anti-quietists doubtlessly were, the question\nas to the worth and wisdom of Quietism, (taken objectively, and not as\nan excusable counter-excess but as a true synthesis of the spiritual\nlife), remains precisely where it was before.\n\n(3) Now I think that two peculiarities, most difficult to notice at\nthe time, seriously differentiate the Molinist movement from the great\ncurrent of fully Catholic Mysticism, even in those points and elements\nwhere the two are materially alike or even identical; and yet that\nthese peculiarities are but the caricature (through further emphasis\nand systematization) of certain elements present, in a more latent\nand sporadic manner, in the formulae and philosophic assumptions\nor explanations of the older Mysticism,--elements which had been\nborrowed too largely from a, at bottom, profoundly anti-incarnational\nphilosophy, not to be of far less value and of much greater danger than\nthe profoundly true experiences, nobly spiritual maxims, and exquisite\npsychological descriptions which that predominantly Neo-Platonist\nframework handed on.\n\nThe first peculiarity is that the older Mystics, especially those of\nthe type of St. Catherine of Genoa and St. John of the Cross, but\neven also those of the more \u201cmixed\u201d type of Mysticism, such as St.\nTeresa, had indeed quite freely used terms which are vividly true\nas descriptions of the prima facie aspect and emotional impression\nof certain states and experiences of the soul: \u201cempty,\u201d \u201cfixed,\u201d\n\u201cmotionless,\u201d \u201cthe reason and the will have ceased to act,\u201d \u201cdoing\nnothing,\u201d \u201cincapable of doing anything,\u201d \u201cmoved by irresistible grace,\u201d\n\u201cbut one act,\u201d \u201cone single desire\u201d: these and equivalent expressions\noccur again and again. But these sayings do not here lead up to such a\ndeliberate and exclusive rule as is that given by Falconi, and repeated\nby Molinos in his _Guida_, Nos. 103-106.[136]\n\nThis doctrine of the One Act, in this its negative form,--for it\nis not to be repeated,--and in its application to the whole waking\nand sleeping life, is first an exclusive concentration upon, and\nthen a wholesale extension of, one out of the several trends of the\nolder teaching, a doctrine which, compared with that teaching in its\ncompleteness, is thin and doctrinaire, and as untrue to the full\npsychological explanation and working requirements of the soul as it\nis readily abusable in practice and contrary to the Incarnational type\nof religion. It is impossible not to feel that the manifold great\nocean-waters of life, that the diversely blowing winds of God\u2019s Spirit\nare here, somehow, expected to flow and breathe in a little shortcut,\nsingle channel, through a tiny pipe; one more infallible recipe or\nprescription is here offered to us, hardly more adequate than the many\nsimilar \u201csure\u201d roads to salvation, declared by this or that body of\ndevout religionists to attach to the practice or possession of this or\nthat particular prayer or particular religious object.\n\nAnd the second difference is that the older Catholic Mystics leave\nless the impression that the external side of religion, its _body_,\nis of little or no importance, and indeed very readily an obstacle to\nits interior side, its _soul_. And this, again, for the simple reason\nthat their teaching is, in general, less systematic and pointed, more\nincidental, and careless of much self-consistency.\n\n(4) Yet these two differences have largely sprung from the simple\npressing and further extension of precisely the least satisfactory, the\nexplanatory and systematic side,--the form as against the content,--of\nthe older Mystics. For once the more specifically Neo-Platonist\nconstituent, in those Mystics\u2019 explanation and systematization, was\nisolated from the elements of other provenance which there had kept it\nin check, and now became, as it were, hypostasized and self-sufficient,\nthis constituent could not but reveal, more clearly than before, its\ninadequacy as a form for the intensely organic and \u201cincarnational\u201d\nspiritual realities and processes which it attempted to show forth.\nThat Neo-Platonist constituent, always present in those ancient\nMystics, had ever tended to conceive the soul\u2019s unity, at any one\nmoment, as a something outside of all multiplicity whatsoever. Hence\nthis character of the simultaneous unity had only to be extended to\nthe successive unity,--and the literally One Act, as in the present so\nthroughout the future, became a necessary postulate.\n\nAnd that same constituent had, even in those great teachers of\nprofound maxims, exquisite religious psychology, and noblest living,\ntended, (however efficaciously checked by all this their Christian\nexperience and by certain specifically Platonist and Aristotelian\nelements of their philosophy), towards depreciating the necessity,\nimportance, indeed even the preponderant utility, of the External,\nContingent, Historical and Institutional, and of the interchange, the\ninter-stimulation between these sides and expressions of religion and\nits internal centre and spirit.\n\nPerhaps, amongst all the great ecclesiastically authorized Mystics of\nthat past, the then most recent of them all, St. John of the Cross,\ncomes, by his (theoretically continuous though in his practice by no\nmeans exclusive) insistence upon the abstractive and universal, the\nobscure and invisible, the self-despoiling and simplifying element and\nmovement, nearest to an exclusion of the other element and movement.\nIndeed the Quietists\u2019 generally strong insistence upon the necessity\nof a Director and upon Frequent Communion gives their teaching, when\ntaken in its completeness, a prima facie greater Institutionalism than\nis offered by the spiritual theory of the great Spaniard. Yet if, even\nin him, one misses, in his theoretical system, a sufficiently organic\nnecessity for the outgoing movement, a movement begun by God Himself,\nand which cannot but be of fundamental importance and influence for\nbelievers in the Incarnation, there is as complete an absence of the\ndoctrinaire One-Act recipe for perfection as in the most Historical and\nInstitutional of Christian teachers. But more about this hereafter.\n\n\n6. _Four needs recognised by Quietism._\n\nQuietism, then, has undoubtedly isolated and further exaggerated\ncertain explanatory elements of the older Mysticism which, even there,\nwere largely a weakness and not a strength; has thus underrated and\nstarved the Particular, Visible, Historical, Institutional constituents\nof Religion; and has, indeed, misunderstood the nature of true Unity\neverywhere. Yet the very eagerness with which it was welcomed at\nthe time,--in France and Italy especially,--and this, not only as a\nfashion by the _Quidnuncs_, but as so much spiritual food and life by\nmany a deeply religious soul; and the difficulty, and not infrequent\nruthlessness of its suppression, indicate plainly enough that, with\nall its faults and dangers, it was divining and attempting to supply\ncertain profound and abiding needs of the soul. I take these needs to\nbe the following four.\n\n(1) Man has an ineradicable, and, when rightly assuaged, profoundly\nfruitful thirst for Unity,--for Unification, Synthesis, Harmonization;\nfor a living System, an Organization both within and without himself,\nin which each constituent gains its full expansion and significance\nthrough being, and more and more becoming, just _that_ part and\nfunction of a great, dynamic whole; a sense of the essential and\nultimate organic connection of all things, in so far as, in any degree\nor form, they are fair and true and good. And this sense and inevitable\nrequirement alone explain the surprise and pain caused, at first, to\nus all, by the actual condition of mutual aloofness and hostility,\ncharacteristic of most of the constituents of the world within us, as\nof the world around us, towards their fellow-constituents. A truly\natomistic world,--even an atomistic conception of the world,--of life,\nas a collection of things one alongside of another, on and on, is\nutterly repulsive to any deeply religious spirit whose self-knowledge\nis at all equal to its aspirations.--No wonder, then, if the Quietists,\nhaunted by the false alternative of one such impenetrable atom-act or\nof an indefinite number of them, chose the One Act, and not a multitude\nof them.\n\n(2) Man has a deep-seated necessity to purify himself by detachment,\nnot only from things that are illicit but even from those that are\nessential and towards which he is bound to practise a deep and warm\nattachment. There is no shadow of theoretical or ultimate contradiction\nhere: to love one\u2019s country deeply, yet not to be a _Chauvinist_; to\nlove one\u2019s wife tenderly, yet not to be uxorious; to care profoundly\nfor one\u2019s children, yet to train, rebuke, and ever brace them, when\nnecessary, up to suffering and even death itself: these things so\nlittle exclude each the other, that each attachment can only rightly\ngrow in and through the corresponding detachment. The imperfection\nin all these cases, and in all the analogous, specifically religious\nones, lies not in the objects to be loved, nor in these objects being\nmany and of various degrees and kinds of lovableness, nor in the right\n(both effective and affective, appropriately varied) love of them:\nbut simply in our actual manner of loving them.--No wonder then that\nQuietism, face to face with the false alternative of either Attachment\nor Detachment, chose Detachment, (the salt and the leaven of life) and\nnot attachment (life\u2019s meat and meal).\n\n(3) Man has a profound, though ever largely latent, capacity and need\nfor admiration, trust, faith; and does not by any means improve solely\nby direct efforts at self-improvement, and by explicit examinations\nof his efforts and failures; but, (a little from the first, and very\nsoon as much, and later on far more), he progresses by means of a\nhappy absorption in anything clean and fruitful that can and does\nlift him out of and above his smaller self altogether.--And such an\nabsorption will necessarily be unaccompanied, at the time, by any\ndirect consciousness on the part of the mind as to this its absorption.\nAnd, religiously, such quiet concentrations will, in so far as they are\nat all analyzable after the event, consist in a quite inarticulate,\nand yet profound and spiritually renovating, sense of God; and they\nwill have to be tested, not by their describable content, but by their\nethical and religious effects. \u201cPsychology and religion,\u201d says that\ngreat psychological authority, Prof. William James, \u201cboth admit that\nthere are forces, seemingly outside of the conscious individual, that\nbring redemption to his life.\u201d \u201cA man\u2019s conscious wit and will, so far\nas they strain after the ideal, are aiming at something only dimly and\ninaccurately imagined, whilst the deeper forces of organic ripening\nwithin him tend towards a rearrangement that is pretty surely definite,\nand definitely different from what he consciously conceives and\ndetermines. It may consequently be actually interfered with by efforts\nof too direct and energetic a kind on our part.\u201d[137]--No wonder\nthen that Quietism, finding this element of quiet incubation much\nignored and starved in the lives of most religious souls, flew to the\nother extreme, of making this inarticulateness and wise indirectness\nof striving into the one test and measure of the perfection of all\nthe constituents of the religious life, instead of insisting upon\nvarious degrees and combination of full and direct consciousness and\narticulation, and of much dimness and indirect alertness, as each\nrequiring the other, and as both required by the complete and normal\nlife of the soul.\n\n(4) And Man has a deep-seated sense of shame, in precise proportion\nas he becomes spiritually awake, about appropriating to himself his\nvirtues and spiritual insight, even in so much as he perceives and\nadmits his possession of them. Not all his consciousness and conviction\nof the reality of his own efforts and initiative, can or does prevent\na growing sense that this very giving of his is (in a true sense)\nGod\u2019s gift,--that his very seeking of God ever implies that he had, in\nsome degree, already found God,--that God had already sought him out,\nin order that he might seek and find God.--No wonder then that, once\nmore shrinking from a Unity constituted in a Multiplicity, Quietism\nshould, (with the apparently sole choice before it, of God Himself\noperating literally all, or of man subtracting something from that\nexclusive action and honour of God), have chosen God alone and entire,\nrather than, as it were, a fragmentary, limited, baffled influence\nand efficiency of the Almighty within His Own creature. Yet here\nagain the greater does not supplant, but informs, the lesser; and the\nIncarnational action of God is, in this supreme question also, the\ncentral truth and secret of Christianity.\n\n\n7. _Multiplicity and unity, in different proportions, needful for all\nspiritual life._\n\nWe find, then, that it is essential for even the most advanced souls,\nthat they should keep and increase the sense and the practice of a\nright multiplicity, as ever a constituent and essential condition\nof every concrete, living unity; of a right attachment, as ever the\nnecessary material and content for a fruitful and enriching detachment;\nof a right consciousness and articulation of images, thoughts,\nfeelings, volitions, and external acts, as ever stimulations, restful\nalternations, and food for a wise and strengthening prayer or states\nof Quiet and inarticulation; and of a right personal initiative\nand responsibility, as the most precious means and element for the\noperations of God.\n\nWe find, too, that it is equally important, for even the most imperfect\nsouls, to be helped towards some, (though but ever semi-conscious and\nintermittent), sense of the unity which alone can give much worth\nor meaning to their multiplicity; of the detachment which alone can\npurify and spiritualize their attachments; of the self-oblivion, in\nrapt and peaceful admiration, which alone can save even their right\nself-watchings and self-improvements from still further centring them\nin themselves; and of the true self-abandonment to pure grace and the\nbreathing of God\u2019s Spirit, which alone can give a touch of winning\nfreedom and of joyful spaciousness to all the prudence and right fear\nand conscious responsibility which, left alone, will hip, darken and\nweigh down the religious soul.\n\nAnd thus we shall find that there is no degree of perfection for any\none set of souls which is not, in some form and amount, prefigured and\nrequired by all other souls of good-will; and again, that there is\nno one constituent, to which any one soul is specially drawn, which\ndoes not require the supplementation and corrective of some other\nconstituents, more fully represented in other souls of possibly lower\nsanctity.\n\nThus each soul and grade requires all the others; and thus the measure\nof a soul\u2019s greatness is not its possessing things which cannot, in\nany degree or way, be found in, or expected of, all human souls, in\nproportion as they are fully and characteristically human, but, on the\ncontrary, its being full of a spirit and a force which, in different\ndegrees and forms, are the very salt and yeast, the very light and\nlife, of all men in every place and time.\n\nThe following weighty declaration, long ascribed to St. Thomas Aquinas,\nfully covers, I think, the doctrine and ideal aimed at throughout this\nsection: \u201cAlready in this life we ought continuously to enjoy God, as\na thing most fully our own, in all our works.\u2026 Great is the blindness\nand exceeding the folly of many souls that are ever seeking God,\ncontinuously sighing after God, and frequently desiring God: whilst,\nall the time, they are themselves the tabernacles of the living God \u2026\nsince their soul is the seat of God, in which He continuously reposes.\nNow who but a fool deliberately seeks a tool which he possesses under\nlock and key? or who can use and profit by an instrument which he is\nseeking? or who can draw comfort from food for which he hungers, but\nwhich he does not relish at leisure? Like unto all this is the life\nof many a just soul, which ever seeks God and never tarries to enjoy\nHim; and all the works of such an one are, on this account, less\nperfect.\u201d[138]\n\n\nIV. PURE LOVE, OR DISINTERESTED RELIGION: ITS DISTINCTION FROM QUIETISM.\n\nThe problem of Pure Love, of Disinterested Religion, can hardly, in\npractice, be distinguished from that of Quiet and Passivity, if only\nbecause Quietists, (those who have considered perfection to diminish\nmore and more the number of the soul\u2019s acts, or at least to eliminate\nmore and more the need of distinctness or difference between them),\nhave, quite inevitably, ever given a special prominence to the question\nas to what should be the character of those few acts, of that one\nunbroken act. For once allow this their main question we should all\nhave to answer in the Quietist\u2019s way,--viz. that this single act must,\nfor a perfect soul, to be the most perfect of the acts possible to\nman, and hence must be an act of Pure Love.--Yet it is well to realize\nclearly that, if Quietism necessitates an even excessive and unreal\ndoctrine of Pure Love, a moderate and solid Pure-Love teaching has\nno kind of necessary connection with Quietism. For even though my\ninterior life be necessarily one continuous stream and tissue of acts,\ncountless in their number, variety, and degrees of inter-penetration,\nit in nowise follows that acts of Pure Love are not the best, or are\nimpossible; nor that, in proportion as Pure Love informs the soul\u2019s\nmultiform acts, such acts must lose in depth and delicacy of variety\nand articulation. Indeed here, with regard to the very culmination\nof the interior life, we shall again find and must again test the two\nconceptions: the finally abstractive and materially simplifying one,\nwhich must ever have any one real thing outside of another; and the\nincarnational and synthetic one, which finds spiritual realities and\nforces working the one inside and through the other. And the latter\nview will appear the true one.\n\n\n1. _New Testament teaching as to Pure Love._\n\nNow we must first try and get some clear ideas as to how this difficult\nmatter stands in the New Testament,--in the Synoptic tradition and in\nthe Pauline-Joannine teaching respectively. Here again it is the former\nwhich, (though on its surface it appears as the more ordinary and the\nmore locally coloured teaching), is the richer, in its grandly elastic\nand manifold simplicity; and it is the latter which has most profoundly\npenetrated and articulated the ultimate meaning and genius of a part\nof Our Lord\u2019s doctrine, yet at the cost of a certain narrowing of the\nvariety and breadth of that outlook. In both cases I shall move, from\nthe easier and more popular teaching, to the deepest and most original\nenunciations and explanations.[139]\n\n(1) The Synoptic teaching starts throughout from the ordinary\npost-exilic Jewish feeling and teaching, which indeed recognizes the\nceremonial obligations and the more tangible amongst the ethical\ndemands as standing under the categorical imperative of the Legal\n\u201cThou Shalt,\u201d but places the large territory of the finer moral\nprecepts outside of the Law. So with the \u201cZedakah,\u201d the \u201cJustice\u201d of\nalmsdeeds, and with the \u201cGemiluth Chasadim,\u201d the \u201cworks of mercy,\u201d\nsuch as visiting the sick, burying the dead, and rejoicing with the\njoyful and sorrowing with the sorrowful. Thus Rabbi Simon the Just\ntells us: \u201cThe world rests on three things: on the Law (_Thorah_),\non Worship (_Abodah_), and on Works of Mercy (_Gemiluth Chasadim_)\u201d;\nand Rabbi Eleazar declared the \u201cGemiluth Chasadim\u201d to be above the\n\u201cZedakah.\u201d[140] And it is especially in view of these works of\nsupererogation that rewards, and indeed a strict scale of rewards,\nare conceived. Thus already in the Book of Tobit, (written somewhere\nbetween 175 and 25 B.C.), we have Tobit instructing his son Tobias that\n\u201cPrayer is good with Fasting and Alms, more than to buy up treasures\nof gold. For Alms delivereth from death \u2026 they that practise Mercy and\nJustice shall live long.\u201d[141] And one of the sayings of the Jewish\nFathers declares: \u201cSo much trouble, so much reward.\u201d[142]\n\nNow this whole scheme and its spirit seems, at first to be taken over\nquite unchanged by Our Lord. The very Beatitudes end with: \u201cRejoice\n\u2026 because your reward is great in heaven.\u201d And, in the following\nSermon, his hearers are bidden to beware of doing their \u201cZedakah,\u201d--the\n\u201cJustice\u201d of Prayer, Fasting, Almsdeeds in order to be seen by men;\nsince, in that case, \u201cye shall not have reward from your Father Who is\nin heaven.\u201d And this is driven home in detail: these three kinds of\nJustice are to be done \u201cin secret,\u201d and \u201cthy Father will repay thee.\u201d\nEven Prayer itself thus appears as a meritorious good work, one of the\nmeans to \u201ctreasure up treasures in heaven.\u201d Similarly, the rich man\nis bid \u201cGo sell all that thou hast and give it to the poor; and thou\nshalt have a treasure in heaven.\u201d Even \u201che that shall give you a cup of\ncold water in My name, shall not lose his reward.\u201d Indeed we have the\ngeneral principle, \u201cthe labourer is worthy of his hire.\u201d[143]\n\nAnd yet we can follow the delicate indications of the presence, and the\ntransitions to the expression, of the deeper apprehension and truth.\nFor, on the part of God, the reward appears, in the first instance, as\nin intrinsic relation to the deed. The reward is the deed\u2019s congenital\nequivalent: \u201cBlessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy\u201d;\n\u201cif ye forgive men their trespasses, your Father \u2026 will likewise\nforgive you your trespasses\u201d; and \u201ceveryone who shall confess Me before\nmen, him will I also confess before My Father Who is in heaven.\u201d[144]\nOr the reward appears as a just inversion of the ordinary results of\nthe action thus rewarded: \u201cBlessed are the meek, for they shall inherit\nthe land\u201d; take the highest seat at a banquet, and you will be forced\ndown to the lowest, take the lowest, and you will be moved up to the\nhighest; and, generally, \u201che who findeth his soul, shall lose it;\nand that loseth his soul, for My sake, shall find it.\u201d[145] Or the\nreward appears as an effect organically connected with the deed, as its\ncause or condition: \u201cBlessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see\nGod.\u201d[146] And then the reward comes to vary, although the deed remains\nquantitatively identical, solely because of that deed\u2019s qualitative\ndifference,--_i.e._ according to the variation in its motive: \u201cHe that\nreceiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive the reward\nof a prophet; and he who receiveth a just man in the name of a just\nman, shall receive the reward of a just man.\u201d[147] And then the reward\nmoves up and up and becomes a grace, through being so far in excess\nof the work done: \u201cEvery one who hath forsaken house \u2026 or father or\nchildren or fields for My name, shall receive manifold,\u201d indeed \u201can\nhundredfold\u201d--\u201ca full \u2026 and overflowing measure shall they pour into\nyour lap\u201d; and \u201cwhosoever shall humble himself, shall be exalted,\u201d--not\nsimply back to his original level, but into the Kingdom of Heaven. So,\ntoo, \u201cThou wast faithful over a few things, I shall place thee over\nmany things\u201d; indeed this faithful servant\u2019s master \u201cshall place him\nover all his possessions;\u201d or rather, \u201cblessed are those servants whom\nthe Lord, when He cometh, shall find watching. Amen, I say unto you,\nthat he shall approach \u2026 and shall minister unto them.\u201d[148]\n\nThis immense disproportion between the work and its reward, and the\nconsequent grace-character of the latter, is driven home with a\npurposely paradoxical, provocative pointedness, in the two Parables of\nthe Wedding Garment and of the Equal Payment of the Unequal Labourers,\nboth of which are in St. Matthew alone. The former concerns the soul\u2019s\ncall to the kingdom, and that soul\u2019s response. The King here, after\nhaving formally invited a certain select number of previously warned\nrelatives and nobles, who all, as such, had a _claim_ upon him, Matt,\nxxii, 3, sends out invitations with absolute indiscrimination,--to men\nwith no claims or with less than none; to \u201cbad\u201d as well as \u201cgood.\u201d And\nit is the King, again, who gratuitously supplies them each with the\nappropriate white wedding-feast garment. He has thus a double right to\nexpect all his guests to be thus clothed, and to punish instantly,\nnot the mere negligence, but the active rejection implied on the part\nof the man clothed in his ordinary clothing (vv. 11, 12). Both call\nand investiture have been here throughout pure graces, which rendered\npossible, and which invited but did not force, an acceptance.[149]\n\nThe second Parable describes the \u201cHouseholder\u201d who hired labourers\nfor his vineyard at the first, third, sixth, ninth, and even eleventh\nhour,--each and all of them for a penny a day; who actually pays out\nto them, at the end of the day, this one identical pay; and who,\nto the labourer of the first shift who complains, \u201cThese last have\nwrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us who have\nborne the burden and heat of the day,\u201d declares, \u201cFriend, I do thee\nno wrong: didst thou not agree with me for a penny? Take thine own\nand go thy way: I will give to this last even as unto thee. Is it not\nlawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil (art\nthou envious) because I am good\u201d (because I choose to be bountiful)?\nMatt. xx, 1-15. Here again the overflowing generosity of God\u2019s grace\nis brought home to us, as operating according to other standards\nthan those of ordinary daily life: nor is this operation unjust, for\nthe Householder paid their due to the first set of workers, whilst\nrewarding, far above their worth, those poor labourers of the last\nhour. But, as J\u00fclicher well points out, \u201cwe should not pedantically\ninsist upon finding here a doctrine of the strict equality of souls in\nthe Beyond--a doctrine contradicted by other declarations of Jesus.\nOnly the _claim_ of single groups of souls to preferential treatment is\ncombated here \u2026: a certain fundamental religious disposition is to be\nawakened.\u201d And, as Bugge rightly notes, \u201cthe great supreme conception\nwhich lies at the bottom of the parable has, parablewise, remained here\nunnamed: Paul has found the expressive term for it,--\u2018Grace.\u2019\u201d[150]\n\nAnd we get corresponding, increasingly spiritual interpretations with\nregard to man\u2019s action and man\u2019s merit. First, all ostentation in the\ndoing of the deed cancels all reward in the Beyond; so, in the case\nof each of the three branches of \u201cJustice.\u201d[151] And then the worker\nis to be satisfied, day by day, with that day\u2019s pay and sustenance:\n\u201cGive us this day our daily bread,\u201d every soul is to pray; the divine\nHouseholder will say, \u201cDidst thou not agree with me for a penny a day?\nTake thine own and go thy way.\u201d And even \u201cwhen ye have done all that\nhas been commanded you, say \u2018we are unprofitable servants, we have but\ndone what we were bound to do.\u2019\u201d They are invited to look away from\nself, to \u201cseek first the Kingdom and His Justice,\u201d and then \u201call these\nthings,\u201d their very necessaries for earthly life, \u201cshall be added unto\nyou.\u201d Indeed it is the boundlessly generous self-communicativeness of\nGod Himself which is to be His disciples\u2019 deliberate ideal, \u201cbe ye\nperfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect\u201d; and the production of\nthis likeness within themselves is to be the ultimate end and crown\nof their most heroic, most costly acts: \u201clove your enemies, and pray\nfor those that persecute you: that you may become the sons of your\nFather who is in Heaven, who maketh His sun to rise upon the evil and\nthe good, and who raineth upon the just and the unjust.\u201d And the more\nthere is of such self-oblivious love, the more will even the gravest\nsins be entirely blotted out, and the more rapid will be the full\nsanctification of the soul, as Our Lord solemnly declares concerning\nthe sinful woman in St. Luke, \u201cher many sins are forgiven her, because\nshe hath loved much.\u201d[152]\n\nIn all this matter it is St. Luke\u2019s Gospel which is specially\ninteresting as showing, so to speak, side by side, an increased\nRabbinical-like preciseness of balance between work and reward, and\nyet the adoption, doubtlessly under Pauline influence, of St. Paul\u2019s\ncentral term in lieu of the old Jewish terminology. For, in one of its\ncurious so-called \u201cEbjonite\u201d passages, this Gospel works up the Parable\nof the Talents, with its only approximate relation between the deeds\nand their rewards (Matt. xxv, 14-30), into the Parable of the Pounds\n(Luke xix, 12-27), with its mathematically symmetrical interdependence\nbetween the quantities of the merit and those of this merit\u2019s reward:\nthe man who makes ten pounds is placed over ten cities, and he who\nmakes five, over five. And, on the other hand, in a Lukan equivalent\nfor part of the Sermon on the Mount, St. Matthew\u2019s \u201creward\u201d is replaced\nby \u201cgrace\u201d: \u201cIf ye love them that love you, what grace (\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2) have\nyou? and if ye do good to those that do you good, what grace have\nyou?\u201d[153]\n\n(2) St. Paul indeed it is who, in the specially characteristic portions\nof his teaching, unfolds, by means of a partly original terminology,\nthe deepest motives and implications of Our Lord\u2019s own divinely\ndeep sayings and doings, and never wearies of insisting upon the\nGrace-character of the soul\u2019s call and salvation,--the Free Mercy, the\nPure Love which God shows to us, and the sheer dependence and complete\nself-donation, the pure love which we owe to Him, and which, at the\nsoul\u2019s best, it can and does give Him.\n\nIt is true that in the contrasting, the traditional layer of his\nteaching, we find the old Jewish terminology still intact: \u201cGod will\nrender unto every man according to his works\u201d; \u201cit behoves us to\nappear before the Judgment-seat of Christ, that everyone \u2026 may receive\naccording to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad.\u201d[154]\nIndeed it is precisely in St. Paul\u2019s pages that we find the two most\ndifficult and, at first sight, least spiritual sayings concerning this\nmatter to be discovered in the whole New Testament: \u201cIf in this life\nonly we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most miserable.\u201d\nAnd: \u201cIf the dead do not rise \u2026 let us eat and drink, for to-morrow\nwe die.\u201d[155] But these two passages must doubtless be taken partly\nas arguments adapted to the dispositions of his hearers,--the \u201cLet us\neat and drink\u201d conclusion is given in the words of a current Heathen\nGreek proverb,--and, still more, as expressions not so much of a\nformal doctrine as of a mood, of one out of the many intense, mutually\nsupplementary and corrective moods of that rich nature.\n\nAccording to his own deepest, most deliberate, and most systematic\nteaching, it is the life of Christ, the living Christ, energizing even\nnow within the faithful soul, that constitutes both the primary source\nand the ultimate motive of Christian sanctity. \u201cI am crucified with\nChrist; nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.\u201d And\nthrough this divine-human life within us \u201cwe faint not; but though our\noutward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.\u201d Indeed\nthe Lord Himself said to him: \u201cMy grace is sufficient for thee; for\npower is made perfect in infirmity\u201d; and hence he, Paul, could declare:\n\u201cGladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of\nChrist may dwell in me.\u201d And thus, with Christ living within him, he\ncan exclaim: \u201cIf God be for us, who shall be against us?\u2026 Who shall\nseparate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or peril, or\nthe sword?\u2026 In all these things we are more than conquerors, through\nhim that loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life,\nnor things present nor things to come \u2026 shall be able to separate us\nfrom the love of God.\u201d \u201cWhether we live, or whether we die, we are\nthe Lord\u2019s.\u201d[156] We thus get here a reinsistence upon, and a further\ndeepening of, perhaps the profoundest utterance of the whole Old\nTestament: \u201cWhat have I in Heaven besides Thee? and besides Thee I seek\nnothing upon earth. Even though my flesh and my heart faint, Thou art\nmy rock and my portion for ever.\u201d[157]\n\nAnd then that deathless hymn to Pure Love, the thirteenth chapter of\nthe First Epistle to the Corinthians, not only culminates with the\nproclamation that, of all man can hope and wish and will and do, of\nall his doings and his graces, \u201cthere remain these three, Faith, Hope,\nLove, (Charity): but the greatest of these is Love (Charity).\u201d But\nthe Love that has this primacy is Pure Love, for \u201cit seeketh not its\nown.\u201d And though of this Love alone it is said that \u201cit never passeth\naway,\u201d ever persists in the Beyond: yet even here already it can and\ndoes get exercised,--and this, not only without any suppression of\nparallel acts of the other virtues, but with these other virtues and\ntheir specific motives now taken over and deepened, each in its special\ncharacteristic, by the supreme virtue and motive of Pure Love: \u201cLove\nbelieveth all things, hopeth all things, beareth all things.\u201d[158] Thus\nFaith, Hope, Patience, and all the other virtues, they all remain,\nbut it is Love that is now the ultimate motive of all their specific\nmotives. These, his culminating teachings, indicate clearly enough that\nvirtue\u2019s rewards are regarded by him, ultimately and substantially, as\n\u201cthe wages of going on and not to die\u201d; or rather that they are, in\ntheir essence, manifestations of that Eternal Life which is already\nenergizing, within souls that earnestly seek God, even here and now.\nThis Life, then, however great may be its further expansion and the\nsoul\u2019s consciousness of possessing it, already holds within itself\nsufficient, indeed abundant motives, (in the fulfilment of its own\ndeepest nature and of its now awakened requirements of harmony,\nstrength, and peace through self-donation), for giving itself ever more\nand more to God.\n\n(3) And with regard to the Joannine teaching, it will be enough for\nus to refer back to the texts discussed in the preceding chapter, and\nto note how large and specially characteristic is here the current\nwhich insists upon the reward being already, at least inchoatively,\nenclosed in the deed itself, and upon this deed being the result and\nexpression of Eternal Life operating within the faithful soul, even\nalready, Here and Now. Only the declaration that \u201cperfect love casteth\nout fear,\u201d that it does not tolerate fear alongside of itself, 1 John\niv, 18, appears to be contrary to the Pauline doctrine that Perfect\nLove, \u201cLove\u201d itself \u201cbeareth all things, believeth, hopeth, endureth\nall things,\u201d 1 Cor. xiii, 7. Love then can animate other virtues: why\nnot then a holy fear? But this Joannine saying seems in fact modelled\nupon St. Paul\u2019s quotation and use of a passage from the Septuagint:\n\u201cCast out the bondwoman (the slave-servant) and her son, for the son\nof the bondwoman shall not be heir together with the son of the free,\u201d\nGal. iv, 30; and hence this saying will not exclude \u201cchildren of the\nfree-woman,\u201d--a holy fear as well as faith, hope, patience,--but\nonly \u201cchildren of the slave-woman,\u201d superstition, presumption,\nweakmindedness, and slavish fear.\n\n\n2. _The \u201cPure Love\u201d controversy._\n\nIn turning now to the controversy as to, Pure Love (1694-1699) and its\nassured results, we shall have again to distinguish carefully between\nthe lives and intentions of the writers who were censured, and the\ndoctrines, analytic or systematic, taught or implied by them, which\nwere condemned. This distinction is easier in this case than in that of\nQuietism, for the chief writer concerned here is F\u00e9nelon, as to whose\npure and spiritual character and deeply Catholic intentions there never\nhas been any serious doubt.\n\nBut in this instance we have to make a further distinction--viz.\nbetween the objective drift of at least part of his _Explication des\nMaximes des Saints sur la Vie Interieure_, published in 1697, and\nespecially the twenty-three propositions extracted from it which\nwere condemned by Pope Innocent XII in 1699; and the teaching which\nhe increasingly clarified and improved in his numerous apologetic\nwritings against Bossuet and other opponents in this memorable\ncontroversy--especially in his Latin writings, intended for\ntransmission to the Pope, and written as late as 1710 and 1712.[159]\nIt is certain that Bishops and theologians who opposed his _Maximes_\nwere found warmly endorsing such pieces as his wonderfully clear and\nsober _Premi\u00e8re R\u00e9ponse aux Difficult\u00e9s de M. l\u2019Ev\u00eaque de Chartres_.\nIt is these pieces, comprising also his remarkably rich _Instruction\nPastorale_, his admirably penetrating _Lettre sur l\u2019Oraison Passive_\nand _Lettre sur la Charit\u00e9_, and his extraordinarily compact and\nbalanced Second Epistle to Pope Clement XI, 1712 (where all the\ncensured ambiguities and expressions are carefully avoided), and which\nalone among F\u00e9nelon\u2019s writings shall be accepted in what follows.[160]\nIndeed even the earlier of these writings fail in but one thing--in\njustifying the actual text of the condemned book, as distinguished\nfrom the intentions of its writer. Bishop Hedley sums up the real\nposition with the treble authority of a spiritually trained Monk,\nof a practised theological writer, and of a Catholic Bishop of long\nexperience: \u201cThe doctrine intended by F\u00e9nelon, in his _Maximes des\nSaints_, and as explained by him during his controversy with Bossuet,\nhas never been censured, although the opposite party laboured hard for\nits condemnation. Fifteen years after the condemnation of his book, we\nfind him re-stating to Pope Clement XI (who, as Cardinal, had drawn up\nthe Brief of his condemnations), in careful scholastic language the\ndoctrine intended by himself, but which he himself had misstated in his\npopular treatise. As there were errors, the other side, whatever the\ncrudity or novelty of some of its contentions, whatever its motives or\nmethods--and some of them were far from creditable--was sure in the end\nto succeed. And it is well that it should have succeeded as far as it\ndid succeed.\u201d[161]\n\nIn any case, we shall have to beware of considering Bossuet\u2019s\ncontentions as to the specific character of Charity, Love, and as to\nthe possibility, for man here below, of single acts of pure love, to\nbe representative of the ordinary Catholic teaching either before or\nsince the condemnation. On both these fundamental points F\u00e9nelon\u2019s\npositions are demonstrably, and indeed have been generally admitted to\nbe, a mere restatement of that teaching, as is shown, for instance, in\nthe Jesuit Father Deharbe\u2019s solid and sober, thoroughly traditional and\nhighly authorized essay: _Die vollkommene Liebe Gottes \u2026 dargestellt\nnach der Lehre des h. Thomas von Aquin_, Regensburg, 1856. It is\nthis most useful treatise and the admirable _Analyse Raisonn\u00e9e de la\nControverse du Qui\u00e9tisme_ of the Abb\u00e9 Gosselin,[162] (which has already\nmuch helped me in the preceding section), that have been my chief aids\nin my careful study, back through Bossuet and F\u00e9nelon, to St. Thomas\nand his chief commentators, Sylvius, who died in 1649, and Cardinal\nCajetan, who died in 1534, and to the other chief authorities beyond\nthem.--I group the main points, which alone need concern us here, under\nthree heads: the specific Nature of Pure Love; single Acts of Pure\nLove; a State of Pure Love.\n\n(1) Now as to the specific Nature of Charity, or Pure, Perfect Love,\nSt. Thomas tells us: \u201cOne Kind of Love is perfect, the other kind is\nimperfect. Perfect Love is that wherewith a man is loved for his own\nsake: as, for instance, when some one wishes well to another person,\nfor that other person\u2019s sake, in the manner in which a man loves his\nfriend. Imperfect love is the love wherewith a man loves something,\nnot for its own sake, but in order that this good thing may accrue to\nhimself,--in the manner in which a man loves a thing that he covets.\nNow the former kind of love pertains to Charity, which clings to God\nfor His own sake, whereas it is Hope that pertains to the second\nkind of love, since he who hopes aims at obtaining something for\nhimself.\u201d[163] And Cardinal Cajetan explains that this wishing well to\nGod, \u201cthis good that we can will God to have, is double. The good that\nis in Him, that (strictly speaking) is God Himself,--we can, by Love,\nwill Him to have it, when we find our delight in God being what He is.\nAnd the good that is but referred to God,--His honour and Kingdom and\nthe Obedience we owe him,--this we can will, not only by finding our\npleasure in it, but by labouring at its maintenance and increase with\nall our might.\u201d[164]\n\nAnd, says St. Thomas, such Perfect Love alone is Love in its strict\nsense and \u201cthe most excellent of all the virtues\u201d: for \u201cever that which\nexists for its own sake is greater than that which exists in view of\nsomething else. Now Faith and Hope attain indeed to God, yet as the\nsource from which there accrue to us the knowledge of the Truth and\nthe acquisition of the Good; whilst Love attains to God Himself, with\na view to abide in Him, and not that some advantage may accrue to us\nfrom Him.\u201d And perhaps still more clearly: \u201c When a man loves something\nso as to covet it, he apprehends it as something pertaining to his\nown well-being. The lover here stands towards the object beloved, as\ntowards something which is his property.\u201d[165] And note how, although\nhe teaches that whereas \u201cthe beatitude of man, as regards its cause\nand its object, is something increate,\u201d _i.e._ God Himself, \u201cthe\nessence of the beatitude itself is something created,\u201d for \u201cmen are\nrendered blessed by participation, and this participation in beatitude\nis something created\u201d: yet he is careful to explain some of his more\nincidental passages, in which he speaks of this essence of beatitude\nas itself man\u2019s end, by the _ex professo_ declaration: \u201cGod\u201d alone \u201cis\nman\u2019s ultimate end, and beatitude is only as it were an end before the\nvery end, an end in immediate proximity to the ultimate end.\u201d[166]\n\n(2) And next, as to the possibility, actual occurrence and\ndesirableness of single Acts of such Pure Love, even here below:\nall this is assumed as a matter of course throughout St. Thomas\u2019s\n_ex professo_ teaching on the matter. For throughout the passages\nconcerning the Nature of Pure Love he is not exclusively, indeed not\neven primarily, busy with man\u2019s acts in the future life, but with the\nrespective characteristics of man\u2019s various acts as executed and as\nanalyzable, more or less perfectly, already here below. And nowhere\ndoes he warn us against concluding, from his reiterated insistence upon\nthe essential characteristics of Pure Love, that such love cannot, as\na matter of fact, be practised, at least in single acts, here below at\nall. Hence it is clear that, according to him, the soul as it advances\nin perfection will--alongside of acts of supernatural Faith, Hope,\nFear, etc. (and the production of such acts will never cease), produce\nmore and more acts of Pure Love: not necessarily more, as compared\nwith the other kinds of contemporary acts, but certainly more as\ncompared with its former acts of the same character.\n\nBut there is a further, profoundly and delicately experienced\ndoctrine. Not only can Pure Love be exercised in single and simple\nacts, alongside of single and simple acts of other kinds of virtues,\nsupernatural or otherwise: but Pure Love can itself come to command\nor to inform acts which in themselves bear, and will now bear in\nincreased degree, the characteristics of the other kinds of acts. St.\nThomas tells us, with admirable clearness: \u201cAn act can be derived from\nCharity in one of two ways. In the first way, the act is elicited\nby Charity itself, and such a virtuous act requires no other virtue\nbeside Charity,--as in the case of loving the Good, rejoicing in it,\nand mourning over its opposite. In the second way, an act proceeds\nfrom Charity in the sense of being commanded by it: and in this\nmanner,--since Charity\u201d has the full range of and \u201ccommands all the\nvirtues, as ordering them (each and all) to their (ultimate) end,--an\nact can proceed from Charity whilst nevertheless belonging to any other\nspecial virtue.\u201d And he assures us that: \u201cThe merit of eternal life,\u201d\n\u201cthe fountain-head of meriting,\u201d \u201cpertains primarily to, consists in\nCharity, and pertains to and consists in other kinds of supernatural\nacts in only a secondary manner,--that is, only in so far as these acts\nare commanded or informed by Charity\u201d or Pure Love.[167]\n\nLet us take some instances of such two-fold manifestations of identical\nmotives and virtues, according as these motives and virtues operate\nin simple co-ordination, or within a compound and organic system. In\nthe scholar\u2019s life, Greek and Latin and Hebrew may be acquired, each\nsimply for its own sake and each alongside of the other; or they can be\nacquired, from the immediate motive indeed of knowing each in its own\nspecific nature as thoroughly as possible, yet with the ultimate, ever\nmore and more conscious and all-penetrating, motive of thus acquiring\nmeans and materials for the science of language, or for the study of\nphilosophy, or for research into early phases of the Jewish-Christian\nreligion. In the family life, a man, woman, or child can live for\nhimself or herself, and then for his or her other immediate relatives,\neach taken as separate alongside of the other, or he or she may get\nmore and more dominated by the conception and claims of the family as\nan organic whole, and may end by working largely, even with respect\nto himself, as but for so many constituents of that larger organism\nin which alone each part can attain its fullest significance. And\nespecially a young mother can live for her own health and joys, and\nthen, alongside of these, for those of her child, or she can get to the\npoint of sustaining her own physical health and her mental hopes and\nwill to live as so many means and conditions for feeding and fostering\nthe claimful body and soul of her child.\n\nSo again, in the creatively artistic life, we can have a Dante writing\nprose and poetry and painting a picture, and a Rafael painting\npictures and writing sonnets; or we can have Wagner bringing all his\nactivities of scholar, poet, painter, musician, stage-manager,--each\nretaining, and indeed indefinitely increasing, its specific character\nand capabilities,--to contribute, by endless mutual stimulation and\ninteraction, to something other and greater than any one of them\nindividually or even than the simple addition of them all,--to a great\nMusic-Drama and multiform yet intensely unified image of life itself.\nAnd an organist can draw out, as he plays, the _Vox Humana_ stop, and\nthen another and another limitedly efficacious organ-stop, whilst each\nnew-comer takes the place of its predecessor or a place beside it; or\nhe can draw out the _Grand Jeu_ stop, which sets all the other stops\nto work in endless interaction, with itself permeating and organizing\nthe whole. We thus, in these and countless other cases, and in every\nvariety of degree within each case, get two kinds of variety, what we\nmay call the simple and the compound diversification. And everywhere\nwe can find that the richest variety not only can co-exist with, but\nthat it requires and is required by, indeed that it is a necessary\nconstituent and occasion of, the deepest and most delicate unity.[168]\n\n(3) And finally, as to a State of Pure Love. Only here do we reach the\nclass of questions to which the condemnations of F\u00e9nelon really apply.\n\nWe shall do well to begin by bearing in mind the very ancient,\npractically unbroken, very orthodox Christian discrimination of\nfaithful souls,--sometimes into the two classes of Mercenaries (or\nSlaves) and Friends or Children, the latter of whom the great Clement\nof Alexandria, who died about A.D. 215, called \u201cGnostics,\u201d \u201cGnosis\u201d\nbeing his term for perfection (this scheme is the one to which\nCatherine\u2019s life and teaching conform); or into the three classes\nof Servants (Slaves); Mercenaries; and Friends (or Children), as is\nalready worked out with full explicitness by Saints Basil, Gregory\nof Nazianzum, and Gregory of Nyssa, who died in the years 379, 389,\nand 395 (?) respectively. Now Clement places the Mercenary on the\nleft of the Sanctuary, but the \u201cGnostic\u201d on the right; and, whilst\ndeclaring that the former \u201care those who, by means of renouncing things\nperishable, hope to receive the goods of incorruption in exchange,\u201d\nhe demands of the \u201cGnostic\u201d that \u201che approach the saving word neither\nfrom the fear of punishment, nor from the motive of reward, but simply\nbecause He is good.\u201d[169] And St. Basil, echoed in this by his two\ncontemporaries, teaches that, \u201cWe obey God and avoid vices, from the\nfear of punishment, and in that case we take on the resemblance of\nSlaves. Or we keep the precepts, because of the utility that we derive\nfrom the recompense, thus resembling Mercenaries. Or finally, from\nlove of Him who has given us the law, we obey with joy at having been\njudged worthy of serving so great and good a God, and thus we imitate\nthe affection of Children towards their parents.\u201d[170] And, in the case\nof all these Fathers, it is clear that, not only single acts, but whole\nstates of soul and life are meant.\n\nBut the increased fineness in the analysis of interior experiences\nand dispositions has since then required, and the Church formulations\nhave most wisely demanded, that these three classes be not so sharply\ndistinguished as to make any one soul seem exclusively and unchangeably\nto pertain to any one of them; and, still more, that these three\ndivisions be taken to represent, even where and whilst they are most\ncompletely realized, only the predominant character of the majority of\nthe acts constituting the respective state of soul. For it is clear\nthat not only is there, and can there be, no such thing, on earth at\nleast, as a state composed of one unrepeated act; but there is no such\nthing as a condition of soul made up solely of acts of \u201csimple\u201d Pure\nLove, or even of supernatural acts of all sorts commanded throughout\nby Charity, or indeed solely of supernatural acts, both simple and\ncommanded. The \u201cOne-act\u201d state is a chimera; the state of \u201csimple\u201d\nacts of Pure Love alone would, if possible, involve the neglect of\nnumberless other virtues and duties; and the last two states indeed\nhighly desirable, but it would be fanaticism to think we could\ncompletely attain to them here below.\n\nYet there is nothing in any Church-censure to prevent, and there is\nmuch in the teaching and life of countless saints to invite, our\nholding the possibility, hence the working ideal and standard, for even\nhere below, of a state in which two kinds of acts, which are still\ngood in their degree, would be in a considerable minority: acts of\nmerely natural, unspiritualized hope, fear, desire, etc.; and acts of\nsupernatural hope, fear, desire, etc., in so far as not commanded by\nCharity. For even in this state not fully deliberate venial sins would\noccasionally be committed, far more would a certain number of acts\nof an unspiritualized, unsupernatural kind occur. And the necessary\nvariety among the supernatural acts would in nowise be impaired,--it\nwould indeed be greatly stimulated, by Pure Love being now, for the\nmost part, the ultimate motive of their exercise.\n\nSylvius, in his highly authoritative commentary on St. Thomas, puts the\nmatter admirably: \u201cWe may not love God in view of reward in suchwise\nas to make eternal life the true and ultimate end of our love, or to\nlove God because of it, so that without the reward we would not love\nHim \u2026 We must love God with reference to the eternal reward in suchwise\nthat we put forth indeed both love and good works in view of such\nbeatitude,--in so far as the latter is the end proposed to these works\nby God Himself; yet that we subordinate this our beatitude to the love\nof God as the true and ultimate end,\u201d so that \u201cif we had no beatitude\nto expect at all, we should nevertheless still love Him and execute\ngood works for His own sake alone. In this manner we shall first love\nGod above all things and for His own sake; and we shall next keep the\neternal reward before us, for the sake of God and of His honour.\u201d[171]\nA man in these dispositions would still hope, and desire, and fear,\nand regret, and strive for, and aspire to conditions, things, persons\nboth of earth and of the beyond, both for himself and for others,\nboth for time and for eternity: but all this, for the most part, from\nthe ultimate motive, penetrating, deepening, unifying all the other\nmotives,--of the love of Love, Christ, Spirit, God.\n\nAny hesitation to accept the reality or possibility of such a state\ncannot, then, be based upon such acceptance involving any kind of\nQuietism, but simply on the admittedly great elevation of such a\ncondition. Yet this latter objection seems to be sufficiently met if\nwe continuously insist that even such a state neither exempts souls\nfrom the commission of (more or less deliberate) venial sin; nor is\never entirely equable; nor is incapable of being completely lost; nor,\nas we have just contended, is ever without more or less numerous acts\nof an unsupernaturalized kind, and still less without acts of the\nsupernatural virtues other than Love and unprompted by Love.\n\nAnd all fear of fanaticism will be finally removed by a further most\nnecessary and grandly enlarging insistence upon the Mercenaries and\neven the Servants having passing moments, and producing varyingly\nnumerous single acts of, Pure Love and of the other supernatural\nvirtues prompted by Pure Love. All souls in a state of Grace throughout\nGod\u2019s wide wide world,--every constituent, however slight and recent,\nof the great soul of the Church throughout every sex, age, race, clime,\nand external organization, would thus have some touches, some at least\nincidental beginnings of Pure Love, and of the other supernatural\nvirtues prompted by Pure Love. All souls would thus, in proportion to\ntheir degree of grace and of fidelity, have some of those touches; and\nthe progress of all would consist in the degree to which that variety\nof acts would become informed and commanded by the supreme motive of\nall motives, Pure and Perfect Love.[172]\n\nAnd with such an Ideal, required by fundamental Catholic positions,\never increasingly actuating the soul and binding it to all souls\nbeneath, around, above it, what there is of truth in the savage\nattacks of Spinoza and of Kant and of such recent writers as A.\nE. Taylor,[173] upon the supposed hypocritical self-seeking in the\npractice and temper of average Christians, would lose all its force.\n\n\n3. _Cognate Problems._\n\nThree much-discussed cognate matters require some elucidation here.\nThey answer to the questions: Does reference to the self, as for\ninstance in acts of gratitude and thanksgiving, prevent an act from\nbeing one of Pure Love? Is the pleasurableness, normally ever attached\nand subsequent to all virtuous acts, to be regarded as part of the\nreward from which Pure Love abstracts? And finally are, I will not say\nany technically ecstatic or other in part psycho-physical peculiarities\nand manifestations, but even active Contemplation or the simple Prayer\nof Quiet, necessary conditions or expressions of a state of Pure\nLove,--understood in the sense explained above?\n\n(1) As to reference to the self, it is highly important to distinguish\nbetween acts of Pure Love, and attempts, by means of the maximum\npossible degree of abstraction, to apprehend the absolute character\nand being of God. For these two things have no necessary connection,\nand yet they have been frequently confounded. St. Teresa\u2019s noble\nconfession of past error, and consequent doubly valuable, amended\nteaching is perhaps the most classical pronouncement extant upon this\nprofoundly important point.[174] The contingent, spacial and temporal,\nmanifestations and communications of God, above all as we have them in\nthe life of Our Lord and in those who have come nearest to Him, but\nalso, in their several degrees and forms, in the lives of each one of\nus: all these, in their sacred, awakening and healing, particularity\nand closeness of contact, can and should be occasions and materials for\nthe most perfect, for the purest Love.\n\nIndeed it is well never to forget that nothing, and least of all God,\nthe deepest of all the realities, is known to us at all, except in and\nby means of its relation to our own self or to our fellow-creatures.\nHence if Love were Pure only in proportion as it could be based upon\nour apprehension of God as independent of all relation to ourselves,\nPure Love would be simply impossible for us.--But, in truth, such a\nconception would, in addition, be false in itself: it would imply that\nthe whole great Incarnation-fact and -doctrine,--the whole of that\ngreat root of all religion, the certainty that it is because God has\nfirst loved us that we can love Him, that He is a self-revealing God,\nand One whom we can know and reach because \u201cin Him we live and move\nand have our being\u201d--was taking us, not towards, but away from, our\ntrue goal. There are, surely, few sadder and, at bottom, more deeply\nuncreaturely, unchristian attitudes, than that which would seek or\nmeasure perfection in and by the greatest possible abstraction from all\nthose touching contingencies which God Himself has vouchsafed to our\nnature,--a nature formed by Himself to require such plentiful contact\nwith the historical and visible.--And if God\u2019s pure love for us can\nand does manifest itself in such contingent acts, then our love can\nand should become and manifest itself purer and purer by means, not\nonly of the prayer of formless abstraction and expectation, but also\nby the contemplation of these contingencies and by the production of\nanalogously contingent acts. And if so, then certainly gratitude, in so\nfar as it truly deserves the name, can and does belong to Pure Love,\nfor the very characteristic of such gratitude consists in a desire to\ngive and not to receive.[175]\n\nNot, then, the degree of disoccupation with the Contingent, even\nof the contingent of our own life, but the degree of freedom from\nself-seeking, and of the harmonization and subordination of all these\ncontingencies in and under the supreme motive of the Pure Love and\nservice of God in man and of man in God, is the standard and test of\nChristian perfection.\n\n(2) As to the pleasurableness which, in normal psychic conditions, more\nor less immediately accompanies or follows the virtuous acts of the\nsoul, the realizations of its own deeper and deepest ideals, we should\nnote that, in its earthly degree and form, it is not included in what\ntheologians mean by the \u201crewards\u201d of virtuous action. And in this they\nare thoroughly self-consistent, for they adhere, I think with practical\nunanimity, to Catherine\u2019s doctrine that these immediate consequences\nof virtuous acts are not to be considered a matter of positive and,\nas it were, separate divine institution,--as something which, given\nthe fundamental character of man\u2019s spiritual nature, might have been\notherwise; but as what,--given the immutable nature of God and of the\nimage at nature in His creature, man,--follows from an intrinsic,\nquite spontaneous necessity.--Hence, at this point especially, would\nit be foolish and fanatical, because contrary to the immanental nature\nof things, and to the right interplay of the elemental forces of all\nlife, to attempt the suppression even of the several actual irruptions\nof such pleasure, and still more of the source and recurrence of this\ndelectation. Fortunately success is here as impossible as it would be\nundesirable,--as much so as, on a lower plane, would be the suppression\nof the pleasure concomitant with the necessary kinds and degrees of\neating. Indeed, it is clear, upon reflection that unless a man (at\nleast implicitly) accepts and (indirectly) wills that spiritual or\nphysical pleasure, he cannot profitably eat his food or love his God.\n\nBut from this in nowise follows what Bossuet tried so hard to\nprove,--that what is thus necessarily present in man, as a psychical or\nphysical prompting and satisfaction, must also of necessity be willed\nby him, directly and as his determining reason and justification. In\nturning to eat, man cannot help feeling a psychic pleasure of an all\nbut purely physical kind; and, if he is wise, he will make no attempt\nto meddle with this feeling. But he can either deliberately will, as\nhis action\u2019s object, that pleasure which is thus inevitably incident\nto the act, and the more he does so, the more simply greedy and\nsensual he will become; or he can directly will, as his determining\nend, that sustenance of life and strength for his work and spiritual\ngrowth, which is the justification and ultimate reason of eating (the\n_rationale_ of that very pleasure so wisely attached by nature, as a\nstimulus, to a process so necessary to the very highest objects), and\nthe more he does so, the more manly and spiritual he will grow.\n\nAnd so with every one of man\u2019s wondrously manifold and different\nphysical, psychical, spiritual requirements and actions, within\nthe wide range of his right nature and ideals. There is not one of\nthem,--not the most purely physical-seeming of these acts,--which he\ncannot ennoble and spiritualize by, as it were, meeting it,--by willing\nit, more and more, because of its rational end and justification.\nAnd there is not one of them,--not an act which, judged simply by\nits direct subject-matter and by the soul\u2019s faculties immediately\nengaged, would be the most purely mental and religious of acts,--which\nman cannot degrade and de-spiritualize, by, as it were, following\nit, by willing it more and more because of its psychical attraction\nand pleasurable concomitance alone. For, in the former case, the\nact, however gross may seem its material, is made the occasion and\ninstrument of spiritual character-building and of the constitution\nof liberty; in the latter case, the act, however ethereal its body,\nis but the occasion and means of the soul\u2019s dispersion in the mere\nphenomenal flux of the surface of existence, and of its subjection to\nthe determinism which obtains here.[176]\n\nCatherine\u2019s whole convert life is one long series of the most striking\nexamples of an heroic delicacy in self-knowledge and self-fighting in\nthis matter: a delicacy which, as to the degree of its possibility and\ndesirableness in any particular soul, is, however, peculiarly dependent\nupon that soul\u2019s special circumstances, temperament, _attrait_, and\ndegree of perfection reached and to be reached.\n\n(3) And, finally, as to the relations between the Contemplative forms\nof Prayer, and Acts and variously complete States of Pure Love; and,\nagain, of such Prayer and Love, and Abnormal or Miraculous conditions:\nit is clear that, if there is no true Contemplation without much Pure\nLove, there can be much Pure Love without Contemplation.\n\nAbb\u00e9 Gosselin well sums up the ordinary Catholic teaching. \u201cMeditation\nconsists of discursive acts which are easily distinguished from each\nother, both because of the kind of strain and shock with which they\nare produced, and because of the diversity of their objects. It is\nthe ordinary foundation of the interior life and the ordinary prayer\nof beginners, whose imperfect love requires to be thus excited and\nsustained by distinct and reflective acts. Contemplation consists,\nstrictly speaking, in direct \u2018non-reflex\u2019 acts,--acts so simple and\npeaceful as to have nothing salient by which the soul could distinguish\none from the other. It is called by the Mystical Saints \u2018a simple and\nloving look,\u2019 as discriminating it from meditation and the latter\u2019s\nmany methodic and discursive acts, and as limiting it to a simple and\nloving consideration and view of God and of divine things, certified\nand rendered present to the soul by faith. It is the ordinary prayer\nof perfect souls, or at least of those that have already made much\nprogress in the divine love. For the more purely a soul loves\nGod, the less it requires to be sustained by distinct, reflective\nacts; reasoning becomes a fatigue and an embarrassment to it in its\nprayer--it longs but to love and to contemplate the object of its love.\u201d\n\nOr as F\u00e9nelon puts it: \u201c\u2018Passivity,\u2019 \u2018Action,\u2019 is not precisely itself\nPure Love, but is the mode in which Pure Love operates.\u2026 \u2018Passivity,\u2019\n\u2018Action,\u2019 is not precisely the purity of Love, but is the effect of\nthat purity.\u201d[177] Yet, as M. Gosselin adds, \u201cIt must be admitted that\nwithout Contemplation the soul can arrive at a very high perfection;\nand that the most discursive meditation, and hence still more all\nprayer as it becomes effective, often includes certain direct acts\nwhich form an admixture and beginning of contemplation.\u201d[178]\n\nAnd as to any supposed necessary relations between the very highest\ncontemplation and the most complete state of Pure Love on the one hand,\nand anything abnormal or miraculous on the other hand, F\u00e9nelon, in\nthis point remarkably more sober than Bossuet, well sums up the most\nauthoritative and classical Church-teaching on the matter: \u201c\u2018Passive\u2019\nContemplation is but Pure Contemplation: \u2018Active\u2019 Contemplation\nbeing one which is still mixed with hurried and discursive acts.\nWhen Contemplation has ceased to have any remnant of this hurry, of\nthis \u2018activity,\u2019 it is entirely \u2018Passive,\u2019 that is, peaceful, in\nits acts.\u201d \u201cThis free and loving look of the soul means acts of the\nunderstanding,--for it is a look; and acts of the will, for the look\nis a loving one; and acts produced by free-will, without any strict\nnecessity, for the look is a free look.\u201d \u201cWe should not compare\nPassive Contemplation,\u201d as did Bossuet, \u201cto prophecy, or to the gift\nof tongues or of miracles; nor may we say that this mystical state\nconsists principally in something wrought by God within us without\nour co-operation, and where, consequently, there neither is nor can\nbe any merit. We must, on the contrary, to speak correctly, say that\nthe substance of such Passive Prayer, taken in its specific acts,\nis free, meritorious, and operated within us by a grace that acts\ntogether with us.\u201d \u201cIt is the attraction to the acts which the soul\nnow produces which, as by a secondary and counter-effect, occasions\na quasi-incapacity for those acts which it does not produce. Now\nthis attraction is not of a kind to deprive the soul of the use of\nits free-will: we see this from the nature of the acts which this\nattraction causes the soul to produce. Whence I conclude that this\nsame attraction does not, again, deprive it of its liberty with regard\nto the acts which it prevents. The attraction but prevents the latter\nin the way it produces the other,--by an efficacious influence that\ninvolves no sheer necessity.\u201d \u201c\u2018Passivity,\u2019 if it comes from God, ever\nleaves the soul fully free for the exercise of the distinct virtues\ndemanded by God in the Gospel; the _attrait_ is truly divine only\nin so far as it draws the soul on to the perfect fulfilment of the\nevangelical counsels and promises concerning all the virtues.\u201d \u201cThe\ninspiration of the Passive state is but an habitual inspiration for\nthe interior acts of evangelical piety. It renders the Passive soul\nneither infallible nor impeccable, nor independent of the Church even\nfor its interior direction, nor exempt from the obligation of meriting\nand growing in virtue.\u2026 The inspiration of the passive soul differs\nfrom that of actively just souls only in being purer; that is, more\nexempt from all natural self-seeking, more full, more simple, more\ncontinuous, and more developed at each moment. We have, throughout,\never one and the same inspiration, which but grows in perfection and\npurity in proportion as the soul renounces itself more, and becomes\nmore sensitive to the divine impressions.\u201d[179]\n\nThus we get an impressive, simple and yet varied, conception of\nspirituality, in which a real continuity, and a power and obligation of\nmutual understanding and aid underlies all the changes of degree and\nform, from first to last. For from first to last there are different\ndegrees, but of the same supernatural grace acting in and upon the same\nhuman nature responsive in different degrees and ways. From first to\nlast there is, necessarily and at every step, the Supernatural: at no\npoint is there any necessary presence of, or essential connection with,\nthe Miraculous or the Abnormal.\n\n\n4. _Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant._\n\nTheology and Philosophy have not ceased to occupy themselves, at least\nindirectly, with the substance of these great questions, since they\nfurnished the subject-matter to Bossuet and F\u00e9nelon in their memorable\ncontroversy; somewhat over-subtle although some of it was in its\nearlier phases, owing to F\u00e9nelon\u2019s chivalrous anxiety to defend, as far\nas possible, the very expressions, often so nebulous and shifting, of\nhis cousin, Madame Guyon.\n\n(1) Indeed about twenty years before that controversy, Spinoza had,\nin his _Theologico-Political Treatise_, and then, more impressively\nstill, in his _Ethics_, made a brilliant assault upon all, especially\nall religious, self-seeking. Also on this point these writings showed\nthat strange, pathetic combination of grandly religious intuitions\nand instincts with a Naturalistic system which, logically, leaves no\nroom for those deepest requirements of that great soul; and here they\nrevealed, in addition, considerable injustice towards the, doubtless\nvery mixed and imperfect, motives of average humanity.\n\nTrue intuition speaks in his _Treatise_ (published in 1670) in the\nwords: \u201cSince the love of God is man\u2019s supreme beatitude and the final\nend and scope of all human actions: it follows that only that man\nconforms to the divine law, who strives to love God, not from fear of\npunishment, nor from the love of some other thing, such as delights,\nfame, and so forth, but from this motive alone, that he knows God, or\nthat he knows the knowledge and love of God, to be his supreme end.\u201d\nBut a little further back we learn that \u201cthe more we know the things\nof Nature, the greater and the more perfect knowledge of God do we\nacquire\u201d; a frank application of the pure Pantheism of his reasoned\nsystem.\n\nIn his _Ethics_, again, a noble intuition finds voice where he says:\n\u201cEven if we did not know our Mind,\u201d our individual soul, \u201cto be\neternal, we should still put Piety and Religion and, in a word, all\nthose virtues that are to be referred to magnanimity and generosity,\nfirst in our esteem.\u201d But he is doubtless excessive in his picturing of\nthe downright, systematic immorality of attitude of ordinary men--the\n\u201cslaves\u201d and \u201cmercenaries.\u201d \u201cUnless this hope of laying aside the\nburdens of Piety and Religion after death and of receiving the price\nof their service, and this fear of being punished by dire punishments\nafter death were in men, and if they, contrariwise, believed that\ntheir minds would perish with their bodies: they would let themselves\ngo to their natural inclination and would decide to rule all their\nactions according to their lust.\u201d And he is doubtlessly, though nobly,\nexcessive in his contrary ideal: \u201cHe who loves God cannot strive that\nGod shall love him in return,\u201d--an ideal which is, however, certainly\nin part determined by his philosophy, which knows no ultimate abiding\npersonality or consciousness either in God or man.\n\nYet, once again, we have him at his inspiring best when,\nCatherine-like, he tells us: \u201cThe supreme Good of those who pursue\nvirtue is common to them all, and all are equally able to rejoice in\nit\u201d; and \u201cthis love towards God is incapable of being stained by the\npassions of envy and bitterness, but is increased in proportion as we\nfigure to ourselves a larger number of men joined to God by the same\nbonds of love\u201d; when he declares: \u201cwe do not enjoy beatitude because we\nmaster our passions; rather, contrariwise, do we master our passions\nbecause we enjoy beatitude\u201d; and when he insists, with no doubt too\nindiscriminating, too Jacopone-like, a simplification, upon what,\nin its substance, is a profound truth: \u201cthe intellectual,\u201d the pure\n\u201clove of the soul for God is the very love of God, wherewith God loves\nHimself.\u201d[180]\n\n(2) It was, however, the astonishingly circumspect and many-sided\nLeibniz who, indefinitely smaller soul though he was, succeeded,\nperhaps better than any other modern philosopher, in successfully\ncombining the divers constitutive elements of the act and state of\nPure Love, when he wrote in 1714: \u201cSince true Pure Love consists in a\nstate of soul which makes me find pleasure in the perfections and the\nfelicity of the object loved by me, this love cannot but give us the\ngreatest pleasure of which we are capable, when God is that object.\nAnd, though this love be disinterested, it already constitutes, even\nthus simply by itself, our greatest-good and deepest interest.\u201d\n\nOr, as he wrote in 1698: \u201cOur love of others cannot be separated\nfrom our true good, nor our love of God from our felicity. But it is\nequally certain that the consideration of our own particular good, as\ndistinguished from the pleasure which we taste in seeing the felicity\nof another, does not enter into Pure Love.\u201d And earlier still he\nhad defined the act of loving as \u201cthe finding one\u2019s pleasure in the\nfelicity of another\u201d; and had concluded thence that Love is for man\nessentially an enjoyment, although the specific motive of love is not\nthe pleasure or the particular good of him who loves, but the good or\nthe felicity of the beloved object.[181]\n\n(3) Yet it is especially Kant who, with his predominant hostility to\nall Eudaemonism in Morality and Religion, has, more than all others,\nrenewed the controversy as to the relations between virtue and piety\non the one hand, and self-seeking motives on the other, and who is\npopularly credited with an entirely self-consistent antagonism to even\nsuch a wise and necessary attitude as are the amended positions of\nF\u00e9nelon and those of Leibniz. And yet I sincerely doubt whether (if\nwe put aside the question as to the strictly logical consequences of\nhis Critical Idealism, such as that Idealism appears in its greatest\npurity in the _Critique of Pure Reason_, 1781; and if we neglect the\nnumerous, often grossly unjust, Spinoza-like sallies against the\nsupposed undiluted mercenariness of ordinary piety, which abound in his\n_Religion within the Limits of Pure Reason_, 1793), we could readily\nfind any explicit pronouncement hopelessly antagonistic to the Catholic\nPure-Love doctrine.\n\nCertainly the position taken up towards this point in that very\npregnant and curious, largely-overlooked little treatise, _The Canon\nof Pure Reason_, which (evidently an earlier and complete sketch), has\nbeen inserted by him into his later, larger, but materially altered\nscheme of the _Critique_ of 1781, (where it now forms the _Zweite\nHauptst\u00fcck_ of the _Transcendentale Methodenlehre_, ed. Kehrbach,\nReclam, pp. 603-628), appears to be substantially acceptable.[182]\n\u201cHappiness consists in the satisfaction of all our inclinations,\naccording to their various character, intensity, and duration. The\nlaw of practical action, in so far as it is derived from the motive\nof happiness, I call Pragmatic, a Rule of Good Sense; the same law,\nin so far as it has for its motive only the becoming worthy of such\nhappiness, I call Moral, the Moral Law. Now Morality already by itself\nconstitutes a system, but Happiness does not do so, except in so far as\nHappiness is distributed in exact accordance with Morality. But such a\ndistribution is only possible in the intelligible world,\u201d--the world\nbeyond phenomena which can be reached by our reason alone--\u201cand under\na wise Originator and Ruler. Such an One, together with life in such a\nworld--a world which we are obliged to consider as a future one--reason\nfinds itself forced to assume, or else to look upon the moral laws as\nempty phantoms, since the necessary result of these laws,--a result\nwhich that same reason connects with their very idea,--would have to\nfall away, if that assumption were to go. Hence every one looks upon\nthe moral laws as _commandments_, a thing which they could not be,\nif they did not conjoin with their rule consequences of _a priori_\nappropriateness, and hence if they did not carry with them _promises_\nand _threats_. But this too they can do only if they lie within the\ncompass of a Single Necessary Being, Itself the Supreme Good, Which\nalone can render possible such a unity embracing both means and\nend.--Happiness alone is, for our reason, far from being the Complete\nGood, for reason does not approve of Happiness unless it be united with\nthe being worthy of Happiness, _i.e._ Moral Rectitude. But Morality\nalone, and with it the simple being worthy of happiness, is also far\nfrom the Complete Good. Even if reason, free from any consideration of\nany interest of its own, were to put itself in the position of a being\nthat had to distribute all happiness to others alone, it could not\njudge otherwise: for, in the complete idea of practical action, both\npoints are in essential conjunction, yet in suchwise that it is the\nmoral disposition which, as condition, first renders possible a sharing\nin happiness, and not the prospect of happiness which first gives\nan opening to the moral disposition. For, in this latter case, the\ndisposition would not be moral, and, consequently, would not deserve\nthat complete happiness to which reason can assign no other limitation\nthan such as springs from our own immoral attitude of will.\u201d[183]\n\nIn his _Foundation of the Metaphysic of Morals_, 1785, the noble\napostrophe to the Good Will no doubt appears formally to proclaim\nas possible and desirable a complete human disposition, in which no\nconsiderations of Happiness play any part: \u201cThe good will is good,\nnot through what it effects or produces, not through its utility for\nthe attainment of any intention or end, but it is good through the\nquality of the volition alone; that is, it is good in itself.\u2026\u201d \u201cIf,\nwith its greatest efforts, nothing were to be effected by it, and only\nthe good will itself were to remain, this bare will would yet shine in\nlonely splendour as a jewel,--as something which has its full value in\nitself.\u201d But further on he shows us how, after all, \u201cthis good will\ncannot, then, be the only and the whole good, but still it is the\nhighest good and the condition for all the rest, even for our desire of\nhappiness.\u201d[184] Certain exaggerations, which are next developed by\nhim here, shall be considered in a later chapter.\n\n\n5. _Four important points._\n\nHere I will but put together, in conclusion, four positions which I\nhave rejoiced to find in two such utterly, indeed at times recklessly,\nindependent writers as Professor Georg Simmel of Berlin and Professor\nA. E. Taylor.\n\n(1) Dr. Simmel declares, with admirable cogency: \u201cThe concept of\nreligion completely loses in Kant, owing to his rationalistic manner\nof discovering in it a mere compound of the moral interest and the\nstriving after happiness, its most specific and deepest character.\nNo doubt these two apprehensions are also essential to religion, but\nprecisely the direction in which Kant conjoins them,--that duty issues\nin happiness, is the least characteristic of religion, and is only\ndetermined by his Moralism, which refuses to recognize the striving\nafter happiness as a valuable motive. The opposite direction appears to\nme as far more decisively a part of religion and of its incomparable\nforce: for we thus find in religion precisely that ideal power, which\nmakes it the duty of man to win his own salvation. According to the\nKantian Moralism, it is every man\u2019s private affair how he shall meet\nhis requirement of happiness; and to turn such a private aspiration\ninto an objective, ideal claim, would be for Kant a contradiction and\nabomination. In reality, however, religion itself _requires_ that man\nshould have a care for his own welfare and beatitude, and in this\nconsists its incomparable force of attraction.\u201d[185] Let the reader\nnote how entirely this agrees with, whilst properly safeguarding, the\ndoctrine of Pure Love: it is the precise position of the best critics\nof the unamended F\u00e9nelon.\n\n(2) Professor Taylor insists that \u201cit is possible to desire directly\nand immediately pleasant experiences which are not my own.\u2026 Because\nit is _I_ who in every case have the pleasure of the anticipation, it\nis assumed that it must be I who am to experience the realization of\nthe anticipation.\u201d Yet \u201cit is really no more paradoxical that I should\nanticipate with pleasure some event which is not to form part of my own\ndirect sensible experience, than it is that I should find pleasure in\nthe anticipation at twenty of myself at eighty.\u201d \u201cThe austerest saints\nwill and can mortify themselves as a thing well-pleasing to God.\u201d[186]\nIn this way the joy of each constituent of the Kingdom of God in the\njoys of all the rest, and in the all-pervading joy of God, is seen to\nbe as possible as it is undoubtedly actual: the problem of the relation\nbetween pleasure and egoism is solved.\n\n(3) And Professor Taylor again insists upon how pleasant experiences,\nwhich do not owe their pleasantness to their relation to a previous\nanticipation, are not, properly speaking, good or worthy. It is by\n\u201csatisfactions\u201d and not by mere \u201cpleasures\u201d that \u201ceven the most\nconfirmed Hedonist must compute the goodness of a life.\u2026 Only when\nthe pleasant experience includes in itself the realization of an idea\nis it truly good.\u201d[187] But, if so, then the experience will be good,\nnot in proportion as it is unpleasant, as Kant was so prone to imply;\nnor directly in proportion as it is pleasant, although pleasantness\nwill accompany or succeed it, of a finer quality if not of a greater\nintensity, according as the idea which it embodies is good: but\ndirectly in proportion to the goodness of that idea. Thus all things\nlicit, from sense to spirit, will find their place and function in such\nacts, and in a life composed of such acts, spirit expressing itself\nin terms of sense. And the purification, continuously necessary for\nthe ever more adequate expression of the one in and by the other, will\nbe something different from any attempt at suppressing this means of\nexpression. Thus here again the great Christian Incarnation-Doctrine\nappears as the deepest truth, and as the solution of the problem as to\nthe relations of pleasure and duty.[188]\n\n(4) And finally, as to the ever-present need and importance of a theory\nconcerning these matters, Professor Taylor points out, not only that\nsome such theory is necessary to the full human life, but that it must\nplace an infinite ideal before us: paradox though it may sound, nothing\nless is truly practical, for \u201cany end that is to be permanently felt\nas worth striving for, must be infinite,\u201d and therefore \u201cin a sense\ninfinitely remote\u201d; and hence \u201cif indifference to the demand for a\npracticable ideal be the mark of a dreamer or a fanatic, contentment\nwith a finite and practicable ideal is no less undeniably the mark of\nan _esprit born\u00e9_.\u201d[189]\n\nHere F\u00e9nelon has adequately interpreted the permanent and complete\nrequirements of the religious life and spirit. \u201cYou tell me,\u201d he\nsays to his adversaries, \u201cthat \u2018Christianity is not a school of\nMetaphysicians.\u2019 All Christians cannot, it is true, be Metaphysicians;\nbut the principal Theologians have great need to be such. It was by a\nsublime Metaphysic that St. Augustine soared above the majority of the\nother Fathers, who were, for the rest, as fully versed in Scripture\nand Tradition. It was by his lofty Metaphysic that St. Gregory of\nNazianzum has merited the distinguishing title of _Theologian_.\nIt is by Metaphysic that St. Anselm and St. Thomas have been such\ngreat luminaries of the Church. True, the Church is not \u2018a school of\nMetaphysicians,\u2019 who dispute without docility, as did the ancient sects\nof philosophers. Yet she is a school in which St. Paul teaches that\nCharity is more perfect than Hope, and in which the holiest Doctors\ndeclare, in accordance with the principles of the Fathers, that Love\nis more perfect, precisely because it \u2018abides in God, not in view of\nany benefit that may accrue to us from so doing.\u2019\u201d \u201cI know well,\u201d he\nwrites to a friend, \u201cthat men misuse the doctrines of Pure Love and\nResignation; I know that there are hypocrites who, under cover of\nsuch noble terms, overthrow the Gospel. Yet it is the worst of all\nprocedures to attempt the destruction of perfect things, from a fear\nthat men will make a wrong use of them.\u201d Notwithstanding all misuse of\nthe doctrine--\u201cthe very perfection of Christianity is Pure Love.\u201d[190]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nTHE AFTER-LIFE PROBLEMS AND DOCTRINES\n\n\nMoving on now to the questions concerning the After-Life, it\nwill be convenient to consider them under five heads: the chief\npresent-day positions and perplexities with regard to belief in\nthe After-Life in General; the main implications and convictions\ninherent to an Eschatology such as Catherine\u2019s; and then the principal\ncharacteristics, difficulties, and helps of her tendencies and\nteachings concerning Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven. And throughout the\nChapter we shall busy ourselves directly only with the After-Life in\nthe sense of a heightened, or at least an equal, consciousness after\ndeath, as compared to that which existed before death: the belief in\na shrunken state of survival, in non-annihilation, appearing to be as\ncertainly the universal minimum of belief as such a minimum is not\nImmortality.\n\n\nI. THE CHIEF PRESENT-DAY PROBLEMS, PERPLEXITIES, AND REQUIREMENTS WITH\nREGARD TO THE AFTER-LIFE IN GENERAL.\n\nNow I take our chief present-day problems, perplexities, and resultant\nrequirements with regard to the After-Life in general, to fall into\nthree groups, according as those problems are predominantly Historical,\nor Philosophical, or directly Practical and Ethical.\n\n\n1. _Three Historical Difficulties._\n\nThe Historical group now brings very clearly and certainly before\nus the striking non-universality, the startling lateness, and\nthe generally strange fitfulness and apparent unreasonableness\ncharacterizing the earliest stage of belief in the soul\u2019s heightened,\nor at least equivalent, consciousness after death.\n\n(1) Now with respect to the Non-Universality of the doctrine, it\nis true that, in China, Confucianism is full of care for the dead.\n\u201cThroughout the Empire, the authorities are obliged to hold three\nannual sacrifices for the refreshment and rest of the souls of the dead\nin general.\u201d \u201cIt is hardly doubtful that the cultus of Ancestors formed\nthe chief institution in classical Confucianism, and constituted the\nvery centre of religion for the people. Even now ancestor-worship is\nthe only form of religion for which rules, applicable to the various\nclasses among the Emperor\u2019s subjects, are laid down in the Dynastic\nStatutes.\u201d And Professor De Groot, from whom I am quoting, gives an\ninteresting conspectus of the numberless ways in which the religious\nservice of the dead penetrates Chinese life.[191]--Yet we hear of\nKong-Tse (Confucius) himself (551-478 B.C.), that, though he insisted\nupon the most scrupulous execution of the three hundred rules of the\nthen extant temple-ceremonial, which were no doubt largely busy with\nthe dead, and though he said that one should sacrifice to the spirits\nas if they were present, he designated, in several of his sayings,\noccupation with theological problems as useless: \u201cas long as we do not\nknow men, how shall we know spirits? As long as we do not understand\nlife, how should we fathom death?\u201d And to questions relative to the\nspirits and the dead, he would give evasive answers.[192] Thus the\nfounder of the most characteristic of the Chinese religions was without\nany clear and consistent conviction on the point in question.\n\nIn India we find, for Brahmanic religion, certain unmistakable\nImmortality-Doctrines (in the sense of the survival of the soul\u2019s\nself-consciousness), expressed in the hymns of the _Rig-Veda_.--But\nalready, in the philosophizings of the _Upanishads_, we get a\nworld-soul, and this soul\u2019s exclusive permanence: \u201cto attain to true\nunity, the very duality of subject and object is to disappear. The\nterms Atman and Brahman here express the true Being which vivifies all\nbeings and appearances, and with which cognizing man reunites himself\nwhilst losing his individual existence.\u201d[193]\n\nAnd if we move on to Buddhism, with its hundreds of millions of\nadherents in Burmah, Tibet, China, and Japan, we can learn, from the\nclassical work of Oldenberg, how interestingly deep down lies the\nreason for the long conflict between scholars as to whether Nirvana\nis or is not to be taken for the complete extinction of the individual\nsoul. \u201cEverything, in the Buddhist dogmatic system, is part and parcel\nof a circle of Becoming and of Dissolution: all things are but a\nDhamma, a Sankhara; and all Dhamma, all Sankhara are but temporary.\u2026\nThe Mutable, Conditioned is here thinkable only as conditioned by\nanother Mutable and Conditioned. If we follow the dialectic consequence\nalone, there is no seeing how, according to this system, there can\nremain over, when a succession and mutual destruction of things\nconditioning and of things conditioned has run its course, anything\nbut a pure vacuum.\u201d And we have also such a saying of the Buddha as\nthe following. \u201cNow if, O disciples, the Ego (_atta_) and anything\nappertaining to the Ego (_attaniya_) cannot be comprehended with\naccuracy and certainty, is not then the faith which declares: \u2018This is\nthe world, and this is the Ego; this shall I become at death,--firm,\nconstant, eternal, unchangeable,--thus shall I be there, throughout\neternity,\u2019--is not this sheer empty folly?\u201d \u201cHow should it not, O\nLord, be sheer empty folly?\u201d answer the disciples. \u201cOne who spoke\nthus,\u201d is Oldenberg\u2019s weighty comment, \u201ccannot have been far from the\nconviction that Nirvana is annihilation. Yet it is understandable how\nthe very thinkers, who were capable of bearing this consequence, should\nhave hesitated to raise it to the rank of an official dogma of the\ncommunity.\u2026 Hence the official doctrine of the Buddhist Church attained\nthe form, that, on the question of the real existence of the Ego, of\nwhether or not the perfected saint lives on after death, the exalted\nBuddha has taught nothing. Indeed the legally obligatory doctrine of\nthe old community required of its votaries an explicit renunciation of\nall knowledge concerning the existence or non-existence of completely\nredeemed souls.\u201d\n\n\u201cBuddhism,\u201d so Oldenberg sums up the matter, with, I think, the\nsubstantial adhesion of all present-day competent authorities, \u201cteaches\nthat there is a way out of the world of created things, out into the\ndark Infinite. Does this way lead to new being? or does it lead to\nnothingness? Buddhist belief maintains itself on the knife\u2019s edge\nof these alternatives. The desire of the heart, as it longs for the\nEternal, is not left without something, and yet the thinking mind is\nnot given a something that it could grasp and retain. The thought\nof the Infinite, the Eternal, could not be present at all, and yet\nvanish further away than here, where, a mere breath and on the\npoint of sinking into sheer nothingness, it threatens to disappear\naltogether.\u201d[194] This vast Buddhist community, numbering, perhaps, a\nthird of the human race, should not, then, be forgotten, when we urge\nthe contrary instances of the religions of Assyria and Babylonia; of\nEgypt; of Greece and Rome; and, above all, of the Jews and Christianity.\n\nYet it is well to remember that such non-universality of belief is at\nleast as real, to this very hour, for such a fundamental religious\ntruth and practice as Monotheism and Monolatry; such purely Ethical\nconvictions as Monogamy and the Illicitness of Slavery; such a plain\ndictate of the universal humanitarian ideal as the illegitimacy\nof the application of physical compulsion in matters of religious\nconviction; and such directly demonstrable psychical and natural facts\nas subconsciousness in the human soul, the sexual character of plants,\nand the earth\u2019s rotundity and rotation around the sun. In none of these\ncases can we claim more than that the higher, truer doctrine,--that is,\nthe one which explains and transcends the element of truth contained in\nits predecessor and opposite,--is explicitly reached by a part only of\nhumanity, and is but implied and required by other men, at their best.\nYet this is clearly enough for leaving us free to decide,--reasonably\nconclusive evidence for their truth being forthcoming,--in favour of\nthe views of the minority: since the assumption of an equality of\nspiritual and moral insight and advance throughout mankind is as little\nbased upon fact, as would be the supposition of men\u2019s equal physical\nstrength or height, or of any other quality or circumstance of their\nnature and environment.\n\n(2) The lateness of the doctrine\u2019s appearance, precisely in the cases\nwhere there can be no doubt of its standing for a conviction of an\nendless persistence of a heightened consciousness after death,--that\nis, amongst the Greeks (and Romans) and the Jews (and Christians),--has\nnow been well established by critical historical research.\n\nWith regard to the Greeks,[195] the matter is particularly plain,\nsince we can still trace even in Plato, (427 to 347 B.C.), who, next\nto Our Lord Himself and to St. Paul, is doubtless the greatest and\nmost influential teacher of full individual Immortality that the world\nhas seen, two periods of thought in this matter, and can show that\nthe first was without any such certain conviction. In his _Apology of\nSocrates_, written soon after the execution in 399 B.C., he makes his\ngreat master, close to his end, declare that death would bring to man\neither a complete unconsciousness, like to a dreamless sleep, or a\ntransition into another life,--a life here pictured like to the Homeric\nHades. Both possibilities Socrates made to accept resignedly, in full\nreliance on the justice of the Gods, and to look no further; how should\nhe know what is known to no man?--And this is Plato\u2019s own earlier\nteaching. For in the very _Republic_ which, in its chronologically\nlater constituents, (especially in Book V, 471_c_, to the end of\nBook VIII, Book IX, 560_d_ to 588_a_, and Book X up to 608_b_), so\ninsists upon and develops the truth and importance of Immortality in\nthe strictest, indeed the sublimest sense: we get, in its earlier\nportions, (especially in Book II, 10_c_, to Book V, 460_c_), no trace\nof any such conviction. For, in these earlier passages, the Guardians\nin the Ideal State are not to consider what may come after death: the\ncentral theme is the manner in which Justice carries with it its own\nrecompense; and the rewards, that are popularly wont to be placed\nbefore the soul, are referred to ironically,--Socrates is determined to\ndo without such hopes. In those later portions, on the contrary, there\nis the greatest insistence upon the importance of caring, not for this\nshort life alone, but for the soul\u2019s \u201cwhole time\u201d and for what awaits\nit after death. And in the still later parts, (as in Books VI and VII),\nthe sublimest form of Immortality is presupposed as true and actual\nthroughout. Thus in Greece it is not till about 390-380 B.C., and in\nPlato himself not till his middle life, that we get a quite definite\nand final doctrine of the Immortality of all souls, and of a blessed\nafter-existence for every just and holy life here below.\n\nFor the survival after the body\u2019s death, indubitably attributed to\nthe Psyche in the Homeric Poems, is conceived there, throughout,\nas a miserably shrunken consciousness, and one which is dependent\nfor its continuance upon the good offices bestowed by the survivors\nupon the corpse and grave. And the translation of the still living\nMenelaus to Elysium (Od. IV, 560-568) is probably a later insertion;\nbelongs to a small class of exceptional cases; implies the writer\u2019s\ninability to conceive a heightened consciousness for the soul, after\nthe soul\u2019s separation from the body; and is based, not upon any virtue\nor reward, but upon Menelaus\u2019s family-relationship to Zeus. Ganymede\ngets similarly translated because of his physical beauty (II. XX, 232\n_seq._).\n\nHesiod, though later than Homer as a writer, gives us, in his account\nof the Five Ages of the World (_Works and Days_, ll. 109-201), some\ntraces of an Animistic conception of a heightened life of the bodiless\nsoul beyond the grave,--a conception which had been neglected or\nsuppressed by Homer, but which had evidently been preserved alive in\nthe popular religion of, at least, Central Greece. Yet Hesiod knows of\nsuch a life only for the Golden and for the Silver Ages, and for some\nmiraculous, exceptional cases of the fourth, the Heroic Age: already\nin the third, the Bronze Age, and still more emphatically in his own\nfifth, the Iron Age, there are no such consolations: nothing but the\nshrunken consciousness of the Homeric after-death Psyche is, quite\nevidently, felt by him to be the lot of all souls in the hard, iron\npresent.\n\nThe Cultus of the Heroes is already registered in Draco\u2019s Athenian\nLaws, in about 620 B.C., as a traditional custom. And these Heroes have\ncertainly lived at one time as men upon earth, and have become heroes\nonly after death; their souls, though severed from the body, live a\nheightened imperishable life, indeed one that can mightily help men\nhere below and now,--so at Delphi and at Salamis against the Persians.\nYet here again each case of such an elevation was felt to be a miracle,\nan exception incapable of becoming a universal law: not even the germ\nof a belief in the Immortality of the soul as such seems to be here.\n\nThe Cultus of the Nether-World Deities, of the Departed generally, and,\nas the culmination of all this movement, the Eleusinian Mysteries,\nmust not be conceived as involving or as leading to, any belief in the\necstatic elevation of the soul, or consciousness of its God-likeness;\nand such unending bliss as is secured, is gained by men, not because\nthey are virtuous and devout, but through their initiation into the\nMysteries. Rhode assures us, rightly I think, that \u201cit remains unproved\nthat, during the classical period of Greek culture, the belief in\nJudges and a Judgment to be held in Hades over the deeds done by men on\nearth, had struck root among the people\u201d; Professor Percy Gardner adds\nhis great authority to the same conclusion.[196] Here again it is Plato\nwho is the first to take up a clearly and consistently spiritual and\nuniversalistic position.\n\nIndeed it is only in the predominantly neuropathic, indeed largely\nimmoral and repulsive, forms of the Dionysiac sect and movement, (at\nwork, perhaps, already in the eighth century B.C. and which leads\non to the formation of the more aristocratic and priestly Orphic\ncommunities) that a demonstrable and direct belief arose in the soul\u2019s\nintrinsic God-likeness, or even divinity, and in its immortality,\nor even eternity; and that stimulations, materials, and conceptions\nwere furnished to Greek thought, which are traceable wheresoever it\nhenceforth inclines to belief in the soul\u2019s intrinsic Immortality.\n\nYet the leaven spread but slowly into philosophy. For the Ionian\nphilosophers, and among them Heraclitus, the impressive teacher of\nthe flux of all things, flourish from about 600 to 430 B.C.; but,\n_na\u00efve_ Materialists and Pantheists as they are, they frankly exclude\nall survival of individual consciousness after death. The Eleatic\nphilosophers live between 550 and 450 B.C., and are all busy with _a\npriori_ logical constructions of the physical world, conceived as sole\nand self-explanatory; and amongst them is Parmenides, the powerful\npropounder of the complete identity and immutability of all reality.\nThose transcendent spiritual beliefs appear first as part, indeed as\nthe very foundation, although still rather of a mode of life than of\na formal philosophy, in the teaching and community of Pythagoras, who\nseems to have lived about 580 to 490 B.C., and who certainly emigrated\nfrom Asia Minor to Croton in Southern Italy. The soul appears here\nas intrinsically immortal, indeed without beginning and without end.\nAnd then Immortality forms one (the mystical) of the two thoroughly\nheterogeneous elements of the, otherwise predominantly Ionic and\nMaterialistic, philosophy of Empedocles of Agrigentum in Sicily, about\n490 to 435 B.C. In both these cases the Dionysiac-Orphic provenance of\nthe \u201cImmortality\u201d-doctrines is clearly apparent.\n\nAnd then, among the poets who bridge over the period up to Plato, we\nfind Pindar, who, alongside of reproductions of the ordinary, popular\nconceptions, gives us at times lofty, Orphic-like teachings as to\nthe eternity, the migration, and the eventual persistent rest and\nhappiness of the just Soul, and as to the suffering of the unjust one;\nAeschylus, who primarily dwells upon the Gods\u2019 judgment in this life,\nand who makes occasional allusions to the after-life which are partly\nstill of the Homeric type; Sophocles, who indeed refers to the special\nprivileges which, in the after-life, attend upon the souls that have\nhere been initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries, and who causes\nOedipus to be translated, whilst still alive, to Other-World happiness,\nbut who knows nothing of an unceasing heightened consciousness\nfor all men after death; and Euripides, who, showing plainly the\ninfluence of the Sophists, gives expression, alongside of Pantheistic\nidentifications of the soul and of the aether, to every kind of\nmisgiving and doubt as to any survival after death.\n\nAnd as to the appearance of the doctrine among the Jews, we again find\na surprising lateness. I follow here, with but minor contributions\nand modifications from other writers and myself, the main conclusions\nof Dr. Charles\u2019s standard _Critical History of the Doctrine of a\nFuture Life_, London, 1899, whose close knowledge of the subject is\nunsurpassed, and who finds as many and as early attestations as are\nwell-nigh findable by serious workers.[197]\n\n\u201cThe primitive beliefs of the individual Israelite regarding the future\nlife, being derived from Ancestor-worship, were implicitly antagonistic\nto Yahwism, from its first proclamation by Moses.\u2026 This antagonism\nbecomes explicit and results in the final triumph of Yahwism.\u201d And\nto the early Israelite, even under Yahwism, \u201cthe religious unit was\u201d\nnot the individual but \u201cthe family or tribe.\u201d Thus, even fully six\ncenturies after Moses, \u201cthe message of the prophets of the eighth\ncentury,\u201d Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, \u201cis still directed to the\nnation, and the judgments they proclaim are collective punishment for\ncollective guilt. It is not till late in the seventh century B.C. that\nthe problem of individual retribution really emerged, and received\nits first solution in the teaching of Jeremiah.\u201d And \u201cthe further\ndevelopment of these ideas,\u201d by the teaching of Ezekiel and of some\nof the Psalms and Proverbs, as regards individual responsibility\nand retribution in this life, and by the deep misgivings and keen\nquestionings of Job and Ecclesiastes, as to the adequacy of this\nteaching, \u201cled inevitably to the conception of a blessed life beyond\nthe grave.\u201d\n\nYet throughout the Hebrew Old Testament the Eschatology of the Nation\ngreatly predominates over that of the Individual. Indeed in pre-Exilic\ntimes \u201cthe day of Yahwe,\u201d with its national judgments, constitutes\nthe all but exclusive subject of the prophetic teaching as to the\nfuture. Only from the Exile, (597 to 538 B.C.), onwards, does the\neschatological development begin to grow in complexity, for now the\nindividualism first preached by Jeremiah begins to maintain its claim\nalso. But not till the close of the fourth century, or the beginning of\nthe third century B.C., do the separate eschatologies of the individual\nand of the nation issue finally in their synthesis: the righteous\nindividual will participate in the Messianic Kingdom, the righteous\ndead of Israel will arise to share therein,--thus in Isaiah xxvi, 1-19,\na passage which it is difficult to place earlier than about 334 B.C.\nThe resurrection is here limited to the just. In Daniel xii, 2, which\nis probably not earlier than 165 B.C., the resurrection is extended,\nnot indeed to all members of Israel, but, with respective good and evil\neffects, to its martyrs and apostates.\n\nAnd the slowness and incompleteness of the development throughout the\nHebrew Old Testament is strikingly illustrated by the great paucity\nof texts which yield, without the application of undue pressure, any\nclear conviction or hope of a heightened, or even a sheer, maintenance\nof the soul\u2019s this-life consciousness and force after death. Besides\nthe passages just indicated, Dr. Charles can only find Psalms xlix and\nlxxiii, and Job xix, 25-27, all three, according to him, later than\nEzekiel, who died in 571 B.C.[198] The textually uncertain and obscure\nJob-passage (xix, 25, 26) must be discounted, since it evidently\ndemands interpretation according to the plain presupposition and point\nof the great poem as a whole.--And the same result is reached by the\nnumerous, entirely unambiguous, passages which maintain the negative\npersuasion. In the hymn put into the mouth of the sick king Hezekiah,\nfor about 713 B.C., (a composition which seems to be very late,\nperhaps only of the second century B.C.), we hear: \u201cThe grave cannot\npraise Thee \u2026 they that go down into the pit cannot hope for truth.\nThe living, the living, he shall praise Thee, as I do this day.\u201d And\nthe Psalter contains numerous similar declarations. Thus vi, 5: \u201cIn\ndeath there is no remembrance of Thee: in the grave who shall give Thee\nthanks?\u201d and cxv, 17: \u201cThe dead praise not the Lord, neither any that\ngo down into silence; but _we_ praise the Lord.\u201d See also Psalms xxx,\n19; lxxxviii, 11.\n\nIndeed the name for the Departed is Rephaim, \u201cthe limp, the powerless\nones.\u201d Stade well says: \u201cAccording to the ancient Israelitish\nconception the entire human being, body and soul, outlasts death,\nwhilst losing all that makes life worth living. That which persists\nin Sheol for all eternity is the form of man, emptied of all content.\nAntique thought ignores as yet that there exists no such thing as a\nform without substance. The conception has as little in common with\nthe conviction of the Immortality of the Soul, which found its chief\nsupport in Greek ideas, as with the expectation of the Resurrection,\nwhich grew out of the Jewish Messianic hope, or with the Christian\nanticipation of Eternal Life, which is also based upon religious\nmotives.\u201d[199]\n\nYet, with respect to this objection from the lateness of the doctrine,\nwe must not forget that fully consistent Monotheism and Monogamy are\nalso late, but not, on that account, less true or less precious; and\nindeed that, as a universal rule, the human mind has acquired at all\nadequate convictions as to most certain and precious truths but slowly\nand haltingly. This process is manifest even in Astronomy, Geology,\nBotany, Human Anatomy. It could not fail to be, not less but more\nthe case in a matter like this which, if it concerns us most deeply,\nis yet both too close to us to be readily appreciated in its true\nproportions, and too little a matter of mathematical demonstration\nor of direct experience not to take much time to develop, and not to\ndemand an ever-renewed acquisition and purification, being, as it is,\nthe postulate and completion of man\u2019s ethical and spiritual faiths, at\ntheir deepest and fullest.\n\n(3) And with regard to the unsatisfactory character of some of the\nearliest manifestations of the belief, this point is brought home to\nus, with startling vividness, in the beginnings of the doctrine in\nancient Greece. For Rhode\u2019s very careful and competent examination of\nprecisely this side of the whole question shows conclusively (even\nthough I think, with Crusius, that he has overlooked certain rudiments\nof analogous but healthy experiences and beliefs in pre-Dionysiac\nGreece) how new and permanently effective a contribution to the full\ndoctrine was made, for the Hellenic world and hence indirectly for\nall Western humanity, by the self-knowledge gained in that wildly\norgiastic upheaval, those dervish-like dances and ecstatic fits during\nthe Dionysian night-celebrations on the Thracian mountain-sides.\nIndeed Rhode traces how from these experiences, partly from the\ncontinuation of them, partly from the reaction against them, on the\npart of the intensely dualistic and ascetic teaching and training of\nthe Orphic sect, there arose, and filtered through to Pythagoras, to\nPlato, and to the whole Neo-Platonist school, the clear conception\nand precise terminology concerning ecstatic, enthusiastic states,\nthe divinity and eternity of the human soul, its punitive lapse\ninto and imprisonment within the body, and its need of purification\nthroughout the earthly life and of liberation through death from this\nits incurably accidental and impeding companion.--Thus we get here,\nconcerning one of the chief sources of at least the formulation of our\nbelief in Immortality, what looks a very nest of suspicious, repulsive\ncircumstances:--psycho-physical phenomena, which, quite explicable to,\nand indeed explained by, us now as in nowise supernatural, could not\nfail to appear portentous to those men who first experienced them;\nunmoral or immoral attitudes and activities of mind and will; and\ndemonstrable excesses of feeling and conception as regards both the\nstatic goodness, the downright divinity, eternity, and increateness\nof the soul, and the unmixed evil of the body with its entirely\ndisconnected alongsideness to the soul. Does not all this spell a mass\nof wild hallucination, impurity, fanaticism, and superstition?\n\nYet here again it behoves us, if not to accept, yet also not to reject,\nin wholesale fashion and in haste. For the profoundly experienced\nProfessor Pierre Janet shows[200] us, what is now assumed as an axiom,\nand as the ultimate justification of the present widespread interest\nin the study of Hysteria, that \u201cwe must admit for the moral world the\ngreat principle universally admitted for the physical world since\nClaude Bernard,--viz. that the laws of illness are, at bottom, the\nsame as those of health, and that, in the former, there is but the\nexaggeration or the diminution of phenomena which existed already in\nthe latter.\u201d\n\nAnd if thus our recent studies of morbid mentalities have been able\nto throw a flood of light upon the mechanism and character of the\nhealthy mind, a mind more difficult to analyze precisely because\nof the harmonious interaction of its forces, there is nothing very\nsurprising if man, in the past, learnt to know his own fundamental\nnature better in and through periods of abnormal excitation than in\nthose of normal balance. And the resultant doctrines in the case in\nquestion only required, and demand again and again, a careful pruning\nand harmonizing to show forth an extraordinary volume of abiding\ntruth. The insuppressible difference between mind and matter, and the\ndistinction between the fully recollected soul (intuitive reason), and\nexplicit reasoning; the immeasurable superiority of mind over matter,\nand the superiority of that full reason over this \u201cthin\u201d reasoning;\nthe certainty, involved in all our inevitable mental categories and\nassumptions and in all our motives for action, of this mind and\nintuition being more like the cause of all things than are those\nother inferior realities and activities; the indestructibleness of\nthe postulates and standards of objective and infinite Beauty, Truth,\nGoodness, of our consciousness of being intrinsically bound to them,\nand of our inmost humanity and its relative greatness being measurable\nby just this our consciousness of this our obligation, and hence\nby the keenness of our sense of failure, and by our striving after\npurification and the realization of our immanental possibilities: all\nthis remains deeply fruitful and true.\n\nAnd those crude early experiences and analyses certainly point to\nwhat, even now, are our most solid reasons for belief in Immortality:\nfor if man\u2019s mind and soul can thus keenly suffer from the sense\nof the contingency and mutability of all things directly observed\nby it without and within, it must itself be, at least in part or\npotentially, outside of this flux which it so vividly apprehends\nas _not_ Permanence, _not_ Rest, _not_ true Life. Let us overlook,\nthen, and forgive the first tumultuous, childishly rude and clumsy,\nmentally and emotionally hyper-aesthetic forms of apprehension of\nthese great spiritual facts and laws, forms which are not, after all,\nmore misleading than is the ordinary anaesthetic condition of our\napprehending faculties towards these fundamental forces and testimonies\nof our lot and nature. Not the wholesale rejection, then, of even those\ncrude Dionysian witnessings, still less of the already more clarified\nOrphic teaching, and least of all of Plato\u2019s great utilizations and\nspiritualizations can be required of us, but only a reinterpretation\nof those first impressions and of mankind\u2019s analogous experiences, and\na sifting and testing of the latter by the light of all that has been\ndeeply lived through, and seriously thought out, by spiritually awake\nhumanity ever since.--And we should remember that the history of the\ndoctrine among the Jews is, as has already been intimated, grandly free\nfrom any such suspicious occasions and concomitances.\n\n\n2. _Two Philosophical Difficulties._\n\nYet it is precisely this latter, social, body-and-soul-survival\ndoctrine which brings the second group of objections, the philosophical\ndifficulties, to clear articulation. For thus we are unavoidably driven\nto one or other of the equally difficult alternatives, of a bodiless\nlife of the soul, and of a survival or resurrection of the body.\n\n(1) Christianity, by its explicit teachings, and even more by its whole\ndrift and interior affinities, requires the survival of all that is\nessential to the whole man, and conceives this whole as constituted,\nnot by thought alone but also by feeling and will and the power of\neffectuation; so that the body, or some unpicturable equivalent to\nit, seems necessary to this physico-spiritual, ultimately organic\nconception of what man is and must continue to be, if he is to remain\nman at all.--And Psychology, on its part, is showing us, more and more,\nhow astonishingly wide and deep is the dependence, at least for their\nactuation, of the various functions and expressions of man\u2019s character\nand spirit upon his bodily frame. For not only is the reasoning\nfaculty seen, ever since Aristotle, to depend, for its material and\nstimulation, upon the impressions of the senses, nor can we represent\nit to ourselves otherwise than as seated in the brain or in some\nsuch physical organism, but the interesting Lange-James observations\nand theory make it likely that also the emotions,--the feelings as\ndistinct from sensations,--ever result, as a matter of fact, from\ncertain foregoing, physico-neural impressions and modifications, which\nlatter follow upon this or that perception of the mind, a perception\nwhich would otherwise, as is the case in certain neural lesions and\nanaesthesias, remain entirely dry and unemotional.[201]--And the\nsense of the Infinite, which we have had such reason to take as the\nvery centre of religion, arises ever, within man\u2019s life here below,\nin contrast to, and as a concomitant and supplementation of, his\nperception of the Finite and Contingent, and hence not without his\nsenses being alive and active.\n\nNow all this fits in admirably with the whole Jewish-Christian respect\nfor, high claims upon, and constant training of the body, the senses,\nthe emotions, and with the importance attached to the Visible and\nAudible,--History, Institutions, Society.--Yet our difficulties are\nclear. For however spiritually we may conceive a bodily survival or\nresurrection; however completely we may place the identity of the\nvarious stages of the body in this life, and the sameness between\nthe body before death and after the resurrection, in the identity of\nits quasi-creator, the body-weaving soul, we can in nowise picture\nto ourselves such a new, indefinitely more spiritual, incorporation,\nand we bring upon ourselves acute difficulties, for both before and\nafter this unpicturable event. Before the resurrection there would\nhave to be unconsciousness between death and that event; but thus\nthe future life is broken up, and for no spiritual reason. Or there\nwould be consciousness; but then the substitute for the body, that\noccasions this consciousness, would, apparently, render all further\nrevivification of the body unnecessary. And if we take the resurrection\nas effected, we promptly feel how mixed and clumsy, how inadequate,\nhow less, and not more, than the best and noblest elements of our\nexperience and aspirations even here and now, is such a, still\nessentially temporal and spacial, mode of existence.\n\nI take it that, against all this, we can but continue to maintain\ntwo points. The soul\u2019s life after bodily death is not a matter of\nexperience or of logical demonstration, but a postulate of faith and a\nconsequence from our realization of the human spirit\u2019s worth; and hence\nis as little capable of being satisfactorily pictured, as are all the\nother great spiritual realities which can nevertheless be shown to be\npresupposed and implicitly affirmed by every act of faith in the final\ntruth and abiding importance of anything whatsoever.--And again, it is\nnot worth while to attempt to rescue, Aristotle-wise, just that single,\nand doubtless not the highest, function of man\u2019s spirit and character,\nhis dialectic faculty, or even his intellectual intuitive power, for\nthe purpose of thus escaping, or at least minimizing, the difficulties\nattendant upon the belief in Immortality. If we postulate, as we do,\nman\u2019s survival, we must postulate, without being able to fill in or to\njustify any details of the scheme, the survival of all that may and\ndoes constitute man\u2019s true and ultimate personality. How much or how\nlittle this may precisely mean, we evidently know but very imperfectly:\nbut we know enough to be confident that it means more than the\nabstractive, increasingly dualistic school of Plato, Philo, Plotinus,\nProclus would allow.\n\n(2) But speculative reason seems also to raise a quite general\nobjection, based upon man\u2019s littleness within the immense Universe, and\nupon the arbitrariness of excepting those tiny points, those centres of\nhuman consciousness, men\u2019s souls, from the flux, the ceaseless becoming\nand undoing, of all the other parts of that mighty whole, immortal,\nsurely, only _as_ a whole.\n\nHere we can safely say that, at least in this precise form, the\ndifficulty springs predominantly not from reason or experience, but\nfrom an untutored imagination. For all our knowledge of that great\nexternal world, which this objection supposes to englobe our small\ninternal world, as a part inferior, or at most but equal, to the other\nparts of that whole, is dependent upon this interior world of ours; and\nhowever truly inherent in that external world we may hold that world\u2019s\nlaws to be, those laws can, after all, be shown to be as truly the\nresult of our own mind\u2019s spontaneous work,--an architectonic building\nup by this mind of the sense-impressions conveyed to it from without.\nAnd that whole Universe, in so far as it is material, cannot be\ncompared, either in kind or in dignity, to Mind: only the indications\nthere, parallel in this to our experiences within our own mind, of a\nMind and Spirit infinitely greater and nobler than, yet with a certain\naffinity to, our own,--only these constitute that outer world as great\nas this our inner world. Indeed it is plain that Materialism is so\nfar from constituting the solution to the problem of existence, that\neven Psycho-Physical Parallelism, even the attribution of any ultimate\nreality to Matter, are on their trial. It is anyhow already clear that,\nof the two, it is easier and nearer to the truth to maintain that\nMatter and its categories are simply modes in the manifestation of Mind\nto minds and in the apprehension of Mind by minds, than to declare Mind\nto be but a function or resultant of Matter.[202]\n\nBut if all this is so, then no simply sensible predominance of the\nsensible Universe, nor even any ascertainment of the mere flux and\ninterchange of and between all things material and their elements,\ncan reasonably affect the question as to the superiority and\npermanence of Mind. But we shall return, in the next chapter, to the\ndifficulties special to the Immortality of individual human spirits or\npersonalities,--for this is, I think, the point at which the problem is\nstill acute.\n\n\n3. _Three Ethico-Practical Difficulties._\n\nThe last group of objections is directly practical and ethical, and\nraises three points: the small space and influence occupied and\nexercised, apparently, by such a belief, in the spiritual life of even\nserious persons; the seemingly selfish, ungenerous type of religion and\nof moral tone fostered by definite belief in, or at least occupation\nwith, the thought of an individual future life, as contrasted with the\nnobility of tone engendered by such denials or abstractions from all\nsuch beliefs as we find in Spinoza and Schleiermacher; and, finally,\nthe plausibility of the teaching, on the part of some distinguished\nthinkers and poets, that a positive conviction of this our short\nearthly life being the sole span of our individual consciousness\nis directly productive of a certain deep tenderness, an heroic\nconcentration of attention, and a virile truthfulness, which are\nunattainable, which indeed are weakened or rendered impossible by,\nthe necessarily vague anticipation of an unending future life; a hope\nwhich, where operative at all, can but dwarf and deaden all earthly\naspiration and endeavour.\n\n(1) As to the first point, which has perhaps never been more\nbrilliantly affirmed than by Mr. Schiller,[203] I altogether doubt\nwhether the numerous appearances, which admittedly seem to point that\nway, are rightly interpreted by such a conclusion. For it is, for one\nthing, most certainly possible to be deeply convinced of the reality\nand importance of the soul\u2019s heightened after-life, and to have no\nkind of belief or interest in Psychical Research, at least in such\nResearch as an intrinsically valuable aid to any specifically religious\nconvictions. No aloofness from such attempts to find spiritual\nrealities at the phenomenal level can, (unless it is clear that the\nmajority of educated Western Europeans share the na\u00efve assumptions of\nthis position), indicate negation of, or indifference to, the belief in\nImmortality.--And next, it is equally certain that precisely the most\nfruitful form of the belief is that which conceives the After-life as\nalready involved in this one, and which, therefore, dwells specially,\nnot upon the posteriority in time, but upon the difference in kind\nof that spiritual life of the soul which, even _hic et nunc_, can be\nsought after and experienced, in ever imperfect degrees no doubt, yet\nreally and more and more. Here we ever get an approach to Simultaneity\nand Eternity, instead of sheer succession and clock-time: and here\nthe fundamental attitude of the believer would appear only if pressed\nto deny or exclude the deathlessness of the spirit and its life,--the\nusual latency and simple implication of the positive conviction, in\nnowise diminishing this conviction\u2019s reality.--And, finally, it would\nhave to be seen whether those who are indifferent or sceptical as to\nImmortal or Eternal Life, are appreciably fewer and largely other\nthan those who are careless as to the other deep implications and\nrequirements of spiritual experience. We may well doubt whether they\nwould turn out to be so.\n\n(2) As to the second point, we have already found how utterly\ninsuppressible is the pleasure, normally concomitant upon every act of\nnoble self-conquest; and how, though we can and should perform such\nand all other acts, as far as possible, from the ultimate, determining\nmotive of thereby furthering the realization of the Kingdom of God,\nthere can be no solid truthfulness or sane nobility in insisting upon\nattempts at thinking away and denying the fact and utility of that\nconcomitant pleasure. But if so, then a further, other-world extension\nof that realization and of this concomitant happiness, and a belief\nhere below in such an eventual extension, cannot of themselves be\nignoble or debasing. Occasions for every degree and kind of purely\nselfish and faultily natural acts, of acts inchoatively supernatural\nbut still predominantly slavish, reappear here, in close parallel to\nthe variety of disposition displayed by men towards every kind of\nreality and ideal, towards the Family, Science, the State, Humanity,\nwhere the same concomitances and the same high uses and mean abuses are\never possible and actual. Neither here nor there should we attempt to\nimpoverish truth and life, in order to exclude the possibility of their\nabuse.--And it would, of course, be profoundly unfair to contrast such\na rarely noble spirit as Spinoza among the deniers with the average\nmind from among the affirmers. The average or the majority of the\ndeniers would not, I think, appear as more generous and devoted than\nthe corresponding average or majority on the other side.\n\n(3) And as to the supposed directly beneficial effects of a positive\ndenial of Immortality, such as have been sung for us by George\nEliot and Giovanni Pascoli, we can safely affirm that the special\ntendernesses and quiet heroisms, deduced by them from such a negation,\nare too obviously dependent upon spiritual implications and instincts,\nfor us to be able to put them directly to the credit of that denial.\nOnly in so far as Immortality were not a postulate intrinsically\nconnected with belief in objective and obligatory Beauty, Truth, and\nGoodness,--in God as our origin and end,--could its persistent and\ndeliberate denial not be injurious to these fundamental convictions\nand to the ultimate health of the soul\u2019s life: and of this intrinsic\nnon-connection there is no sufficient evidence.--Certainly, in such\na case as Spinoza\u2019s, the same strain of reasoning which makes him\nabandon individual Immortality Ought, in logic, to prevent him, a\nmere hopelessly determined link in the _Natura Naturata_, from ever\nattaining to the free self-dedication of himself, as now a fully\nresponsible member of the _Natura Naturans_. And if not all the grand\ndepth of his spiritual instinct and moral nobility, and its persistence\nin spite of its having no logical room in the fixedly naturalistic\nelement of his teaching, can be urged as an argument in favour of the\nultimate truth and ethical helpfulness of that whole element, neither\ncan it be urged with respect to what is presumably one part of that\nelement, his denial of personal Immortality.\n\n\nII. CATHERINE\u2019S GENERAL AFTER-LIFE CONCEPTIONS.\n\nNow Catherine\u2019s general After-Life Conceptions in part bring into\ninteresting prominence, in part really meet and overcome, the\nperplexities and mutually destructive alternatives which we have just\nconsidered. I shall here again leave over to the next chapter the\nsimply ultimate questions, such as that of the pure Eternity _versus_\nthe Unendingness of the soul; but shall allow myself, as to one set\nof her general ideas, a little digression as to the probability of\ntheir ultimate literary suggestion by Plato.--These Platonic passages\nprobably reached her too indirectly, and by means and in forms which I\nhave too entirely failed to discover, for me to be able to discuss them\nin my chapter devoted to her assured and demonstrably direct literary\nsources. But these sayings of Plato greatly help to illustrate the\nmeaning of her doctrine.--I shall group these, her general, positions\nand implications under four heads, and shall consider three of these\nas, in substance, profoundly satisfactory, but one of them, the second,\nas acceptable only with many limitations, although this second has\nobviously much influenced the form given by her to several of those\nother conceptions.\n\n\n1. _Forecasts of the Hereafter, based upon present experience._\n\nFirst, then, we get, as the fundamental presupposition of the\nwhole Eschatology, a grandly sane, simple, and profound doctrine\nformulated over and over again and applied throughout, with a splendid\nconsistency, as the key and limit to all her anticipations and\npicturings. Only because of the fact, and of our conviction of the\nfact, of the unbroken continuity and identity of God with Himself,\nof the human soul with itself, and of the deepest of the relations\nsubsisting between that God and the soul, across the chasm formed by\nour body\u2019s death, and only in proportion as we can and do experience\nand achieve, during this our earthly life, certain spiritual laws and\nrealities of a sufficiently elemental, universal, and fruitful, more or\nless time- and space-less character, can we (whilst ever remembering\nthe analogical nature of such picturings even as to the soul\u2019s life\nhere) safely and profitably forecast certain general features of the\nfuture which is thus already so largely a present. But, given these\nconditions in the present, we can and should forecast the future,\nto the extent implied. And as Plato\u2019s great imaginative projection,\nhis life-work, the _Republic_, achieves its original end, (of making\nmore readily understandable, by objectivizing on a large scale, the\nlife of the inner city of our own soul), in so far as he has rightly\nunderstood the human soul and has found appropriate representations\nof its powers, laws, and ideals in his future commonwealth, even\nif we cannot accept this picture for political purposes and in all\nits details: so is it also with Catherine\u2019s projection, which, if\nbolder in its subject-matter, is, most rightly, indefinitely more\ngeneral in its indications than is Plato\u2019s great diagram of the soul.\nMan\u2019s spiritual personality, being held by her to survive death,--to\nretain its identity and an at least equivalent consciousness, of that\nidentity,--the deepest experiences of that personality before the\nbody\u2019s death are conceived as re-experienced by it, in a heightened\ndegree and form, after death itself. Hence these great pictures, of\nwhat the soul will experience then, would remain profoundly true of\nwhat the soul seeks and requires now, even if there were no _then_ at\nall.\n\nAnd note particularly how only with regard to one stage and condition\nof the spirit\u2019s future life,--that of the purification of the imperfect\nsoul,--does she indulge in any at all direct doctrine or detailed\npicturing; and this, doubtless, not only because she has experienced\nmuch concerning this matter in her own life here, but also because\nthe projection of these experiences would still give us, not the\nultimate state, but more or less only a prolongation of our mixed,\njoy-in-suffering life upon earth. As to the two ultimate states, we get\nonly quite incidental glimpses, although even these are strongly marked\nby her general position and method.\n\n\n2. _Catherine\u2019s forecasts and present experience correspondingly\nlimited._\n\nAnd next, coming to the projection itself, we naturally find it\nto present all the strength and limitations of her own spiritual\nexperiences which are thus projected: her attitude towards the body\nand towards human fellowship, (two subjects which are shown to be\nclosely inter-related by the continuous manner in which they stand\nand fall together throughout the history of philosophy and religion,)\nthus constitute the second general peculiarity of her Eschatology. We\nhave already noted, in her life, her strongly ecstatic, body-ignoring,\nbody-escaping type of religion; and how, even in her case, it tended to\nstarve the corporate, institutional conceptions and affections. Here,\nin the projection, we find both the cause and the effect again, and on\na larger scale. Her continuous psycho-physical discomforts and keen\nthirst for a unity and simplicity as rapid and complete as possible,\nthe joy and strength derived from ecstatic habits and affinities, would\nall make her, without even herself being aware of it, drop all further\nthought as to the future fate of that oppressive \u201cprison-house\u201d from\nwhich her spirit had at last got free.\n\nNow such non-occupation with the fate of the body and of her\nfellow-souls may appear quite appropriate in her Purgatorial\nEschatology, yet we cannot but find that, even here, it already\npossesses grave disadvantages, and that it persists throughout all her\nAfter-life conceptions. For in all the states and stages of the soul we\nget a markedly unsocial, a _sola cum solo_ picture. And yet there is,\nperhaps, no more striking difference, amongst their many affinities,\nbetween Platonism and Christianity than the intense Individualism\nwhich marks the great Greek\u2019s doctrine, and the profoundly social\nconception which pervades Our Lord\u2019s own teaching,--in each case as\nregards the next life as well as this one. Plotinus\u2019s great culminating\ncommendation of \u201cthe flight of the alone to the Alone\u201d continues\nPlato\u2019s tradition; whereas, if even St. Paul and the Joannine writings\nspeak at times as though the individual soul attained to its full\npersonality in and by direct intercourse with God alone, the Synoptic\nGospels, and at bottom also those two great lovers of Our Lord\u2019s\nspirit, never cease to emphasize the social constituent of the soul\u2019s\nlife both here and hereafter. The Kingdom of Heaven, the Soul of\nthe Church, as truly constitutes the different personalities, their\nspirituality and their joy, as they constitute it,--that great Organism\nwhich, as such, is both first and last in the Divine thought and love.\n\nHere, in the at least partial ignoring of these great social facts,\nwe touch the main defect of most mystical outlooks; yet this defect\ndoes not arise from what they possess, but from what they lack. For\nsolitude, and the abstractive, unifying, intuitive, emotional, mystical\nelement is also wanted, and this element and movement Catherine\nexemplifies in rare perfection. Indeed, in the great classical,\ncentral period of her life she had, as we know, combined all this\nwith much of the outward movement, society, detailed observation,\nattachment, the morally _en-static_, the immanental type. Unfortunately\nthe same ill-health and ever-increasing predominance of the former\nelement, which turned her, quite naturally, to these eschatological\ncontemplations, and which indeed helped to give them their touching\ntone of first-hand experience, also tended, of necessity, to make her\ndrop even such slight and lingering social elements as had formerly\ncoloured her thought. It is, then, only towards the understanding and\ndeepening of the former of these two necessary movements of religion,\nthat these, her latter-day enlargements of some of her deepest\nexperiences and convictions will be found true helps.\n\nYet if the usual _ad extra_ disadvantages of such an abstractive\nposition towards the body are thus exemplified by her, in this her\nunsocial, individualistic attitude, it is most interesting to note\nhow entirely she avoids the usual _ad intra_ drawbacks of this same\nposition. For if her whole attention, and, increasingly, even her\nconsciousness are, in true ecstatic guise, absorbed away from her\nfellows and concentrated exclusively upon God in herself and herself\nin God, yet this consciousness consists not only of _No\u00fbs_, that dry\ntheoretic reason which, already by Plato, but still more by Aristotle,\nis alone conceived as surviving the body, but contains also the upper\nrange of _Thumos_,--all those passions of the noblest kind,--love,\nadmiration, gratitude, utter self-donation, joy in purifying suffering\nand in an ever-growing self-realization as part of the great plan of\nGod,--all the highest notes in that wondrous scale of deep feeling and\nof emotionally coloured willing which Plato made dependent, not for its\ncharacter but for the possibility of its operation, upon the body\u2019s\nunion with the soul.--And thus we see how, in her conception of the\nsoul\u2019s own self within itself and of its relation to God, the Christian\nidea of Personality, as of a many-sided organism in which Love and\nWill are the very flower of the whole, has triumphed over the Platonic\npresentation of the Spirit, in so far as this is taken to require and\nachieve an ultimate sublimation free from all emotive elements. Thus\nin her doctrine the whole Personality survives death, although this\nPersonality energizes only, as it were upwards, to God alone, and\nnot also sideways and downwards, towards its fellows and the lesser\nchildren of God.\n\n\n3. _Catherine\u2019s forecast influenced by Plato._\n\nCatherine\u2019s third peculiarity consists in a rich and profound\norganization of two doctrines, the one libertarian, the other\ndeterminist; and requires considerable quotation from Plato, whose\nteachings, bereft of all transmigration-fancies, seem clearly to\nreappear here, (however complex may have been the mediation,) in\nCatherine\u2019s great conception.\n\nThe determinist doctrine maintains that virtue and vice, in proportion\nas they are allowed their full development, spontaneously and\nnecessarily attain to their own congenital consummation, a consummation\nwhich consists, respectively, in the bliss inseparable from the final\nand complete identity between the inevitable results upon itself of\nthe soul\u2019s deliberate endeavours, and the indestructible requirements\nof this same soul\u2019s fundamental nature; and in the misery of the, now\nfully felt but only gradually superable, or even, in other cases,\ninsuperable, antagonism between the inevitable consequences within its\nown self of the soul\u2019s more or less deliberate choosings, and those\nsame, here also ineradicable, demands of its own truest nature.\n\nAs Marsilio Ficino says, in his _Theologia Platonica_, published in\nFlorence in 1482: \u201cVirtue is reward in its first budding, reward is\nvirtue full-grown. Vice is punishment at the moment of its birth;\npunishment is vice at its consummation. For, in each of these cases,\none and the same thing is first the simple seed and then the full ear\nof corn; and one and the same thing is the full ear of corn and then\nthe food of man. Precisely the very things then that we sow in this our\n(earthly) autumn, shall we reap in that (other-world) summer-day.\u201d[204]\nIt is true that forensic terms and images are also not wanting in\nCatherine\u2019s sayings; but these, in part, run simply parallel to the\nimmanental conception without modifying it; in part, they are in\nits service; and, in part, they are the work of the theologians\u2019\narrangements and glosses discussed in my Appendix.\n\nAnd the libertarian doctrine declares that it is the soul itself which,\nin the beyond and immediately after death, chooses the least painful,\nbecause the most expressive of her then actual desires, from among the\nstates which the natural effects upon her own self of her own earthly\nchoosings have left her interiorly free to choose.\n\nNow it is in this second doctrine especially that we find so detailed\nan anticipation by Plato of a whole number of highly original and\ncharacteristic points and combinations of points, as to render a\nfortuitous concurrence between Catherine and Plato practically\nimpossible. Yet I have sought in vain, among Catherine\u2019s authentic\nsayings, actions, possessions, or friends, for any trace of direct\nacquaintance with any of Plato\u2019s writings. But Ficino\u2019s Latin\ntranslation of Plato, published, with immense applause, in Florence in\n1483, 1484, must have been known, in those intensely Platonizing times,\nto even non-professed Humanists in Genoa, long before Catherine\u2019s death\nin 1510, so that one or other of her intimates may have communicated\nthe substance of these Platonic doctrines to her.[205] Plotinus, of\nwhom Ficino published a Latin translation in 1492, contains but a\nfeeble echo of Plato on this point. Proclus, directly known only very\nlittle till much after Catherine\u2019s time, is in even worse case. The\nAreopagite, who has so continuously taken over whole passages from\nall three writers, although directly almost exclusively from Proclus,\ncontains nothing more immediately to the purpose than his impressive\nsayings concerning Providence\u2019s continuous non-forcing of the human\npersonality in its fundamental constitution and its free elections with\ntheir inevitable consequences; hence Catherine cannot have derived her\nideas, in the crisp definiteness which they retain in her sayings, from\nher cousin the Dominican nun and the Areopagite. And it is certain, as\nwe have seen, how scattered and inchoate are the hints which she may\nhave found in St. Paul, the Joannine writings, and Jacopone da Todi.\nSt. Augustine contains nothing that would be directly available,--an\notherwise likely source considering Catherine\u2019s close connection with\nthe Augustinian Canonesses of S. Maria delle Grazie.\n\nIn Plato, then, we get five conceptions and symbolic pictures that are\npractically identical with those of Catherine.\n\n(1) First we get the conception of souls having each, in exact\naccordance with the respective differences of their moral and spiritual\ndisposition and character, as these have been constituted by them here\nbelow, a \u201cplace\u201d or environment, expressive of that character, ready\nfor their occupation after the body\u2019s death. \u201cThe soul that is pure\ndeparts at death, herself invisible, to the invisible world,--to the\ndivine, immortal and rational: thither arriving, she lives in bliss.\nBut the soul that is impure at the time of her departure and is \u2026\nengrossed by the corporeal \u2026, is weighed down and drawn back again into\nthe visible place (world).\u201d\n\nAnd this scheme, of like disposition seeking a like place, is then\ncarried out, by the help of the theory of transmigration, as a\nre-incarnation of these various characters into environments, bodies,\nexactly corresponding to them: gluttonous souls are assigned to asses\u2019\nbodies, tyrannous souls to those of wolves, and so on: in a word,\n\u201cthere is no difficulty in assigning to all \u2018a whither\u2019 (a place)\nanswering to their general natures and propensities.\u201d[206] For this\ncorresponds to a law which runs throughout all things,--a determinism\nof consequences which does not prevent the liberty of causes. \u201cThe King\nof the universe contrived a general plan, by which a thing of a certain\nnature found a seat and place of a certain kind. But the formation of\nthis nature, he left to the wills of individuals.\u201d\n\nOr, with the further spacial imagery of movements up, level, or down,\nwe get: \u201cAll things that have a soul change \u2026 and, in changing, move\naccording to law and the order of destiny. Lesser changes of nature\nmove on level ground, but great crimes sink \u2026 into the so-called lower\nplaces \u2026; and, when the soul becomes greatly different and divine, she\nalso greatly changes her place, which is now altogether holy.\u201d[207] The\noriginal, divinely intended \u201cplaces\u201d of souls are all high and good,\nand similar to each other though not identical, each soul having its\nown special \u201cplace\u201d; and for this congenital \u201cplace\u201d each soul has a\nresistible yet ineradicable home-sickness. \u201cThe first incarnation\u201d of\nhuman souls which \u201cdistributes each soul to a star,\u201d is ordained to\nbe similar for all.\u2026 \u201cAnd when they have been of necessity implanted\nin bodily forms, should they master their passions \u2026 they live in\nrighteousness; if otherwise, in unrighteousness. And he who lived well\nthrough his allotted time shall be conveyed once more to a habitation\nin his kindred star, and there shall enjoy a blissful and congenial\nlife; but failing this he shall pass into \u2026 such a form of (further)\nincarnation as fits his disposition \u2026 until he shall overcome, by\nreason, all that burthen that afterwards clung around him.\u201d[208]\n\nIf from all this we exclude the soul\u2019s existence before any\nbeginning of its body, its transmigration into other bodies, and the\nself-sufficiency of reason; and if we make it all to be penetrated\nby God\u2019s presence, grace, and love, and by our corresponding or\nconflicting emotional and volitional as well as intellectual attitude:\nwe shall get Catherine\u2019s position exactly.\n\n(2) But again, in at least one phase of his thinking, Plato pictures\nthe purification of the imperfect soul as effected, of at least as\nbegun, not in a succession of \u201cplaces\u201d of an extensionally small but\norganic kind, bodies, but in a \u201cplace\u201d of an extensionally larger but\ninorganic sort,--the shore of a lake, where the soul has to wait.\n\u201cThe Acherusian lake is the lake to the shores of which the many go\nwhen they are dead; and, after waiting an appointed time, which to\nsome is longer and to others shorter, they are sent back to be born\nas animals.\u201d Here we evidently get a survival of the conception,\npredominant in Homer, of a pain-and-joyless Hades, but limited here to\nthe middle, the imperfect class of souls, and followed, in their case,\nby transmigration, to which alone, apparently, purification is directly\nattached.\n\nIn the same Dialogue we read later on: \u201cThose who appear to have lived\nneither well nor ill \u2026 go to the river Acheron, and are carried to the\nlake; and there they dwell and are purified of their evil deeds \u2026 and\nare absolved and receive the rewards of their good deeds according to\ntheir deserts.\u201d Here we have, evidently, still the same \u201cmany\u201d and the\nsame place, the shores of the Acherusian lake, but also an explicit\naffirmation of purification effected there, for this purification is\nnow followed directly, not by re-incarnation, but by the ultimate\nhappiness in the soul\u2019s original and fundamentally congenial \u201cplace.\u201d\nAnd this scheme is far more conformable to Plato\u2019s fundamental\nposition: for how can bodies, even lower than the human, help to purify\nthe soul which has become impure precisely on occasion of its human\nbody?--We can see how the Christian Purgatorial doctrine derives some\nof its pictures from the second of these parallel passages; yet that\nthe \u201clonger or shorter waiting\u201d of the first passage also enters into\nthat teaching,--especially in its more ordinary modern form, according\nto which there is, in this state, no intrinsic purification.\n\nAnd lower down we find: \u201cThose who have committed crimes which,\nalthough great, are not unpardonable,--for these it is necessary to\nplunge (\u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd) into Tartarus, the pains of which they are compelled\nto undergo for a year; but at the end of the year they are borne to\nthe Acherusian lake. But those who appear incurable by reason of the\ngreatness of their crimes \u2026 such their appropriate destiny hurls\n(\u1fe4\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9) into Tartarus, whence they never come forth.\u201d Here we get a\nPurgatory, pictured as a watery substance in which the more gravely\nimpure of the curable souls are immersed before arriving at the easier\npurification, the waiting on the dry land alongside the lake; this\nPurgatory is, as a \u201cplace\u201d and, in intensity, identical with Hell; and\ninto this place the curable souls \u201cplunge\u201d and the incurable ones are\n\u201churled.\u201d--Of this third passage Catherine retains the identification\nof the pains of Purgatory and those of Hell; the \u201cplunge,\u201d or\n\u201churling,\u201d of two distinct classes of souls into these pains; and\nthe mitigation, after a time, previous to complete cessation, of the\nsuffering in the case of the curable class. But the \u201cplunge,\u201d with her,\nis common to all degrees of imperfectly pure souls; there is, for all\nthese souls, no change of \u201cplace\u201d during their purgation, but only a\nmitigation of suffering; and this mitigation is at work gradually and\nfrom the first. And the ordinary modern Purgatorial teaching is like\nthis passage, in that it keeps the curable souls in Tartarus, say, for\none year, and lets them suffer there, apparently without mitigation,\nthroughout that time: and that, in the case of both classes of souls,\nit conceives the punishment as extrinsic, vindictive, and inoperative.\n\nAnd a fourth _Phaedo_ passage tells us: \u201cThose who are remarkable for\nhaving led holy lives are released from this earthly prison, and go\nto their pure home, which is above, and dwell in the purer earth,\u201d\nthe Isles of the Just, in Oceanus. \u201cAnd those, again, amongst these\nwho have duly purified themselves with philosophy, live henceforth\naltogether without the body, in mansions fairer far than these.\u201d Here\nwe get, alongside of the two Purgatories and the one Hell, two Heavens,\nof which the first is but taken over from Homer and Pindar, but of\nwhich the second is Plato\u2019s own conception. Catherine, in entire accord\nwith the ordinary teaching, has got but one \u201cplace\u201d of each kind; and\nher Heaven corresponds, apart from his formal and final exclusion of\nevery sort of body, to the second of these Platonic Heavens; whilst,\nhere again, the all-encompassing presence of God\u2019s love for souls as\nof the soul\u2019s love for God, which, in her teaching, is the beginning,\nmeans, and end of the whole movement, effects an indefinite difference\nbetween the two positions.[209]\n\n(3) Yet Plato, in his most characteristic moods, explicitly anticipates\nCatherine as to the intrinsic, ameliorative nature and work of\nPurgatory: \u201cThe proper office of punishment is two-fold: he who\nis rightly punished ought either to become better \u2026 by it, or he\nought to be made an example to his fellows, that they may see what\nhe suffers and \u2026 become better. Those who are punished by Gods and\nmen and improved, are those whose sins are curable \u2026 by pain and\nsuffering:--for there is no other way in which they can be delivered\nfrom evil, as in this world so also in the other. But the others are\nincurable--the time has passed at which they can receive any benefit\nthemselves.\u2026 Rhadamanthus,\u201d the chief of the three nether-world judges,\n\u201clooks with admiration on the soul of some just one, who has lived in\nholiness and truth \u2026 and sends him\u201d without any intervening suffering\n\u201cto the Isles of the Blessed.\u2026 I consider how I shall present my soul\nwhole and undefiled before the Judge, in that day.\u201d[210] Here the last\nsentence is strikingly like in form as well as in spirit to many a\nsaying of St. Paul and Catherine.\n\n(4) But the following most original passages give us a sentiment and an\nimage which, in their special drift, are as opposed to St. Paul, and\nindeed to the ordinary Christian consciousness, as they are dear to\nCatherine, in this matter so strongly, although probably unconsciously,\nPlatonist, indeed Neo-Platonist, in her affinities. \u201cIn the time of\nKronos, indeed down to that of Zeus, the Judgment was given on the day\non which men were to die,\u201d _i.e._ immediately _before_ their death;\n\u201cand the consequence was, that the judgments were not well given,--the\nsouls found their way to the wrong places. Zeus said: \u2018The reason is,\nthat the judged have their clothes on, for they are alive.\u2026 There are\nmany, having evil souls, who are apparelled in fair bodies or wrapt\nround in wealth and rank.\u2026 The Judges are awed by them; and they\nthemselves too have their clothes on when judging: their eyes and\nears and their whole bodies are interposed, as a veil, before their\nown souls. What is to be done? \u2026 Men shall be entirely stript before\nthey are judged, for they shall be judged when dead; the Judge too\nshall be naked, that is, dead: he, with his naked soul, shall pierce\ninto the other naked soul immediately _after_ each man dies \u2026 and is\nbereft of all his kith and kin, and has left behind him all his brave\nattire upon earth, and thus the Judgment will be just.\u2019\u201d[211]--If we\ncompare this with St. Paul\u2019s precisely contrary instinct and desire to\nbe \u201cclothed upon\u201d at death, \u201clest we be found naked,\u201d i.e. without the\nprotection of any kind of body; and then realize Catherine\u2019s intense\nlonging for \u201cnudit\u00e0,\u201d--to strip herself here, as far as possible, from\nall imperfection and self-delusion before the final stripping off of\nthe body in death, and to appear, utterly naked, before the utterly\nnaked eye of God, so that no \u201cclothes\u201d should remain requiring to\nbe burnt away by the purifying fires,[212] the profound affinity of\nsentiment and imagery between Catherine and Plato--and this on a point\nessentially Platonic,--is very striking.\n\n(5) But, above all, in his deep doctrine as to the soul\u2019s spontaneous\nchoice after death of that condition, \u201cplace,\u201d which, owing to the\nnatural effects within her of her earthly willings and self-formation,\nshe cannot but now find the most congenial to herself, Plato appears as\nthe ultimate source of a literary kind for Catherine\u2019s most original\nview, which otherwise is, I think, without predecessors. \u201cThe souls,\u201d\nhe tells us in the _Republic_, \u201cimmediately on their arrival in the\nother world, were required to go to Lachesis,\u201d one of the three Fates.\nAnd \u201can interpreter, having taken from her lap a number of lots and\nplans of life, spoke as follows: \u2018Thus saith Lachesis, the daughter of\nNecessity.\u2026 \u201cYour destiny shall not be allotted to you, but you shall\nchoose it for yourselves. Let him who draws the first lot, be the first\nto choose a life which shall be his irrevocably.\u2026 The responsibility\nlies with the chooser, Heaven is guiltless.\u201d\u2019\u201d \u201cNo settled character\nof soul was included in the plans of life, because, with the change\nof life, the soul inevitably became changed itself.\u201d \u201cIt was a truly\nwonderful sight, to watch how each soul selected its life.\u2026 When all\nthe souls had chosen their lives, Lachesis dispatched with each of\nthem the Destiny he had selected, to guard his life and satisfy his\nchoice.\u201d[213] And in the _Phaedrus_ Plato tells us that \u201cat the end of\nthe first thousand years\u201d (of the first incarnation) \u201cthe good souls\nand also the evil souls both come to cast lots and to choose their\nsecond life; and they may take any that they like.\u201d[214]\n\nIn both the dialogues the lots are evidently taken over from popular\nmythology, but are here made merely to introduce a certain orderly\nsuccession among the spontaneous choosings of the souls themselves,\nwhilst the lap of the daughter of Necessity, spread out before all\nthe choosers previous to their choice, and the separate, specially\nappropriate Destiny that accompanies each soul after its choice,\nindicate plainly that, although the choice itself is the free act\nand pure self-expression of each soul\u2019s then present disposition,\nyet that this disposition is the necessary result of its earthly\nvolitions and self-development or self-deformation, and that the\nchoice now made becomes, in its turn, the cause of certain inevitable\nconsequences,--of a special environment which itself is then productive\nof special effects upon, and of special occasions for, the final\nworking out of this soul\u2019s character.--Plotinus retains the doctrine:\n\u201cthe soul chooses there\u201d in the Other world,--\u201cits Daemon and its kind\nof life.\u201d[215] But neither Proclus nor Dionysius has the doctrine,\nwhilst Catherine, on the contrary, reproduces it with a penetrating\ncompleteness.\n\n\n4. _Simplifications characteristic of Catherine\u2019s Eschatology._\n\nAnd under our last, fourth head, we can group the simplifications\ncharacteristic of Catherine\u2019s Eschatology.\n\n(1) One simplification has, of course, for now some fifteen hundred\nyears, been the ordinary Christian conception: I mean the elimination\nof the time-element between the moment of death and the beginning of\nthe three states. Yet it is interesting to note how by far the greatest\nof the Latin Fathers, St. Augustine, who died in A.D. 430, still clings\npredominantly to the older Christian and Jewish conception of the soul\nabiding in a state of shrunken, joy-and-painless consciousness from\nthe moment of the body\u2019s death up to that of the general resurrection\nand judgment. \u201cAfter this short life, thou wilt not yet be where the\nsaints will be,\u201d _i.e._ in Heaven. \u201cThou wilt not yet be there: who\nis ignorant of this? But thou canst straightway be where the rich\nman descried the ulcerous beggar to be a-resting, far away,\u201d _i.e._\nin Limbo. \u201cPlaced in that rest, thou canst await the day of judgment\nwith security, when thou shalt receive thy body also, when thou shalt\nbe changed so as to be equal to an Angel.\u201d[216] Only with regard to\nPurgatory, a state held by him, in writings of his last years, 410-430\nA.D., to be possible, indeed probable, does he make an exception to\nhis general rule: for such purification would have to take place\u201d in\nthe interval of time between the death of the body and the last day of\ncondemnation and reward.\u201d[217]\n\nIt is doubtless the still further fading away of the expectation, so\nvivid and universal in early Christian times, of the proximity of Our\nLord\u2019s Second Advent, and the tacit prevalence of Greek affinities and\nconceptions concerning the bodiless soul, that helped to eliminate,\nat last universally, this interval of waiting, in the case of souls\ntoo good or too bad for purgation, from the general consciousness\nof at least Western Christendom. The gain in this was the great\nsimplification and concentration of the immediate outlook and interest;\nthe loss was the diminished apprehension of the essentially complex,\nconcrete, synthetic character of man\u2019s nature, and of the necessity for\nour assuming that this characteristic will be somehow preserved in this\nnature\u2019s ultimate perfection.\n\n(2) There is a second simplification in Catherine which, though here\nSt. Augustine leads the way, is less common among Christians: her three\nother-world \u201cplaces\u201d are not, according to her ultimate thought, three\ndistinct spacial extensions and localities, filled, respectively, with\nceaselessly suffering, temporarily suffering, and ceaselessly blessed\nsouls; but they are, (notwithstanding all the terms necessitated by\nsuch spacial picturings as \u201centering,\u201d \u201ccoming out,\u201d \u201cplunging into\u201d),\nso many distinct states and conditions of the soul, of a painful,\nmixed, or joyful character. We shall have these her ultimate ideas very\nfully before us presently. But here I would only remark that this her\nunion of a picturing faculty, as vivid as the keenest sense-perception,\nand of a complete non-enslavement to, a vigorous utilization of,\nthese life-like spacial projections, by a religious instinct and\nexperience which never forgets that God and souls are spirits, to whom\nour ordinary categories of space and extension, time and motion, do\nnot and cannot in strictness apply, is as rare as it is admirable;\nand that, though her intensely anti-corporeal and non-social attitude\nmade such a position more immediately easy for her than it can be for\nthose who remain keenly aware of the great truths involved in the\ndoctrines of the Resurrection of the Body and the Communion of Saints,\nthis her trend of thought brings into full articulation precisely the\ndeepest of our spiritual apprehensions and requirements, whilst it is\nnot her fault if it but further accentuates some of our intellectual\nperplexities.\n\nWe get much in St. Augustine, which he himself declares to have\nderived, in the first instance, from \u201cthe writings of the Platonists,\u201d\nwhich doubtless means above all Plotinus, (that keen spiritual thinker\nwho can so readily be traced throughout this part of the great\nConvert\u2019s teaching), as to this profound incommensurableness between\nspiritual presence, energizing, and affectedness on the one hand, and\nspacial position, extension, and movement on the other. \u201cWhat place is\nthere within me, to which my God can come? \u2026 I would not exist at all,\nunless Thou already wert within me.\u201d \u201cThou wast never a place, and yet\nwe have receded from Thee; and we have drawn near to Thee, yet Thou\nart never a place.\u201d \u201c Are we submerged and do we emerge? Yet it is not\nplaces into which we are plunged and out of which we rise. What can be\nmore like to places and yet more unlike? For here the affections are in\ncase,--the impurity of our spirit, which flows downwards, oppressed by\nthe love of earthly cares; and the holiness of Thy Spirit, which lifts\nus upwards with the love of security.\u201d[218] For, as he teaches \u201cthe\nspiritual creature can only be changed by times,\u201d--a succession within\na duration: \u201cby remembering what it had forgotten, or by learning\nwhat it did not know, or by willing what it did not will. The bodily\ncreature can be changed by times and places,\u201d by spacial motion, \u201cfrom\nearth to heaven, from heaven to earth, from east to west.\u201d \u201cThat thing\nis not moved through space which is not extended in space \u2026 the soul is\nnot considered to move in space, unless it be held to be a body.\u201d[219]\n\nIn applying the doctrine just expressed to eschatological matters, St.\nAugustine concludes: \u201cIf it be asked whether the soul, when it goes\nforth from the body, is borne to some corporeal places, or to such as,\nthough incorporeal, are like to bodies, or to what is more excellent\nthan either: I readily answer that, unless it have some kind of body,\nit is not borne to bodily places at all, or, at least, that it is not\nborne to them by bodily motion.\u2026 But I myself do not think that it\npossesses any body, when it goes forth from this earthly body.\u2026 It gets\nborne, according to its deserts, to spiritual conditions, or to penal\nplaces having a similitude to bodies.\u201d[220]\n\nThe reader will readily note a curiously uncertain frame of mind\nin this last utterance. I take it that Plotinian influences are\nhere being checked by the Jewish conception of certain, definitely\nlocated, provision-chambers (_promptuaria_), in which all souls are\nplaced for safe keeping, between the time of the body\u2019s death and its\nresurrection. So in the Fourth Book of Esra (of about 90 A.D.), \u201cthe\nsouls of the just in their chambers said: \u2018How long are we to remain\nhere?\u2019\u201d; and in the Apocalypse of Baruch (of about 150-250 A.D.), \u201cat\nthe coming of the Messiah, the provision-chambers will open, in which\nthe\u201d whole, precise \u201cnumber of the souls of the just have been kept,\nand they will come forth.\u201d[221]\n\nBut it is St. Thomas Aquinas who, by the explicit and consistent\nadoption and classification of these _promptuaria receptacula_, reveals\nto us more clearly the perplexities and fancifulnesses involved in\nthe strictly spacial conception. \u201cAlthough bodies are not assigned\nto souls (immediately) after death, yet certain bodily places are\ncongruously assigned to these souls in accordance with the degree of\ntheir dignity, in which places they are, as it were, locally, in the\nmanner in which bodiless things can be in space: each soul having a\nhigher place assigned to it, according as it approaches more or less\nto the first substance, God, whose seat, according to Scripture, is\nHeaven.\u201d \u201cIn the Scriptures God is called the Sun, since He is the\nprinciple of spiritual life, as the physical sun is of bodily life;\nand, according to this convention, \u2026 souls spiritually illuminated have\na greater fitness for luminous bodies, and sin-darkened souls for dark\nplaces.\u201d \u201cIt is probable that, as to local position, Hell and the Limbo\nof the Fathers constitute one and the same place, or are more or less\ncontinuous.\u201d \u201cThe place of Purgatory adjoins (that of) Hell.\u201d \u201cThere\nare altogether five places ready to receive (_receptanda_) souls bereft\nof their bodies: Paradise, the Limbo of the Fathers, Purgatory, Hell,\nand the Limbo of Infants.\u201d[222]\n\nNo doubt all these positions became the common scholastic teaching. But\nthen, as Cardinal Bellarmine cogently points out: \u201cno ancient, as far\nas I know, has written that the Earthly Paradise was destroyed \u2026 and I\nhave read a large number who affirm its existence. This is the doctrine\nof all the Scholastics, beginning with St. Thomas, and of the Fathers.\n\u2026 St. Augustine indeed appears to rank this truth amongst the dogmas\nof faith.\u201d[223] We shall do well, then, not to press these literal\nlocalization-schemes, especially since, according to St. Augustine\u2019s\npenetrating analysis, our spiritual experiences, already in this our\nearthly existence, have a distinctly non-spacial character. Catherine\u2019s\nposition, if applied to the central life of man here, and hence\npresumptively hereafter, remains as true and fresh and unassailable as\never.\n\n(3) And her last simplification consists in taking the Fire of Hell,\nthe Fire of Purgatory, and the Fire and Light of Heaven as profoundly\nappropriate symbols or descriptions of the variously painful or joyous\nimpressions produced, through the differing volitional attitudes of\nsouls towards Him, by the one God\u2019s intrinsically identical presence\nin each and all. In all three cases, throughout their several grades,\nthere are ever but two realities, the Spirit-God and the spirit-soul,\nin various states of inter-relation.\n\nHere again it is Catherine\u2019s complete abstraction from the body which\nrenders such a view easy and, in a manner, necessary for her mind. But\nhere I would only emphasize the impressive simplicity and spirituality\nof view which thus, as in the material world it finds the one sun-light\nand the one fire-heat, which, in themselves everywhere the same, vary\nindefinitely in their effects, owing to the varying condition of the\ndifferent bodies which meet the rays and flames; so, in the Spiritual\nWorld it discovers One supreme spiritual Energy and Influence which,\nwhilst ever self-identical, is assimilated, deflected, or resisted by\nthe lesser spirits, with inevitably joyous, mixed, or painful states\nof soul, since they can each and all resist, but cannot eradicate that\nEnergy\u2019s impression within their deepest selves. And though, even with\nher, the Sun-light image remains quasi-Hellenic and Intellectual, and\nthe Fire-heat picture is more immediately Christian and Moral: yet\nshe also frequently takes the sunlight as the symbol of the achieved\nHarmony and Peace, and the Fire-heat as that of more or less persisting\nConflict and Pain. She is doubtless right in keeping both symbols, and\nin ever thinking of each as ultimately implying the other, for God is\nBeauty and Truth, as well as Goodness and Love, and man is made with\nthe indestructible aspiration after Him in His living completeness.\n\nAnd here again Catherine has a complicated doctrinal history behind her.\n\nWe have already considered the numerous Scriptural passages where\nGod and His effects upon the soul are symbolized as light and fire;\nand those again where joy or, contrariwise, trial and suffering are\nrespectively pictured by the same physical properties. And Catherine\ntakes the latter passages as directly explanatory of the first, in\nso far as these joys and sufferings are spiritual in their causes or\neffects.\n\nAmong the Greek Fathers, Clement of Alexandria tells us that \u201cthe Fire\u201d\nof Purgatory,--for he has no Eternal Damnation,--\u201cis a rational,\u201d\nspiritual, \u201cfire that penetrates the soul\u201d; and Origen teaches that\n\u201ceach sinner himself lights the flame of his own fire, and is not\nthrown into a fire that has been lit before that moment and that exists\nin front of him.\u2026 His conscience is agitated and pierced by its own\npricks.\u201d Saints Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzum are more or\nless influenced by Origen on this point. And St. John Damascene, who\ndied in about 750 A.D., says explicitly that the fire of Hell is not a\nmaterial fire, that it is very different from our ordinary fire, and\nthat men hardly know what it is.[224]\n\nAmong the Latins, St. Ambrose declares: \u201cneither is the gnashing, a\ngnashing of bodily teeth; nor is the everlasting fire, a fire of bodily\nflames; nor is the worm, a bodily one.\u201d--St. Jerome, in one passage,\ncounts the theory of the non-physical fire as one of Origen\u2019s errors;\nbut elsewhere he mentions it without any unfavourable note, and even\nenumerates several Scripture-texts which favour it, and admits that\n\u201c\u2018the worm which dieth not and the fire which is not quenched,\u2019 is\nunderstood, by the majority of interpreters (_a plerisque_), of the\nconscience of sinners which tortures them.\u201d[225]--St. Augustine, in\n413 A.D., declares: \u201cIn the matter of the pains of the wicked, both\nthe unquenchable fire and the intensely living worm are interpreted\ndifferently by different commentators. Some interpreters refer both\nto the body, others refer both to the soul; and some take the fire\nliterally, in application to the body, and the worm figuratively,\nin application to the soul, which latter opinion appears the more\ncredible.\u201d Yet when, during the last years of his life, he came,\nsomewhat tentatively, to hold an other-world Purgatory as well, he\nthroughout assimilated this Purgatory\u2019s fire to the fire of this-world\nsufferings. Thus in 422 A.D.: \u201cSouls which renounce the wood, hay,\nstraw, built upon that foundation (I Cor. iii, 11-15), not without pain\nindeed (since they loved these things with a carnal affection), but\nwith faith in the foundation, a faith operative through love \u2026 arrive\nat salvation, through a certain fire of pain.\u2026 Whether men suffer these\nthings in this life only, or such-like judgments follow even after\nthis life--in either case, this interpretation of that text is not\ndiscordant with the truth.\u201d \u201c\u2018He shall be saved yet so as by fire,\u2019\nbecause the pain, over the loss of the things he loved, burns him. It\nis not incredible that some such thing takes place even after this life\n\u2026 that some of the faithful are saved by a certain purgatorial fire,\nmore quickly or more slowly, according as they have less or more loved\nperishable things.\u201d[226]\n\nSt. Thomas, voicing and leading Scholastic opinion, teaches that the\nfire of Purgatory is the same as that of Hell; and Cardinal Bellarmine,\nwho died in 1621, tells us: \u201cThe common opinion of theologians is that\nthe fire of Purgatory is a real and true fire, of the same kind as an\nearthly fire. This opinion, it is true, is not of faith, but it is very\nprobable,\u201d--because of the \u201cconsent of the scholastics, who cannot be\ndespised without temerity,\u201d and also because of \u201cthe eruptions of Mount\nEtna.\u201d[227] Yet the Council of Florence had, in 1439, restricted itself\nto the quite general proposition that \u201cif men die truly penitent,\nin the love of God, before they have satisfied \u2026 for their sins \u2026\ntheir souls are purified by purgatorial pains after death\u201d; thus\nvery deliberately avoiding all commitment as to the nature of these\npains.[228] Cardinal Gousset, who died in 1866, tells us: \u201cThe more\ncommon opinion amongst theologians makes the sufferings of Purgatory\nto consist in the pain of fire, or at least in a pain analogous to\nthat of fire.\u201d[229] This latter position is practically identical with\nCatherine\u2019s.\n\nAs to the fire of Hell, although here especially the Scholastics, old\nand new, are unanimous, it is certain that there is no definition or\nsolemn judgment of the Church declaring it to be material. On this\npoint again we find St. Thomas and those who follow him involved in\npractically endless difficulties and in, for us now, increasingly\nintolerable subtleties, where they try to show how a material fire\ncan affect an immaterial spirit. Bossuet, so severely orthodox in all\nsuch matters, preaching, before the Court, about sin becoming in Hell\nthe chastisement of the sinner, does not hesitate to finish thus: \u201cWe\nbear within our hearts the instrument of our punishment. \u2018I shall\nproduce fire from thy midst, which shall devour thee\u2019 (Ezek. xxviii,\n18). I shall not send it against thee from afar, it will ignite in\nthy conscience, its flames will arise from thy midst, and it will be\nthy sins which will produce it.\u201d[230]--And the Abb\u00e9 F. Dubois, in a\ncareful article in the Ecclesiastical _Revue du Clerg\u00e9 Fran\u00e7ais_ of\nParis, has recently expressed the conviction that \u201cthe best minds of\nour time, which are above being suspected of yielding to mere passing\nfashions, feel the necessity of abandoning the literal interpretation,\njudged to be insufficient, of the ancient symbols; and of returning\nto a freer exegesis, of which some of the Ancients have given us the\nexample.\u201d[231] Among these helpful \u201cAncients\u201d we cannot but count\nCatherine, with her One God Who is the Fire of Pain and the Light of\nJoy to souls, according as they resist Him or will Him, either here or\nhereafter.\n\n\nIII. CATHERINE AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.\n\n\n_Introductory: four doctrines and difficulties to be considered._\n\nTaking now the three great after-life conditions separately, in the\norder of Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven, I would first of all note that\nsome readers may be disappointed that Catherine did not, like our\nown English Mystic, the entirely orthodox optimist, Mother Juliana\nof Norwich--her _Revelations_ belong to the year 1373 A.D.--simply\nproclaim that, whilst the teaching and meaning of Christ and His\nChurch would come true, all, in ways known to God alone, would yet\nbe well.[232] In this manner, without any weakening of traditional\nteaching, the whole dread secret as to the future of evil-doers is\nleft in the hands of God, and a beautifully boundless trust and hope\nglows throughout those contemplations.\n\nYet, as I hope to show as we go along, certain assumptions and\nconceptions, involved in the doctrine of Eternal Punishment, cannot\nbe systematically excluded, or even simply ignored, without a grave\nweakening of the specifically Christian earnestness; and that,\ngrand as is, in certain respects, the idea of the Apocatastasis,\nthe Final Restitution of all Things and Souls--as taught by Clement\nand Origen--it is not, at bottom, compatible with the whole drift,\nphilosophy, and tone, (even apart from specific sayings) of Our Lord.\nAnd this latter teaching--of the simply abiding significance and effect\nof our deliberate elections during this our one testing-time,--and\nnot that of an indefinite series of chances and purifications with\nan ultimate disappearance of all difference between the results of\nthe worst life and the best, answers to the deepest postulates and\naspirations of the most complete and delicate ethical and spiritual\nsense. For minds that can discriminate between shifting fashions and\nsolid growth in abiding truth, that will patiently seek out the deepest\ninstinct and simplest implications underlying the popular presentations\nof the Doctrine of Abiding Consequences, and that take these\nimplications as but part of a larger whole: this doctrine still, and\nnow again, presents itself as a permanent element of the full religious\nconsciousness.\n\nIt would certainly be unfair to press Catherine\u2019s rare and incidental\nsayings on Hell into a formal system. Yet those remarks are deep and\nsuggestive, and help too much to interpret, supplement, and balance\nher central, Purgatorial teaching, and indeed to elucidate her general\nreligious principles, for us to be able to pass them over. We have\nalready sufficiently considered the question as to the nature of the\nFire; and that as to Evil Spirits is reserved for the next Chapter.\nHere I shall consider four doctrines and difficulties, together with\nCatherine\u2019s attitude towards them: the soul\u2019s final fate, dependent\nupon the character of the will\u2019s act or active disposition at the\nmoment of the body\u2019s death; the total moral perversion of the lost; the\nmitigation of their pains; and the eternity of their punishment.\n\n\n1. _Eternity dependent on the earthly life\u2019s last moment._\n\nNow as to the soul\u2019s final fate being made dependent upon the\ncharacter of that soul\u2019s particular act or disposition at the last\nmoment previous to death, this teaching, prominent in parts of the\n_Trattato and Vita_, goes back ultimately to Ezekiel, who, as Prof.\nCharles interestingly shows, introduces a double individualism into\nthe older, Social and Organic, Eschatology of the Hebrew Prophets.\nFor Man is seen, by him, as responsible for his own acts alone, and\nas himself working out separately his own salvation or his own doom;\nand this individual man again is looked at, not in his organic unity,\nbut as repeating himself in a succession of separate religious acts.\nThe individual act is taken to be a true expression of the whole man\nat the moment of its occurrence: and hence, if this act is wicked at\nthe moment of the advent of the Kingdom, the agent will rightfully be\ndestroyed; but if it be righteous, he will be preserved.[233]--Now\nthe profound truth and genuine advance thus proclaimed, who can doubt\nthem? And yet it is clear that the doctrine here is solidly true, only\nif taken as the explicitation and supplement, and even in part as the\ncorrective, of the previously predominant teaching. Take the Ezekielian\ndoctrine as complete, even for its own time, or as final over against\nthe later, the Gospel depth of teaching, (with its union of the social\nbody and of individual souls, and of the soul\u2019s single acts and of the\ngeneral disposition produced by and reacting upon these acts), and you\nget an all but solipsistic Individualism and an atomistic Psychology,\nand you offend Christianity and Science equally.\n\nIt is evident that Catherine, if she can fairly be taxed with what,\nif pressed, would, in her doctrine rather than in her life, be an\nexcessive Individualism, is, in her general teaching and practice,\nadmirably free from Psychological Atomism; indeed did any soul ever\nunderstand better the profound reality of habits, general dispositions,\ntones of mind and feeling and will, as distinct from the single acts\nthat gradually build them up and that, in return, are encircled and\ncoloured by them all? Her whole Purgatorial doctrine stands and falls\nby this distinction, and this although, with a profound self-knowledge,\nshe does not hesitate to make the soul express, in one particular act\nafter death,--that of the Plunge,--an even deeper level of its true\nattitude of will and of its moral character than is constituted by\nthose imperfect habits of the will, habits which it will take so much\nsuffering and acceptance of suffering gradually to rectify.\n\nThus the passages in which Catherine seems to teach that God can and\ndoes, as it were, catch souls unawares, calling them away, and finally\ndeciding their fate on occasion of any and every _de facto_ volitional\ncondition at the instant of death, however little expressive of the\nradical determination of that soul such an act or surface-state may be,\nwill have, (even if they be genuine, and most of them have doubtlessly\ngrown, perhaps have completely sprung up, under the pen of sermonizing\nscribes), to be taken as hortatory, hence as partly hyperbolical.\nAnd such an admission will in nowise deny the possibility for the\nsoul to express its deliberate and full disposition and determination\nin a single act or combination of acts; nor that the other-world\neffects will follow according to such deep, deliberate orientations\nof the character: it will only deny that, at any and every moment,\nany and every act of the soul sufficiently expresses its deliberate\ndisposition. Certainly it is comparatively rarely that the soul exerts\nits full liberty, in an act of true, spiritual self-realization; and\nan analogous rarity cannot but be postulated by religious philosophy\nfor contrary acts, of an approximately equal fulness of deliberation\nand accuracy of representation, with regard to the soul\u2019s volitional\nstate. And yet the operative influence towards such rare, fully\nself-expressive acts of the right kind, and the aid towards similar,\nmassive, and truly representative volitions of the wrong kind, afforded\nby even quite ordinary half-awake acts and habits of respectively good\nor evil quality are so undeniable, and it is so impossible to draw\na general line as to where such wishes pass into full willings and\ndeliberate states: that the prevalence of a hortatory attitude towards\nthe whole subject is right and indeed inevitable.\n\n\n2. _The reprobate will of the lost._\n\nAs to Moral Perversion, the reprobate will of the lost, we find that\nCatherine approaches the question from two different, and at bottom,\non this point, incompatible, systems; but some incidental and short\nsayings of hers give us suggestive hints towards a consistent position\nin this difficult matter.\n\nCatherine has a double approach. For, consistently with the strong\nNeo-Platonist, Dionysian strain in her mind, she frequently teaches and\nimplies that Evil is the absence of Good, of Love, and nothing positive\nat all. In this case Evil would not only be less strong than good--only\nManichaeans would maintain that they were equal--but, as against the\nconstructive force of good, it would have no kind even of destructive\nstrength. Varying amounts, degrees, and kinds of good, but good and\nonly good, everywhere, would render all, even transitory, pollution of\nthe soul, and all, even passing, purification of it, so much actual\nimpossibility and theoretical superstition. All that survived at all,\ncould but be good; and at most some good might be added, but no evil\ncould be removed, since none would exist.--Yet all this is, of course,\nstrongly denied and supplanted by the, at first sight, less beautiful,\nbut far deeper and alone fully Christian, position of her specifically\nPurgatorial teaching. Here Evil is something positive, an active\ndisposition, orientation, and attachment of the will; it is not without\ndestructive force; and its cure is a positive change in that will and\nits habits, and not a mere addition of good. Yet it is plain that, even\nexclusively within the implications of this deeper conviction, there\nis no necessity to postulate unmixed evil in the disposition of any\nsoul. In some the evil would be triumphing over the good; in others\ngood would be triumphing over evil,--each over the other, in every\ndegree of good or of evil, up to the all but complete extinction of all\ninclinations to evil or to good respectively.\n\nAnd Catherine has suggestive sayings. For one or two of them go, at\nleast in their implications, beyond a declaration as to the presence\nof God\u2019s extrinsic mercy in Hell, a presence indicated by a mitigation\nof the souls\u2019 sufferings to below what these souls deserve; and even\nbeyond the Areopagite\u2019s insistence upon the presence of some real good\nin these souls, since he hardly gets beyond their continuous possession\nof those non-moral goods, existence, intelligence, and will-power.[234]\nFor when she says, \u201cThe ray of God\u2019s mercy shines even in Hell,\u201d she\nneed not, indeed, mean more than that extrinsic mercy, and its effect,\nthat mitigation. But when she declares: \u201cif a creature could be found\nthat did not participate in the divine Goodness,--that creature would,\nas it were, be as malignant as God is good,\u201d we cannot, I think, avoid\napplying this to the moral dispositions of such souls.[235]\n\nNow I know that St. Thomas had already taught, in at first sight\nidentical terms: \u201cEvil cannot exist (quite) pure without the admixture\nof good, as the Supreme Good exists free from all admixture of evil.\u2026\nThose who are detained in Hell, are not bereft of all good\u201d;[236] and\nyet he undoubtedly maintained the complete depravation of the will\u2019s\ndispositions in these souls. And, again, after Catherine\u2019s first\ndeclaration there follow, (at least in the text handed down in the\n_Vita_), words which explain that extrinsic mercy, not as mitigating\nthe finite amount of suffering due to the sinner, but as turning the\ninfinite suffering due to the sinner\u2019s infinite malice, into a finite,\nthough indefinite amount; and hence, in the second declaration, a\ncorresponding interior mercy may be signified--God\u2019s grace preventing\nthe sinner from being infinitely wicked.\n\nBut Catherine, unlike St. Thomas, expressly speaks not only of Good and\nEvil, but of Good and Malignancy; and Malignancy undoubtedly refers\nto dispositions of the will. And even if the words, now found as the\nsequel to the first saying, be authentic, they belong to a different\noccasion, and cannot be allowed to force the meaning of words spoken\nat another time. In this latter saying the words \u201cas it were\u201d show\nplainly that she is not thinking of a possible infiniteness of human\nwickedness which has been changed, through God\u2019s mercy, to an actual\nfinitude of evil; but is simply asking herself whether a man could be,\nnot infinitely but wholly, malignant. For she answers that, were this\npossible, a man would \u201cas it were\u201d be as malignant as God is good, and\nthus shows that the malignancy, which she denies, would only in a sense\nform a counterpart to God\u2019s benevolence: since, though the man would be\nas entirely malignant as God is entirely good, God would still remain\ninfinite in His goodness as against the finitude of Man\u2019s wickedness.\n\nThe difficulties of such a combination of convictions are, of course,\nnumerous and great. Psychologically it seems hard to understand why\nthis remnant of good disposition should be unable to germinate further\nand further good, so that, at last, good would leaven the whole\nsoul. From the point of view of any Theodicy, it appears difficult\nto justify the unending exclusion of such a soul from growth in, and\nthe acquirement of, a predominantly good will and the happiness that\naccompanies such a will. And the testimony of Our Lord Himself and of\nthe general doctrine of the Church appear definitely opposed: for does\nnot His solemn declaration: \u201cHell, where their worm dieth not\u201d (Mark\nix, 48), find its authoritative interpretation in the common Church\nteaching as to the utterly reprobate will of the lost? And indeed\nCatherine herself, in her great saying that if but one little drop of\nLove could fall into Hell (that is, surely, if but the least beginning\nof a right disposition towards God could enter those souls) Hell would\nbe turned into Heaven, seems clearly to endorse this position.\n\nAnd yet, we have full experience in this life of genuinely good\ndispositions being present, and yet not triumphing or even spreading\nwithin the soul; of such conditions being, in various degrees, our own\nfault; and of such defeat bringing necessarily with it more or less of\nkeen suffering.--There would be no injustice if, after a full, good\nchance and sufficient aid had been given to the soul to actualize its\ncapabilities of spiritual self-constitution, such a soul\u2019s deliberately\nsporadic, culpably non-predominant, good did not, even eventually, lead\nto the full satisfaction of that soul\u2019s essential cravings.--The saying\nattributed to Our Lord, which appears in St. Mark alone, is a pure\nquotation from Isaiah lxvi, 24 and Ecclesiasticus vii, 17, and does not\nseem to require more than an abiding distress of conscience, an eternal\nkeenness of remorse.\n\nAgain, the common Church-teaching is undoubtedly voiced by St. Thomas\nin the words, \u201cSince these souls are completely averse to the final end\nof right reason, they must be declared to be without any good will.\u201d\nYet St. Thomas himself (partly in explanation of the Areopagite\u2019s\nwords, \u201cthe evil spirits desire the good and the best, namely, to\nbe, to live, and to understand\u201d), is obliged to distinguish between\nsuch souls\u2019 deliberate will and their \u201cnatural will and inclination,\u201d\nand to proclaim that this latter, \u201cwhich is not from themselves but\nfrom the Author of nature, who put this inclination into nature \u2026 can\nindeed be good.\u201d[237] And, if we would not construct a scheme flatly\ncontradictory of all earthly experience, we can hardly restrict the\nsoul, even in the beyond, to entirely indeliberate, good inclinations,\nand to fully deliberate, bad volitions, but cannot help interposing\nan indefinite variety of inchoative energizings, half-wishes, and\nthe like, and thinking of these as mixed with good and evil. Indeed\nthis conclusion seems also required by the common teaching that the\nsuffering there differs from soul to soul, and this because of the\ndifferent degrees of the guilt: for such degrees depend undoubtedly\neven more upon the degree of deliberation and massiveness of the will\nthan upon the degree of objective badness in the deed, and hence can\nhardly fail to leave variously small or large fragments of more or less\ngood and imperfectly deliberate wishings and energizings present in the\nsoul.\n\nAnd finally Catherine\u2019s \u201clittle drop of Love\u201d would, she says, \u201cat\nonce\u201d turn Hell into Heaven, and hence cannot mean some ordinary good\nmoral disposition or even such supernatural virtues as theological\nFaith and Hope, but Pure Love alone, which latter queen of all the\nvirtues she is explicitly discussing there. Thus she in nowise requires\nthe absence from these souls of a certain remnant of semi-deliberate\nvirtue of a less exalted, and not necessarily regenerative kind.\n\n\n3. _Mitigation of the sufferings of the lost._\n\nAs to the Mitigation of the Suffering, it is remarkable that Catherine,\nwho has been so bold concerning the source of the pains, and the\ndispositions, of the lost souls, does not more explicitly teach such\nan alleviation. I say \u201cremarkable,\u201d because important Fathers and\nChurches, that were quite uninfected by Origenism, have held and have\nacted upon such a doctrine. St. Augustine, in his _Enchiridion_ (A.D.\n423 (?)) tells us that \u201cin so far as\u201d the Offering of the Sacrifice of\nthe Altar and Alms \u201cprofit\u201d souls in the beyond, \u201cthey profit them by\nprocuring a full remission (of the punishment), or at least that their\ndamnation may become more tolerable.\u201d And after warning men against\nbelieving in an end to the sufferings of the lost, he adds: \u201cBut let\nthem consider, if they like, that the sufferings of the damned are\nsomewhat mitigated during certain intervals of time.\u201d[238]--Saints\nJohn Chrysostom and John Damascene, thoroughly orthodox Greek Fathers,\nand the deeply devout hymn-writer Prudentius among the Latins, teach\nsimilar doctrine; and in many ancient Latin missals, ranging from the\neleventh to the fourteenth century, prayers for the Mitigation of the\nSufferings of the Damned are to be found.[239]\n\nHence the great Jesuit Theologian Petau, though not himself\nsharing this view, can declare: \u201cConcerning such a breathing-time\n(_respiratio_) of lost souls, nothing certain has as yet been decreed\nby the Catholic Church, so that this opinion of most holy Fathers\nshould not temerariously be rejected as absurd, even though it be\nforeign to the common opinion of Catholics in our time.\u201d[240] And the\nAbb\u00e9 Emery, that great Catholic Christian, the second founder of St.\nSulpice, who died in 1811, showed, in a treatise _On the Mitigation\nof the Pains of the Damned_, that this view had also been held by\ncertain Scholastic Theologians, and had been defended, without any\nopposition, by Mark of Ephesus, in the Sessions of the Council of\nFlorence (A.D. 1439); and concluded that this doctrine was not contrary\nto the Catholic Faith and did not deserve any censure. The most learned\nTheologians in Rome found nothing reprehensible in this treatise, and\nPope Pius VII caused his Theologian, the Barnabite General, Padre\nFontana, to thank M. Emery for the copy sent by him to the Holy\nFather.[241]\n\nCatherine herself cannot well have been thinking of anything but some\nsuch Mitigation when she so emphatically teaches that God\u2019s mercy\nextends even into Hell. Indeed, even the continuation of this great\nsaying in the present _Vita_-text formally teaches such Mitigation, yet\npractically withdraws it, by making it consist in a rebate and change,\nfrom an infinitude in degree and duration into a finitude in degree\nthough not in duration.[242] But, as we have already found, this highly\nschematic statement is doubtless one of the later glosses, in which\ncase her true meaning must have been substantially that of the Fathers\nreferred to, viz. that the suffering, taken as anyhow finite in its\ndegree, gets mercifully mitigated for these souls.--And, if she was\nhere also faithful to her general principles, she will have conceived\nthe mitigation, not as simply sporadic and arbitrary, but as more or\nless progressive, and connected with the presence in these souls of\nthose various degrees of semi-voluntary good inclinations and wishes,\nrequired by her other saying. Even if these wishings could slowly and\nslightly increase, and the sufferings could similarly decrease, this\nwould in nowise imply or require a final full rectification of the\ndeliberate will itself, and hence not a complete extinction of the\nresultant suffering. Hell would still remain essentially distinct\nfrom Purgatory; for in Purgatory the deliberate, active will is good\nfrom the first, and only the various semi-volitions and old habits are\nimperfect, but are being gradually brought into full harmony with that\nwill, by the now complete willing of the soul; and hence this state\nhas an end; whereas in Hell the deliberate, active will is bad from\nthe first, and only various partially deliberate wishes and tendencies\nare good, but cannot be brought to fruition in a full virtuous\ndetermination of the dominant character of the soul, and hence _this_\nstate has no end.\n\n\n4. _The Endlessness of Hell._\n\nAnd lastly, as to the Endlessness of this condition of the Lost, it is,\nof course, plain that Catherine held this defined doctrine; and again,\nthat \u201cthe chief weight, in the Church-teaching as to Hell, rests upon\nHell\u2019s Eternity.\u201d[243]\n\nHere I would suggest five groups of considerations:\n\n(1) Precisely this Eternity appears to be the feature of all others\nwhich is ever increasingly decried by contemporary philosophy and\nliberal theology as impossible and revolting. Thus it is frequently\nargued as though, not the indiscriminateness nor the materiality nor\nthe forensic externality nor the complete fixity of the sufferings, nor\nagain the complete malignity of the lost were incredible, and hence\nthe unendingness of such conditions were impossible of acceptance;\nbut, on the contrary, as though,--be the degree and nature of those\nsufferings conceived as ever so discriminated, spiritual, interior, and\nrelatively mobile, and as occasioned and accompanied by a disposition\nin which semi-voluntary good is present,--the simple assumption of\nanything unending or final about them, at once renders the whole\ndoctrine impossible to believe. It is true that Tennyson and Browning\ntake the doctrine simply in its popular Calvinistic form, and then\nreject it; and even John Stuart Mill and Frederick Denison Maurice\nhardly consider the eternity separately. But certainly that thoughtful\nand religious-minded writer, Mr. W. R. Greg, brings forward the\neternity-doctrine as, already in itself, \u201ca _curiosa infelicitas_ which\nis almost stupidity on the part of the Church.\u201d[244]\n\n(2) Yet it is plain how strongly, even in Mr. Greg\u2019s case, the supposed\n(local, physical, indiscriminate, etc.) nature of the state affects\nthe writer\u2019s judgment as to the possibility of its unendingness,--as\nindeed is inevitable. And it is even clearer, I think, that precisely\nthis eternity-doctrine stands for a truth which is but an ever-present\nmysterious corollary to every deeply ethical or spiritual, and,\nabove all, every specifically Christian view of life. For every such\nview comes, surely, into hopeless collision with its own inalienable\nrequirements if it _will_ hold that the deepest ethical and spiritual\nacts and conditions are,--avowedly performed though they be in time\nand space--simply temporary in their inmost nature and effects;\nwhereas every vigorously ethical religion, in so far as it has reached\na definite personal-immortality doctrine at all, cannot admit that\nthe soul\u2019s deliberate character remains without any strictly final\nand permanent results. The fact is that we get here to a profound\nethical and spiritual postulate, which cannot be adequately set aside\non the ground that it is the product of barbarous ages and vindictive\nminds, since this objection applies only to the physical picturings,\nthe indiscriminateness, non-mitigation, and utter reprobation; or on\nthe ground that a long, keen purification, hence a temporally finite\nsuffering, would do as well, since, when all this has completely\npassed away, there would be an entire obliteration of all difference\nin the consequences of right and wrong; or that acts and dispositions\nbuilt up in time cannot have other than finite consequences, since\nthis is to naturalize radically the deepest things of life; or finally\nthat \u201cEvil,\u201d as the Areopagite would have it, \u201cis not,\u201d[245] since\nthus the very existence of the conviction as to free-will and sin\nbecomes more inexplicable than the theoretical difficulties against\nLibertarianism are insoluble.--Against this deep requirement of the\nmost alert and complete ethical and spiritual life the wave of any\nApocatastasis-doctrine or -emotion will, in the long run, ever break\nitself in vain.\n\n(3) The doctrine of Conditional Immortality has, I think, many\nundeniable advantages over every kind of Origenism. This view does not,\nas is often imputed to it, believe in the annihilation by Omnipotence\nof the naturally immortal souls of impenitent grave sinners; but simply\nholds that human souls begin with the capacity of acquiring, with the\nhelp of God\u2019s Spirit, a spiritual personality, built up out of the mere\npossibilities and partial tendencies of their highly mixed natures,\nwhich, if left uncultivated and untranscended, become definitely fixed\nat the first, phenomenal, merely individual level,--so that spiritual\npersonality alone deserves to live on and does so, whilst this animal\nindividuality does not deserve and does not do so. The soul is thus\nnot simply born as, but can become more and more, that \u201cinner man\u201d who\nalone persists, indeed who \u201cis renewed day by day, even though our\noutward man perish.\u201d[246]\n\nThis conception thus fully retains, indeed increases, the profound\nultimate difference between the results of spiritual and personal, and\nof animal and simply individual life respectively,--standing, as it\ndoes, at the antipodes to Origenism; it eliminates all unmoralized,\nunspiritualized elements from the ultimate world, without keeping souls\nin an apparently fruitless suffering; and it gives full emphasis to a\nsupremely important, though continually forgotten fact,--the profoundly\nexpensive, creative, positive process and nature of spiritual\ncharacter. No wonder, then, that great thinkers and scholars, such\nas Goethe, Richard Rothe, Heinrich Holtzmann, and some Frenchmen and\nEnglishmen have held this view.[247]\n\nYet the objections against this view, taken in its strictness, are\nsurely conclusive. For how can an originally simply mortal substance,\nforce, or entity become immortal, and a phenomenal nature be leavened\nby a spiritual principle which, _ex hypothesi_, is not present within\nit? And how misleadingly hyperbolical, according to this, would be\nthe greatest spiritual exhortations, beginning with those of Our Lord\nHimself!\n\n(4) And yet the conception of Conditional Immortality cannot be\nfar from the truth, since everything, surely, points to a lowered\nconsciousness in the souls in question, or at least to one lower\nthan that in the ultimate state of the saved. This conception of the\nshrunken condition of these souls was certainly held by Catherine,\neven if the other, the view of a heightened, consciousness, appears\nin hortatory passages which just _may_ be authentic; and indeed only\nthat conception is conformable with her fundamental position that\nlove alone is fully positive and alone gives vital strength, and that\nall fully deliberate love is absent from the lost souls. And if we\nconsider how predominantly hortatory in tone and object the ordinary\nteaching on this point cannot fail to be; and, on the other hand, how\nclose to Manichaeism, any serious equating of the force and intensity\nof life and consciousness between the Saved and the Lost would be, we\ncan hardly fail to find ourselves free, indeed compelled, to hold a\nlesser consciousness for the Lost than for the Saved. Whilst the joyful\nlife of the Saved would range, in harmonious intensity, beyond all that\nwe can experience here, the painful consciousness of the Lost would\nbe, in various degrees, indefinitely less. The Saved would thus not be\nonly _other_ than the Lost, they would actually be _more_: for God is\nLife supreme, and, where there is more affinity with God, there is more\nlife, and more consciousness.\n\n(5) But, if the view just stated is the more likely one, then we\ncannot soften the sufferings of those souls, by giving them a sense of\nEternity, of one unending momentary Now, instead of our earthly sense\nof Succession, as Cardinal Newman and Father Tyrrell have attempted to\ndo, in a very instructive and obviously orthodox manner.[248] I shall\npresently argue strongly in favour of some consciousness of Eternity\nbeing traceable in our best moments here, and of this consciousness\nbeing doubtless more extended in the future blessed life. But here I\nhave only to consider whether for one who, like Catherine, follows the\nanalogy of earthly experience, the Lost should be considered nearer to,\nor farther from, such a _Totum-Simul_ consciousness than we possess\nnow, here below, at our best? And to this the answer must, surely, be\nthat they are further away from it. Yet God in His mercy may allow\nthis greater successiveness, if unaccompanied by any keen memory or\nprevision, to help in effecting that mitigation of the suffering which\nwe have already allowed.\n\n\nIV. CATHERINE AND PURGATORY.\n\n\n1. _Introductory._\n\n\n(1) _Changed feeling concerning Purgatory._\n\nIn the matter of a Purgatory, a very striking return of religious\nfeeling towards its normal equilibrium has been occurring in the most\nunexpected, entirely unprejudiced quarters, within the last century\nand a half. In Germany we have Lessing, who, in the wake of Leibniz,\nencourages the acceptance of \u201cthat middle state which the greater part\nof our fellow-Christians have adopted\u201d: Schleiermacher, who calls the\noverpassing of a middle state by a violent leap at death \u201ca magical\nproceeding\u201d; David F. Strauss, who entirely agrees; Carl von Hase, who,\nin his very Manual of Anti-Roman Polemics admits that \u201cmost men when\nthey die are probably too good for Hell, but they are certainly too bad\nfor Heaven\u201d; the delicately thoughtful philosopher Fechner who, in the\nmost sober-minded of his religious works, insists upon our \u201cconceiving\nthe life beyond according to the analogy of this-life conditions,\u201d and\nrefers wistfully to \u201cthe belief which is found amongst all peoples\nand is quite shrunken only among Protestants--that the living can\nstill do something to aid the dead\u201d; and Prof. Anrich, probably the\ngreatest contemporary authority on the Hellenic elements incorporated\nin Christian doctrine, declares, all definite Protestant though he\nis, that \u201clegitimate religious postulates underlie the doctrine of\nPurgatory.\u201d[249] And in England that sensitively religious Unitarian,\nW. R. Greg, tells us \u201cPurgatory, ranging from a single day to a century\nof ages, offers that borderland of discriminating retribution for which\njustice and humanity cry out\u201d; and the Positivist, John Stuart Mill,\ndeclares at the end of his life: \u201cAll the probabilities in case of a\nfuture life are that such as we have been made or have made ourselves\nbefore the change, such we shall enter into the life hereafter.\u2026 To\nimagine that a miracle will be wrought at death \u2026 making perfect every\none whom it is His will to include among His elect \u2026 is utterly opposed\nto every presumption that can be adduced from the light of nature.\u201d[250]\n\n\n(2) _Causes of the previous prejudice._\n\nIndeed the general principle of ameliorative suffering is so obviously\ntrue and inexhaustibly profound that only many, long-lived abuses\nin the practice, and a frequent obscuration in the teaching, of the\ndoctrine, can explain and excuse the sad neglect, indeed discredit,\ninto which the very principle and root-doctrine has fallen among\nwell-nigh one-half of Western Christendom. As to the deplorably\nwidespread existence, at the time of the Protestant Reformation, of\nboth these causes, which largely occasioned or strengthened each other,\nwe have the unimpeachable authority of the Council of Trent itself: for\nit orders the Bishops \u201cnot to permit that uncertain doctrines, or such\nas labour under the presumption of falsity, be propagated and taught,\u201d\nand \u201cto prohibit, as so many scandals and stones of stumbling for the\nfaithful, whatever belongs to a certain curiosity or superstition or\nsavours of filthy lucre.\u201d[251] The cautious admissions of the strictly\nCatholic scholar-theologian, Dr. N. Paulus, and the precise documentary\nadditions and corrections to Paulus furnished, directly from the\ncontemporary documents, by the fair-minded Protestant worker at\nReformation History, Prof. T. Brieger, now furnish us, conjointly, with\nthe most vivid and detailed picture of the sad subtleties and abuses\nwhich gave occasion to that Decree.[252]\n\n\n(3) _Catherine\u2019s purgatorial conceptions avoid those causes. Her\nconceptions harbour two currents of thought._\n\nIt is surely not a small recommendation of Catherine\u2019s mode of\nconceiving Purgatory, that it cuts, as we shall see, at the very root\nof those abuses. Yet we must first face certain opposite dangers and\nambiguities which are closely intertwined with the group of terms\nand images taken over, for the purpose of describing an immanental\nPurgation, by her and her great Alexandrian Christian predecessors,\nfrom the Greek Heathen world. And only after the delimitation of the\ndefect in the suggestions which still so readily operate from out of\nthese originally Hellenic ideas, can we consider the difficulties and\nimperfections peculiar to the other, in modern times the predominant,\nelement in the complete teaching as to the Middle State, an element\nmostly of Jewish and Roman provenance, and aiming at an extrinsically\npunitive conception. Both currents can be properly elucidated only if\nwe first take them historically.\n\n\n1. _Jewish prayers for the dead._\n\nIt is admitted on all hands that, in the practical form of Prayers for\nthe Dead, the general doctrine of a Middle State can be traced back, in\nJudaism, up to the important passage in the Second Book of Maccabees,\nc. ii, vv. 43-45, where Judas Maccabaeus sends about two thousand\ndrachms of silver to Jerusalem, in order that a Sin-Offering may be\noffered up for the Jews fallen in battle against Gorgias, upon whose\nbodies heathen amulets had been found. \u201cHe did excellently in this \u2026\nit is a holy and devout thought. Hence he instituted the Sin-Offering\nfor the dead, that they might be loosed from their sins.\u201d That battle\noccurred in B.C. 166, and this book appears to have been written in\nB.C. 124, in Egypt, by a Jew of the school of the Pharisees.\n\nNow it is difficult not to recognize, in the doctrinal comment upon the\nfacts here given, rather as yet the opinions of a Judaeo-Alexandrian\ncircle, which was small even at the time of the composition of the\ncomment, than the general opinion of Judaism at the date of Judas\u2019s\nact. For if this act had been prompted by a clear and generally\naccepted conviction as to the resurrection, and the efficacy of prayers\nfor the dead, the writer would have had no occasion or inclination to\nmake an induction of his own as to the meaning and worth of that act;\nand we should find some indications of such a doctrine and practice in\nthe voluminous works of Philo and Josephus, some century and a half\nlater on. But all such indications are wanting in these writers.\n\nAnd in the New Testament there is, with regard to helping the dead,\nonly that curious passage: \u201cIf the dead do not arise, what shall they\ndo who are baptized for the dead?\u201d[253] where St. Paul refers, without\neither acceptance or blame, to a contemporary custom among Christian\nProselytes from Paganism, who offered up that bath of initiation for\nthe benefit of the souls of deceased relatives who had died without any\nsuch purification. Perhaps not till Rabbi Akiba\u2019s time, about 130 A.D.,\nhad prayers for the dead become part of the regular Synagogue ritual.\nBy 200 A.D. Tertullian speaks of the practice as of an established\nusage among the Christian communities: \u201cwe make oblations for the Dead,\non their anniversary, every year\u201d; although \u201cif you ask where is the\nlaw concerning this custom in Scripture, you cannot read of any such\nthere. Tradition will appear before you as its initiator, custom as its\nconfirmer, and faith as its observer.\u201d[254]\n\nIt is interesting to note how considerably subsequent to the practice\nis, in this instance also, its clear doctrinal justification. Indeed\nthe Jews are, to this hour, extraordinarily deficient in explicit,\nharmonious conceptions on the matter. Certainly throughout Prof. W.\nBacher\u2019s five volumes of Sayings of the Jewish Rabbis from 30 B.C.\nto 400 A.D., I can only find the following saying, by Jochanan the\nAmoraean, who died 279 A.D.: \u201cThere are three books before God, in\nwhich men are inscribed according to their merit and their guilt: that\nof the perfectly devout, that of the perfect evil-doers, and that of\nthe middle, the uncertain souls. The devout and the evil-doers receive\ntheir sentence on New Year\u2019s day \u2026 the first, unto life; the second,\nunto death. As to middle souls, their sentence remains in suspense\ntill the day of Atonement: if by then they have done penance, they get\nwritten down alongside of the devout; if not, they are written down\nalongside of the evil-doers.\u201d[255]\n\n\n2. _Alexandrine Fathers on Purgatory._\n\nYet it is the Platonizing Alexandrian Fathers Clement and Origen,\n(they died, respectively, in about 215 and in 254 A.D.), who are the\nfirst, and to this hour the most important, Christian spokesmen for\na state of true intrinsic purgation. We have already deliberately\nrejected their Universalism; but this error in no way weakens the\nprofound truth of their teaching as to the immanental, necessary\ninter-connection between suffering and morally imperfect habits, and\nas to the ameliorative effects of suffering where, as in Purgatory, it\nis willed by a right moral determination. Thus Clement: \u201cAs children\nat the hands of their teacher or father, so also are we punished by\nProvidence. God does not avenge Himself, for vengeance is to repay\nevil by evil, but His punishment aims at our good.\u201d \u201cAlthough a\npunishment, it is an emendation of the soul.\u201d \u201cThe training which\nmen call punishments.\u201d[256] And Origen: \u201cThe fury of God\u2019s vengeance\nprofits unto the purification of souls; the punishment is unto\npurgation.\u201d \u201cThese souls receive, in the prison, not the retribution\nof their folly, but a benefaction in the purification from the evils\ncontracted in that folly,--a purification effected by means of salutary\ntroubles.\u201d[257]\n\nNow Clement is fully aware of the chief source for his formulation of\nthese deeply spiritual and Christian instincts and convictions. \u201cPlato\nspeaks well when he teaches that \u2018men who are punished, experience in\ntruth a benefit: for those who get justly punished, profit through\ntheir souls becoming better.\u2019\u201d[258] But Plato, in contradistinction\nfrom Clement, holds that this applies only to such imperfect souls as\n\u201chave sinned curable sins\u201d; he has a Hell as well as a Purgatory: yet\nhis Purgatory, as Clement\u2019s, truly purges: the souls are there because\nthey are partially impure, and they cease to be there when they are\ncompletely purified.\n\nAnd Plato, in his turn, makes no secret as to whence he got his\nsuggestions and raw materials, _viz._ the Orphic priesthood and\nits literature, which, ever since the sixth century B.C., had been\nsucceeding to and supplanting the previous Orgiastic Dionysianism.[259]\nPlato gives us vivid pictures of their doings in Athens, at the time\nof his writing, in about 380 B.C. \u201cMendicant prophets go to rich men\u2019s\ndoors, and persuade these men that they have a power committed to them\nof making an atonement for their sins, or for those of their fathers,\nby sacrifices and incantations \u2026 and they persuade whole cities that\nexpiations and purifications of sin may be made by sacrifices and\namusements which fill a vacant hour, and are equally at the service of\nthe living and the dead.\u201d[260]--Yet from these men, thus scorned as\nwell-nigh sheer impostors, Plato takes over certain conceptions and\nformulations which contribute one of the profoundest, still unexhausted\nelements to his teaching,--although this element is, at bottom, in\nconflict with that beautiful but inadequate, quite anti-Orphic,\nconception of his--the purely negative character of Evil. For the\nOrphic literary remains, fragmentary and late though they be, plainly\nteach that moral or ritual transgressions are a defilement of the soul,\nan infliction of positive stains upon it; that these single offences\nand \u201cspots\u201d produce a generally sinful and \u201cspotted\u201d condition;\nand that this condition is amenable to and requires purification by\nsuffering,--water, or more frequently fire, which wash or burn out\nthese stains of sin. So Plutarch (who died about 120 A.D.) still\ndeclares that the souls in Hades have stains of different colours\naccording to the different passions; and the object of the purificatory\npunishment is \u201cthat, these stains having been worn away, the soul may\nbecome altogether resplendent.\u201d And Virgil, when he declares \u201cthe\nguilt which infects the soul is washed out or burnt out \u2026 until a\nlong time-span has effaced the clotted stain, and leaves the heavenly\nconscience pure\u201d: is utilizing an Orphic-Pythagorean Hades-book.[261]\n\nThis conception of positive stains is carefully taken over by the\nAlexandrian Fathers: Clement speaks of \u201cremoving, by continuous prayer,\nthe stains (\u03ba\u03b7\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2) contracted through former sins,\u201d and declares\nthat \u201cthe Gnostic,\u201d the perfect Christian, \u201cfears not death, having\npurified himself from all the spots (\u03c3\u03c0\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2) on his soul.\u201d And Origen\ndescribes \u201cthe pure soul that is not weighed down by leaden weights of\nwickedness,\u201d where the spots have turned to leaden pellets such as were\nfastened to fishing-nets. Hence, says Clement, \u201cpost-baptismal sins\nhave to be purified out\u201d of the soul; and, says Origen, \u201cthese rivers\nof fire are declared to be of God, who causes the evil that is mixed up\nwith the whole soul to disappear from out of it.\u201d[262]\n\nIn Pseudo-Dionysius the non-Orphic, purely negative, view prevails:\n\u201cEvil is neither in demons nor in us as an existent evil, but as a\nfailure and dearth in the perfection of our own proper goods.\u201d And St.\nThomas similarly declares that \u201cdifferent souls have correspondingly\ndifferent stains, like shadows differ in accordance with the difference\nof the bodies which interpose themselves between the light.\u201d[263]\n\nBut Catherine, in this inconsistent with her own general\nPrivation-doctrine, again conceives the stain, the \u201cmacchia del\npeccato,\u201d as Cardinal Manning has acutely observed, not simply as a\ndeprivation of the light of glory, but \u201cas the cause, not the effect,\nof God\u2019s not shining into the soul\u201d: it includes in it the idea of\nan imperfection, weakness with regard to virtue, bad (secondary)\ndispositions, and unheavenly tastes.[264]\n\n\n3. _The true and the false in the Orphic conception._\n\nNow precisely in this profoundly true conception of Positive Stain\nthere lurk certain dangers, which all proceed from the original Orphic\ndiagnosis concerning the source of these stains, and these dangers will\nhave to be carefully guarded against.\n\n(1) The conviction as to the purificatory power of fire was no doubt,\noriginally, the direct consequence from the Orphic belief as to the\nintrinsically staining and imprisoning effect of the body upon the\nsoul. \u201cThe soul, as the Orphics say, is enclosed in the body, in\npunishment for the punishable acts\u201d; \u201cliberations\u201d from the body,\nand \u201cpurifications\u201d of the living and the dead, ever, with them,\nproceed together. And hence to burn the dead body was considered\nto purify the soul that had been stained by that prison-house: the\nslain Clytemnestra, says Euripides, \u201cis purified, as to her body, by\nfire,\u201d for, as the Scholiast explains, \u201cfire purifies all things,\nand burnt bodies are considered holy.\u201d[265] And such an intensely\nanti-body attitude we find, not only fully developed later on into a\ndeliberate anti-Incarnational doctrine, among the Gnostics, but, as we\nhave already seen, slighter traces of this same tone may be found in\nthe (doubtless Alexandrian) Book of Wisdom, and in one, not formally\ndoctrinal passage, a momentary echo of it, in St. Paul himself.\nAnd Catherine\u2019s attitude is generally, and often strongly, in this\ndirection.\n\n(2) A careful distinction is evidently necessary here. The doctrine\nthat sin defiles,--affects the quality of the soul\u2019s moral and\nspiritual dispositions, and that this defilement and perversion, ever\noccasioned by the search after facile pleasure or the flight from\nfruitful pain, can normally be removed and corrected only by a long\ndiscipline of fully accepted, gradually restorative pain, either here,\nor hereafter, or both: are profound anticipations, and have been most\nrightly made integral parts, of the Christian life and conception. The\ndoctrine that the body is essentially a mere accident or superaddition\nor necessary defilement to the soul, is profoundly untrue, in its\nexaggeration and one-sidedness: for if the body is the occasion of\nthe least spiritual of our sins, it can and should become the chief\nservant of the spirit; the slow and difficult training of this servant\nis one of the most important means of development for the soul itself;\nand many faults and vices are not occasioned by the body at all, whilst\nnone are directly and necessarily caused by it. Without the body, we\nshould not have impurity, but neither should we have specifically\nhuman purity of soul; and without it, given the persistence and\nactivity of the soul, there could be as great, perhaps greater, pride\nand _solipsism_, the most anti-Christian of all the vices. Hence if,\nin Our Lord\u2019s teaching, we find no trace of a Gnostic desire for\npurification from all things bodily as essentially soul-staining, we do\nfind a profound insistence upon purity of heart, and upon the soul\u2019s\nreal, active \u201cturning,\u201d conversion, (an interior change from an un- or\nanti-moral attitude to an ethical and spiritual dependence upon God),\nas a _sine qua non_ condition for entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.\nAnd the Joannine teachings re-affirm this great truth for us as a\n_Metabasis_, a moving from Death over to Life.\n\n\n4. _Catherine\u2019s conceptions as to the character of the stains and of\ntheir purgation._\n\nAnd this idea, as to an intrinsic purgation through suffering of\nimpurities contracted by the soul, can be kept thoroughly Christian,\nif we ever insist, with Catherine in her most emphatic and deepest\nteachings, that Purgation can and should be effected in this life,\nhence in the body,--in and through all the right uses of the body,\nas well as in and through all the legitimate and will-strengthening\nabstentions from such uses; that the subject-matter of such purgation\nare the habits and inclinations contrary to our best spiritual lights,\nand which we have largely ourselves built up by our variously perverse\nor slothful acts, but which in no case are directly caused by the body,\nand in many cases are not even occasioned by it; and, finally, that\nholiness consists primarily, not in the absence of faults, but in the\npresence of spiritual force, in Love creative, Love triumphant,--the\nsoul becoming flame rather than snow, and dwelling upon what to do,\ngive and be, rather than upon what to shun.--Catherine\u2019s predominant,\nultimate tone possesses this profound positiveness, and corrects all\nbut entirely whatever, if taken alone, would appear to render the\nsoul\u2019s substantial purity impossible in this life; to constitute the\nbody a direct and necessary cause of impurity to the soul; and to find\nthe ideal of perfection in the negative condition of being free from\nstain. In her greatest sayings, and in her actual life, Purity is\nfound to be Love, and this Love is exercised, not only in the inward,\nhome-coming, recollective movement,--in the purifying of the soul\u2019s\ndispositions, but also in the outgoing, world-visiting, dispersive\nmovement,--in action towards fellow-souls.\n\n\n5. _Judaeo-Roman conception of Purgatory._\n\nAnd this social side and movement brings us to the second element and\ncurrent in the complete doctrine of a Middle State,--a constituent\nwhich possesses affinities and advantages, and produces excesses\nand abuses, directly contrary to those proper to the element of an\nintrinsic purgation.\n\n(1) Here we get early Christian utilizations, for purposes of a\ndoctrine concerning the Intermediate State, of sayings and images which\ndwell directly only upon certain extrinsic consequences of evil-doing,\nor which, again, describe a future historical and social event,--the\nLast Day. For already Origen interprets, in his beautiful _Treatise on\nPrayer_, XXIX, 16, Our Lord\u2019s words as to the debtor: \u201cThou shalt be\ncast into prison, thou shalt not come forth from thence, until thou\nhast paid the uttermost farthing,\u201d Matt, v, 25, 26, as applying to\nPurgatory. And in his _Contra Celsum_, VII, 13, he already takes, as\nthe Biblical _locus classicus_ for a Purgatory, St. Paul\u2019s words as to\nhow men build, upon the one foundation Christ, either gold, silver,\ngems, or wood, hay, stubble; and how fire will test each man\u2019s work;\nand, if the work remain, he shall receive a reward, but if it be burnt,\nhe shall suffer loss and yet he himself shall be saved yet so as by\nfire, 1 Cor. iii, 10-15. It appears certain, however, that St. Paul\nis, in this passage, thinking directly of the Last Day, the End of the\nWorld, with its accompaniment of physical fire, and as to how far the\nvarious human beings, then on earth, will be able to endure the dread\nstress and testing of that crisis; and he holds that some will be fit\nto bear it and some will not.\n\nSuch a destruction of the world by fire appears elsewhere in\nPalestinian Jewish literature,--in the Book of Enoch and the Testament\nof Levi; and in the New Testament, in 2 Peter iii, 12: \u201cThe heavens\nbeing on fire shall be dissolved, the elements shall melt with fervent\nheat.\u201d Josephus, _Antiquities_, XI, ii, 3, teaches a destruction by\nfire and another by water. And the Stoics, to whom also Clement and\nOrigen appeal, had gradually modified their first doctrine of a simply\ncosmological Ekpyr\u014dsis, a renovation of the physical universe by fire,\ninto a moral purification of the earth, occasioned by, and applied\nto, the sinfulness of man. Thus Seneca has the double, water-and-fire,\ninstrument: \u201cAt that time the tide\u201d of the sea \u201cwill be borne along\nfree from all measure, for the same reason which will cause the future\nconflagration. Both occur when it seems fit to God to initiate a better\norder of things and to have done with the old.\u2026 The judgment of mankind\nbeing concluded, the primitive order of things will be recalled, and to\nthe earth will be re-given man innocent of crimes.\u201d[266]\n\n(2) It is interesting to note how--largely under the influence of the\nforensic temper and growth of the Canonical Penitential system, and\nof its successive relaxations in the form of substituted lighter good\nworks, Indulgences,--the Latin half of Christendom, ever more social\nand immediately practical than the Greek portion, came, in general,\nmore and more to dwell upon two ideas suggested to their minds by\nthose two, Gospel and Pauline, passages. The one idea was that souls\nwhich, whilst fundamentally well-disposed, are not fit for Heaven at\nthe body\u2019s death, can receive instant purification by the momentary\nfire of the Particular Judgment; and the other held that, thus already\nentirely purified and interiorly fit for Heaven, they are but detained\n(in what we ought, properly, to term a _Satisfactorium_), to suffer\nthe now completely non-ameliorative, simply vindictive, infliction of\npunishment,--a punishment still, in strict justice, due to them for\npast sins, of which the guilt and the deteriorating effects upon their\nown souls have been fully remitted and cured.\n\nIn this way it was felt that the complete unchangeableness of the\ncondition of every kind of soul after death, or at least after the\nParticular Judgment (a Judgment held practically to synchronize with\ndeath), was assured. And indeed how could there be any interior growth\nin Purgatory, seeing that there is no meriting there? Again it was\nthought that thus the vision of God at the moment of Judgment was given\nan operative value for the spiritual amelioration of souls which,\nalready in substantially good dispositions, could hardly be held to\npass through so profound an experience without intrinsic improvement,\nas the other view seemed to hold.--And, above all, this form of the\ndoctrine was found greatly to favour the multiplication among the\npeople of prayers, Masses and good-works for the dead; since the _modus\noperandi_ of such acts seemed thus to become entirely clear, simple,\nimmediate, and, as it were, measurable and mechanical. For these souls\nin their \u201cSatisfactorium,\u201d being, from its very beginning, already\ncompletely purged and fit for Heaven,--God is, as it were, free to\nrelax at any instant, in favour of sufficiently fervent or numerous\nintercessions, the exigencies of his entirely extrinsic justice.\n\n(3) The position of a purely extrinsic punishment is emphasized, with\neven unusual vehemence, in the theological glosses inserted, in about\n1512 to 1529, in Catherine\u2019s _Dicchiarazione_. Yet it is probably\nthe very influential Jesuit theologian Francesco Suarez, who died\nin 1617, who has done most towards formulating and theologically\npopularizing this view. All the guilt of sin, he teaches, is remitted\n(in these Middle souls) at the first moment of the soul\u2019s separation\nfrom the body, by means of a single act of contrition, whereby the\nwill is wholly converted to God, and turned away from every venial\nsin. \u201cAnd in this way sin may be remitted, as to its guilt, in\nPurgatory, because the soul\u2019s purification dates from this moment\u201d;--in\nstrictness, from before the first moment of what should be here termed\nthe \u201cSatisfactorium.\u201d As to bad habits and vicious inclinations,\n\u201cwe ought not to imagine that the soul is detained for these\u201d: but\n\u201cthey are either taken away at the moment of death, or expelled by an\ninfusion of the contrary virtues when the soul enters into glory.\u201d[267]\nThis highly artificial, inorganic view is adopted, amongst other\nof our contemporary theologians, by Atzberger, the continuator of\nScheeben.[268]\n\n\n6. _The Judaeo-Roman conception must be taken in synthesis with the\nAlexandrine._\n\nNow it is plain that the long-enduring Penitential system of the Latin\nChurch, and the doctrine and practice of Indulgences stand for certain\nimportant truths liable to being insufficiently emphasized by the Greek\nteachings concerning an intrinsically ameliorative _Purgatorium_, and\nthat there can be no question of simply eliminating these truths.\nBut neither are they capable of simple co-ordination with, still\nless of super-ordination to, those most profound and spiritually\ncentral immanental positions. As between the primarily forensic and\ngovernmental, and the directly ethical and spiritual, it will be the\nformer that will have to be conceived and practised as, somehow, an\nexpression and amplification of, and a practical corrective and means\nto, the latter.[269]\n\n(1) The ordinary, indeed the strictly obligatory, Church teaching\nclearly marks the suggested relation as the right one, at three, simply\ncardinal points. We are bound, by the Confession of Faith of Michael\nPalaeologus, 1267 A.D., and by the Decree of the Council of Florence,\n1429 A.D., to hold that these Middle souls \u201care purged after death by\npurgatorial or cathartic pains\u201d; and by that of Trent \u201cthat there is\na Purgatory.\u201d[270] Yet we have here a true _lucus a non lucendo_, if\nthis place or state does not involve purgation: for no theologian dares\nexplicitly to transfer and restrict the name \u201cPurgatory\u201d to the instant\nof the soul\u2019s Particular Judgment; even Suarez, as we have seen, has to\nextend the name somehow.\n\nNext we are bound, by the same three great Decrees, to hold indeed that\n\u201cthe Masses, Prayers, Alms, and other pious offices of the Faithful\nLiving are profitable towards the relief of these pains,\u201d yet this by\nmode of \u201csuffrage,\u201d since, as the severely orthodox Jesuit, Father H.\nHurter, explains in his standard _Theologiae Dogmaticae Compendium_,\n\u201cthe fruit of this impetration and satisfaction is not infallible, for\nit depends upon the merciful acceptance of God.\u201d[271] Hence in no case\ncan we, short of superstition, conceive such good works as operating\nautomatically: so that the _a priori_ simplest view concerning the\nmode of operation of these prayers is declared to be mistaken. We can\nand ought, then, to choose among the conceptions, not in proportion to\ntheir mechanical simplicity, but according to their spiritual richness\nand to their analogy with our deepest this-life experiences.\n\nAnd we are all bound, by the Decree of Trent and the Condemnation of\nBaius, 1567 A.D., to hold that Contrition springing from Perfect Love\nreconciles man with God, even before Confession, and this also outside\nof cases of necessity or of martyrdom.[272] Indeed, it is the common\ndoctrine that one single act of Pure Love abolishes, not only Hell,\nbut Purgatory, so that, if the soul were to die whilst that act was\nin operation, it would forthwith be in Heaven. If then, in case of\nperfect purity, the soul is at once in heaven, the soul cannot be quite\npure and yet continue in Purgatory.\n\n(2) It is thus plain that, as regards Sin in its relation to the\nSinner, there are, in strictness, ever three points to consider: the\nguilty act, the reflex effect of the act upon the disposition the\nagent, and the punishment; for all theologians admit that the more or\nless bad disposition, contracted through the sinful act, remains in\nthe soul, except in the case of Perfect Contrition, after the guilt\nof the act has been remitted. But whilst the holders of an Extrinsic,\nVindictive Purgatory, work for a punishment as independent as possible\nof these moral effects of sin still present in the pardoned soul, the\nadvocates of an Intrinsic, Ameliorative Purgatory find the punishment\ncentre in the pain and difficulty attendant upon \u201cgetting slowly\nback to fully virtuous dispositions, through retracing the steps we\nhave taken in departing from it.\u201d[273] And the system of Indulgences\nappears, in this latter view, to find its chief justification in that\nit keeps up a link with the past Penitential system of the Church; that\nit vividly recalls and applies the profound truth of the interaction,\nfor good even more than for evil, between all human souls, alive and\ndead; and that it insists upon the readily forgotten truth of even the\nforgiven sinner, the man with the good determination, having ordinarily\nstill much to do and to suffer before he is quit of the effects of his\nsin.\n\n(3) And the difficulties and motives special to those who supplant\nthe Intrinsic, Ameliorating Purgatory by an Extrinsic, Vindicative\n_Satisfactorium_, can indeed be met by those who would preserve that\nbeautifully dynamic, ethical, and spiritual conception. For we can\nhold that the fundamental condition,--the particular determination\nof the active will,--remains quite unchanged, from Death to Heaven,\nin these souls; that this determination of the active will requires\nmore or less of time and suffering fully to permeate and assimilate to\nitself all the semi-voluntary wishes and habits of the soul; and that\nthis permeation takes place among conditions in which the soul\u2019s acts\nare too little resisted and too certain of success to be constituted\nmeritorious. We can take Catherine\u2019s beautiful Plunge-conception as\nindicating the kind of operation effected in and by the soul, at and\nthrough the momentary vision of God. And we can feel convinced that\nit is ever, in the long run, profoundly dangerous to try to clarify\nand simplify doctrines beyond or against the scope and direction of\nthe analogies of Nature and of Grace, which are ever so dynamic and\norganic in type: for the poor and simple, as truly as the rich and\nlearned, ever require, not to be merely taken and left as they are, but\nto be raised and trained to the most adequate conceptions possible to\neach.--It is, in any case, very certain that the marked and widespread\nmovement of return to belief in a Middle State is distinctly towards a\ntruly Purgative Purgatory, although few of these sincere truth-seekers\nare aware, as is Dr. Anrich, that they are groping after a doctrine\nall but quite explained away by a large body of late Scholastic and\nNeo-Scholastic theologians.[274]\n\n(4) Yet it is very satisfactory to note how numerous, and especially\nhow important are, after all is said, the theologians who have\ncontinued to walk, in this matter, in the footsteps of the great\nAlexandrines. St. Gregory of Nyssa teaches a healing of the soul in the\nbeyond and a purification by fire.[275] St. Augustine says that \u201cfire\nburns up the work of him who thinketh of the things of this world,\nsince possessions, that are loved, do not perish without pain on the\npart of their possessor. It is not incredible that something of this\nsort takes place after this life.\u201d[276]\n\nSt. Thomas declares most plainly: \u201cVenial guilt, in a soul which\ndies in a state of grace, is remitted after this life by the purging\nfire, because that pain, which is in some manner accepted by the\nwill, has, in virtue of grace, the power of expiating all such guilt\nas can co-exist with a state of grace.\u201d \u201cAfter this life \u2026 there can\nbe merit with respect to some accidental reward, so long as a man\nremains in some manner in a state of probation: and hence there can be\nmeritorious acts in Purgatory, with respect to the remission of venial\nsin.\u201d[277]--Dante (_d._ 1321) also appears, as Father Faber finely\nnotes, to hold such a voluntary, immanental Purgatory, where the poet\nsees an Angel impelling, across the sea at dawn, a bark filled with\nsouls bent for Purgatory: for the boat is described as driving towards\nthe shore so lightly as to draw no wake upon the water.[278]\n\nCardinal Bellarmine, perhaps the greatest of all anti-Protestant\ntheologians (_d._ 1621) teaches that \u201cvenial sin is remitted in\nPurgatory _quoad culpam_,\u201d and that \u201cthis guilt, as St. Thomas rightly\ninsists, is remitted in Purgatory by an act of love and patient\nendurance.\u201d[279] St. Francis of Sales, that high ascetical authority\n(_d._ 1622), declares: \u201cBy Purgatory we understand a place where souls\nundergo purgation, for a while, from the stains and imperfections which\nthey have carried away with them from this mortal life.\u201d[280]\n\nAnd recently and in England we have had Father Faber, Cardinal Manning,\nand Cardinal Newman, although differing from each other on many other\npoints, fully united in holding and propagating this finely life-like,\npurgative conception of purgatory.[281]\n\n\n7. _A final difficulty._\n\nOne final point concerning a Middle State. In the Synoptic tradition\nthere is a recurrent insistence upon the forgiveness of particular\nsins, at particular moments, by particular human and divine acts of\ncontrition and pardon. In the Purgatorial teaching the stress lies\nupon entire states and habits, stains and perversities of soul, and\nupon God\u2019s general grace working, in and through immanently necessary,\nfreely accepted sufferings, on to a slow purification of the complete\npersonality. As Origen says: \u201cThe soul\u2019s single acts, good or bad, go\nby; but, according to their quality, they give form and figure to to\nthe mind of the agent, and leave it either good or bad, and destined\nfor pains or for rewards.\u201d[282]\n\nThe antagonism here is but apparent. For the fact that a certain\ncondition of soul precedes, and that another condition succeed, each\nact of the same soul, in proportion as this act is full and deliberate,\ndoes not prevent the corresponding, complimentary fact that such acts\ntake the preceding condition as their occasion, and make the succeeding\ncondition into a further expression of themselves. Single acts which\nfully express the character, whether good or bad, are doubtless rarer\nthan is mostly thought. Yet Catherine, in union with the Gospels and\nthe Church, is deeply convinced of the power of one single act of Pure\nLove to abolish, not of course the effects outward, but the reflex\nspiritual consequences upon the soul itself, of sinful acts or states.\n\nCatherine\u2019s picture again, of the deliberate Plunge into Purgatory,\ngives us a similar heroic act which, summing up the whole soul\u2019s active\nvolitions, initiates and encloses the whole subsequent purification,\nbut which itself involves a prevenient act of Divine Love and mercy, to\nwhich this act of human love is but the return and response. Indeed,\nas we know, this plunge-conception was but the direct projection,\non to the other-world-picture, of her own personal experience at\nher conversion, when a short span of clock-time held acts of love\nreceived and acts of love returned, which transformed all her previous\ncondition, and initiated a whole series of states ever more expressive\nof her truest self.--Act and state and state and act, each presupposes\nand requires the other: and both are present in the Synoptic pictures,\nand both are operative in the Purgatorial teaching; although in the\nformer the accounts are so brief as to make states and acts alike look\nas though one single act; and, in the latter, the descriptions are so\nlarge as to make the single acts almost disappear behind the states.\n\n\nV. CATHERINE AND HEAVEN--THREE PERPLEXITIES TO BE CONSIDERED.\n\nWe have found a truly Purgational Middle state, with its sense of\nsuccession, its mixture of joy and suffering, and its growth and\nfruitfulness, to be profoundly consonant with all our deepest spiritual\nexperiences and requirements. But what about Heaven, which we must,\napparently, hold to consist of a sense of simultaneity, a condition\nof mere reproductiveness and utterly uneventful finality, and a state\nof unmixed, unchanging joy?--Here again, even if in a lesser degree,\ncertain experiences of the human soul can help us to a few general\npositions of great spiritual fruitfulness, which can reasonably\nclaim an analogical applicability to the Beyond, and which, thus\ntaken as our ultimate ideals, cannot fail to stimulate the growth of\nour personality, and, with it, of further insight into these great\nrealities. I shall here consider three main questions, which will\nroughly correspond to the three perplexities just indicated.\n\n\n1. _Time and Heaven._\n\nOur first question, then, is as to the probable character of man\u2019s\nhappiest ultimate consciousness,--whether it is one of succession or\nof simultaneity: in other words, whether, besides the disappearance of\nthe category of space (a point already discussed), there is likely to\nbe the lapse of the category of time also.--And let it be noted that\nthe retention of the latter sense for Hell, and even for Purgatory,\ndoes not prejudge the question as to its presence or absence in Heaven,\nsince those two states are admittedly non-normative, whereas the latter\nrepresents the very ideal and measure of man\u2019s full destination and\nperfection.\n\n(1) Now it is still usual, amongst those who abandon the ultimacy\nof the space-category, simultaneously to drop, as necessarily\nconcomitant, the time-category also. Tennyson, among the poets, does\nso, in his beautiful \u201cCrossing the Bar\u201d: \u201cFrom out our bourne of Time\nand Place, the flood may bear me far\u201d; and Prof. H. J. Holtzmann,\namong speculative theologians, in criticising Rothe\u2019s conception of\nman as a quite ultimately spacial-temporal being, treats these two\nquestions as standing and falling together.[283]--Yet a careful study\nof Kant\u2019s critique of the two categories of Space and Time suffices\nto convince us of the indefinitely richer content, and more ultimate\nreality, of the latter. Indeed, I shall attempt to show more fully in\nthe next Chapter, with the aid of M. Henri Bergson, that mathematical,\nuniform clock-time is indeed an artificial compound, which is made up\nof our profound experience of a duration in which the constituents\n(sensations, imaginations, thoughts, feelings, willings) of the\nsuccession ever, in varying degrees, overlap, interpenetrate, and\nmodify each other, and the quite automatic and necessary simplification\nand misrepresentation of this experience by its imaginary projection on\nto space,--its restatement, by our picturing faculty, as a perfectly\nequable succession of mutually exclusive moments. It is in that\ninterpenetrative duration, not in this atomistic clock-time, that our\ndeeper human experiences take place.\n\n(2) But that sense of duration, is it indeed our deepest apprehension?\nDr. Holtzmann points out finely how that we are well aware, in our\nprofoundest experiences, of \u201cthat permanently incomprehensible\nfact,--the existence of, as it were, a prism, through which the\nunitary ray of light, which fills our consciousness with a real\ncontent, is spread out into a colour-spectrum, so that what, in itself,\nexists in pure unitedness\u201d and simultaneity, \u201cbecomes intelligible to\nus only as a juxtaposition in space and a succession in time. Beyond\nthe prism, there are no such two things.\u201d And he shows how keenly\nconscious we are, at times, of that deepest mode of apprehension and\nof being which is a Simultaneity, an eternal Here and Now; and how\nruinous to our spiritual life would be a full triumph of the category\nof time.[284]\n\nBut it is St. Augustine who has, so far, found the noblest expression\nfor the deepest human experiences in this whole matter of Duration and\nSimultaneity, as against mere Clock-Time, although, here as with regard\nto Space, he is deeply indebted to Plotinus. \u201cIn thee, O my soul, I\nmeasure time,--I measure the impression which passing events make\nupon thee, who remainest when those events have passed: this present\nimpression then, and not those events which had to pass in order to\nproduce it, do I measure, when I measure time.\u201d \u201cThe three times,\u201d\ntenses, \u201cpast, present, and future \u2026 are certain three affections in\nthe soul, I find them there and nowhere else. There is the present\nmemory of past events, the present perception of present ones, and the\npresent expectation of future ones.\u201d God possesses \u201cthe splendour of\never-tarrying Eternity,\u201d which is \u201cincomparable with never-tarrying\ntimes,\u201d since in it \u201cnothing passes, but the content of everything\nabides simply present.\u201d And in the next life \u201cperhaps our own thoughts\nalso will not be flowing, going from one thing to another, but we shall\nsee all we know simultaneously, in one intuition.\u201d St. Thomas indeed is\nmore positive: \u201cAll things will,\u201d in Heaven, \u201cbe seen simultaneously\nand not successively.\u201d[285]\n\n(3) If then, even here below, we can so clearly demonstrate the\nconventionality of mere Clock-Time, and can even conceive a perfect\nSimultaneity as the sole form of the consciousness of God, we cannot\nwell avoid holding that, in the other life, the clock-time convention\nwill completely cease, and that, though the sense of Duration is\nnot likely completely to disappear, (since, in this life at least,\nthis sense is certainly not merely phenomenal for man, and its\nentire absence would apparently make man into God), the category of\nSimultaneity will, as a sort of strong background-consciousness,\nenglobe and profoundly unify the sense of Duration. And, the more\nGod-like the soul, the more would this sense of Simultaneity\npredominate over the sense of Duration.\n\n\n2. _The Ultimate Good, concrete, not abstract._\n\nOur second question concerns the kind and degree of variety in unity\nwhich we should conceive to characterize the life of God, and of the\nsoul in its God-likeness. Is this type and measure of all life to be\nconceived as a maximum of abstraction or as a maximum of concretion;\nas pure thought alone, or as also emotion and will; as solitary and\nself-centred, or as social and outgoing; and as simply reproductive, or\nalso as operative?\n\n(1) Now it is certain that nothing is easier, and nothing has been\nmore common, than to take the limitations of our earthly conditions,\nand especially those attendant upon the strictly contemplative, and,\nstill more, those connected with the technically ecstatic states, as so\nmany advantages, or even as furnishing a complete scheme of the soul\u2019s\nultimate life.\n\nAs we have already repeatedly seen in less final matters, so here once\nmore, at the end, we can trace the sad impoverishment to the spiritual\noutlook produced by the esteem in which the antique world generally\nheld the psycho-physical peculiarities of trances, as directly\nvaluable or even as prophetic of the soul\u2019s ultimate condition; the\ncontraposition and exaltation, already on the part of Plato and\nAristotle, of a supposed non-actively contemplative, above a supposed\nnon-contemplatively active life; the largely excessive, not fully\nChristianizable, doctrines of the Neo-Platonists as to the Negative,\nAbstractive way, when taken as self-sufficient, and as to Quiet,\nPassivity, and Emptiness of Soul, when understood literally; and the\nconception, rarely far away from the ancient thinkers, of the soul as a\nsubstance which, full-grown, fixed and stainless at the first, requires\nbut to be kept free from stain up to the end.\n\nAnd yet the diminution of vitality in the trance, and even the\ninattention to more than one thing at a time in Contemplation, are,\nin themselves, defects, at best the price paid for certain gains; the\nactive and the contemplative life are, ultimately, but two mutually\ncomplementary sides of life, so that no life ever quite succeeds in\neliminating either element, and life, _caeteris paribus_, is complete\nand perfect, in proportion as it embraces both elements, each at\nits fullest, and the two in a perfect interaction; the Negative,\nAbstractive way peremptorily requires also the other, the Affirmative,\nConcrete way; the Quiet, Passivity, Emptiness are really, when\nwholesome, an incubation for, or a rest from, Action, indeed they are\nthemselves a profound action and peace, and the soul is primarily a\nForce and an Energy, and Holiness is a growth of that Energy in Love,\nin full Being, and in creative, spiritual Personality.\n\n(2) Now on this whole matter the European Christian Mystics, strongly\ninfluenced by, yet also largely developing, certain doctrines of the\nGreeks, have, I think, made two most profound contributions to the\ntruths of the spirit, and have seriously fallen short of reality in\nthree respects.\n\nThe first contribution can, indeed, be credited to Aristotle, whose\nluminous formulations concerning Energeia, Action, (as excluding\nMotion, or Activity), we have already referred to. Here to _be_ is\nto _act_, and Energeia, a being\u2019s perfect functioning and fullest\nself-expression in action, is not some kind of movement or process;\nbut, on the contrary, all movement and process is only an imperfect\nkind of Energeia. Man, in his life here, only catches brief glimpses of\nsuch an Action; but God is not so hampered,--He is ever completely all\nthat He can be, His Action is kept up inexhaustibly and ever generates\nsupreme bliss; it is an unchanging, unmoving Energeia.[286]--And St.\nThomas echoes this great doctrine, for all the Christian schoolmen: \u201cA\nthing is declared to be perfect, in proportion as it is in act,\u201d--as\nall its potentialities are expressed in action; and hence \u201cthe First\nPrinciple must be supremely in act,\u201d \u201cGod\u2019s Actuality is identical with\nHis Potentiality,\u201d \u201cGod is Pure Action (_Actus Purus_).\u201d[287]--Yet it\nis doubtless the Christian Mystics who have most fully experienced, and\nemotionally vivified, this great truth, and who cease not, in all their\nmore characteristic teachings, from insisting upon the ever-increasing\nacquisition of \u201cAction,\u201d the fully fruitful, peaceful functioning of\nthe whole soul, at the expense of \u201cactivity,\u201d the restless, sterile\ndistraction and internecine conflict of its powers. And Heaven, for\nthem, ever consists in an unbroken Action, devoid of all \u201cactivity,\u201d\nrendering the soul, in its degree, like to that Purest Action, God,\nwho, Himself \u201cLife,\u201d is, as our Lord declared, \u201cnot the God of the dead\nbut of the living.\u201d[288]\n\nAnd the second contribution can, in part, be traced back to Plato,\nwho does not weary, in the great middle period of his writings, from\ninsisting upon the greatness of the nobler passions, and who already\napprehends a Heavenly Eros which in part conflicts with, in part\ntranscends, the Earthly one. But here especially it is Christianity,\nand in particular Christian Mysticism, which have fully experienced\nand proclaimed that \u201cGod\u201d is \u201cLove,\u201d and that the greatest of all the\nsoul\u2019s acts and virtues is Charity, Pure Love. And hence the Pure\nAct of God, and the Action of the God-like soul, are conceived not,\nAristotle-like, as acts of pure intelligence alone, but as tinged\nthrough and through with a noble emotion.\n\n(3) But in three matters the Mystics, as such and as a whole, have,\nhere especially under the predominant influence of Greek thought,\nremained inadequate to the great spiritual realities, as most fully\nrevealed to us by Christianity. The three points are so closely\ninterconnected that it will be best first to illustrate, and then to\ncriticise them, together.\n\n(i) Aristotle here introduces the mischief. For it is he who in his\ngreat, simply immeasurably influential, theological tractate, Chapters\nVI to X of the Twelfth Book of his _Metaphysic_, has presented to us\nGod as \u201cthe one first unmoved Mover\u201d of the Universe, but Who moves it\nas desired by it, not as desiring it, as outside of it, not as also\ninside it. God here is sheer Pure Thought, No\u0113sis, for \u201ccontemplation\nis the most joyful and the best\u201d of actions. And \u201cThought\u201d here\n\u201cthinks the divinest and worthiest, without change,\u201d hence \u201cIt thinks\nItself, and the Thinking is a Thinking of Thought.\u201d[289] We have here,\nas Dr. Caird strikingly puts it, a God necessarily shut up within\nHimself, \u201cof purer eyes than to behold, not only iniquity but even\ncontingency and finitude, and His whole activity is one act of pure\nself-contemplation.\u201d \u201cThe ideal activity which connects God with the\nworld, appears thus as in the world and not in God.\u201d[290]\n\n(ii) Now we have already allowed that the Mystics avoid Aristotle\u2019s\nelimination of emotion from man\u2019s deepest action, and of emotion\u2019s\nequivalent from the life of God. But they are, for the most part, much\ninfluenced in their speculations by this intensely Greek, aristocratic,\nintellectualist conception, in the three points of a disdain of the\nContingent and Historical; of a superiority to volitional, productive\nenergizing; and of a presentation of God as unsocial, and as occupied\ndirectly with Himself alone. We have already studied numerous examples\nof the first two, deeply un-Christian, errors as they have more or\nless influenced Christian Mysticism; the third mistake, of a purely\nTranscendental, Deistic God, is indeed never consistently maintained\nby any Christian, and Catherine, in particular, is ever dominated by\nthe contrary great doctrine, adumbrated by Plato and fully revealed by\nOur Lord, of the impulse to give Itself intrinsic to Goodness, so that\nGod, as Supreme Goodness, becomes the Supreme Self-giver, and thus the\ndirect example and motive for our own self-donation to Him. Yet even\nso deeply religious a non-Christian as Plotinus, and such speculative\nthinkers as Eriugena and Eckhart (who certainly intended to remain\nChristians) continue all three mistakes, and especially insist upon a\nSupreme Being, Whose true centre, His Godhead, is out of all relation\nto anything but Himself. And even the orthodox Scholastics, and St.\nThomas himself, attempt at times to combine, with the noblest Platonic\nand the deepest Christian teachings, certain elements, which, in\nstrictness, have no place in an Incarnational Religion.\n\n(iii) For, at times, the fullest, deepest Action is still not\nconceived, even by St. Thomas, as a Harmony, an Organization of all\nMan\u2019s essential powers, the more the better. \u201cIn the active life,\nwhich is occupied with many things, there is less of beatitude than\nin the contemplative life, which is busy with one thing alone,--the\ncontemplation of Truth\u201d; \u201cbeatitude must consist essentially in the\naction of the intellect; and only accidentally in the action of the\nwill.\u201d[291] God is still primarily intelligence: \u201cGod\u2019s intelligence\nis His substance\u201d; whereas \u201cvolition must be in God, since there is\nintelligence in Him,\u201d and \u201cLove must of necessity be declared to be\nin God, since there is volition in Him.\u201d[292] God is still, in a\ncertain sense, shut up in Himself: \u201cAs He understands things other\nthan Himself, by understanding His own essence, so He wills things\nother than Himself, by willing His own goodness.\u201d \u201cGod enjoys not\nanything beside Himself, but enjoys Himself alone.\u201d[293]--And we get,\nin correspondence to this absorption of God in Himself, an absorption\nof man in God, of so direct and exclusive a kind, as, if pressed, to\neliminate all serious, permanent value, for our soul, in God\u2019s actual\ncreation of our fellow-creatures. \u201cHe who knoweth Thee and creatures,\nis not, on this account, happier than if he knows them not; but he is\nhappy because of Thee alone.\u201d And \u201cthe perfection of Love is essential\nto beatitude, with respect to the Love of God, not with respect to\nthe Love of one\u2019s neighbour. If there were but one soul alone to\nenjoy God, it would be bless\u00e8d, even though it were without a single\nfellow-creature whom it could love.\u201d[294]\n\n(iv) And yet St. Thomas\u2019s own deeply Christian sense, explicit sayings\nof Our Lord or of St. Paul, and even, in part, certain of the fuller\napprehensions of the Greeks, can make the great Dominican again\nuncertain, or can bring him to entirely satisfactory declarations,\non each of these points. For we get the declaration that direct\nknowledge of individual things, and quasi-creative operativeness are\nessential to all true perfection. \u201cTo understand something merely\nin general and not in particular, is to know it imperfectly\u201d; Our\nLord Himself has taught us that \u201cthe very hairs of your head are all\nnumbered\u201d; hence God must \u201cknow all other individual things with\na distinct and proper knowledge.\u201d--And \u201ca thing is most perfect,\nwhen it can make another like unto itself. But by tending to its\nown perfection, each thing tends to become more and more like God.\nHence everything tends to be like God, in so far as it tends to be\nthe cause of other things.\u201d[295]--We get a full insistence, with St.\nPaul, (in I Cor. xiii), upon our love of God, an act of the will,\nas nobler than our cognition of Him; and with Plato and St. John,\nupon God\u2019s forthgoing Love for His creatures, as the very crown and\nmeasure of His perfection. \u201cEverything in nature has, as regards its\nown good, a certain inclination to diffuse itself amongst others, as\nfar as possible. And this applies, in a supreme degree, to the Divine\nGoodness, from which all perfection is derived.\u201d \u201cLove, Joy, Delight\ncan be predicated of God\u201d; Love which, of its very essence \u201ccauses\nthe lover to bear himself to the beloved as to his own self\u201d: so that\nwe must say with Dionysius that \u201cHe, the very Cause of all things,\nbecomes ecstatic, moves out of Himself, by the abundance of His loving\ngoodness, in the providence exercised by Him towards all things\nextant.\u201d[296]\n\n(v) And we get in St. Thomas, when he is too much dominated by the\nabstractive trend, a most interesting, because logically necessitated\nand quite unconscious, collision with certain sayings of Our Lord. For\nhe then explains Matt. xviii, 10, \u201ctheir,\u201d the children\u2019s, \u201cAngels\nsee without ceasing the face of their Father who is in Heaven\u201d as\nteaching that \u201cthe action (_operatio_), by which Angels are conjoined\nto the increate Good, is, in them, unique and sempiternal\u201d; whereas his\ncommentators are driven to admit that the text, contrariwise, implies\nthat these Angels have two simultaneous \u201coperations,\u201d and that their\nsuccouring action in nowise disturbs their intellectual contemplation.\nHence, even if we press Matt. xxii, 30, that we \u201cshall be as the Angels\nof God,\u201d we still have an organism of peaceful Action, composed of\nintellectual, affective, volitional, productive acts operating between\nthe soul and God, and the soul and other souls, each constituent and\nobject working and attained in and through all the others.\n\n(vi) Indeed all Our Lord\u2019s Synoptic teachings, as to man\u2019s ultimate\nstandard and destiny, belong to this God-in-man and man-in-God type\nof doctrine: for there the two great commandments are strictly\ninseparable; God\u2019s interest in the world is direct and detailed,--it\nis part of His supreme greatness that He cares for every sparrow that\nfalls to the ground; and man, in the Kingdom of God, will sit down\nat a banquet, the unmistakable type of social joys.--And even the\nApocalypse, which has, upon the whole, helped on so much the conception\nof an exclusive, unproductive entrancement of each soul singly in\nGod alone, shows the deepest emotion when picturing all the souls,\nfrom countless tribes and nations, standing before the throne,--an\nemotion which can, surely, not be taken as foreign to those souls\nthemselves.[297] But, indeed, Our Lord\u2019s whole life and message become\nunintelligible, and the Church loses its deepest roots, unless the\nKingdom of God is, for us human souls, as truly a part of our ultimate\ndestiny as is God Himself, that God who fully reveals to us His own\ndeepest nature as the Good Shepherd, the lover of each single sheep and\nof the flock as a whole.[298]\n\n(4) We shall, then, do well to hold that the soul\u2019s ultimate beatitude\nwill consist in its own greatest possible self-realization in its\nGod-likeness,--an Action free from all Activity, but full of a knowing,\nfeeling, willing, receiving, giving, effectuating, all which will\nenergize between God and the soul, and the soul and other souls,--each\nforce and element functioning in its proper place, but each stimulated\nto its fullest expansion, and hence to its deepest delight, by the\ncorresponding vitalization of the other powers and ends, and of other\nsimilar centres of rich action.\n\n\n3. _The pain-element of Bliss._\n\nAnd our third, last question is whether our deepest this-life\napprehensions and experiences give us any reason for holding that a\ncertain equivalent for what is noblest in devoted suffering, heroic\nself-oblivion, patient persistence in lonely willing, will be present\nin the life of the Blessed. It would certainly be a gain could we\ndiscover such an equivalent, for a pure glut of happiness, an unbroken\nstate of sheer enjoyment, can as little be made attractive to our most\nspiritual requirements, as the ideal of an action containing an element\nof, or equivalent for, devoted and fruitful effort and renunciation can\nlose its perennial fascination for what is most Christian within us.\n\n(1) It is not difficult, I take it, to find such an element, which we\ncannot think away from any future condition of the soul without making\nthat soul into God Himself. The ultimate cause of this element shall\nbe considered, as Personality, in our next Chapter: here I can but\nindicate this element at work in our relations to our fellow-men and\nto God.--Already St. Thomas, throughout one current of his teaching,\nis full of the dignity of right individuality. \u201cThe Multitude and\nDiversity of natures in the Universe proceed directly from the\nintention of God, who brought them into being, in order to communicate\nHis goodness to them, and to have It represented by them. And since\nIt could not be sufficiently represented by one creature alone, He\nproduced many and diverse ones, so that what is wanting to the one\ntowards this office, should be supplied by the other.\u201d[299] Hence the\nmultiplication of the Angels, who differ specifically each from all\nthe rest, adds more of nobility and perfection to the Universe, than\ndoes the multiplication of men, who differ only individually.[300] And\nCardinal Nicolas of Coes writes, in 1457 A.D., \u201cEvery man is, as it\nwere, a separate species, because of his perfectibility.\u201d[301] As Prof.\nJosiah Royce tells us in 1901, \u201cWhat is real, is not only a content of\nexperience and the embodiment of a type; but an individual content of\nexperience, and the unique embodiment of a type.\u201d[302]\n\n(2) Now in the future beatitude, where the full development of this\nuniqueness in personality cannot, as so often here, be stunted or\nmisapplied, all this will evidently reach its zenith. But, if so,\nthen it follows that, although one of the two greatest of the joys of\nthose souls will be their love and understanding of each other,--this\nlove and trust, given as it will be to the other souls, in their full,\nunique personality, will, of necessity, exceed the comprehension of\nthe giving personalities. Hence there will still be an equivalent for\nthat trust and venture, that creative faith in the love and devotion\ngiven by us to our fellows, and found by us in them, which are, here\nbelow, the noblest concomitants and conditions of the pain and the\ncost and the joy in every virile love and self-dedication.--There\nis then an element of truth in Lessing\u2019s words of 1773: \u201cThe human\nsoul is incapable of even one unmixed emotion,--one that, down to its\nminutest constituent, would be nothing but pleasurable or nothing but\npainful: let alone of a condition in which it would experience nothing\nbut such unmixed emotions.\u201d--For, as Prof. Troeltsch says finely in\n1903, \u201cEverything historical retains, in spite of all its relation to\nabsolute values, something of irrationality,\u201d--of impenetrableness to\nfinite minds, \u201cand of individuality. Indeed just this mixture is the\nspecial characteristic of the lot and dignity of man; nor is a Beyond\nfor him conceivable in which it would altogether cease. Doubt and\nunrest can indeed give way to clear sight and certitude: yet this very\nclarity and assurance will, in each human soul, still bear a certain\nindividual character,\u201d fully comprehensible to the other souls by love\nland trust alone.[303]\n\n(3) And this same element we find, of course, in a still greater\ndegree,--although, as I shall argue later on, our experimental\nknowledge of God is greater than is our knowledge of our\nfellow-creatures,--in the relations between our love of God and our\nknowledge of Him. St. Thomas tells us most solidly: \u201cIndividual\nBeing applies to God, in so far as it implies Incommunicableness.\u201d\nIndeed, \u201c_Person_ signifies the most perfect thing in nature,\u201d--\u201cthe\nsubsistence of an individual in a rational nature.\u201d \u201cAnd since the\ndignity of the divine nature exceeds every other dignity, this name\nof Person is applicable, in a supreme degree, to God.\u201d And again:\n\u201cGod, as infinite, cannot be held infinitely by anything finite \u201c;\nand hence \u201conly in the sense in which comprehension is opposed to\na seeking after Him, is God comprehended, _i.e._ possessed, by the\nBlessed.\u201d And hence the texts: \u201cI follow, if that I may apprehend,\nseeing that I also am apprehended\u201d (Phil. iii, 12); \u201cthen shall I\nknow even as I am known\u201d (1 Cor. xiii, 12); and \u201cwe shall see Him as\nHe is\u201d (1 John iii, 2): all refer to such a possession of God. In the\nlast text \u201cthe adverb \u2018as\u2019 only signifies \u2018we shall see His essence\u2019\nand not \u2018we shall have as perfect a mode of vision as God has a mode\nof being.\u2019\u201d[304]--Here again, then, we find that souls loving God in\nHis Infinite Individuality, will necessarily love Him beyond their\nintellectual comprehension of Him; the element of devoted trust, of\nfree self-donation to One fully known only through and in such an act,\nwill thus remain to man for ever. St. John of the Cross proclaimed this\ngreat truth: \u201cOne of the greatest favours of God, bestowed transiently\nupon the soul in this life, is its ability to see so distinctly, and\nto feel so profoundly, that \u2026 it cannot comprehend Him at all. These\nsouls are herein, in some degree, like to the souls in heaven, where\nthey who know Him most perfectly perceive most clearly that He is\ninfinitely incomprehensible; for those that have the less clear vision,\ndo not perceive so distinctly as the others how greatly He transcends\ntheir vision.\u201d[305] With this teaching, so consonant with Catherine\u2019s\nexperimental method, and her continuous trust in the persistence of the\ndeepest relations of the soul to God, of the self-identical soul to the\nunchanging God, we can conclude this study of her Eschatology.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\nTHE FIRST THREE ULTIMATE QUESTIONS. THE RELATIONS BETWEEN MORALITY,\nMYSTICISM, PHILOSOPHY, AND RELIGION. MYSTICISM AND THE LIMITS OF HUMAN\nEXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE. MYSTICISM AND THE NATURE OF EVIL\n\n\nI take the ultimate questions involved in the religious positions\nwhich are taken up by Catherine, and indeed by the Christian Mystics\ngenerally, and which we have studied in the preceding two chapters,\nto be four. In the order of their increasing difficulty they are: the\nquestion as to the relations between Morality, Mysticism, Philosophy,\nand Religion; that as to the Limits of Human Knowledge, and as to the\nspecial character and worth of the Mystics\u2019 claim to Trans-subjective\nCognition; that as to the Nature of Evil and the Goodness or Badness\nof Human Nature; and that as to Personality,--the character of, and\nthe relations between, the human spirit and the Divine Spirit. The\nconsideration of these deepest matters in the next two chapters will, I\nhope, in spite of its inevitable element of dimness and of repetition,\ndo much towards binding together and clarifying the convictions which\nwe have been slowly acquiring,--ever, in part, with a reference to\nthese coming ultimate alternatives and choices.\n\n\nI. THE RELATIONS BETWEEN MORALITY AND MYSTICISM PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION.\n\nNow the first of these questions has not, for most of the more\nstrenuous of our educated contemporaries, become, so far again, a\nliving question at all. A morally good and pure, a socially useful and\nactive life,--all this in the sense and with the range attributed to\nthese terms by ordinary parlance: this and this alone is, for doubtless\nthe predominant public present-day consciousness, the true object,\nend, and measure of all healthy religion; whatever is alongside of,\nor beyond, or other than, or anything but a direct and exclusive\nincentive to this, is so much superstition and fanaticism. According to\nthis view, at least one half of Catherine\u2019s activity at all times, and\nwell-nigh the whole of it during her last period, would be practically\nworthless. Thus only certain elements of such a life would be retained\neven for and in religion, and even these would be bereft of all that\nhas hitherto been held to be their specifically religious sense and\nsetting.\n\n\n1. _Kant\u2019s non-mystical religion._\n\nIt is doubtless Kant who, among the philosophers, has been the most\nconsistent and influential in inculcating such non-Mystical Religion.\n\u201cReligion,\u201d he says in 1793, \u201cis, on its subjective side, the cognition\nof all our duties as so many Divine Commandments.\u201d \u201cThe delusion that\nwe can effect something, in view of our justification before God, by\nmeans of acts of religious worship, is religious superstition; and\nthe delusion that we can effect something by attempts at a supposed\nintercourse with God, is religious fanaticism.\u2026 Such a feeling of the\nimmediate presence of the Supreme Being, and such a discrimination\nbetween this feeling and every other, even moral, feeling, would\nimply a capacity for an intuition, which is without any corresponding\norgan in human nature.\u2026 If then a Church doctrine is to abolish or\nto prevent all religious delusion, it must,--over and above its\nstatutory teachings, with which it cannot, for the present, entirely\ndispense,--contain within itself a principle which shall enable it to\nbring about the religion of a pure life, as the true end of the whole\nmovement, and then to dispense with those temporary doctrines.\u201d[306]\n\nIt is deeply instructive to note how thoroughly this, at first sight,\nsolid and triumphant view, has not only continued to be refuted by the\nactual practice and experience of specifically religious souls, but how\nexplicitly it is being discredited by precisely the more delicately\nperceptive, the more truly detached and comprehensive, students and\nphilosophers of religion of the present day,--heirs, let us not forget\nin justice to Kant, of the intervening profound development of the\nhistorical sense, and of the history and psychology of religion.--Thus\nthat most vigorous, independent thinker, Prof. Simmel of Berlin,\nwrites in 1904: \u201cKant has, I think, simply passed by the essentials\nof religion,--that is to say, of that reality which historically bears\nthe name of religion. Only the reflection, that the harmony of complete\nhappiness with complete morality is producible by a Divine Being\nalone, is here supposed to lead us to believe in such a Being. There\nis here a complete absence of that direct laying hold of the Divine\nby our souls, because of our intrinsic needs, which characterizes\nall genuine piety. And the religious sense is not recognized as an\norganism with a unity of its own, as a growth springing from its own\nroot. The entirely specific character of religion, which is resolvable\nneither into morality nor into a thirst after happiness: the direct\nself-surrender of the soul to a higher reality, the giving and taking,\nthe unification and differentiation,--that quite organic unity of the\nreligious experience, which we can but most imperfectly indicate by\na multiplicity of some such, simultaneously valid, antitheses: this,\nthere is no evidence to show, was ever really known to Kant. What\nwas religion for Augustine and Francis of Assisi, he was unable to\nreproduce in himself; indeed religion, of this type, he readily rejects\nas fanaticism. Here lay the limit both of his own nature and of his own\ntimes.\u201d[307]\n\nThe rich mind of Prof. Troeltsch is, perhaps, more entirely just: \u201cAs\nKant\u2019s theory of knowledge is throughout dependent upon the state of\ncontemporary psychology, so also is his theory of religious knowledge\ndependent upon the psychology of religion predominant in his day.\nLocke, Leibniz, Pascal had already recognized the essentially practical\ncharacter of all religion; and since their psychology was unable to\nconceive the \u2018practical\u2019 otherwise than as the moral, it had looked\nupon Religion as Morality furnished forth with its metaphysical\nconcomitants. And as soon as this psychology had become the very\nbackbone of his conception of Religion, Morality gained an entirely\none-sided predominance over Kant\u2019s mind,--considerably, indeed, beyond\nhis own personal feelings and perceptions.\u201d For he remains deeply\npenetrated by \u201cthe conceptions of Regeneration and Redemption; the idea\nof divine Grace and Wisdom, which accepts the totality of a soul\u2019s\ngood disposition in lieu of that soul\u2019s ever defective single good\nworks; the belief in a Providence which strengthens the Good throughout\nthe world against Evil; adoring awe in face of the majesty of the\nSupersensible\u201d: and \u201call these\u201d conceptions \u201care no more simply moral,\nthey are specifically religious thoughts.\u201d[308]\n\nSuch a fuller conception of religion is admirably insisted on by that\npenetrating philosopher and historian of philosophy, Prof. Windelband:\n\u201cActual Religion, in its complete reality, belongs to all the spheres\nof life, and yet transcends them all, as something new and _sui\ngeneris_. It is first an interior life--an apprehending, cognizing,\nfeeling, willing, accomplishing. But this accomplishing leads it on to\nbeing also an exterior life: an acting out, according to their various\nstandards, of such feeling and willing; and an outward expression of\nthat inner life in general, in ritual acts and divine worship. Yet\nthis worship takes it beyond the little circle of the individual, and\nconstitutes the corporate acts of a community, a social, external\norganization with visible institutions. And yet Religion ever claims to\nbe more than the whole series of such empirical facts and doings, it\never transcends mere earthly experience, and is an intercourse with the\ninmost nature and foundation of all reality; it is a life in and with\nGod, a metaphysical life. All these elements belong to the complete\nconcept of actual religion.\u201d[309] I would add, that they each stimulate\nthe other, the external, _e.g._ being not only the expression of the\nawakened internal, but also the occasion of that awakening.\n\nAnd the great Dutch scholar, Prof. C. P. Tiele, unexcelled in the\nknowledge of the actual course taken by the great religions of the\nworld, declares: \u201cAll progress, not only in Morality, but also in\nScience, Philosophy, Art, necessarily exerts an influence upon that\nof Religion. But \u2026 Religion is not, on that account, identical with\nEthics any more than with Philosophy or Art. All these manifestations\nof the human spirit respond to certain needs of man; but none of them,\nnot even Morality, is capable of supplying the want which Religion\nalone can satisfy.\u2026 Religion differs from the other manifestations\nof the human mind\u201d in this, that whereas \u201cin the domain of Art, the\nfeelings and the imagination predominate; in that of Philosophy,\nabstract thought is paramount\u201d; and \u201cthe main object of Science is to\nknow accurately, whilst Ethics are chiefly concerned with the emotions\nand with the fruit they yield: in Religion all these factors operate\nalike, and if their equilibrium be disturbed, a morbid religious\ncondition is the result.\u201d[310]\n\n\n2. _Ritschlian modification of Kant\u2019s view._\n\nIt is deeply interesting to note the particular manner in which Kant\u2019s\nimpoverishment of the concept of religion has been in part retained, in\npart modified, by the Ritschlian school,--I am thinking especially of\nthat vigorous writer, Prof. Wilhelm Hermann.\n\n(1) If in Kant we get the belief in God derived from reflection\nupon Goodness and Happiness, and as the only possible means of\ntheir ultimate coalescence: in Hermann we still get the Categorical\nImperative, but the thirst for Happiness has been replaced by the\nhistoric figure of Jesus Christ. \u201cTwo forces of different kinds,\u201d\nhe says, \u201cever produce the certainty of Faith: the impression of an\nHistoric Figure which approaches us in Time; and the Moral Law which,\nwhen we have heard it, we can understand in its Eternal Truth. Faith\narises, when a man recognizes, in the appearance of Jesus, that symbol\nof his own existence which gives him the courage to recognize in the\nEternal, which claims him in the Moral Imperative, the source of true\nlife for his own self.\u201d[311]--And these two sole co-efficients of\nall entirely living religion are made to exclude, as we have already\nseen, especially all Mysticism from the life of Faith. \u201cTrue, outside\nof Christianity, Mysticism will everywhere arise, as the very flower\nof the religious development. But a Christian is bound to declare the\nmystical experience of God to be a delusion. Once he has experienced\nhis elevation, by Christ alone, above his own previous nature, he\ncannot believe that another man can attain the same result, simply by\nmeans of recollection within his own self.\u2026 We are Christians precisely\nbecause we have struck, in the person of Jesus, upon a fact which is\nincomparably richer in content than the feelings that arise within\nourselves.\u201d \u201cOnly because Christ is present for us can we possess\nGod with complete clearness and certainty.\u201d And, with Luther,--who\nremained, however, thoroughly faithful to the Primitive and Mediaeval\nhigh esteem for the Mystical element of religion;--\u201cright prayer is\na work of faith, and only a Christian can perform it.\u201d And, more\nmoderately: \u201cWe have no desire to penetrate through Christ on to\nGod: for we consider that in God Himself we still find nothing but\nChrist.\u201d[312]\n\n(2) Now it is surely plain that we have here a most understandable,\nindeed respectable, reaction against all empty, sentimental\nSubjectivism, and a virile affirmation of the essential importance\nof the Concrete and Historical. And, in particular, the insistence\nupon the supreme value and irreplaceable character and function of\nChrist is profoundly true.--Yet three counter-considerations have\never to be borne in mind.\n\n(i) It remains certain that we do not know, or experience anything,\nto which we can attribute any fuller reality, which is either purely\nobjective or purely subjective; and that there exists no process of\nknowing or experiencing such a reality which would exclude either the\nobjective or the subjective factor. \u201cWhatever claims to be fully real,\u201d\neither as apprehending subject or as apprehended object, \u201cmust be an\nindividual \u2026 an organic whole, which has its principle of unity in\nitself.\u201d The truly real, then, is a thing that has an inside; and the\nsharp antithesis drawn, although in contrary directions, by Aristotle\nand by Kant, between the Phenomenal and the Intelligible worlds, does\nnot exist in the reality either of our apprehending selves, or of our\napprehended fellow-men, or God.[313]--But Hermann is so haunted by the\nbogey-fear of the subjective resonance within us being necessarily\nuseless towards, indeed obstructive of, the right apprehension\nof the object thus responded to, that he is driven to follow the\nwill-o\u2019-the-wisp ideal of a pure, entirely exclusive objectivity.\n\n(ii) Bent on this will-o\u2019-the-wisp quest of an exclusive objectivity,\nhe has to define all Mysticism in terms of Exclusive Mysticism, and\nthen to reject such an aberration. \u201cWherever the influence of God upon\nthe soul is sought and found solely in an interior experience of the\nindividual soul, in an excitation of the feelings which is supposed\ndirectly to reveal the true nature of this experience, _viz._ in a\nstate of possession by God, and this without anything exterior being\napprehended and held fast with a clear consciousness, without the\npositive content of some mental contemplation setting thoughts in\nmotion and raising the spiritual level of the soul\u2019s life; _there_ is\nMystical Piety.\u201d[314]\n\nNow it is, of course, true that false Mysticism does attempt such an\nimpossible feat as the thing at which Hermann is thus aiming. But, even\nhere, the facts and problems are again misstated. Just now the object\npresented was everything, and the apprehending subject was nothing.\nHere, on the contrary, the apprehension by the subject is pressed to\nthe degree of requiring the soul to remain throughout reflexly aware of\nits own processes.\n\nAlready in 1798 Kant had, in full acceptance of the great distinction\nworked out by Leibniz in the years 1701-1709, but not published till\n1765, declared: \u201cWe can be mediately conscious of an apprehension as to\nwhich we have no direct consciousness\u201d; and \u201cthe field of our obscure\napprehensions,--that is, apprehensions and impressions of which we are\nnot directly conscious, although we can conclude without doubt that we\nhave them,--is immeasurable, whereas clear apprehensions constitute but\na very few points within the complete extent of our mental life.\u201d[315]\nThis great fact psychologists can now describe with greater knowledge\nand precision: yet the observations and analyses of Pierre Janet,\nWilliam James, James Ward and others, concerning Subconsciousness,\nhave but confirmed and deepened the Leibnizian-Kantian apprehensions.\nWithout much dim apprehension, no clear perception; nothing is more\ncertain than this.\n\nAnd it is certain, also, that this absence of reflex consciousness, of\nperceiving that we are apprehending, applies not only to impressions\nof sensible objects, or to apprehensions of realities inferior\nin richness, in interiority, to our own nature, but also, indeed\nespecially, to apprehensions of realities superior, in dignity and\nprofundity of organization, to our own constitution. When engrossed\nin a great landscape of Turner, the Parthenon sculptures, a sonata of\nBeethoven, Dante\u2019s _Paradiso_; or when lost in the contemplation of the\nseemingly endless spaces of the heavens, or of the apparently boundless\ntimes of geology; or when absorbed in the mysterious greatness of\nMind, so incommensurable with matter, and of Personality, so truly\npresupposed in all these appreciations yet so transcendent of even\ntheir collectivity--we are as little occupied with the facts of our\nengrossment, our self-oblivion, our absorption, or with the aim and\nuse of such immensely beneficial self-oblivion, as we are, in our\nordinary, loosely-knit states, occupied with the impression which,\nnevertheless, is being produced upon our senses and mind by some small\ninsect or slight ray of light to which we are not giving our attention,\nor which may be incapable of impressing us sufficiently to be thus\nattended to and clearly perceived.[316] And, as in the case of these\nunder-impressions, so in that of those over-impressions, we can often\njudge, as to their actual occurrence and fruitfulness, only from their\nafter-effects, although this indirect proof will, in each case, be of\nquite peculiar cogency.--All this leaves ample room for that prayer\nof simple quiet, so largely practised by the Saints, and indeed for\nall such states of recollection which, though the soul, on coming\nfrom them, cannot discover definite ideas or picturings to have been\ncontained in them, leave the soul braced to love, work, and suffer\nfor God and man, beyond its previous level. Prof. William James is\ntoo deeply versed a Psychologist not fully to understand the complete\nnormality of such conditions, and the entire satisfactoriness of such\ntests.[317]\n\n(iii) And finally, it is indeed true that God reveals Himself to us,\nat all fully, in Human History alone, and within this history, more\nfully still, in the lives and experiences of the Saints of all the\nstages of religion, and, in a supreme and normative manner, in the life\nand teaching of Jesus Christ; that we have thus a true immanence of\nthe Divine in the Human; and that it is folly to attempt the finding\nor the making of any shorter way to God than that of the closest\ncontact with His own condescensions. Yet such a wisely Historical and\nfully Christian attitude would be imperilled, not secured, by such an\nexcessive Christocentrism, indeed such _Panchristism_, as that of Prof.\nHermann.\n\nWe shall indeed beware of all indifferentist levelling-down of the\nvarious religions of the world. For, as Prof. Robertson Smith, who\nknew so well the chief great religions, most wisely said, \u201cTo say\nthat God speaks to all men alike, and gives the same communication\ndirectly to all without the use of a revealing agency, reduces religion\nto Pure Mysticism. In point of fact it is not true of any man that\nwhat he believes and knows of God, has come to him directly through\nthe voice of nature and conscience.\u201d And he adds: \u201cHistory has not\ntaught us anything in true religion to add to the New Testament. Jesus\nChrist still stands as high above us as He did above His disciples,\nthe perfect Master, the supreme head of the fellowship of all true\nreligion.\u201d[318]\n\nYet we must equally guard against making even Our Lord into so\nexclusive a centre and home of all that is divine, as to cause Him\nto come into an entirely God-forsaken, completely God-forgetting\nworld, a world which did not and could not, in any degree or manner\nwhatsoever, rightly know, love, or serve God at all; and against so\nconceiving the religion, taught and practised by Him, as to deprive it\nof all affinity with, or room for, such admittedly universal forces\nand resultants of the human soul and the religious sense as are dim\napprehension, formless recollection, pictureless emotion, and the\nsense of the Hiddenness and Transcendence of the very God, Who is also\nImmanent and Self-Revealing, in various degrees and ways, in every\nplace and time. Indeed, these two forces: the diffused Religiosity and\nmore or less inchoate religion, readily discoverable, by a generous\ndocility, more or less throughout the world of human souls, and the\nconcentrated spirituality and concrete, thoroughly characteristic\nReligion, which has its culmination, after its ample preludings in the\nHebrew Prophets, in the Divine-Human figure and spirit of Jesus Christ:\nare interdependent, in somewhat the way in which vague, widely spread\nSubconsciousness requires, and is required by, definite, narrowly\nlocalized Consciousness in each human mind. Precisely because there\nhave been and are previous and simultaneous lesser communications\nof, and correspondences with, the one \u201cLight that enlighteneth every\nman that cometh into the world\u201d; because men can and do believe\naccording to various, relatively preliminary, degrees and ways, in God\nand a Providence, in Sin and Contrition, without a knowledge of the\nHistoric Christ (although never without the stimulation of some, often\nworld-forgotten, historic personality, and ever with some real, though\nunconscious approximation to His type of life and teaching), therefore\ncan Christ be the very centre, and sole supreme manifestation and\nmeasure of all this light. Not only can Christ remain supreme, even\nthough Moses and Elijah, Amos and Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel; and\nindeed, in their own other degrees and ways, Plato and Plotinus,\nEpictetus and Marcus Aurelius, Gautama Buddha and Rabbi Akiba be all\nrevered as God-loved and God-loving, as, in various amounts, truly,\nspiritually great: but only thus can His central importance be fully\nrealized.\n\nThere is certainly much in Our Lord\u2019s own attitude, as we have already\nfound, to demand such a view; and Clement of Alexandria, Origen and St.\nJustin Martyr have emphasized it continually. And there is no necessary\nNaturalism here--for the position is entirely compatible with the\nprofoundest belief in the great truth that it is Grace which everywhere\nproduces the various degrees of God-pleasing religion to be found\nscattered throughout the world. Father Tyrrell has admirably said:\n\u201cGod\u2019s salutary workings in man\u2019s heart have always been directed,\nhowever remotely, to the life of Grace and Glory; of \u2018the Order of mere\nnature,\u2019 and its exigencies, we have no experimental knowledge \u2026 In the\npresent order, Theism is but embryonic Christianity, and Christianity\nis but developed Theism: \u2018purely natural\u2019 religion is what might have\nbeen, but never was.\u201d[319]\n\n(3) Now this must suffice as a sketch of the relations between\n(Historical) Religion and Mysticism, and will have shown why I cannot\nbut regret that so accomplished a scholar as Prof. Morice Jastrow\nshould class all and every Mysticism, whether Pure or Mixed, as\nso far forth a religious malady; why I rejoice that so admirably\ncircumspect an investigator as Prof. C. P. Tiele should, (in the\nform of a strenuous insistence upon the apprehension, indeed the\nontological action of, the Infinite, by and within the human spirit,\nas the very soul and mainspring of Religion), so admirably reinforce\nthe fundamental importance of the Mystical apprehensions; why I most\nwarmly endorse Prof. Rauwenhoff\u2019s presentment of Mysticism as, with\nIntellectualism and Moralism, one of the three psychological forms\nof religion, which are each legitimate and necessary, and which each\nrequire the check of the other two, if they are not to degenerate each\ninto some corruption special to the exclusive development of that\nparticular form; and why I cordially applaud the unequalled analysis\nand description by Prof. Eucken of the manner in which \u201cUniversal\nReligion\u201d is at work, as an often obscure yet (in the long run) most\npowerful leaven, throughout all specifically human life,--Sciences,\nArt, Philosophy, and Ethics, calling for, and alone satisfied with, the\nanswering force and articulation of \u201cCharacteristic Religion,\u201d each\nrequiring and required by the other, each already containing the other\nin embryo, and both ever operating together, in proportion as Man and\nReligion attain to their fulness.[320]\n\n\n3. _Hermann\u2019s impossible simplification concerning philosophy._\n\nBut what shall we say as to the relations between Religion and\nPhilosophy? Here again Hermann is the vigorous champion of a very\nprevalent and plausible simplification. \u201cThere exists no Theory of\nKnowledge for such things as we hold to be real in the strength of\nfaith. In such religious affirmations, the believer demolishes every\nbridge between his conviction and that which Science can recognize as\nreal.\u201d Indeed Hermann\u2019s attitude is here throughout identical with that\nof his master, Albrecht Ritschl: Metaphysics of any and every kind\nappear everywhere, to both writers, as essentially unnecessary, unreal,\nmisleading, as so much inflation and delusion of soul.--Yet this again\nis quite demonstrably excessive, and can indeed be explained only as an\nall but inevitable recoil from the contrary metaphysical excesses of\nthe Hegelian school.\n\n(1) Since the culmination of that reaction, \u201cit has,\u201d as Prof. H.\nJ. Holtzmann, himself so profoundly historical and so free from\nall extreme metaphysical bent, tells us, \u201cbecome quite impossible\nany further to deny the metaphysical factors which had a share in\nconstituting such types of New Testament doctrine as the Pauline and\nJoannine. Indeed, not even if we were to reduce the New Testament to\nthe Synoptic Gospels and the Acts on the one hand, and to the Pastoral\nEpistles, the Epistle of James and the Apocalypse on the other hand,\nwould the elements which spring from speculative sources be entirely\neliminated. And since, again, the Old Testament religion, in its last\nstage, assimilated similarly metaphysical materials from the East\nand from the West; since Mohammedanism, in its Persian and Indian\nbranches, did the same with regard to the older civilized religions of\nMiddle and Eastern Asia; since also these latter religions received\na speculative articulation in even the most ancient times, so that\nthey are both Philosophy and Religion simultaneously: we are forced\nto ask ourselves, whether so frequent a concomitant of religion is\nsatisfactorily explicable as a mere symptom of falsification or decay.\u201d\nAnd whilst answering that the primary organ for religion is Feeling\nand Conscience, he points out how large an amount of Speculation was,\nnevertheless, required and exercised by a St. Augustine, even after his\nunforgettable experiences of the sufferings attendant upon Sin, and of\ntheir cure by Grace alone.[321]\n\n(2) The fact is that, if man cannot apprehend the objects,--the\nhistoric and other facts,--of Religion, without certain subjective\norgans, dispositions, and effects, any more than can all these\nsubjective capacities, without those objects, produce religious\nconvictions and acts, or be waked up into becoming efficient forces:\nneither can man thus experience and effect the deepest foundations and\ndevelopments of his own true personality in and through contact with\nthe divine Spirit, without being more or less stimulated into some\nkind of, at least rudimentary, Philosophy as to these his profoundest\nexperiences of reality, and as to their rights and duties towards the\nrest of what he is and knows.\n\n(3) Indeed his very Religion is already, in itself, the profoundest\nMetaphysical Affirmation. As the deeply historical-minded Prof. Tiele\nadmits: \u201cEvery man in his sound senses, who does not lead the life of\na half-dormant animal, philosophizes in his own way\u201d; and \u201creligious\ndoctrine rests on a metaphysical foundation; unless convinced of the\nreality of a supersensual world, it builds upon sand.\u201d[322] Or as Prof.\nEucken, the most eloquent champion of this central characteristic\nof all vital religion, exclaims: \u201cIf we never, as a matter of fact,\nget beyond merely subjective psychological processes, and we can\nnowhere trace within us the action of cosmic forces; if we in no case\nexperience through them an enlargement, elevation, and transformation\nof our nature: then not all the endeavours of its well-meaning friends\ncan preserve religion from sinking to the level of a mere illusion.\nWithout a universal and real principle, without hyper-empirical\nprocesses, there can be no permanence for religion.\u201d[323]\n\n(4) Some kind of philosophy, then, will inevitably accompany, follow,\nand stimulate religion, were it only as the, necessarily ever\ninadequate, attempt at giving a fitting expression to the essentially\nmetaphysical character of belief in a super-sensible world, in God, in\nman\u2019s spiritual capacities and in God\u2019s redemption of man. Not because\nthe patient analysis of the completer human personalities, (as these\nare to be found throughout the length and breadth of history), requires\nthe elimination of a wholesome Mysticism and a sober Metaphysic from\namong the elements and effects of the fullest Manhood and Religion; but\nbecause of the ever serious difficulties and the liability to grave\nabuses attendant upon both these forces, the inevitably excessive\nreactions against these abuses, and the recurrent necessity of\nremodelling much of the theory and practice of both, in accordance with\nthe growth of our knowledge of the human mind, (a necessity which, at\nfirst sight, seems to stultify all the hyper-empirical claims of both\nthese forces): only because of this have many men of sense and goodness\ncome to speak as though religion, even at its fullest, could and should\nget on without either, contenting itself to be a somewhat sentimental,\nImmanental Ethics.\n\n(5) Yet, against such misgivings, perhaps the most immediately\nimpressive counter-argument is the procession, so largely made up\nof men and of movements not usually reckoned as exclusively or\ndirectly religious, whose very greatness,--one which humanity will\nnot let die,--is closely interwoven with Mystical and Metaphysical\naffirmations. There are, among philosophers, a Spinoza and a Leibniz,\na Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer, a Trendelenburg and a Lotze, with the\nlater stages of a John Mill, a Littr\u00e9, and a Herbert Spencer; among\npoets, a Pindar and Aeschylus, a Lucretius and Vergil, a Lessing and a\nGoethe, a Wordsworth and a Browning; among historians, a Thucydides and\na Tacitus, a St. Simon and de Tocqueville, a Carlyle, a Jacob Grimm,\na Droysen and a Ranke; among scientists, a Copernicus and a Kepler, a\nNewton, a Lyell, indeed, largely still, also a Darwin; and among men of\naction, a Moltke and a Gordon, a Burke and a von Stein. Shear any of\nthese men of their Mystical and Metaphysical elements, and you will\nhave shorn Samson of his locks.\n\nAnd if we can frame a contrary list of men of force and distinction,\nwho have represented an un- or even an anti-Mystical and\nanti-Metaphysical type: Caesar and Hannibal, Napoleon and Bismarck,\nVoltaire and Laplace, Hume and Bentham, Huxley and Mommsen, we must\never remember the complex truth as to the Polarity of Life,--the strict\nnecessity of the movement towards an intensely close contact with\nempirical reality, as well as of the movement back to recollection;\nthe frequent sickliness of the recollective movement, as found in the\naverage practice of life, which cannot but produce a reaction and\ncontrary excess; and hence the legitimacy of what this second type\nhas got of positiveness and of corrective criticism. Yet here too the\ngreatness will consist directly in what these men are and have, not\nin what they are not; and wherever this their brutal-seeming sense of\nthe apparent brutalities of life is combined with an apprehension of a\nhigher world and of a deeper reality, _there_ something fuller and more\ntrue has been attained than is reached by such strong but incomplete\nhumanity alone.\n\n\n4. _Religion and Morality, their kinship and difference._\n\nAnd, finally, as to Religion and Morality, we should note how that the\nmen, who deny all essential connection between Religion and Mysticism\nand Religion and Philosophy, ever, when they do retain Religion at\nall, tend to identify it with Morality, if not as to the motives, yet\nas to the contents of the two forces. And yet it is not difficult to\nshow that, if the relation between Religion and Morality is closer than\nthat between Religion and Philosophy, though not as intimate as is that\nbetween Historical-Institutional Religion and Mysticism: Religion and\nMorality are nevertheless not identical.\n\n(1) This non-identity is indicated by the broad historical fact that,\nthough the development of Religion tells upon that of Morality, and\n_vice versa_: yet that the rate of development of these two forces is\npractically never the same, even in one and the same soul, still less\nin any one country or race. In each case we get various inequalities\nbetween the two developments, which would be impossible, were the two\nforces different only in name.\n\nWe reach again the same conclusion, if we note, what Dr. Edward Caird\nhas so well pointed out, \u201cthe imperfection of the subjective religion\nof the prophets and psalmists of Israel,\u201d--who nevertheless already\npossessed a very advanced type of profoundly ethical religion,--\u201cshown\nby its inability to overcome the legal and ceremonial system of\nworship to which it was opposed\u201d; as, \u201cin like manner, Protestantism\n\u2026 has never been able decisively to conquer the system of Rome.\u201d[324]\nFor this, as indeed the failure of Buddhism to absorb and supersede\nHindooism, evidently implies that Religion cannot find its full\ndevelopment and equilibrium in an exclusive concentration upon Morality\nProper, as alone essential; and hence that complete Religion embraces\nother things besides Morality.\n\nOnce more we find non-identity between the very Ethics directly\npostulated by Religion at its deepest, and the Ethics immediately\nrequired by the Family, Society, the State, Art, Science, and\nPhilosophy. As Prof. Troeltsch admirably puts it, \u201cthe special\ncharacteristic of our modern consciousness resides in the insistence\nboth upon the Religious, the That-world Ends, _and_ upon the Cultural,\nThis-World Ends, which latter are taken as Ends-in-themselves: it\nis precisely in this combination that this consciousness finds its\nrichness, power, and freedom, but also its painful interior tension\nand its difficult problems.\u201d \u201cAs in Christian Ethics we must recognize\nthe predominance of an Objective Religious End,--for here certain\nrelations of the soul to God are the chief commandments and the supreme\ngood,--so in the Cultural Ends we should frankly recognize objective\nMoral Ends of an Immanental kind.\u201d And in seeking after the right\nrelations between the two, we shall have to conclude that \u201cEthics, for\nus, are not, at first, a unity but a multiplicity: man grows up amongst\na number of moral ends, the unification of which is his life\u2019s task and\nproblem, and not its starting-point.\u201d And this multiplicity \u201cis\u201d more\nprecisely \u201ca polarity in human nature, for it contains two poles--that\nof Religious and that of Humane Ethics, neither of which can be ignored\nwithout moral damage, but which, nevertheless, cannot be brought under\na common formula.\u201d \u201cWe can but keep a sufficient space open for the\naction of both forms, so that from their interaction there may ever\nresult, with the least possible difficulty, the deepening of the Humane\nEnds by the Christian Ethics, and the humanizing of the Christian End\nby the Humane Ethics, so that life may become a service of God within\nthe Cultural Ends, and that the service of God may transfigure the\nworld.\u201d[325]\n\nWe can perceive the difference between the two forces most clearly\nin Our Lord\u2019s life and teaching--say, the Sermon on the Mount; in\nthe intolerableness of every exegesis which attempts to reduce the\nultimate meaning and worth of this world-renewing religious document to\nwhat it has of literal applicability in the field of morality proper.\nSchopenhauer expressed a profound intuition in the words: \u201cIt would be\na most unworthy manner of speech to declare the sublime Founder of the\nChristian Religion, whose life is proposed to us as the model of all\nvirtue, to have been the most reasonable of men, and that his maxims\ncontained but the best instruction towards an entirely reasonable\nlife.\u201d[326]\n\n(2) The fact is that Religion ever insists, even where it but seems\nto be teaching certain moral rules and motives as appropriate to this\nvisible world of ours, upon presenting them in the setting of a fuller,\ndeeper world than that immediately required as the field of action and\nas the justification of ordinary morality. Thus whilst, in Morality\nProper, the concepts of Responsibility, Prudence, Merit, Reward,\nIrretrievableness, are necessarily primary; in Religious Ethics the\nideas of Trust, Grace, Heroism, Love, Free Pardon, Spiritual Renovation\nare, as necessarily, supreme. And hence it is not accidental, although\nof course not necessary, that we often find men with a keen religious\nsense but with a defective moral practice or even conception, and men\nwith a strong moral sense and a want of religious perception; that\nMystics, with their keen sense for one element of religion, so often\nseem, and sometimes are, careless of morality proper; and that, in such\nrecent cases (deeply instructive in their very aberrations) as that of\nNietzsche, we get a fierce anti-Moralism combined with a thirst for\na higher and deeper world than this visible one, which not all its\nfantastic form, nor even all Nietzsche\u2019s later rant against concrete\nreligion, can prevent from being essentially religious.[327]\n\n(3) We have then, here, the deepest instance of the law and\nnecessity which we have, so often, found at the shallower levels of\nthe spirit\u2019s life. For here, once more, there is one apprehension,\nforce, life,--This-world Morality,--which requires penetration and\ndevelopment, in nowise destruction, by another, a deeper power,\nThat-world Ethics and Religion. Let the one weaken or blunt the edge\nand impact of the other, and it has, at the same time, weakened itself.\nFor here again we have, not a Thing which simply exists, by persistence\nin its dull unpenetratingness and dead impenetrability, but a Life,\ngrowing by the incorporation and organization, within its ampler range,\nof lesser lives, each with its own legitimate autonomy.\n\n\nII. MYSTICISM AND THE LIMITS OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE.\n\nBut have not even the most sober-minded of the Partial Mystics greatly\nexceeded the limits of human knowledge, more or less continuously,\nthroughout their conclusions? Is Kant completely in the wrong? And are\nnot the Positivists right in restricting all certain cognition to the\nexperiences of the senses and to the Mathematico-Physical Sciences\nbuilt upon those experiences? And, again, is there such a thing at all\nas specifically Mystical Experience or Knowledge? And, if so, what is\nits worth?--I must keep the elaboration of the (ultimately connected)\nquestion, as to the nature of the realities experienced or known--as\nto the human spirit and the Divine Spirit, and their inter-relations,\nhence as to Pantheism and Personality--for the next chapter, and can\nhere but prepare the ground for it, by the elucidation of certain\nimportant points in general Epistemology, and of the more obvious\ncharacteristics of Mystical apprehension.\n\n\n1. _Positivist Epistemology an error._\n\nAs regards general Epistemology, we may well take up the following\npositions.\n\n(1) We cannot but reject, with Prof. Volkelt, as a mere vulgar error,\nthe Positivist limitation of trans-subjectively valid knowledge to\ndirect sense-perception and to the laws of the so-called Empirical\nSciences. For, as he shows conclusively, the only fact which is\nabsolutely indubitable, is that of the bare occurrence of our (possibly\nutterly misleading) sensations and impressions. Some of these are, it\nis true, accompanied by a certain pressure upon our minds to credit\nthem with trans-subjective validity; and the fact of this (possibly\nquite misleading) pressure is itself part of our undeniable experience.\nYet we can, if we will, treat this pressure also as no more than a\nmeaningless occurrence, and not as evidencing the trans-subjective\nreality which it seems to indicate. No man, it is true, has ever\nsucceeded in consistently carrying out such a refusal of assent,--since\nno scepticism is so thorough but that it derives its very power,\nagainst the trans-subjective validity of some of the impressions\nfurnished with trans-subjective pressure, from an utterly inconsistent\nacceptance, as trans-subjectively valid, of other impressions furnished\nwith a precisely similar trans-subjective intimation. Yet the fact\nremains that, in all such cases of trans-subjective pressure, the\nmind has \u201can immediate experience of which the content is precisely\nthis, that we are justified in proceeding with these concepts into\nwhat is absolutely beyond the possibility of being experienced by\nus.\u201d \u201cPositivistic Cognition,\u201d to which no man, Positivist included,\ncan systematically restrict himself, \u201cabides absolutely within the\nimmediately experienced. Logical Cognition,\u201d which every man practises\nsurreptitiously if not avowedly, \u201cexceeds experience at every step,\nand conceptually determines what is absolutely incapable of being\nexperienced, yet the justification for this kind of cognition is, here\nalso, an immediately experienced certitude.\u201d[328]\n\nWe have, \u201cthen, immediately experienced presentations which of\nthemselves already constitute a knowledge,--our first knowledge,\nand the only one possessed of absolute indubitableness.\u201d And some\nof these presentations \u201care accompanied by a kind of immediate\ncertainty or revelation that, in some way, they reach right into the\nThing-in-Itself, that they directly express something objectively\nvalid, present in that Thing-in-Itself\u201d; and \u201cthis pressure ever\ninvolves, should the contradictory of what it enunciates be admitted as\nobjectively existent, the self-destruction of objective reality.\u201d--\u201cAnd\nthis pressure can, in any one case, be resisted by the mind; an act of\nendorsement, of a kind of faith, is necessary on the part of the mind:\nfor these presentations, furnished with such pressure, do not transform\nthemselves into the Things-in-Themselves directly,--we do not come to\nsee objective reality simply face to face.\u201d[329] And we find thus that\n\u201c_in principle_ the entire range of reality, right down to its last\ndepths, lies open to cognition, proceeding according to the principle\nof the necessities of thought. For he who recognizes this principle,\nthereby admits that the necessities of thought have trans-subjective\nsignificance, so that, if any affirmation concerning the ultimate\nreasons and depths of Reality can be shown to be necessary in thought,\nthis affirmation possesses as rightful a claim to trans-subjective\nvalidity, as any determination, necessary in thought, which concern\nonly such parts of the Thing-in-Itself as are the nearest neighbours to\nour sense-impressions concerning it. Everywhere our principle leaves us\nonly the question whether thought, as a matter of fact, does or does\nnot react, under the given problems, with the said logical constraint\nand pressure.\u201d[330]\n\n(2) We can next insist upon how we have thus already found that the\nacquisition of even so rudimentary an outline of Reality, as to be\never in part presupposed in the attacks of the most radical sceptics,\nnecessarily involves a certain emotive disposition and volitional\naction. And, over and above this partially withholdable assent, such\nquite elementary thinking will also ever require the concomitant\nenergizing of the picturing faculty. And again, the more interior and\nspiritual are this thinking\u2019s subject-matters, the more will it be\npermeated by, and be inseparable from, deep feeling. It is then all\nman\u2019s faculties conjoined, it is the whole man, who normally thus\ngives, without reflecting on it, his all, to gain even this elementary\nnucleus of certainty as to Reality. \u201cEven receptivity,\u201d as Prof. Ward\nwell says, \u201cis activity\u201d; for even where non-voluntary, it is never\nindifferent. \u201cNot mere receptivity, but conative or selective activity,\nis the essence of subjective reality.\u201d Or, with Prof. Volkelt: \u201cPurely\nisolated thought,\u201d--which, in actual life ever more or less of a\nfiction, is not rarely set up by individuals as an ideal,--\u201cis, however\nintensified and interiorized, something ever only formal, something, in\nthe final resort, insignificant and shadowy.\u201d--And, concurrently with\nthe recognition of this fact, man will come to find that \u201cthe ultimate\nSubstance or Power of and in the world,\u201d--that objective reality which\nis the essential counterpart to his own subjective reality,--\u201cis\nsomething possessed of a true, deep content and of a positive aim,\nand alive according to the analogy of a willing individual. The\nworld would thus be a Logical Process only in the sense that this\nconcrete fundamental Power is bound by the ideal necessity of its own\nnature.\u201d[331]\n\n(3) And again, I would note with Volkelt how Kant, owing to his\nnotoriously intense natural tendency to universal Dualism, never\nadmits, even as a point for preliminary settlement, the possibility\nthat our subjective conceptions of Objective Reality may have some true\nrelation to that Reality. His professed ignorance as to the nature\nof that Reality changes instantaneously, quite unbeknown to himself,\ninto an absolutely unvarying, negative knowledge concerning that\nReality,--he simply _knows_ that it is _utterly heterogeneous_ to our\nconception of it. Thus he finds the view that \u201cGod has implanted into\nthe human mind certain categories and concepts of a kind spontaneously\nto harmonize with things,\u201d to be \u201cthe most preposterous solution that\nwe could possibly choose.\u201d[332] Thus the epistemological difference\nbetween Presentation and Thing-in-Itself becomes a metaphysical\nexclusion of each by the other. And yet we know of no fact, whether\nof experience or of thought, to prevent something which is _my_\npresentation existing also, in so far as it is the content of that\npresentation, outside of this presentment. Indeed Psychology and\nEpistemology have, driven by every reason and stopped by none, more and\nmore denied and refuted this excessive, indeed gratuitous, Dualism.\n\nAs Prof. Henry Jones well puts it: \u201cThe hypothesis that knowledge\nconsists of two elements which are so radically different as to be\ncapable of description only by defining each negatively in terms of\nthe other, the pure manifold or differences of sense, and a purely\nuniversal or relative thought,\u201d breaks down under the fact that \u201cpure\nthought and the manifold of sense pass into each other, the one proving\nmeaningless and the other helpless in its isolation.\u201d These elements\n\u201care only aspects of one fact, co-relates mutually penetrating each\nother, distinguishable in thought, but not separable as existences.\u201d\nHence we must not \u201cmake logical remnants do the work of an intelligence\nwhich is never purely formal, upon a material which is nowhere a pure\nmanifold\u201d: for \u201cthe difference between the primary data of thought\non the one hand, and the highest kinds of systematized knowledge on\nthe other, is no difference \u2026 between a mere particular and a mere\nuniversal, or a mere content and a mere form; but it is a difference\nin comprehensiveness of articulation.\u201d However primary may be the\ndistinction of subjective and objective, \u201cwe are not entitled to\nforget the unity of the reality in which the distinction takes place.\u201d\nIf we begin with the purely subjective, we must doubtless end there;\nbut then, in spite of certain, never self-consistent, philosophical\nhypotheses, \u201cthe purely subjective is as completely beyond our reach as\nthe purely objective.\u201d[333]\n\nProf. Ward indeed pushes the matter, I think rightly, even a step\nfurther. He points out how readily, owing to the ambiguous term\n\u201cconsciousness,\u201d \u201cwe confound experience with knowledge\u201d; but holds\nthat experience is the wider term. \u201cKnowledge must fall within\nexperience, and experience extend beyond knowledge. Thus I am not\nleft to infer my own being from my knowing.\u2026 Objective reality is\nimmediately \u2018given,\u2019 or immediately \u2018there,\u2019 not inferred.\u201d But the\nsubjective reality is not immediately given, immediately there.\n\u201cThere is no such parallelism between the two.\u2026 The subjective factor\nin experience is not _datum_ but _recipiens_: it is not \u2018there\u2019 but\n\u2018here\u2019; a \u2018here\u2019 relative to that \u2018there.\u2019\u201d[334] Nothing of this,\nI think, really conflicts with the positions we have adopted from\nVolkelt, since \u201cexperience\u201d is evidently used here in a sense inclusive\nof the presentations, the trans-subjective pressure and the endorsement\nof the latter\u2019s estimations,--the three elements which, according also\nto Volkelt, form an organism which even the most daring subjectivism\ncan never consistently reject. At most, the term \u201cexperience\u201d is more\nextended in Prof. Ward, since it includes all three elements, than in\nProf. Volkelt, who restricts it to the two first.\n\n(4) And further, we must take care to find room for the only unforced\nexplanation of the wondrous fact that \u201calthough,\u201d as Dr. Volkelt\nstrikingly says, \u201cthe various schools of philosophy \u201c--this is largely\ntrue of those of theology also,--are \u201cin part essentially determined\nby historical currents, forces which follow other standards than\nthose of logical necessity\u201d: yet \u201cthese points of view and modes\nof thought, thus determined by\u201d apparently non-logical \u201chistory,\nsubserve nevertheless logical necessity, indeed represent its\u201d slow,\nintermittent, yet real \u201cprogressive realization.\u201d The explanation is\nthat \u201cthe forces of history are, unbeknown to themselves, planned,\nin their depths, for agreement with the necessities and ends of\nthought and of truth.\u201d \u201cAnd thus the different spheres\u201d and levels\n\u201cof spiritual life and endeavour appear as originally intended for\neach other, so that each sphere, whilst consciously striving only\nafter its own particular laws and standards, in reality furthers\nthe objects of the rest.\u201d For \u201conly the operative presence of such\nan original, teleological inter-relation can explain how historic\nforces, by their influence upon, and determination of, philosophical\nthinking, can, instead of staining and spoiling it by the introduction\nof religious, artistic, political, and other motives, actually\nadvance it most essentially.\u201d[335]--Here then we get a still further\nenlargement of the already wide range of interaction, within the human\nmind, between forces which, at first sight, appear simply external\nto, indeed destructive of, each other; and a corresponding increase\nin the indications of the immense breadth, depth, and closeness\nof inter-penetration characterizing the operative ground-plan,\nthe pre-existing Harmony and Teleology of the fundamental forces\nof Reality. Thus once more man\u2019s spirit appears as possessed of a\nlarge interiority; and as met, supported and penetrated, by a Spirit\nstupendously rich in spiritual energy.\n\n(5) And finally, let us never forget that \u201cthe only experience\nimmediately accessible to us\u201d men, \u201cis our own; this, in spite of\nits complexity, is the first we know.\u201d[336] And this means that we\nhave direct experience and anything like adequate knowledge, (because\nknowledge from within,) not of things, but of mind and will, of\nspiritual life struggling within an animal life; and that in face,\nsay, of plant-life, and still more of a pebble or of a star, we have a\ndifficulty as to an at all appropriate and penetrative apprehension,\nwhich, if opposite to, is also in a sense greater than, the difficulty\ninherent to our apprehension of God Himself. For towards this latter\napprehension we have got the convergent testimony of certain great,\nnever quite obliterable facts without us and within ourselves.\n\nThere is the upward trend, the ever-increased complexity of\norganization, the growing depth and interiority in the animate\nworld,--Plant-Life itself being already, very probably, possessed of a\nvague consciousness, and Man, at the other end of the scale, summing up\nthe tendency of the whole series in a deep self-consciousness which, at\nthe same time, makes him alone keenly aware of the great difference,\nin the midst of the true kinship, between himself and the humbler\nmembers of that one world. For Natural Selection can but describe the\nresults and explain part of the method of this upward trend, but cannot\npenetrate to its ultimate cause and end.\n\nThere is, again, the great, deep fact of the mutually necessary,\nmutually stimulating presence and interaction, within our own mental\nand spiritual life, of sense-impressions, imaginative picturings,\nrational categories, emotional activities, and volitional acts;\nand, again, of subject and object; and, once more, of general,\nphilosophic Thought and the contingencies of History. For the\nimmanental inter-adaptation and Teleology, that mysteriously link\ntogether all these, profoundly disparate-seeming, realms and forces\nis far too deep-down, it too much surprises, and exacts too much of\nus, it too much reveals itself, precisely at the end of much labour\nof our own and in our truest and most balanced moods, as the mostly\nunarticulated presupposition and explanation of both the great cost\nand the rich fruitfulness of every approximately complete actuation of\nall our faculties, each with and in the others, and in and with their\nappropriate objects, to be permanently ruled out of court as mere\nsentimentalism or baseless apologetic.\n\nAnd there is the deepest fact of all, the one which precisely\nconstitutes the specific characteristic of all true humanity, the sense\nof mental oppression, of intolerable imprisonment inflicted by the\nvery idea of the merely contingent, the simply phenomenal and Finite,\nand the accompanying noble restlessness and ready dwarfing of all\nman\u2019s best achievements by the agent\u2019s own Ideal of Perfection. For\nthis latter sense is, precisely in the greater souls, so spontaneous\nand so keen, so immensely operative in never leaving our, otherwise\nindolent and readily self-delusive, self-complacent race fully and\nlong satisfied with anything that passes entirely away, or that\nis admittedly merely a subjective fancy, even though this fancy be\nshared by every member of the human race; and this sense operates so\nexplosively within Sceptics as well as Dogmatists, within would-be\nAgnostic Scientists as well as in the most Intellectualist Theologians;\nit so humbles, startles, and alone so braces, sweetens, widens, indeed\nconstitutes our humanity: as to be unforcedly explicable only by\nadmitting that man\u2019s spirit\u2019s experience is not shut up within man\u2019s\nown clear analysis or picturing of it; that it is indefinitely wider,\nand somehow, in its deepest reaches, is directly touched, affected, in\npart determined, by the Infinite Spirit Itself. \u201cMan never knows how\nanthropomorphic he is,\u201d says Goethe. Yes, but it was a man, Goethe,\nit is at bottom all men, in proportion as they are fully, sensitively\nsuch, who have somehow discovered this truth; who suffer from its\ncontinuous evidences, as spontaneously as from the toothache or from\ninsomnia; and whose deepest moments give them a vivid sense of how\nimmensely the Spirit, thus directly experienced by their spirit,\ntranscends, and yet also is required by and is immanent in, their keen\nsense of the Finitude and Contingency present throughout the world of\nsense-perception and of clear intellectual formulation.\n\n(6) With Plato and Plotinus, Clement of Alexandria and St. Augustine,\nSt. Bernard, Cardinal Nicolas of Coes and Leibniz in the past; with\nCardinal Newman, Professors Maurice Blondel and Henri Bergson,\nSiegwart, Eucken, Troeltsch and Tiele, Igino Petrone and Edward Caird,\nin the present; with the explicit assent of practically all the great\nMystics of all ages and countries, and the implicit instinct, and at\nleast partial, practical admission, of all sane and developed human\nsouls; we will then have to postulate here, not merely an intellectual\nreasoning upon finite data, which would somehow result in so operative\na sense of the Infinite; nor even simply a mental category of\nInfinitude which, evoked in man by and together with the apprehension\nof things finite, would, somehow, have so massive, so explosive an\neffect against our finding satisfaction in the other categories,\ncategories which, after all, would not be more subjective, than itself:\nbut the ontological presence of, and the operative penetration by\nthe Infinite Spirit, within the human spirit. This Spirit\u2019s presence\nwould produce, on occasion of man\u2019s apprehension or volition of things\ncontingent and finite, the keen sense of disappointment, of contrast\nwith the Simultaneous, Abiding, and Infinite.--And let the reader note\nthat this is not Ontologism, for we here neither deduce our other ideas\nfrom the idea of God, nor do we argue from ideas and their clarity, but\nfrom living forces and their operativeness.\n\nWe thus get man\u2019s spirit placed within a world of varying degrees of\ndepth and interiority, the different levels and kinds of which are\nnecessary, as so many materials, stimulants, obstacles, and objects,\nfor the development of that spirit\u2019s various capacities, which\nthemselves again interact the one upon the other, and react upon\nand within that world. For if man\u2019s experience of God is not a mere\ndiscursively reasoned conclusion from the data of sense, yet man\u2019s\nspirit experiences the Divine Spirit and the spirits of his fellow-men\non occasion of, and as a kind of contrast, background, and support\nto, the actuation of his senses, imagination, reason, feeling, and\nvolition, and, at least at first and in the long run, not otherwise.\n\n\n2. _No distinct faculty of Mystical apprehension._\n\nIs there, then, strictly speaking, such a thing as a specifically\ndistinct, self-sufficing, purely Mystical mode of apprehending Reality?\nI take it, _distinctly not_; and that all the errors of the Exclusive\nMystic proceed precisely from the contention that Mysticism does\nconstitute such an entirely separate, completely self-supported kind of\nhuman experience.--This denial does not, of course, mean that soul does\nnot differ quite indefinitely from soul, in the amount and kind of the\nrecollective, intuitive, deeply emotive element possessed and exercised\nby it concurrently or alternately with other elements,--the sense of\nthe Infinite within and without the Finite springing up in the soul on\noccasion of its contact with the Contingent; nor, again, that these\nmore or less congenital differences and vocations amongst souls cannot\nand are not still further developed by grace and heroism into types of\nreligious apprehension and life, so strikingly divergent, as, at first\nsight, to seem hardly even supplementary the one to the other. But it\nmeans that, in even the most purely contingent-seeming soul, and in its\napparently but Institutional and Historical assents and acts, there\never is, there never can fail to be, _some_, however implicit, however\nslight, however intermittent, sense and experience of the Infinite,\nevidenced by at least some dissatisfaction with the Finite, except as\nthis Finitude is an occasion for growth in, and a part-expression of,\nthat Infinite, our true home. And, again, it means, that even the most\nexclusively mystical-seeming soul ever depends, for the fulness and\nhealthiness of even the most purely mystical of its acts and states,\nas really upon its past and present contacts with the Contingent,\nTemporal, and Spacial, and with social facts and elements, as upon its\nmovement of concentration, and the sense and experience, evoked on\noccasion of those contacts or of their memories, of the Infinite within\nand around those finitudes and itself.\n\nOnly thus does Mysticism attain to its true, full dignity, which\nconsists precisely in being, not everything in any one soul, but\nsomething in every soul of man; and in presenting, at its fullest, the\namplest development, among certain special natures with the help of\ncertain special graces and heroisms, of what, in some degree and form,\nis present in every truly human soul, and in such a soul\u2019s every, at\nall genuine and complete, grace-stimulated religious act and state.\nAnd only thus does it, as Partial Mysticism, retain all the strength\nand escape the weaknesses and dangers of would-be Pure Mysticism, as\nregards the mode and character of Religious Experience, Knowledge, and\nLife.\n\n\n3. _The first four pairs of weaknesses and strengths special to the\nMystics._\n\nI take the Mystic\u2019s weaknesses and strengths to go together in pairs,\nand that there are seven such pairs. Only the first four shall be\nconsidered here; the fifth and the last two couples are reserved\nrespectively for the following, and for the last section, of this\nchapter.\n\n(1) The Mystic finds his joy in the recollective movement and moments\nof the soul; and hence ever tends, _qua_ Mystic, to ignore and neglect,\nor to over-minimize, the absolutely necessary contact of the mind and\nwill with the things of sense. He will often write as though, could he\nbut completely shut off his mind from all sense-perceptions,--even of\ngrand scenery, or noble works of art, or scenes of human devotedness,\nsuffering, and peace,--it would be proportionately fuller of God.--Yet\nthis drift is ever more or less contradicted by his practice, often\nat the very moment of such argument: for no religious writers are\nmore prolific in vivid imagery derived from noble sensible objects\nand scenes than are the Mystics,--whose characteristic mood is an\nintuition, a resting in a kind of vision of things invisible.--And\nthis contradiction is satisfactory, since it is quite certain that\nif the mind, heart, and will could be completely absorbed, (from the\nfirst or for any length of time), in the flight from the sensible,\nit would become as dangerously empty and languid concerning things\ninvisible themselves as, with nothing but an outgoing occupation\nwith the sensible, it would become distracted and feverish. It is\nthis aversion from Outgoing and from the world of sense, of the\ncontemporaneous contingencies environing the soul, that gives to\nMysticism, as such, its shadowy character, its floating above, rather\nthan penetrating into, reality,--in contradiction, where this tendency\nbecomes too exclusive, to the Incarnational philosophy and practice of\nChristianity, and indeed of every complete and sound psychology.\n\nAnd yet the Incoming, what the deep religious thinker\nKierkegaard has so profoundly analyzed in his doctrine of\n\u201cRepetition,\u201d[337]--recollection and peaceful browsing among the\nmaterials brought in by the soul\u2019s Outgoing,--is most essential. Indeed\nit is the more difficult, and, though never alone sufficient, yet ever\nthe more centrally religious, of the two movements necessary for the\nacquisition of spiritual experience and life.\n\n(2) Again, the Mystic finds his full delight in all that approximates\nmost nearly to Simultaneity, and Eternity; and consequently turns\naway, _qua_ Mystic, from the Successive and Temporal presented by\nHistory.--Yet here also there are two movements, both necessary for\nman. He will, by the one, once more in fullest sympathy with the grand\nChristian love of lowliness, strive hard to get into close, and ever\ncloser, touch with the successivenesses of History, especially those\nof Our Lord\u2019s earthly life and of His closest followers. Without this\ntouch he will become empty, inflated, as St. Teresa found to be the\ncase with herself, when following the false principle of deliberate and\nsystematic abstraction from Christ\u2019s temporal words and acts: for man\u2019s\nsoul, though it does not energize in mere Clock-Time, cannot grow if\nwe attempt to eliminate Duration, that interpenetrative, overlapping\nkind of Succession, which is already, as it were, halfway to the\nSimultaneity of God. It is this aversion from Clock-Time Succession and\neven from Duration which gives to Mysticism, as such, its remarkable\npreference for Spacial images, and its strong bent towards concepts of\na Static and Determinist type, profoundly antagonistic though these\nare to the Dynamic and Libertarian character which ever marks the\noccasions and conditions for the acquiring of religious experience.\n\nAnd yet, here again, the Mystic is clinging, even one-sidedly, to the\nmore central, more specifically religious, of the two movements. For\nit is certain that God is indeed Simultaneous and Eternal; that it\nis right thus to try and apprehend, what appears to us stretched out\nsuccessively in time, as simultaneously present in the one great Now\nof God; and that our deepest experiences testify to History itself\nbeing ever more than mere process, and to have within it a certain\ncontribution from, a certain approximation to and expression of,\nEternity.\n\n(3) And again, the Mystic finds his joy in the sense of a Pure\nReception of the Purely Objective; that God should do all and should\nreceive the credit of all, is here a primary requirement.--And yet\nall penetrating Psychology, Epistemology, and Ethics find this very\nreceptivity, however seemingly only such, to be, where healthy and\nfruitful, ever an action, a conation of the soul,--an energizing and\nvolition which, as we have seen, are present in its very cognition of\nanything affirmed by it as trans-subjective, from a grain of sand up to\nthe great God Himself. This antipathy to even a relative, God-willed\nindependence and power of self-excitation, gives Mysticism, as such,\nits constant bent towards Quietism; and hence, with regard to the\nmeans and nature of knowledge, its tendency to speak of such a purely\nspiritual effect as Grace, and such purely spiritual beings as the\nSoul and God, as though they were literally sensible objects sensibly\nimpressing themselves upon the Mystic\u2019s purely passive senses. This\ntendency reinforces the Mystic\u2019s thirst for pictorial, simultaneous\npresentation and intuition of the verities apprehended by him, but is\nin curious contradiction to his even excessive conceptions concerning\nthe utter separateness and difference from all things material of all\nsuch spiritual realities.--And yet, here too, it is doubtless deeply\nimportant ever to remember, and to act in accordance with, the great\ntruth that God Himself is apprehended by us only if there be action\nof our own, and that, from elementary moral dispositions right up to\nconsummate sanctity, the whole man has ever to act and will more and\nmore manysidedly, fully, and persistently.\n\nBut the corresponding, indeed the anterior and more centrally\nreligious, truth here is, that all this range of our activity could\nnever begin, and, if it could, would lose itself _in vacuo_, unless\nthere already were Reality around it and within it, as the stimulus\nand object for all this energizing,--a Reality which, as Prof. Ward\nhas told us with respect to Epistemology, must, for a certain dim but\nmost true experience of ours, be simply given, not sought and found.\nAnd indeed the operations of Grace are ever more or less penetrating\nand soliciting, though nowhere forcing, the free assent of the natural\nsoul: we should be unable to seek God unless He had already found\nus and had thus, deep down within ourselves, caused us to seek and\nfind Him. And hence thus again the most indispensable, the truest\nform of experience underlies reasoning, and is a kind of not directly\nanalyzable, but indirectly most operative, intuition or instinct of the\nsoul.\n\n(4) And yet the Mystic, in one of his moods (the corresponding,\ncontradictory mood of a Pantheistic identification of his true self\nwith God shall be considered in our next chapter), finds his joy in\nso exalting the difference of nature between himself and God, and the\nincomprehensibility of God for every finite intelligence, as,--were\nwe to press his words,--to cut away all ground for any experience or\nknowledge sufficient to justify him in even a guess as to what God is\nlike or is not like, and for any attempt at intercourse with, and at\nbecoming like unto, One who is so utterly unlike himself.\n\n\n4. _Criticism of the fourth pair, mystical \u201cAgnosticism.\u201d_\n\nNow this acutely paradoxical position, of an entire certainty as to\nGod\u2019s complete difference from ourselves, has been maintained and\narticulated, with a consistency and vividness beyond that of any\nMystic known to me, by that most stimulating, profound, tragically\nnon-mystical, religious ascetic and thinker, the Lutheran Dane, S\u00f6ren\nKierkegaard (1813-1855). His early friend, but philosophical opponent,\nProf. H\u00f6ffding, describes him as insisting that \u201cthe suffering incident\nto the religious life is necessarily involved in the very nature of the\nreligious relation. For the relation of the soul to God is a relation\nto a Being utterly different from man, a Being which cannot confront\nman as his Superlative and Ideal, and which nevertheless is to rule\nwithin him.\u201d \u201cWhat, wonder, then,\u201d as Kierkegaard says, \u201cif the Jew\nheld that the vision of God meant death, and if the Heathen believed\nthat to enter upon relations with God was the beginning of insanity?\u201d\nFor the man who lives for God \u201cis a fish out of water.\u201d[338]--We have\nhere what, if an error, is yet possible only to profoundly religious\nsouls; indeed it would be easy to point out very similar passages in\nSt. Catherine and St. John of the Cross. Yet H\u00f6ffding is clearly in\nthe right in maintaining that \u201cQualitative or Absolute difference\nabolishes all possibility of any positive relation.\u2026 If religious zeal,\nin its eagerness to push the Object of religion to the highest height,\nestablishes a yawning abyss between this Object and the life whose\nideal It is still to remain,--such zeal contradicts itself. For a God\nwho is not Ideal and Exemplar, is no God.\u201d[339]\n\nBerkeley raised similar objections against analogous positions of the\nPseudo-Dionysius, in his Alciphron in 1732.[340] Indeed the Belgian\nJesuit, Balthazar Corderius, has a very satisfactory note on this\nmatter in his edition, in 1634, of the Areopagite,[341] in which\nhe shows how all the negative propositions of Mystical Theology,\n_e.g._ \u201cGod is not Being, not Life,\u201d presuppose a certain affirmative\nposition, _e.g._ \u201cGod is Being and Life, in a manner infinitely more\nsublime and perfect than we are able to comprehend\u201d; and gives reasons\nand authorities, from St. Jerome to St. Thomas inclusive, for holding\nthat some kind and degree of direct confused knowledge (I should\nprefer, with modern writers, to call it experience) of God\u2019s existence\nand nature is possessed by the human soul, independently of its\nreasoning from the data of sense.\n\nSt. Thomas\u2019s admissions are especially striking, as he usually\nelaborates a position which ignores, and would logically exclude,\nsuch \u201cconfused knowledge.\u201d In his _Exposition and Questions on the\nBook of Boetius on the Trinity_, after arguments to show that we know\nindeed _that_ God is, but not _what_ He is,--at most only what He is\nnot, he says: \u201cWe should recognize, however, that it is impossible,\nwith regard to anything, to know whether it exists, unless, in some\nway or other, we know _what_ it is, either with a perfect or with a\nconfused knowledge.\u2026 Hence also with regard to God,--we could not\nknow whether He exists, unless we somehow knew _what_ He is, even\nthough in a confused manner.\u201d And this knowledge of _what_ He is, is\ninterestingly, because unconsciously, admitted in one of the passages\ndirected to proving that we can but know _that_ He is. \u201cIn our earthly\nstate we cannot attain to a knowledge of Himself beyond the fact that\nHe exists. And yet, among those who know _that_ He is, the one knows\nthis more perfectly than the other.\u201d[342] For it is plain that, even\nif the knowledge of the existence of something were possible without\nany knowledge of that thing\u2019s nature, no difference or increase in\nsuch knowledge of the thing\u2019s bare existence would be possible. The\ndifferent degrees in the knowledge, which is here declared to be one\nconcerning the bare existence of God, can, as a matter of fact, exist\nonly in knowledge concerning His nature. I shall have to return to this\ngreat question further on.\n\nHere I would only point out how well Battista Vernazza has, in her\n_Dialogo_, realized the importance of a modification in such acutely\ndualistic statements as those occasionally met with in the _Vita_. For,\nin the _Dialogo_, the utter qualitative difference between God and the\nSoul, and the Soul and the Body, which find so striking an utterance\nin one of Catherine\u2019s moods, is ever carefully limited to the soul\u2019s\nsinful acts and habits, and to the body\u2019s unspiritualized condition; so\nthat the soul, when generous and faithful to God\u2019s grace, can and does\ngrow less and less unlike God, and the body can, in its turn, become\nmore and more an instrument and expression of the soul. A pity only\nthat Battista has continued Catherine\u2019s occasional over-emphasis in the\nparallel matter of the knowledge of God: since, even in the _Dialogo_,\nwe get statements which, if pressed, would imply that even the crudest,\nindeed the most immoral conception of God is, objectively, no farther\nremoved from the reality than is the most spiritual idea that man can\nattain of Him.\n\nIt would indeed be well if the Christian Mystics who, since about\n500 A.D., are more and more dependent for their formulations upon\nthe Areopagite, had followed, in this matter, not his more usual\nand more paradoxical, but his exceptional, thoroughly sober vein\nof teaching,--that contained in the third chapter of his _Mystical\nTheology_, where he finds degrees of worth and approximation among the\naffirmative attributions, and degrees of unfitness and distance among\nthe negative ones. \u201cAre not life and goodness more cognate to Him than\nair and stone? And is He not further removed from debauchery and wrath,\nthan from ineffableness and incomprehensibility\u201d?[343] But such a scale\nof approximations would be utterly impossible did we not somehow, at\nleast dimly, experience or know _what_ He is.\n\nWe shall then have to amend the Mystic\u2019s apparent Agnosticism on three\npoints. We shall have to drop any hard and fast distinction between\nknowledge of God\u2019s Existence and knowledge of His Nature, since both\nnecessarily more or less stand and fall together. We shall have to\nreplace the terms as to our utter ignorance as to what He is, by terms\nexpressive of an experience which, if not directly and independently\nclear and analyzable to the reflex, critical reason, can yet be shown\nto be profoundly real and indefinitely potent in the life of man\u2019s\nwhole rational and volitional being. It is this dim, deep experience\nwhich ever causes our reflex knowledge of God to appear no knowledge at\nall. And we shall reject any absolute qualitative difference between\nthe soul\u2019s deepest possibilities and ideals, and God; and shall, in\nits stead, maintain an absolute difference between God and all our\ndownward inclinations, acts, and habits, and an indefinite difference,\nin worth and dignity, between God and the very best that, with His\nhelp, we can aim at and become. With regard to every truly existent\nsubject-matter, we can trace the indefinitely wider range and the more\ndelicate penetration possessed by our dim yet true direct contact and\nexperience, as contrasted with our reflex analysis concerning all\nsuch contacts and experiences; and this surplusage is at its highest\nin connection with God, Who is not simply a Thing alongside of other\nthings, but the Spirit, our spirit\u2019s Origin, Sustainer, and End, \u201cin\nwhom we live and move and have our being.\u201d\n\n\nIII. MYSTICISM AND THE QUESTION OF EVIL.\n\n\n_Introductory: Exclusive and Inclusive Mysticism in Relation to\nOptimism._\n\nThe four couples of weaknesses and corresponding strong points\ncharacteristic of Mysticism that we have just considered, and the fact\nthat, in each case, they ever spring respectively from an attempt to\nmake Mysticism be the all of religion, and from a readiness to keep\nit as but one of the elements more or less present in, and necessary\nfor, every degree and form of the full life of the human soul: make\none wish for two English terms, as useful as are the German names\n\u201cMystik\u201d and \u201cMystizismus,\u201d for briefly indicating respectively \u201cthe\nlegitimate share of Feeling in the constitution of the religious life,\nand the one-sidedness of a religion in which the Understanding and the\nWill,\u201d and indeed also the Memory and the Senses, with their respective\nvariously external occasions, vehicles, and objects, \u201cdo not come to\ntheir rights,\u201d as Prof. Rauwenhoff well defines the matter.[344] I\nsomehow shrink from the term \u201cMysticality\u201d for his \u201cMystizismus\u201d; and\nmust rest content with the three terms--of \u201cMysticism,\u201d as covering\nboth the right and the wrong use of feeling in religion; and of \u201cTrue\u201d\nor \u201cInclusive Mysticism,\u201d and of \u201cPseudo-\u201d or \u201cExclusive Mysticism,\u201d\nas denoting respectively the legitimate, and the (quantitatively or\nqualitatively) mistaken, share of emotion in the religious life.\n\nNow the four matters, which we have just considered, have allowed us\nto reach an answer not all unlike that of Nicolas of Coes, Leibniz,\nand Hegel,--one which, if it remained alone or quite final, would, in\nface of the fulness of real life, strike us all, nowadays, as somewhat\nsuperficial, because too Optimistic and Panlogistic in its trend. The\nfifth set of difficulties and problems now to be faced will seem almost\nto justify Schopenhauer at his gloomiest. Yet we must bear in mind that\nour direct business here is not with the problem of Evil in general,\nbut only with the special helps and hindrances, afforded by Inclusive\nand by Exclusive Mysticism respectively, towards apprehending the true\nnature of Evil and turning even it into an occasion for a deeper good.\nIn this case the special helps and hindrances fall under three heads.\n\n\n1. _Mysticism, too optimistic. Evil positive, but not supreme._\n\n(1) First of all, I would strongly insist upon the following great\nfact to which human life and history bear witness, if we but take and\ntest these latter on a large scale and with a patient persistency.\nIt is, that not the smoother, easier times and circumstances in the\nlives of individuals and of peoples, but, on the contrary, the harder\nand hardest trials of every conceivable kind, and the unshrinking,\nfull acceptance of these, as part of the price of conscience and of\nits growing light, have ever been the occasions of the deepest trust\nin and love of God to which man has attained. In Jewish History, the\nExile called forth a Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and the profound ideal of\nthe Suffering Servant; the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes raised\nup a Judas Maccabaeus; and the troubles under the Emperor Hadrian, a\nRabbi Akiba. And in Christian History, the persecutions from Nero to\nRobespierre have each occasioned the formation of heroic lovers of\nLove Crucified. And such great figures do not simply manage to live,\napart from all the turmoil, in some Mystic upper region of their own;\nbut they face and plunge into the very heart of the strife, and get\nand give spiritual strength on occasion of this closest contact with\nloneliness, outrage, pain, and death. And this fact can be traced\nthroughout history.\n\nNot as though suffering automatically deepens and widens man into\na true spiritual personality,--of itself it does not even tend to\nthis; nor as though there were not souls grown hard or low, or\nfrivolous or bitter, under suffering,--to leave madness and suicide\nunconsidered,--souls in which it would be difficult to find any\navoidable grave fault. But that, wherever there is the fullest,\ndeepest, interiority of human character and influence, _there_ can\never be found profound trials and sufferings which have been thus\nutilized and transfigured. It is doubtless Our Lord\u2019s uniquely full\nand clear proclamation of this mysterious efficacity of all suffering\nnobly borne; above all it is the supreme exemplification and fecundity\nof this deepest law of life, afforded and imparted by His own\nself-immolation, that has given its special power to Christianity,\nand, in so doing, has, more profoundly than ever before or elsewhere,\nbrought home to us a certain Teleology here also,--the deepest ever\ndiscovered to man. For though we fail in our attempts at explaining\nhow or why, with an All-knowing, All-powerful, and All-loving God,\nthere can be Evil at all, we can but recognize the law, which is ever\nbeing brought home to us, of a mysterious capacity for purification and\ndevelopment of man\u2019s spiritual character, on occasion and with the help\nof trouble, pain, and death itself.\n\n(2) Now all this, we must admit, is practised and noted, directly and\nin detail, only by the Ascetical and the Outward-going elements in\nReligion; whereas Mysticism, as such, is optimistic, not only as is\nChristianity, with respect to the end, but, in practice, with regard\nto the actual state of things already encircling it as well. For so\ncareful a selection and so rigorous an abstraction is practised by\nMysticism, as such, towards the welter of contingencies around it, that\nthe rough shocks, the bitter tonics, the expansive birth-pangs of the\nspirit\u2019s deeper life, in and by means of the flux of time and sense,\nof the conflict with hostile fellow-creatures, and of the claimfulness\nof the lower self, are known by it only in their result, not in their\nprocess, or rather only as this process ebbs and fades away, in such\nrecollective moments, into the distance.\n\nNo wonder, then, that Mysticism, as such, has ever tended to deny\nall positive character to Evil. We have already found how strongly\nthis is the case with the prince of Mystic philosophers, Plotinus.\nBut even St. Augustine, with his massive experience, and (in his\nother mood) even excessive realization, of the destructive force of\nEvil and of the corrupt inclinations of man\u2019s heart, has one whole\nlarge current of teaching expressive of the purely negative character\nof Evil. The two currents, the hot and concrete, and the cold and\nabstract one, appear alternately in the very _Confessions_, of 397\nA.D. There, ten years after his conversion, he can write: \u201cAll things\nthat are corrupted, are deprived of good. But, if they are deprived\nof all good, they will cease to exist.\u2026 In so far, then, as they\nexist, they are good.\u2026 Evil is no substance.\u201d Notwithstanding such\nNeo-Platonist interpretations, he had found Evil a terribly powerful\nforce; the directly autobiographical chapters of this same great book\nproclaim this truth with unsurpassable vividness,--he is here fully\nChristian.[345] And in his unfinished work against the Pelagianizing\nMonk Julianus, in 429 A.D., he even declares--characteristically,\nwhilst discussing the Origin of Sin: \u201cSuch and so great was Adam\u2019s sin,\nthat it was able to turn (human) nature itself into this evil.\u201d Indeed,\nalready in 418, he had maintained that \u201cthis wound\u201d (of Original Sin)\n\u201cforces all that is born of that human race to be under the Devil, so\nthat the latter, so to speak, plucks the fruit from the fruit-tree of\nhis own planting.\u201d[346]\n\nPseudo-Dionysius, writing about 500 A.D., has evidently no such\nmassive personal experience to oppose to the Neo-Platonic influence,\nan influence which, in the writings of Proclus (who died 485 A.D.), is\nnow at its height. \u201cEvil,\u201d he says, \u201cis neither in Demons nor in us,\nas an existent (positive) evil, but (only) as a failure and dearth of\nthe perfection of our own proper goods.\u201d[347] He says this and more of\nthe same kind, but nothing as to the dread power of Evil. St. Thomas\nAquinas (who died in 1271 A.D.) is, as we know, largely under the\ninfluence of the Negative conception: thus \u201cthe stain of sin is not\nsomething positive, existent in the soul.\u2026 It is like a shadow, which\nis the privation of light.\u201d[348]\n\nCatherine, though otherwise much influenced by the Negative conception,\nas _e.g._ in her definition of a soul possessed by the Evil Spirit\nas one suffering from a \u201cprivation of love,\u201d finds the stain of sin,\ndoubtless from her own experience, to be something distinctly positive,\nwith considerable power of resistance and propagation.[349]--Mother\nJuliana of Norwich had, in 1373, also formulated both conceptions. \u201cI\nsaw not Sin, for I believe it hath no manner of substance, nor no part\nof being\u201d: Neo-Platonist theory. \u201cSin is so vile and so mickle for to\nhate, that it may be likened to no pain.\u2026 All is good but Sin, and\nnaught is evil but Sin\u201d: Christian experience.[350]\n\nEckhart had, still further back (he died in 1327 A.D.), insisted much\nthat \u201cEvil is nothing but privation, or falling away from Being; not\nan effect, but a defect\u201d:[351] yet he also finds much work to do in\ncombating this somehow very powerful \u201cdefect.\u201d--Not till we get to\nSpinoza (who died in 1677) do we get the Negative conception pushed\nhome to its only logical conclusion: \u201cBy Reality and Perfection, I mean\nthe same thing.\u2026 All knowledge of Evil is inadequate knowledge.\u2026 If the\nhuman mind had nothing but adequate ideas, it would not form any notion\nof Evil.\u201d[352]\n\n(3) As regards the Christian Mystics, their negative conception\nof evil, all but completely restricted as it was to cosmological\ntheory, did those Mystics themselves little or no harm; since their\ntone of feeling and their volitional life, indeed a large part of\ntheir very speculation, were determined, not by such Neo-Platonist\ntheories, but by the concrete experiences of Sin, Conscience, and\nGrace, and by the great Christian historical manifestation of the\npowers of all three.--It is clear too that our modern alternative:\n\u201cpositive-negative,\u201d is not simply identical with the scholastic\nalternative: \u201csubstantial-accidental,\u201d which latter alternative is\nsometimes predominant in the minds of these ancient theorizers; and\nthat, once the question was formulated in the latter way, they were\nprofoundly right in refusing to hypostatize Evil, in denying that there\nexists any distinct thing or being wholly bad.--Yet it is equally\nclear how very Greek and how little Christian is such a preoccupation\n(in face of the question of the nature of Evil) with the concepts\nof Substance and Accident, rather than with that of Will; and how\nstrangely insufficient, in view of the tragic conflicts and ruins of\nreal life, is all, even sporadic, denial, of a certain obstructive\nand destructive efficacy in the bad will, and of a mysterious, direct\nperversity and formal, intentional malignity in that will at its worst.\n\n(4) On these two points it is undeniable that Kant, (with all\nhis self-contradictions, insufficiencies, and positive errors on\nother important matters), has adequately formulated the practical\ndispositions and teachings of the fully awakened Christian\nconsciousness, and hence, pre-eminently, of the great Saints in the\npast, although, in the matter of the perverse will, the Partial Mystics\nhave, even in their theory, (though usually only as part of the\ndoctrine of Original Sin), largely forestalled his analysis. \u201cNowhere\nin this our world, nowhere even outside it, is anything thinkable as\ngood without any reservation, but the good will alone.\u201d \u201cThat a corrupt\ninclination to evil is rooted in man, does not require any formal\nproof, in view of the clamorous examples furnished to all men by the\nexperience of human behaviour. If you would have such cases from the\nso-called state of nature, where some philosophers have looked for the\nchief home of man\u2019s natural goodness, you need only compare, with such\nan hypothesis, the unprovoked cruelties enacted in Tofoa, New Zealand\n\u2026 and the ceaseless scenes of murder in the North-Western American\ndeserts, where no human being derives the slightest advantage from\nthem,--and you will quickly have more than sufficient evidence before\nyou to induce the abandonment of such a view. But if you consider that\nhuman nature is better studied in a state of civilization, since there\nits gifts have a better chance of development,--you will have to listen\nto a long melancholy string of accusations: of secret falseness, even\namong friends; of an inclination to hate him to whom we owe much; of\na cordiality which yet leaves the observation true that \u2018there is\nsomething in the misfortune of even our best friend which does not\naltogether displease us\u2019: so that you will quickly have enough of the\nvices of culture, the most offensive of all, and will prefer to turn\naway your look from human nature altogether, lest you fall yourself\ninto another vice,--that of hatred of mankind.\u201d[353]\n\nIt is sad to think how completely this virile, poignant sense of the\ndread realities of human life again disappeared from the teachings of\nsuch post-Kantians as Hegel and Schleiermacher,--in other important\nrespects so much more satisfactory than Kant. As Mr. Tennant has well\nsaid, in a stimulating book which, on this point at least, voices\nthe unsophisticated, fully awakened conscience and Christian sense\nwith refreshing directness, \u201cfor Jesus Christ and for the Christian\nconsciousness, sin means something infinitely deeper and more real than\nwhat it can have meant for Spinoza or the followers of Hegel.\u201d[354]\nHere again we have now in Prof. Eucken, a philosopher who, free from\nultimate Pessimism, lets us hear once more those tones which are alone\nadequate to the painful reality. \u201cIn great things and in small, there\nexists an evil disposition beyond all simple selfishness: hatred and\nenvy, even where the hater\u2019s self-interest is not touched; an antipathy\nto things great and divine; a pleasure found in the disfigurement or\ndestruction of the Good.\u2026 Indeed the mysterious fact of Evil, as a\npositive opposition to Good, has never ceased to occupy the deepest\nminds.\u2026 The concept of moral guilt cannot be got rid of, try as we\nmay.\u201d[355]\n\n(5) And yet even with regard to this matter, Mysticism represents a\nprofound compensating truth and movement, which we cannot, without\ngrave detriment, lose out of the complete religious life. For in life\nat large, and in human life and history in particular, it would be\nsheer perversity to deny that there is much immediate, delightful,\nnoble Beauty, Truth, and Goodness; and these also have a right to\nthe soul\u2019s careful, ruminating attention. And it is the Mystical\nelement that furnishes this rumination.--Again, \u201cit is part of the\nessential character of human consciousness, as a Synthesis and an\norganizing Unity, that, as long as the life of that consciousness\nlasts at all, not only contrast and tension, but also concentration\nand equilibrium must manifest themselves. Taking life\u2019s standard from\nlife itself, we cannot admit its decisive constituent to lie in tension\nalone.\u201d[356] And it is the Mystical mood that helps to establish this\nequilibrium.--And finally, deep peace, an overflowing possession and\nattainment, and a noble joy, are immensely, irreplaceably powerful\ntowards growth in personality and spiritual fruitfulness. Nothing,\nthen, would be more shortsighted than to try and keep the soul from a\ndeep, ample, recollective movement, from feeding upon and relishing,\nfrom as it were stretching itself out and bathing in, spiritual air and\nsunshine, in a rapt admiration, in a deep experience of the greatness,\nthe beauty, the truth, and the goodness of the World, of Life, of God.\n\n\n2. _Mysticism and the Origin of Evil._\n\nThe second hindrance and help, afforded respectively by Exclusive and\nby Inclusive Mysticism in the matter of Evil, concerns the question of\nits Origin.\n\n(1) Now it appears strange at first sight that, instead of first\ndirectly realizing and picturing the undeniable, profoundly important\nfacts of man\u2019s interior conflict, his continuous lapses from his own\ndeepest standard, and his need of a help not his own to become what\nhe cannot but wish to be, and of leaving the theory as to how man\ncame by this condition to the second place; the Mystics should so\nlargely,--witness Catherine--directly express only this theory, and\nshould face what is happening _hic et nunc_ all but exclusively under\nthe picture of the prehistoric beginnings of these happenings, in the\nstate of innocence and the lapse of the first man. For men of other\nreligious modalities have held this doctrine as firmly as the Mystics,\nyet have mostly dwelt directly upon the central core of goodness and\nthe weakness and sinfulness to be found in man; whilst the Mystics\nhad even less scruple than other kinds of devout souls in embodying\nexperimental truths in concepts and symbols other than the common ones.\n\n(2) I think that, here again, it was the Neo-Platonist literary\ninfluence, so strong also on other points with the Mystics of the\npast, and a psychological trend characteristic of the Mystical habit\nof mind, which conjoined thus to concentrate the Mystics\u2019 attention\nupon the doctrines of Original Justice and of a First Lapse, and\nto give to these doctrines the peculiar form and tone taken on by\nthem here. We have noted, for instance, in the case of Catherine\nherself, how powerfully her thought and feeling, as to the first\nhuman soul\u2019s first lapse into sin, is influenced by the idea of each\nhuman soul\u2019s lapse into a body; and we have found this latter idea\nto be, notwithstanding its echoes in the Deutero-Canonical Book of\nWisdom and in one non-doctrinal passage in St. Paul, not Christian\nbut Neo-Platonist. Yet it is this strongly anti-body idea that could\nnot fail to attract Mysticism, as such.--And the conception as to the\nplenary righteousness of that first soul before its lapse, which she\ngets from Christian theology, is similarly influenced, in her theorized\nemotion and thought, by the Neo-Platonist idea of every soul having\nalready existed, perfectly spotless, previous to its incarnation:\na view which could not but immensely attract such a high-strung\ntemperament, with its immense requirement of something fixed and\npicturable on which to rest. Thus here the ideal for each soul\u2019s future\nwould have been already real in each soul\u2019s past. In this past the soul\nwould have been, as it were, a mirror of a particular fixed size and\nfixed intensity of lustre; its business here below consists in removing\nthe impurities adhering to this mirror\u2019s surface, and in guarding it\nagainst fresh stains.\n\n(3) Now it is well known how it was St. Augustine, that mighty and\ndaring, yet at times ponderous, intellect, who, (so long a mental\ncaptive of the Manichees and then so profoundly influenced by\nPlotinus,) was impelled, by the experiences of his own disordered\nearlier life and by his ardent African nature, to formulate by far the\nmost explicit and influential of the doctrines upon these difficult\nmatters. And if, with the aid of the Abb\u00e9 Turmel\u2019s admirable articles\non the subject, we can, with a fairly open mind, study his successive,\nprofoundly varying, speculations and conclusions concerning the Nature\nand Origin of Sin,[357] we shall not fail to be deeply impressed with\nthe largely impassable maze of opposite extremes, contradictions and\ndifficulties of every kind, in which that adventurous mind involved\nitself.--And to these difficulties immanent to the doctrine,--at\nleast, in the form it takes in St. Augustine\u2019s hands,--has, of course,\nto be added the serious moral danger that would at once result,\nwere we, by too emphatic or literal an insistence upon the true\nguiltiness of Original sin, to weaken the chief axiom of all true\nmorality--that the concurrence of the personality, in a freely-willed\nassent, is necessarily involved in the idea of sin and guilt.--And\nnow the ever-accumulating number and weight of even the most certain\nfacts and most moderate inductions of Anthropology and Ethnology are\nabolishing all evidential grounds for holding a primitive high level\nof human knowledge and innocence, and a single sudden plunge into a\nfallen estate, as above, apparently against, all our physiological,\npsychological, historical evidences and analogies, (which all point\nto a gradual rise from lowly beginnings), and are reducing such a\nconception to a pure postulate of Theology.\n\nYet Anthropology and Ethnology leave in undisturbed possession the\ngreat truths of Faith that \u201cman\u2019s condition denotes a fall from the\nDivine intention, a parody of God\u2019s purpose in human history,\u201d and that\n\u201csin is exceedingly sinful for us in whom it is a deliberate grieving\nof the Holy Spirit\u201d; and they actually reinforce the profound verities\nthat \u201cthe realization of our better self is a stupendously difficult\ntask,\u201d and as to \u201cMan\u2019s crying need of grace, and his capacity for\na gospel of Redemption.\u201d[358] But they point, with a force great in\nproportion to the highly various, cumulatively operative, immensely\ninterpretative character of the evidence,--to the conclusion that\n\u201cSin,\u201d as the Anglican Archdeacon Wilson strikingly puts it, \u201cis \u2026\nthe survival or misuse of habits and tendencies that were incidental\nto an earlier stage of development.\u2026 Their sinfulness would thus lie\nin their anachronism, in their resistance to the \u2026 Divine force that\nmakes for moral development and righteousness.\u201d Certainly \u201cthe human\ninfant\u201d appears to careful observers, as Mr. Tennant notes, \u201cas simply\na non-moral animal,\u201d with corresponding impulses and propensities.\nAccording to this view \u201cmorality consists in the formation of the\nnon-moral material of nature into character \u2026\u201d; so that \u201cif goodness\nconsists essentially in man\u2019s steady moralization of the raw material\nof morality, its opposite, sin, cannot consist in the material awaiting\nmoralization, but in the will\u2019s failure to completely moralize it.\u201d\n\u201cEvil\u201d would thus be \u201cnot the result of a transition from the good, but\ngood and evil would\u201d both alike \u201cbe voluntary developments from what\nis ethically neutral.\u201d[359] Dr. Wilson finds, accordingly, that \u201cthis\nconflict of freedom and conscience is precisely what is related as\n\u2018the Fall\u2019 _sub specie historiae_.\u201d Scripture \u201ctells of the fall of a\ncreature from unconscious innocence to conscious guilt. But this fall\nfrom innocence\u201d would thus be, \u201cin another sense, a rise to a higher\ngrade of being.\u201d[360]\n\n(4) It is, in any case, highly satisfactory for a Catholic to remember\nthat the acute form, given to the doctrine of Original Sin by St.\nAugustine, has never been finally accepted by the Catholic Roman\nChurch; indeed, that the Tridentine Definition expressly declares that\nConcupiscence does not, in strictness, possess the nature of Sin, but\narises naturally, on the withdrawal of the _donum superadditum_,--so\nthat Mr. Tennant can admit, in strictest accuracy, that \u201cin this\nrespect, the Roman theology is more philosophical than that of\nthe Symbols of Protestant Christendom.\u201d[361] It is true that the\ninsistence upon \u201cOriginal Sin\u201d possessing somehow \u201cthe true and proper\nnature of Sin\u201d remains a grave difficulty, even in this Tridentine\nformulation of the doctrine; whilst the objections, already referred\nto as accumulating against the theory in general, retain some of\ntheir cogency against other parts of this decree.--Yet we have here\nan impressive proclamation of the profoundest truths: the spiritual\ngreatness of God\u2019s plan for us, the substantial goodness of the\nmaterial still ready to our hand for the execution of that plan, and\nHis necessary help ever ready from the first; the reality of our lapse,\naway from all these, into sin, and of the effects of such lapse upon\nthe soul; the abiding conflict between sense and spirit, the old man\nand the new, within each one of us; and the close solidarity of our\npoor, upward-aspiring, downward-plunging race, in evil as well as in\ngood.\n\n(5) And as to the Christian Mystics, their one particular danger\nhere,--that of a Static Conception of man\u2019s spirit as somehow\nconstituted, from the first, a substance of a definite, final size and\ndignity, which but demands the removal of disfiguring impurities, is\nlargely eliminated, even in theory, and all but completely overcome\nin practice, by the doctrine and the practice of Pure Love. For\nin \u201cCharity\u201d we get a directly dynamic, expansive conception and\nexperience: man\u2019s spirit is, at first, potential rather than actual,\nand has to be conquered and brought, as it were, to such and such\na size and close-knitness of organization, by much fight with, and\nby the slow transformation of, the animal and selfish nature. Thus\nPure Love, Charity, Agape, has to fight it out, inch by inch, with\nanother, still positive force, impure love, concupiscence, Eros,\nin all the latter\u2019s multiform disguises. Here Purity has become\nsomething intensely positive and of boundless capacities for growth;\nas St. Thomas says, \u201cPure Love has no limit to its increase, for it\nis a certain participation in the Infinite Love, which is the Holy\nSpirit.\u201d[362]--In this utterly real, deeply Christian way do these\nMystics overcome Neo-Platonist static abstractions, and simultaneously\nregain, in their practical theory and emotional perception, the great\ntruth of the deep, subtle force of Evil, against which Pure Love has to\nstand, in virile guard, as long as earth\u2019s vigil lasts. And the longest\nand most difficult of these conflicts is found,--here again in utterly\nChristian fashion,--not in the sensual tendencies proceeding from the\nbody, but in the self-adoration, the solipsism of the spirit. We have\nfound this in Catherine: at her best she ever has something of the\nlarge Stoic joy at being but a citizen in a divine Cosmopolis; yet but\nLove and Humility, those profoundest of the Christian affections, have\nindefinitely deepened the truth of the outlook, and the range of the\nwork to be done, in and for herself and others.\n\n(6) Yet even apart from Pure Love, Mysticism can accurately be said to\napprehend an important truth when, along its static line of thought\nand feeling, it sees each soul as, from the first, a substance of a\nparticular, final size. For each soul is doubtless intended, from the\nfirst, to express a particular thought and wish of God, to form one,\nnever simply replaceable member in His Kingdom, to attain to a unique\nkind and degree of personality: and though it can refuse to endorse and\ncarry out this plan, the plan remains within it, in the form of never\nentirely suppressible longings. The Mystic, then, sees much here also.\n\n\n3. _The warfare against Evil. Pseudo-Mysticism._\n\nThe third of the relations between Mysticism and the conception and\nexperience of Evil requires a further elucidation of an important\ndistinction, which we have already found at work all along, more or\nless consciously, between the higher and the lower Mysticism, and their\nrespective, profoundly divergent, tempers, objects, and range.\n\n(1) Prof. M\u00fcnsterberg discriminates between these two Mysticisms with\na brilliant excessiveness, and ends by reserving the word \u201cMysticism\u201d\nfor the rejected kind alone. \u201cAs soon as we speak of psychical\nobjects,--of ideas, feelings, and volitions,--as subject-matters of our\ndirect consciousness and experience, we have put before ourselves an\nartificial product, a transformation, to which the categories of real\nlife no longer apply.\u201d In this artificial product causal connections\nhave taken the place of final ends. But \u201cHistory, Practical Life,\n\u2026 Morality, Religion have nothing to do with these psychological\nconstructions; the categories of Psychology,\u201d treated by M\u00fcnsterberg\nhimself as a Natural, Determinist Science, \u201cmust not intrude into their\nteleological domains. But if,\u201d on the other hand, \u201cthe categories\nbelonging to Reality,\u201d which is Spiritual and Libertarian, \u201care forced\non to the psychological system, a system which was framed\u201d by our\nmind \u201cin the interest of causal explanation, we get a cheap mixture,\nwhich satisfies neither the one aim nor the other. Just this is the\neffect of Mysticism. It is the personal, emotional view applied,\nnot to the world of Reality, where it fits, but to the Physical and\nPsychological worlds, which are constructed by the human logical will,\nwith a view to gaining an impersonal, unemotional causal system.\u2026\nThe ideals of Ethics and Religion \u2026 have now been projected into the\natomistic structure\u201d (of the Causal System), \u201cand have thus become\ndependent upon this system\u2019s nature; they find their right of existence\nlimited to the regions where ignorance of Nature leaves blanks in the\nCausal System, and have to tremble at every advance which Science\nmakes.\u201d It is to this projection alone that M\u00fcnsterberg would apply\nthe term \u201cMysticism,\u201d which thus becomes exclusively \u201cthe doctrine\nthat the processes in the world of physical and psychical objects\nare not always subject to natural laws, but are influenced, at times,\nin a manner fundamentally inexplicable from the standpoint of the\ncausal conception of Nature.\u2026 Yet, the special interest of the Mystic\nstands and falls here with his conviction that, in these extra-causal\ncombinations,\u201d thus operative right within and at the level of this\ncausal system, \u201cwe have a\u201d direct, demonstrable \u201cmanifestation of a\npositive system of quite another kind, a System of Values, a system\ndominated, not by Mechanism, but by Significance.\u201d[363]\n\n(2) Now we have been given here a doubtless excessively antithetic and\ndualistic picture of what, in actual life, is a close-knit variety in\nunity,--that interaction between, and anticipation of the whole in, the\nparts, and that indication of the later stages in the earlier,--which\nis so strikingly operative in the order and organization of the various\nconstituents and stages of the processes and growth of the human mind\nand character, and which appears again in the Reality apprehended,\nreproduced, and enriched by man\u2019s powers.\n\nEven in the humblest of our Sense-perceptions, there is already a\nmind perceiving and a Mind perceived; and, in the most abstract\nand artificial of our intellectual constructions, there is not\nonly a logical requirement, but also, underlying this requirement\nas this cause\u2019s deepest cause, an ever-growing if unarticulated\nexperience and sense that only by the closest contact with the most\nimpersonal-seeming, impersonally conceived forces of life and nature,\nand by the deepest recollection within its own interior world of\nmind and will, can man\u2019s soul adequately develop and keep alive,\nwithin itself, a solid degree and consciousness of Spirit, Free-will,\nPersonality, Eternity, and God. Thus, in proportion as he comes more\ndeeply to advance in the true occasions of his spirit\u2019s growth, does\nman still further emphasize and differentiate these two levels: the\nshallower, spacial-temporal, mathematico-physical, quantitative and\ndeterminist aspect of reality and level of apprehension; and the\ndeeper, alone at all adequate, experience of all the fuller degrees\nof Reality and effectuations of the spirit\u2019s life, with their\noverlapping, interpenetrating Succession, (their Duration), and their\nLibertarianism, Interiority, and Sense of the Infinite. He thus\nemphasizes both levels, because the determinist level is found to be,\nthough never the source or direct cause, yet ever a necessary awakener\nand purifier of the Libertarian level.\n\nStrictly within the temporal-spacial, quantitative method and level,\nindeed, we can nowhere find Teleology; but if we look back upon these\nquantitative superficialities from the qualitative, durational and\npersonal, spiritual level and standpoint, (which alone constitute\nour direct experience), we find that the quantitative, causal level\nand method is everywhere inadequate to exhaust or rightly to picture\nReality, in exact proportion to this reality\u2019s degree of fulness and of\nworth. From the simplest Vegetable-Cell up to Orchids and Insectivorous\nPlants; from these on to Protozoans and up, through Insects, Reptiles,\nand Birds, to the most intelligent of Domestic Animals; from these on\nto Man, the Savage, and up to the most cultured or saintly of human\npersonalities: we have everywhere, and increasingly, an inside, an\norganism, a subject as well as object,--a series which is, probably\nfrom the first, endowed with some kind of dim consciousness, and which\nincreasingly possessed of a more and more definite consciousness,\nculminates in the full self-consciousness of the most fully human man.\nAnd everywhere here, though in indefinitely increasing measure, it is\nthe individualizing and historical, the organic and soul-conceptions\nand experiences which constitute the most characteristic and important\ntruths and reality about and in these beings. For the higher up we\nget in this scale of Reality, the more does the Interior determine\nand express itself in the Exterior, and the more does not only kind\ndiffer from kind of being, but even the single individual from the\nother individuals within each several kind. And yet nowhere, not even\nin free-willing, most individualized, personal Man do we find the\nquantitative, determinist envelope simply torn asunder and revealing\nthe qualitative, libertarian spirit perfectly naked and directly\ntestable by chronometer, measuring-rod, or crucible. The spirit is thus\never like unto a gloved hand, which, let it move ever so spontaneously,\nwill ever, in the first instance, present the five senses with a glove\nwhich, to their exclusive tests, appears as but dead and motionless\nleather.\n\n(3) Now we have already in Chapter IX studied the contrasting\nattitudes of Catherine and her attendants towards one class of such\neffects,--those attributed to the Divine Spirit,--and hence, in\nprinciple, towards this whole question. Yet it is in the matter of\nphenomena, taken to be directly Diabolic or Preternatural, that a\nPseudo-Mysticism has been specially fruitful in strangely materialistic\nfantasies. As late as 1774 the _Institutiones Theologiae Mysticae_\nof Dom Schram, O.S.B., a book which even yet enjoys considerable\nauthority, still solemnly described, as so many facts, cases of\nDiabolical _Incubi_ and _Succubae_. Even in 1836-1842 the layman\nJoseph G\u00f6rres could still devote a full half of his widely influential\n_Mystik_ to \u201cDiabolical Mysticism,\u201d--witchcraft, etc.; a large space\nto \u201cNatural Mysticism,\u201d--divination, lycanthropy, vampires, etc.; and\na considerable part of the \u201cDivine Mysticism,\u201d to various directly\nmiraculous phenomenalisms. The Abb\u00e9 Ribet could still, in his _La\nMystique Divine, distingu\u00e9e de ses Contrefa\u00e7ons Diaboliques_, of 1895,\ngive us a similarly uncritical mixture and transposition of tests\nand levels. But the terrible ravages of the belief in witchcraft in\nthe later Middle Ages, and, only a few years back, the humiliating\nfraud and craze concerning \u201cDiana Vaughan,\u201d are alone abundantly\nsufficient to warn believers in the positive character of Evil away\nfrom all, solidly avoidable, approaches to such dangerous forms of this\nbelief.[364]\n\n(4) Yet the higher and highest Mystical attitude has never ceased\nto find its fullest, most penetrating expression in the life and\nteaching of devoted children of the Roman Church,--several of whom\nhave been proclaimed Doctors and Models by that Church herself. And by\na conjunction of four characteristics these great normative lives and\nteachers still point the way, out of and beyond all false or sickly\nMysticism, on to the wholesome and the true.\n\n(i) There is, first, the grand trust in and love of God\u2019s beautiful,\nwide world, and in and of the manifold truth and goodness present\nthroughout life,--realities which we have already found rightly to\nbe dwelt on, in certain recollective movements and moments, to the\nmomentary exclusion of their positively operative, yet ever weaker,\nopposites. \u201cWell I wote,\u201d says Mother Juliana, \u201cthat heaven and earth,\nand all that is made, is great, large, fair and good\u201d; \u201cthe full-head\nof joy is to behold God in all,\u201d and \u201ctruly to enjoy in Our Lord, is a\nfull lovely thanking in His sight.\u201d[365] This completely un-Manichaean\nattitude,--so Christian when held as the ultimate among the divers,\nsad and joyful, strenuous and contemplative moods of the soul,--is\nas strongly present in Clement of Alexandria, in the Sts. Catherine\nof Siena and of Genoa, in St. John of the Cross, and indeed in the\nrecollective moments of all the great Mystics.\n\n(ii) There is, next, a strong insistence upon the soul having to\ntranscend all particular lights and impressions, in precise proportion\nto their apparently extraordinary character, if it would become strong\nand truly spiritual. \u201cHe that will rely on the letter of the divine\nlocution, or on the intellectual form of the vision, will necessarily\nfall into delusion. \u2018The letter killeth, the spirit quickeneth\u2019; we\nmust therefore reject the literal sense, and abide in the obscurity\nof faith.\u201d \u201cOne desire only doth God allow in His presence, that of\nperfectly observing His law and carrying the Cross of Christ.\u2026 That\nsoul, which has no other aim, will be a true ark containing the true\nManna, which is God.\u201d \u201cOne act of the will, wrought in charity, is\nmore precious in the eyes of God, than that which all the visions\nand revelations of heaven might effect.\u201d \u201cLet men cease to regard\nthese supernatural apprehensions \u2026 that they may be free.\u201d[366] Here\nthe essence of the doctrine lies in the importance attached to this\ntranscendence, and not in the particular views of the Saint concerning\nthe character of this or that miraculous-seeming phenomenon to be\ntranscended.\n\n(iii) And this essential doctrine retains all its cogency, even though\nwe hold the strict necessity of a contrary, alternating movement\nof definite occupation with the Concrete, Contingent, Historical,\nInstitutional, in thought and action. For this occupation will be with\nthe normal, typical means, duties, and facts of human and religious\nlife; and, whilst fully conscious of the Supernatural working in and\nwith these seemingly but natural materials, will, with St. Augustine,\npray God to \u201cgrant men to perceive in little things the common-seeming\nindications of things both small and great,\u201d and, with him, will see a\ngreater miracle in the yearly transformation of the vine\u2019s watery sap\ninto wine, and in the germination of any single seed, than even in that\nof Cana.[367]\n\n(iv) And then there is, upon the whole, a tendency to concentrate, at\nthese recollective stages, the soul\u2019s attention upon Christ and God\nalone. \u201cI believe I understand,\u201d says Mother Juliana, \u201cthe ministration\nof holy Angels, as Clerks tell; but it was not shewed to me. For\nHimself is nearest and meekest, highest and lowest, and doeth all.\nGod alone took our nature, and none but He; Christ alone worked our\nsalvation, and none but He.\u201d[368] And thus we get a wholesome check\nupon the Neo-Platonist countless mediations, of which the reflex is\nstill to be found in the Areopagite. God indeed is alone held, with\nall Catholic theologians, to be capable of penetrating to the soul\u2019s\ncentre, and the fight against Evil is simplified to a watch and war\nagainst Self, in the form of an ever-increasing engrossment in the\nthought of God, and in the interests of His Kingdom. \u201cOnly a soul\nin union with God,\u201d says St. John of the Cross, \u201cis capable of this\nprofound loving knowledge: for this knowledge is itself that union.\u2026\nThe Devil has no power to simulate anything so great.\u201d \u201cSelf-love,\u201d\nsays P\u00e8re Grou, \u201cis the sole source of all the illusions of the\nspiritual life.\u2026 Jesus Christ on one occasion said to St. Catherine\nof Siena: \u2018My daughter, think of Me, and I will think of thee\u2019: a\nshort epitome of all perfection. \u2018Wheresoever thou findest self,\u2019 says\nthe _Imitation_, \u2018drop that self\u2019: the soul\u2019s degree of fidelity to\nthis precept is the true measure of its advancement.\u201d[369] The highly\nauthorized _Manuel de Th\u00e9ologie Mystique_ of the Abb\u00e9 Lejeune, 1897,\ngives but one-sixth of its three-hundred pages to the discussion of\nall quasi-miraculous phenomena, puts them all apart from the substance\nof Contemplation and of the Mystical Life, and dwells much upon\nthe manifold dangers of such, never essential, things. The French\nOratorian, Abb\u00e9 L. Laberthonni\u00e8re, represents, in the _Annales de\nPhilosophie Chr\u00e9tienne_, a spirituality as full of a delicate Mysticism\nas it is free from any attachment to extraordinary phenomena. The same\ncan be said of the Rev. George Tyrrell\u2019s _Hard Sayings_ and _External\nReligion_. And the Abb\u00e9 Sandreau has furnished us with two books of the\nmost solid tradition and discrimination in all these matters.[370]\n\n(5) And we should, in justice, remember that the Phenomenalist\nMysticism, objected to by Prof. M\u00fcnsterberg and so sternly transcended\nby St. John of the Cross, is precisely what is still hankered after,\nand treated as of spiritual worth, by present-day Spiritualism. Indeed,\neven Prof. James\u2019s in many respects valuable _Varieties of Religious\nExperience_ is seriously damaged by a cognate tendency to treat\nReligion, or at least Mysticism, as an abnormal faculty for perceiving\nphenomena inexplicable by physical and psychical science.\n\n(6) And finally, with respect to the personality of Evil, we must not\nforget that \u201cthere are drawings to evil as to good, which are not mere\nself-temptations, \u2026 but which derive from other wills than our own;\nstrictly, it is only persons that can tempt us.\u201d[371]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\nTHE TWO FINAL PROBLEMS: MYSTICISM AND PANTHEISM. THE IMMANENCE OF GOD,\nAND SPIRITUAL PERSONALITY, HUMAN AND DIVINE\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY.\n\n_Impossibility of completely abstracting from the theoretical form in\nthe study of the experimental matter._\n\nWe now come to the last two of our final difficulties and problems--the\nsupposed or real relations between Inclusive or Exclusive Mysticism\nand Pantheism; and the question concerning the Immanence of God and\nSpiritual Personality, Human and Divine.\n\n(1) A preliminary difficulty in this, our deepest, task arises from\nthe fact that, whereas the evidences of a predominantly individual,\npersonal, directly experimental kind, furnished by every at all deeply\nreligious soul, have hitherto been all but completely overlooked\nby trained historical investigators, in favour of the study of the\ntheological concepts and formulations accepted and transmitted by\nsuch souls, now the opposite extreme is tending to predominate, as in\nProf. William James\u2019s _Varieties of Religious Experience_, 1902, or\nin Prof. Weinel\u2019s interesting study, _The Effects of the Spirit and\nof the Spirits in the Sub-Apostolic Age_, 1899. For here, as Prof.\nBousset points out in connection with the latter book, we get an all\nbut complete overlooking of the fact that, even in the most individual\nexperience, there is always some intellectual framework or conception,\nsome more or less traditional form, which had previously found lodgment\nin, and had been more or less accepted by, that soul; so that, though\nthe experience itself, where at all deep, is never the mere precipitate\nof a conventionally accepted traditional intellectual form, it is\nnevertheless, even when more or less in conflict with this form, never\ncompletely independent of it.[372]--Yet though we cannot discriminate\nin full detail, we can show certain peculiarities in the traditional\nJewish, Mohammedan, Christian Mysticism to be not intrinsic to the\nMystical apprehensions as such, but to come from the then prevalent\nphilosophies which deflected those apprehensions in those particular\nways.\n\n(2) In view then of this inevitable inter-relation between the\nexperimental, personal matter and the theoretical, traditional form,\nI shall first consider the Aristotelian and Neo-Platonist conceptions\nconcerning the relations between the General and the Particular,\nbetween God and Individual Things, as being the two, partly rival yet\nlargely similar, systems that, between them, have most profoundly\ninfluenced the intellectual starting-point, analysis, and formulation\nof those experiences; and shall try to show the special attraction and\ndanger of these conceptions for the mystically religious temperament.\nI shall next discuss the conceptions as to the relations between\nGod and the individual personality,--the No\u00fbs, the Spirit, and the\nSoul,--which, still largely Aristotelian and Neo-Platonist, have even\nmore profoundly commended themselves to those Mystics, since these\nconceptions so largely met some of those Mystics\u2019 requirements, and\nindeed remain still, in part, the best analysis procurable. I shall,\nthirdly, face the question as to any intrinsic tendency to Pantheism in\nMysticism as such, and as to the significance and the possible utility\nof any such tendency, keeping all fuller description of the right\ncheck upon it for my last chapter. And finally, I shall consider what\ndegree and form of the Divine Immanence in the human soul, of direct\nExperience or Knowledge of God on the part of man, and of \u201cPersonality\u201d\nin God, appear to result from the most careful analysis of the deepest\nreligious consciousness, and from the requirements of the Sciences and\nof Life.\n\n\nI. RELATIONS BETWEEN THE GENERAL AND THE PARTICULAR, GOD AND INDIVIDUAL\nTHINGS, ACCORDING TO ARISTOTLE, THE NEO-PLATONISTS, AND THE MEDIEVAL\nSTRICT REALISTS.\n\n\n1. _Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, Proclus._\n\n(1) With regard to the relations between the General and Particular,\nwe should note Aristotle\u2019s final perplexities and contradictions,\narising from his failure to harmonize or to transcend, by means of\na new and self-consistent conception, the two currents, the Platonic\nand the specifically Aristotelian, which make up his thought. For,\nwith him as with Plato, all Knowledge has to do with Reality: hence\nReality alone, in the highest, primary sense of the word, can form\nthe highest, primary object of Knowledge; Knowledge will be busy,\nprimarily, with the Essence, the Substance of things. But with him, as\nagainst Plato, every substance is unique, whence it would follow that\nall knowledge refers, at bottom, to the Individual,--individual beings\nwould form, not only the starting-point, but also the content and\nobject of knowledge.--Yet this is what Aristotle, once more at one with\nPlato, stoutly denies: Science, even where it penetrates most deeply\ninto the Particular, is never directed to individual things as such,\nbut always to General Concepts; and this, not because of our human\nincapacity completely to know the Individual, as such, but because the\nGeneral, in spite of the Particular being better known to us, is more\nprimitive and more knowable, as alone possessing that Immutability\nwhich must characterize all objects of true knowledge.[373] The true\nEssence of things consists only in what is thought in their Concept,\nwhich concept is always some Universal; yet this Universal exists only\nin Individual Beings, which are thus declared true Substances: here\nare two contentions, the possibility of whose co-existence he fails\nto explain. Indeed at one time it is the Form, at another it is the\nIndividual Being, composed of Form and Matter, which appears as real;\nand Matter, again, appears both as the Indefinite General and as the\nCause of Individual Particularity.[374]\n\n(2) Now Plato had indeed insisted upon ascending to even greater\nabstraction, unity, and generality, as the sure process for attaining\nto the truth of things; and had retained what is, for us, a strangely\nunpersonal, abstract element, precisely in his highest concept, since\nGod here is hardly personal, but the Idea of Good, a Substance distinct\nfrom all other things, yet not, on this account, an Individual. Yet\nPlato\u2019s profoundly aesthetic, social, ethical, above all religious,\nconsciousness forced him to the inconsistency of proclaiming that, as\nthe Sun is higher than the light and the eye, so the Good is higher\nthan (mere) Being and Knowledge; and this Supreme Idea of the Good\ngives to things their Being, and to the understanding its power of\nCognition, and is the Cause of all Rightness and Beauty, the Source\nof all Reality and Reason, and hence, not only a final, but also an\nefficient Cause,--indeed _the_ Cause, pure and simple.[375] In the\n_Philebus_ he tells us explicitly that the Good and the Divine Reason\nare identical; and in the _Timaeus_ the Demiurge, the World-Former,\nlooks indeed to the Image of the World, in order to copy it: yet the\nDemiurge is also himself this image which he copies.[376] We thus\nstill have a supreme Multiplicity in Unity as the characteristic of\nthe deepest Reality; and its chief attribute, Goodness, is not the\nmost abstract and aloof, but the most rich in qualities and the most\nboundlessly self-communicative: \u201cHe was good, so he desired that all\nthings should be as like unto himself as possible.\u201d[377] And Aristotle,\n(although he places God altogether outside the visible world, and\nattributes to Him there one sole action, the thinking of his own\nthought, and one quasi-emotion, intellectual joy at this thinking),\nstill maintains, in this shrunken form, the identity of the Good and of\nthe Supreme Reason, No\u00fbs, and a certain Multiplicity in Unity, and a\ntrue self-consciousness, within Him.\n\n(3) It is Plotinus who is the first expressly to put the Godhead,--in\nstrict obedience to the Abstractive scheme,--beyond all Multiplicity,\nhence above the highest Reason itself, for reason ever contains at\nleast the duality of Subject thinking and of Object thought; above\nBeing, for all being has ever a multitude of determinations; and above\nevery part and the totality of All Things, for it is the cause of them\nall. The Cause is here ever outside the effect, the Unity outside the\nMultiplicity, what is thought outside of what thinks. The First is\nthus purely transcendent,--with one characteristic exception: although\nabove Being, Energy, Thought, and Thinking, Beauty, Virtue, Life, It\nis still the Good; and because of this, though utterly self-sufficing\nand without action of any kind, It, \u201cas it were,\u201d overflows, and\nthis overflow produces a Second.[378] And only this Second is here\nthe No\u00fbs, possessed of what Aristotle attributes to the First: it is\nno sheer Unity, \u201call things are together there, yet are they there\ndiscriminated\u201d: it is contemplative Thinking of itself; it is pure and\nperfect Action.[379]\n\n(4) And Proclus who, through the Pseudo-Dionysius, is the chief\nmediator between Plato and Plotinus on the one hand, and the Medieval\nMystics and Scholastics on the other, is, with his immense thirst for\nUnity, necessarily absorbed by the question as to the Law according\nto which all things are conjoined to a whole. And this Law is for him\nthe process of the Many out of the One, and their inclination back to\nthe One; for this process and inclination determine the connection\nof all things, and the precise place occupied by each thing in that\nconnection. All things move in the circle of procession from their\ncause, and of return to it; the simplest beings are the most perfect;\nthe most complex are the most imperfect.[380]\n\n\n2. _The Anti-Proclian current, in the Areopagite\u2019s view._\n\nNow in the Pseudo-Dionysius we find an interesting oscillation between\ngenuine Neo-Platonism, which finds Beings perfect in proportion to the\nfewness and universality of their attributes, although, with it, he\ninconsistently holds Goodness,--the deepest but not the most general\nattribute,--to be the most perfect of all; and Aristotelianism at its\nrichest, when it finds Beings perfect according to the multiplicity\nand depth of their attributes. Dionysius himself becomes aware of the\ndead-lock thence ensuing. \u201cThe Divine name of the Good is extended\nto things being and to things not being,\u201d--a statement forced upon\nhim by his keeping, with Plato and Plotinus, Goodness as the supreme\nattribute, and yet driving home, more completely than they, their first\nprinciple that Generality and Perfection rise and sink together. \u201cThe\nName of Being is extended to all things being\u201d and stretches further\nthan Life. \u201cThe name of Life is extended to all things living\u201d and\nstretches further than Wisdom. \u201cThe Name of Wisdom is extended,\u201d only,\n\u201cto all the intellectual, and rational, and sensible.\u201d\n\nBut if so, \u201cfor what reason do we affirm,\u201d (as he has been doing in\nthe previous sections), \u201cthat Life,\u201d the less extended, \u201cis superior\nto (mere) Being,\u201d the more extended? \u201cand that Wisdom,\u201d though less\nextended, \u201cis superior to mere Life,\u201d the more extended? And he answers\nin favour of depth and richness of attributes. \u201cIf any one assumed\nthe intellectual to be without being or life, the objection might hold\ngood. But if the Divine Minds,\u201d the Angels, \u201cboth are above all other\nbeings, and live above all other living creatures, and think and know\nabove sensible perception and reasoning, and aspire beyond all other\nexistent and aspiring beings, to \u2026 the Beautiful and Good: then they\nencircle the Good more closely.\u201d For \u201cthe things that participate more\nin the one and boundless-giving God, are more \u2026 divine, than those that\ncome behind them in gifts.\u201d[381] And with abiding truth he says: \u201cThose\nwho place attributes on That which is above every attribute, should\nderive the affirmation from what is more cognate to It; but those who\nabstract, with regard to That which is above every abstraction, should\nderive the negation from what is further removed from It. Are not,\n_e.g._, Life and Goodness more cognate to It than air and stone? And is\nIt not further removed from debauch and anger than from ineffableness\nand incomprehensibility?\u201d[382]\n\nBut more usually Dionysius shows little or no preference for any\nparticular attribution or denegation; all are taken to fall short so\ninfinitely as to eliminate any question as to degrees of failure. \u201cThe\nDeity-Above-All \u2026 is neither Soul nor Mind, neither One nor Oneness,\nneither Deity nor Goodness.\u201d[383] God is thus purely transcendent.\n\n\n3. _Continuators of the Proclian current._\n\nThe influence of the Areopagite was notoriously immense throughout\nthe Middle Ages,--indeed unchecked,--along its Proclian, Emanational,\nUltra-Unitive current,--among the Pantheists from the Christian,\nMohammedan and Jewish camps.\n\n(1) Thus Scotus Eriugena (who died in about 877 A.D.) insists: \u201cIn\nstrict parlance, the Divine Nature Itself exists alone in all things,\nand nothing exists which is not that Nature. The Lord and the Creature\nare one and the same thing.\u201d \u201cIt is its own Self that the Holy Trinity\nloves, sees, moves within us.\u201d One of his fundamental ideas is the\nequivalence of the degrees of abstraction and those of existence; he\nsimply hypostatizes the logical table.[384] Eriugena was condemned.\n\n(2) But the Pseudo-Aristotelian, really Proclian, _Liber de Causis_,\nwritten by a Mohammedan in about 850 A.D., became, from its\ntranslation into Latin in about 1180 A.D. onwards, an authority among\nthe orthodox Scholastics. It takes, as \u201can example of the (_true_)\ndoctrine as to Causes, Being, Living-Being, and Man. Here it is\nnecessary that the thing Being should exist first of all, and next\nLiving-Being, and last Man. Living-Being is the proximate, Being is\nthe remote cause of Man; hence Being is in a higher degree the cause\nof Man than is Living-Being, since Being is the cause of Living-Being,\nwhich latter again is the cause of Man.\u201d \u2026 \u201cBeing, (of the kind)\nwhich is before Eternity, is the first cause.\u2026 Being is more general\nthan Eternity.\u2026 Being of the kind which is with and after Eternity,\nis the first of created things.\u2026 It is above Sense, and Soul, and\nIntelligence.\u201d[385]\n\n(3) The Mohammedan Avicenna, who died in 1037 A.D., is mostly\nAristotelian in philosophy and Orthodox in religious intention, and,\ntranslated into Latin, was much used by St. Thomas. Yet he has lapses\ninto pure Pantheism, such as: \u201cThe true Being that belongs to God,\nis not His only, but is the Being of all things, and comes forth\nabundantly from His Being. That which all things desire is Being:\nBeing is Goodness; the perfection of Being is the perfection of\nGoodness.\u201d[386]\n\n(4) And the Spanish Jew, Ibn Gebirol (Avicebron), who died about 1070\nA.D., is predominantly Proclian, but with a form of Pantheism which, in\nparts, strikingly foreshadows Spinoza. His masterly _Fons Vitae_, as\ntranslated into Latin, exercised a profound influence upon Duns Scotus.\n\u201cBelow the first Maker there is nothing but what is both matter and\nform.\u201d \u201cAll things are resolvable into Matter and Form. If all things\nwere resolvable into a single root,\u201d (that is, into Form alone), \u201cthere\nwould be no difference between that one root and the one Maker.\u201d There\nexists a universal Matter and a universal Form. The first, or universal\nMatter, is a substance existing by itself, which sustains diversity,\nand is one in number: it is capable of receiving all the different\nkinds of forms. The universal Form is a substance which constitutes the\nessence of all the different kinds of forms.\u2026 By means of the knowledge\nof this universal Form, the knowledge of every (less general) form is\nacquired,--is deduced from it and resolved into it.\u201d \u201cBeing falls under\nfour categories, answering to: whether it is, what it is, what is its\nquality, and why it is: but, of these, the first in order of dignity\nis the category which inquires whether it is at all.\u201d[387] We thus\nget again the degree of worth strictly identical with the degree of\ngenerality.\n\n\n4. _Inconsistencies of Aquinas and Scotus._\n\n(1) St. Thomas, the chief of the orthodox Scholastics, has embodied\nthe entire Dionysian writings in his own works, but labours\nassiduously--and successfully, as far as his own statements are\nconcerned--to guard against the Pantheistic tendencies special to\nstrict Realism. Yet it is clear, from his frequent warnings and\ndifficult distinctions regarding the double sense of the proposition,\n\u201cGod is sheer Being,\u201d and from the ease with which we find Eckhart,\nan entirely consistent Realist, lapse into the Pantheistic sense, how\nimmanent is the danger to any severe form of the system.[388] And he\nfails to give us a thoroughly understandable and consistent account\nas to the relations between the General and the Particular, between\nForm and Matter, and between these two pairs of conceptions. Thus\n\u201cMateria signata,\u201d matter, as bearing certain dimensions, \u201cis the\nprinciple of individuation\u201d:[389] yet this _quantum_ is already an\nindividually determined quantity, and _this_ determination remains\nunexplained. And certain forms exist separately, without matter, in\nwhich case each single form is a separate species; as with the Angels\nand, pre-eminently, with God.--Yet, as already Duns Scotus insisted,\nAquinas\u2019 general principle seems to require the non-existence of pure\nforms as distinct beings, and the partial materiality of all individual\nbeings.[390]\n\n(2) And Duns Scotus teaches, in explicit return to Avicebron, that\nevery created substance consists of matter as well as of form, and that\nthere is but one, First Matter, which is identical in every particular\nand derivative kind of matter. The world appears to him as a gigantic\ntree, whose root is this indeterminate matter; whose branches are\nthe transitory substances; whose leaves the changeable accidents;\nwhose flowers, the rational souls; whose fruit are the Angels: and\nwhich God has planted and which He tends. Here again the order of\nEfficacity,--with the tell-tale exception of God,--is identical with\nthat of Generality.[391]\n\n\n5. _Eckhart\u2019s Pantheistic trend._\n\nBut it is Eckhart who consistently develops the Pantheistic trend of\na rigorous Intellectualism. The very competent and strongly Thomistic\nFather Denifle shows how Eckhart strictly followed the general\nscholastic doctrine, as enunciated by Avicenna: \u201cIn every creature\nits Being is one thing, and is from another, its Essence is another\nthing, and is not from another\u201d; whereas in God, Being and Essence are\nidentical. And Denifle adds: \u201cEckhart will have been unable to answer\nfor himself the question as to what, in strictness, the \u2018Esse\u2019 is, in\ndistinction from the \u2018Essentia\u2019; indeed no one could have told him,\nwith precision.\u2026 Eckhart leaves intact the distinction between the\nEssence of God and that of the creature; but, doubtless in part because\nof this, he feels himself free,--in starting from an ambiguous text\nof Boetius,--to break down the careful discriminations established by\nSt. Thomas, in view of this same text, between Universal Being, Common\nto all things extant, and Divine Being, reserved by Aquinas for God\nalone.\u201d[392] \u201cWhat things are nearer to each other, than anything that\n_is_ and Being? There is nothing between them.\u201d \u201cVery Being,\u201d the Being\nof God, \u201cis the actualizing Form of every form, everywhere.\u201d \u201cIn one\nword,\u201d adds Denifle, \u201cthe Being of God constitutes the formal Being of\nall things.\u201d[393] The degrees of Generality and Abstract Thinkableness\nare again also the degrees of Reality and Worth: \u201cthe Eternal Word\nassumed to Itself, not this or that human being, but a human nature\nwhich existed bare, unparticularized.\u201d \u201cBeing and Knowableness are\nidentical.\u201d\n\nWhen speaking systematically Eckhart is strictly Plotinian: \u201cGod\nand Godhead are as distinct as earth is from heaven.\u201d \u201cThe Godhead\nhas left all things to God: It owns nought, wills nought, requires\nnought, effects nought, produces nought.\u201d \u201cThou shalt love the Godhead\nas It truly is: a non-God, non-Spirit, non-Person \u2026 a sheer, pure,\nclear One, severed from all duality: let us sink down into that One,\nthroughout eternity, from Nothing unto Nothing, so help us God.\u201d \u201cThe\nGodhead Itself remains unknown to Itself.\u201d \u201cIt is God who energizes and\nspeaks one single thing,--His Son, the Holy Ghost, and all creatures.\u2026\nWhere God speaks it, there it is all God; here, where man understands\nit, it is God and creature.\u201d[394] No wonder that the following are\namong the propositions condemned by Pope John XXII in 1329: \u201cGod\nproduces me as His own Being, a Being identical, not merely similar\u201d;\nand, \u201cI speak as falsely when I call God (the Godhead) good, as if I\ncall white, black.\u201d[395]\n\n\n6. _The logical goal of strict Realism._\n\nThis series of facts, which could be indefinitely extended, well\nillustrates the persistence of \u201cthe fundamental doctrine common to all\nforms of Realism,--of the species as an entity in the individuals,\ncommon to all and _identical_ in each, an entity to which individual\ndifferences adhere as accidents,\u201d as Prof. Seth-Pattison accurately\ndefines the matter. \u201cYet when existence is in question, it is the\nindividual, not the universal, that is real; and the real individual\nis not a compound of species and accidents, but is individual to the\ninmost fibre of his being.\u201d Not as though Nominalism were in the right.\nFor \u201ceach finite individual has its\u201d special \u201cplace in the one real\nuniverse, with all the parts of which it is inseparably connected. But\nthe universe is itself an individual or real whole, containing all\nits parts within itself, and not a universal of the logical order,\ncontaining its exemplifications under it.\u201d[396] And, above all, minds,\nspirits, persons,--however truly they may approximate more and more\nto certain great types of rationality, virtue, and religion, which\ntypes are thus increasingly expressive of God\u2019s self-revealing purpose\nand nature,--are ever, not merely numerically different, as between\none individual and the other, but, both in its potentialities and\nespecially in its spiritual actualization, no one soul can or does take\nthe place of any other.\n\nAnd if we ask what there is in any strict Realism to attract the\nMystical sense, we shall find it, I think, in the insistence of\nsuch Realism upon Unity, Universality, and Stability. Yet in so\nfar as Mysticism, in such a case Exclusive Mysticism, tends to oust\nthe Outgoing movement of the soul, it empties these forms of their\nMultiple, Individual, and Energizing content. Inclusive Mysticism may\nbe truly said alone to attain to the true Mystic\u2019s desires; for only\nby the interaction of both movements, and of all the powers of the\nsoul, will the said soul escape the ever-increasing poverty of content\ncharacteristic of the strict Realist\u2019s pyramid of conceptions; a\npoverty undoubtedly antagonistic to the secret aspiration of Mysticism,\nwhich is essentially an apprehension, admiration, and love of the\ninfinite depths and riches of Reality--of this Reality no doubt present\neverywhere, yet in indefinitely various, and mutually complementary and\nstimulative forms and degrees. And the readiness with which Mysticism\nexpressed itself in the Nominalist Categories,--distinctly less\nadequate to a healthy, Partial Mysticism than the more moderate forms\nof Realism,--shows how little intrinsic was the link which seemed to\nbind it to a Realism of the most rigorous kind.\n\n\nII. RELATIONS BETWEEN GOD AND THE HUMAN SOUL.\n\nIn taking next the question as to the relations between God and the\nHuman Soul, we shall find our difficulties increased, because, here\nespecially, the Philosophers and even the Biblical Writers have,\nwith regard to religious experience, used expressions and furnished\nstimulations of a generally complex and unclarified, intermittent,\nand unharmonized kind; and especially because certain specifically\nreligious experiences and requirements have operated here with a unique\nintensity, at one time in a Pantheistic, at another in a more or less\nDeistic direction. The reader will specially note the points in the\nfollowing doctrines which helped on the conception that a certain\ncentre or highest part of the soul is God, or a part of God, Himself.\n\n\n1. _Plato and Aristotle. \u201cThe No\u00fbs.\u201d_\n\n(1) Plato teaches the pre-existence and the post-existence\n(immortality) of the soul, as two interdependent truths. In his\nearlier stage, _e.g._ the _Phaedrus_, he so little discriminates, in\nhis argument for immortality, between the individual soul and the\nWorld-Soul, as to argue that \u201cthe Self-Moving\u201d Soul generally \u201cis the\nbeginning of motion, and this motion,\u201d (specially here in connection\nwith the human soul), \u201ccan neither be destroyed nor begotten, since,\nin that case, the heavens and all generation would collapse.\u201d Yet\nindividual souls are not, according to him, emanations of the\nWorld-Soul; but, as the particular ideas stand beside the Supreme Idea,\nso do the particular souls stand beside the Soul of the Whole, in a\ndistinct peculiarity of their own.[397]--And again, since the soul\nhas lapsed from a purer, its appropriate, life into the body, and has\nthus no original, intrinsic relation to this body, the activity of the\nsenses, indeed in strictness even that of the emotions, cannot form\npart of its essential nature. Only the highest part of the soul, the\nReason, _No\u00fbs_, which, as \u201csun-like, God-like,\u201d can apprehend the sun,\nGod, is one and simple, as are all the ideas, immortal; whereas the\nsoul\u2019s lower part consists of two elements,--the nobler, the irascible,\nand the ignobler, the concupiscible passions. But how the unity of the\nsoul\u2019s life can co-exist with this psychical tritomy, is a question\nno doubt never formulated even to himself by Plato: we certainly have\nonly three beings bound together, not one being active in different\ndirections.[398]\n\n(2) Aristotle, if more sober in his general doctrine, brings some\nspecial obscurities and contradictions. For whilst the pre-existence\nof the soul, taken as a whole, is formally denied, and indeed its very\norigin is linked to that of the body, its rational part, the No\u00fbs,\ncomes into the physical organism from outside of the matter altogether,\nand an impersonal pre-existence is distinctly predicated of it,--in\nstrict conformity with his doctrine that the Supreme No\u00fbs does not\ndirectly act upon, or produce things in, the world.[399]\n\n\n2. _St. Paul. The \u201cSpirit.\u201d_\n\nBut it is St. Paul who, in his Mystical outbursts and in the systematic\nparts of his doctrine, as against the simply hortatory level of\nhis teaching, gives us the earliest, one of the deepest, and to\nthis hour by far the most influential, among the at all detailed\nexperiences and schemes, accepted by and operative among Christians,\nas to the relations of the human soul to God. And here again, and\nwith characteristic intensity, certain overlapping double meanings\nand conceptions, and some vivid descriptions of experiences readily\nsuggestive of the divinity of the soul\u2019s highest part, repeatedly\nappear.\n\n(1) In the systematic passages we not only find the terms _Psyche_,\n\u201cSoul,\u201d for the vital force of the body; and _No\u00fbs_, (\u201cMind,\u201d)\n\u201cHeart,\u201d and \u201cConscience,\u201d for various aspects and functions of\nman\u2019s rational and volitional nature: but a special insistence upon\n_Pneuma_, \u201cSpirit,\u201d mostly in a quite special sense of the word.\nThus in 1 Cor. ii, 14, 15, we get an absolute contrast between the\npsychic or sarkic, the simply natural man, and the Pneumatic, the\nSpiritual one, all capacity for understanding the Spirit of God being\ndenied to the former. The Spiritual thus appears as itself already\nthe Divine, and the Spirit as the exclusive, characteristic property\nof God, something which is foreign to man, apart from his Christian\nrenovation and elevation to a higher form of existence. Only with the\nentrance of faith and its consequences into the mind and will of man,\ndoes this transcendent Spirit become an immanent principle: \u201cthrough\nHis Spirit dwelling in you.\u201d[400]--Hence, in the more systematic\nPauline Anthropology, _Pneuma_ cannot be taken as belonging to man\u2019s\noriginal endowment. Certainly in 1 Cor. ii, 11, the term \u201cthe spirit\nof a man\u201d appears simply because the whole passage is dominated by a\ncomparison between the Divine and the human consciousness, which allows\nsimultaneously of the use of the conversely incorrect term, \u201cthe mind\nof God,\u201d--here, v. 16, and in Rom. xi, 34. And the term \u201cthe spirit\nof the world,\u201d 1 Cor. ii, 12, is used in contrast with \u201cthe Spirit of\nGod,\u201d and as loosely as the term \u201cthe God of this world,\u201d is applied,\nin 2 Cor. iv, 4, to Satan.--Only some four passages are difficult to\ninterpret thus: _e.g._ \u201cEvery defilement of flesh and of spirit\u201d (2\nCor. vii, 1); for how can God, Spirit, be defiled? Yet we can \u201cforget\nthat our body is a temple of the Holy Spirit,\u201d 1 Cor. vi, 19; and its\ndefilement can \u201cgrieve the Holy Spirit\u201d (Eph. iv, 30).[401]\n\nAnd note how parallel to his conception of this immanence of the\ntranscendent Spirit is St. Paul\u2019s conception, based upon his personal,\nmystical experience, of the indwelling of Christ in the regenerate\nhuman soul. Saul had indeed been won to Jesus Christ, not by the\nhistory of Jesus\u2019 earthly life, but by the direct manifestation of\nthe heavenly Spirit-Christ, on the way to Damascus: whence he teaches\nthat only those who know Him as Spirit, can truly \u201cbe in Christ,\u201d--an\nexpression formed on the model of \u201cto be in the Spirit,\u201d as in Mark\nxii, 36, and Apoc. 1, 10.\n\n(2) And then these terms take on, in specifically Pauline Mystical\npassages, a suggestion of a local extension and environment, and\nexpress, like the corresponding formulae \u201cin God,\u201d \u201cin the Spirit,\u201d the\nconception of an abiding within as it were an element,--that of the\nexalted Christ and His Divine glory. Or Christ is within us, as the\nSpirit also is said to be, so that the regenerate personality, by its\ncloseness of intercourse with the personality of Christ, can become\none single Spirit with Him, 1 Cor. vi, 17. \u201cAs the air is the element\nin which man moves, and yet again the element of life which is present\nwithin the man: so the Pneuma-Christ is for St. Paul both the Ocean\nof the Divine Being, into which the Christian, since his reception\nof the Spirit, is plunged,\u201d and in which he disports himself, \u201cand a\nstream which, derived from that Ocean, is specially introduced within\nhis individual life.\u201d[402] Catherine\u2019s profound indebtedness to this\nMystical Pauline doctrine has already been studied; here we are but\nconsidering this doctrine in so far as suggestive, to the Mystics,\nof the identity between the true self and God,--an identity readily\nreached, if we press such passages as \u201cChrist, our life\u201d; \u201cto live is\nChrist\u201d; \u201cI live, not I, but Christ liveth in me.\u201d[403]\n\n\n3. _Plotinus._\n\nSome two centuries later, Plotinus brings his profound influence to\nbear in the direction of such identification. For as the First, the\nOne, which, as we saw, possesses, for him, no Self-consciousness,\nLife, or Being, produces the Second, the No\u00fbs, which, possessed of\nall these attributes, exercises them directly in self-contemplation\nalone; and yet this Second is so closely like that First as to be\n\u201clight from light\u201d: so does the Second produce the Third, the Human\nPsyche, which, though \u201ca thing by itself,\u201d is a \u201cgodlike (divine)\nthing,\u201d since it possesses \u201ca more divine part, the part which is\nneighbour to what is above, the No\u00fbs, with which and from which No\u00fbs\nthe Psyche exists.\u201d--The Psyche is \u201can image of the No\u00fbs\u201d: \u201cas outward\nspeech expresses inward thought, so is the Psyche a concept of the\nNo\u00fbs,--a certain energy of the No\u00fbs, as the No\u00fbs itself is an energy\nof the First Cause.\u201d \u201cAs with fire, where we distinguish the heat that\nabides within the fire and the heat that is emitted by it \u2026 so must we\nconceive the Psyche not as wholly flowing forth from, but as in part\nabiding in, in part proceeding from the No\u00fbs.\u201d[404]\n\nAnd towards the end of the great Ninth Book of the Sixth Ennead, he\ntells how in Ecstasy \u201cthe soul sees the Source of Life \u2026 the Ground of\nGoodness, the Root of the Soul.\u2026 For we are not cut off from or outside\nof It \u2026 but we breathe and consist in It: since It does not give and\nthen retire, but ever lifts and bears us, so long as It is what It is.\u201d\n\u201cWe must stand alone in It and must become It alone, after stripping\noff all the rest that hangs about us.\u2026 There we can behold both Him and\nour own selves,--ourselves, full of intellectual light, or rather as\nPure Light Itself, having become God, or rather as being simply He \u2026\nabiding altogether unmoved, having become as it were Stability Itself.\u201d\n\u201cWhen man has moved out of himself away to God, like the image to its\nPrototype, he has reached his journey\u2019s end.\u201d \u201cAnd this is the life of\nthe Gods and of divine and blessed men \u2026 a flight of the alone to the\nAlone.\u201d[405]\n\n\n4. _Eckhart\u2019s position. Ruysbroek._\n\n(1) Eckhart gives us both Plotinian positions--the God-likeness and\nthe downright Divinity of the soul. \u201cThe Spark (_das F\u00fcnkelein_)\nof the Soul \u2026 is a light impressed upon its uppermost part, and an\nimage of the Divine Nature, which is ever at war with all that is not\ndivine. It is not one of the several powers of the soul.\u2026 Its name\nis Synteresis,\u201d--_i.e._ conscience. \u201cThe nine powers of the soul are\nall servants of that man of the soul, and help him on to the soul\u2019s\nSource.\u201d[406]--But in one of the condemned propositions he says: \u201cThere\nis something in the soul which is Increate and Uncreatable; if the\nwhole soul were such, it would be (entirely) Increate and Uncreatable.\nAnd this is the Intellect,\u201d--standing here exactly for Plotinus\u2019s\nNo\u00fbs.[407]\n\n(2) Ruysbroek (who died in 1381) combines a considerable fundamental\nsobriety with much of St. Paul\u2019s daring and many echoes of Plotinus.\n\u201cThe unity of our spirit with God is of two kinds,--essential and\nactual. According to its essence, our spirit receives, in its\ninnermost highest part, the visit of Christ, without means and without\nintermission; for the life which we are in God, in our Eternal Image,\nand that which we have and are in ourselves, according to the essence\nof our being \u2026 are without distinction.--But this essential unity of\nour spirit with God has no consistency in itself, but abides in God and\nflows out from and depends on Him.\u201d The actual unity of our spirit with\nGod, caused by Grace, confers upon us not His Image, but His Likeness,\n\u201cand though we cannot lose the Image of God, nor our natural unity with\nHim,--if we lose His Likeness, His Grace, Christ, who, in this case,\ncomes to us with mediations and intermissions, we shall be damned.\u201d[408]\n\n\n5. _St. Teresa\u2019s mediating view._\n\nSt. Teresa\u2019s teachings contain interesting faint echoes of the old\nperplexities and daring doctrines concerning the nature of the Spirit;\nbut articulate a strikingly persistent conviction that the soul holds\nGod Himself as distinct from His graces, possessing thus some direct\nexperience of this His presence. \u201cI cannot understand what the mind\nis, nor how it differs from the soul or the spirit either: all three\nseem to me to be but one, though the soul sometimes leaps forth out\nof itself, like a fire which has become a flame: the flame ascends\nhigh above the fire, but it is still the same flame of the same fire.\u201d\n\u201cSomething subtle and swift seems to issue from the soul, to ascend\nto its highest part and to go whither Our Lord will \u2026 it seems a\nflight. This little bird of the spirit seems to have escaped out of\nthe prison of the body.\u201d Indeed \u201cthe soul is then not in itself \u2026 it\nseems to me to have its dwelling higher than even the highest part of\nitself.\u201d[409]--\u201cIn the beginning I did not know that God is present in\nall things.\u2026 Unlearned men used to tell me that He was present only by\nHis grace. I could not believe that.\u2026 A most learned Dominican told me\nHe was present Himself \u2026 this was a great comfort to me.\u201d \u201cTo look upon\nOur Lord as being in the innermost parts of the soul \u2026 is a much more\nprofitable method, than that of looking upon Him as external to us.\u201d\n\u201cThe living God was in my soul.\u201d And even, \u201chitherto\u201d up to 1555, \u201cmy\nlife was my own; my life, since then, is the life which God lived in\nme.\u201d[410]\n\n\n6. _Immanence, not Pantheism._\n\nSt. Teresa\u2019s teaching as to God\u2019s own presence in the soul points\nplainly, I think, to the truth insisted on by the Catholic theologian\nSchwab, in his admirable monograph on Gerson. \u201cNeither speculation nor\nfeeling are satisfied with a Pure Transcendence of God; and hence the\nwhole effort of true Mysticism is directed, whilst not abolishing His\nTranscendence, to embrace and experience God, His living presence,\nin the innermost soul,--that is, to insist, in some way or other,\nupon the Immanence of God. Reject all such endeavours as Pantheistic,\ninsist sharply upon the specific eternal difference between God and\nthe Creature: and the Speculative, Mystical depths fade away, with\nall their fascination.\u201d[411] Not in finding Pantheism already here,\nwith the imminent risk of falling into a cold Deism, but in a rigorous\ninsistence, with all the great Inclusive Mystics, upon the spiritual\nand moral effects, as the tests of the reality and worth of such\nexperiences, and, with the Ascetical and Historical souls, upon also\nthe other movement--an outgoing in some kind of contact with, and\nlabour at, the contingencies and particularities of life and mind--will\nthe true safeguard for this element of the soul\u2019s life be found.[412]\n\n\nIII. MYSTICISM AND PANTHEISM: THEIR DIFFERENCES AND POINTS OF LIKENESS.\n\nBut does not Mysticism, not only find God in the soul, but the soul\nto be God? Is it not, as such, already Pantheism? Or, if not, what is\ntheir difference?\n\n\n1. _Plotinus and Spinoza compared._\n\nNow Dr. Edward Caird, in his fine book, _The Evolution of Theology in\nthe Greek Philosophers_, 1904, tells us that \u201cMysticism is religion in\nits most concentrated and exclusive form; it is that attitude of mind\nin which all other relations are swallowed up in the relation of the\nsoul to God\u201d; and that \u201cPlotinus is the Mystic _par excellence_.\u201d[413]\nAnd he then proceeds to contrast Plotinus, the typical Mystic, with\nSpinoza, the true Pantheist.\n\n\u201cWhether\u201d or not \u201cSpinoza, in his negation of the limits of the finite,\nstill leaves it open to himself to admit a reality in finite things\nwhich is _not_ negated,\u201d and \u201cto conceive of the absolute substance\nas manifesting itself in attributes and modes\u201d: \u201cit is very clear\nthat he does so conceive it, and that, for all those finite things\nwhich he treats as negative and illusory in themselves, he finds in\nGod a ground of reality \u2026 which can be as little destroyed as the\ndivine substance itself.\u201d \u201cGod, _Deus sive Natura_, is conceived as\nthe immanent principle of the universe, or perhaps rather the universe\nis conceived as immanent in God.\u201d--Thus to him \u201cthe movement by which\nhe dissolves the finite in the infinite, and the movement by which he\nfinds the finite again in the infinite, are equally essential. If for\nhim the world is nothing apart from God, God is nothing apart from His\nrealization in the world.\u201d This is true Pantheism.[414]\n\nBut in Plotinus the _via negativa_ involves a negation of the finite\nand determinate in all its forms; hence here it is impossible to find\nthe finite again in the infinite. The Absolute One is here not immanent\nbut transcendent.[415] \u201cWhile the lower always has need of the higher,\nthe higher is regarded as having no need\u201d for any purpose \u201cof the\nlower\u201d; and \u201cthe Highest has no need of anything but Itself.\u201d \u201cSuch\na process cannot be reversed\u201d: \u201cin ascending, Plotinus has drawn the\nladder after him, and left himself no possibility of descending again.\nThe movement, in which he is guided by definite and explicit thought,\nis always upwards; while, in describing the movement downwards, he\nhas to take refuge in metaphors and analogies,\u201d for the purpose of\nindicating a purely self-occupied activity which only accidentally\nproduces an external effect, _e.g._, \u201cthe One as it were overflows, and\nproduces another than itself.\u201d[416] \u201cThus we have the strange paradox\nthat the Being who is absolute, is yet conceived as in a sense external\nto the relative and finite, and that He leaves the relative and finite\nin a kind of unreal independence.\u201d \u201cOn the one side, we have a life\nwhich is nothing apart from God, and which, nevertheless, can never be\nunited to him, except as it loses itself altogether; and, on the other\nside, an Absolute, which yet is not immanent in the life it originates,\nbut abides in transcendent isolation from it.\u2026 It is this contradiction\nwhich \u2026 makes the writings of Plotinus the supreme expression of\nMysticism.\u201d[417]\n\nNow I think, with this admirable critic, that we cannot but take\nSpinoza as the classical representative of that parallelistic\nPantheism to which most of our contemporary systems of psycho-physical\nparallelism belong. As Prof. Troeltsch well puts it, \u201cwe have here a\ncomplete parallelism between every single event in the physical world,\nwhich event is already entirely explicable from its own antecedents\nwithin that physical world, and every event of a psychical kind,\nwhich, nevertheless, is itself also entirely explicable from its own\npsychical antecedents alone.\u201d And \u201cthis parallelism again is but two\nsides of the one World-Substance, Which is neither Nature nor Spirit,\nand Whose law is neither natural nor spiritual law, but Which is Being\nin general and Law in general.\u201d In this one World-Substance, with its\nparallel self-manifestations as extension and as thought, Spinoza\nfinds the ultimate truth of Religion, as against the Indeterminist,\nAnthropomorphic elements of all the popular religions,--errors which\nhave sprung, the Anthropomorphic from man\u2019s natural inclination to\ninterpret Ultimate Reality, with its complete neutrality towards\nthe distinctions of Psychical and Physical, by the Psychic side, as\nthe one nearest to our own selves; and the Indeterminist from the\nattribution of that indetermination to the World-Substance which, even\nin Psychology, is already a simple illusion and analytical blunder.\n\n\u201cIt is in the combination,\u201d concludes Professor Troeltsch, \u201cof such a\nrecognition of the strict determination of all natural causation, and\nof such a rejection of materialism (with its denial of the independence\nof the psychic world), that rests the immense power of Pantheism at\nthe present time.\u201d[418] On the other hand, the supposed Pantheistic\npositions of the later Lessing, of Herder, Goethe and many another\npredominantly aesthetic thinker, must, although far richer and more\nnearly adequate conceptions of full reality, be assigned, _qua_\nPantheism, a secondary place, as inconsistent, because already largely\nTeleological, indeed Theistic Philosophies.\n\n\n2. _Complete Pantheism non-religious; why approached by Mysticism._\n\nNow the former, the full Pantheism, must, I think, be declared, with\nRauwenhoff, to be only in name a religious position at all. \u201cIn its\nessence it is simply a complete Monism, a recognition of the _Pan_ in\nits unity and indivisibility, and hence a simple view of the world, not\na religious conception.\u201d[419]--Yet deeply religious souls can be more\nor less, indeed profoundly, influenced by such a Monism, so that we can\nget Mystics with an outlook considerably more Spinozist than Plotinian.\nThere can, _e.g._, be no doubt as to both the deeply religious temper\nand the strongly Pantheistic conceptions of Eckhart in the Middle Ages,\nand of Schleiermacher in modern times; and indeed Spinoza himself is,\napart from all questions as to the logical implications and results\nof his intellectual system, and as to the justice of his attacks upon\nthe historical religions, a soul of massive religious intuition and\naspiration.\n\nBut further: Mystically tempered souls,--and the typical and\ncomplete religious soul will ever possess a mystical element in its\ncomposition,--have three special _attraits_ which necessarily bring\nthem into an at least apparent proximity to Pantheism.\n\n(1) For one thing Mysticism, like Pantheism, has a great, indeed (if\nleft unchecked by the out-going-movement) an excessive, thirst for\nUnity, for a Unity less and less possessed of Multiplicity; and the\ntransition from holding the Pure Transcendence of this Unity to a\nconviction of its Exclusive Immanence becomes easy and insignificant,\nin proportion to the emptiness of content increasingly characterizing\nthis Oneness.\n\n(2) Then again, like Pantheists, Mystics dwell much upon the strict\ncall to abandon all self-centredness, upon the death to self, the loss\nof self; and in proportion as they dwell upon this self to be thus\nrejected, and as they enlarge the range of this petty self, do they\napproach each other more and more.\n\n(3) And lastly, there is a peculiarity about the Mystical habit of\nmind, which inevitably approximates it to the Pantheistic mode of\nthought, and which, if not continuously taken by the Mystic soul\nitself as an inevitable, but most demonstrable, inadequacy, will\nreact upon the substance of this soul\u2019s thought in a truly Pantheistic\nsense. This peculiarity results from the Mystic\u2019s ever-present double\ntendency of absorbing himself, away from the Successive and Temporal,\nin the Simultaneity and Eternity of God, conceiving thus all reality\nas partaking, in proportion to its depth and greater likeness to\nHim, in this _Totum Simul_ character of its ultimate Author and\nEnd; and of clinging to such vivid picturings of this reality as\nare within his, this Mystic\u2019s reach. Now such a Simultaneity can be\npictorially represented to the mind only by the Spacial imagery of\nco-existent Extensions,--say of air, water, light, or fire: and these\nrepresentations, if dwelt on as at all adequate, will necessarily\nsuggest a Determinism of a Mathematico-Physical, Extensional type,\n_i.e._ one, and the dominant, side of Spinozistic Pantheism.--It is\nhere, I think, that we get the double cause for the Pantheistic-seeming\ntrend of almost all the Mystical imagery. For even the marked\nEmanationism of much in Plotinus, and of still more in Proclus,--the\nlatter still showing through many a phrase in Dionysius,--appears in\ntheir images as operating upon a fixed Extensional foundation: and\nindeed these very overflowings, owing to the self-centredness and\nemptiness of content of their Source, the One, and to their accidental\nyet automatic character, help still further to give to the whole\noutlook a strikingly materialistic, mechanical, in so far Pantheistic,\ncharacter.\n\n\n3. _Points on which Mysticism has usefully approximated to Pantheism._\n\nAnd yet we must not overlook the profound, irreplaceable services that\nare rendered by Mysticism,--provided always it remains but one of two\ngreat movements of the living soul,--even on the points in which it\nthus approximates to Pantheism. These services, I think, are three.\n\n(1) The first of these services has been interestingly illustrated by\nProf. A. S. Pringle Pattison, from the case of Dr. James Martineau\u2019s\nwritings, and the largely unmediated co-existence there of two\ndifferent modes of conceiving God. \u201cThe first mode represents God\nsimply as another, higher Person; the second represents Him as\nthe soul of souls. The former, Deistic and Hebraic, rests upon an\ninferential knowledge of God, derived either from the experience of\nHis resistance to our will through the forces of Nature, or from that\nof His restraint upon us in the voice of Conscience,--God, in both\ncases, being regarded as completely separated from the human soul, and\nHis existence and character apprehended and demonstrated by a process\nof reasoning.--The second mode is distinctly and intensely Christian,\nand consists in the apprehension of God as the Infinite including\nall finite existences, as the immanent Absolute who progressively\nmanifests His character in the Ideals of Truth, Beauty, Righteousness,\nand Love.\u201d And Professor Pattison points out, with Professor Upton,\nthat it was Dr. Martineau\u2019s almost morbid dread of Pantheism which was\nresponsible for the inadequate expression given to this Mystical, or\n\u201cSpeculative\u201d element in his religious philosophy. For only if we do\nnot resist such Mysticism, do we gain and retain a vivid experience of\nhow \u201cConsciousness of imperfection and the pursuit of perfection are\nalike possible to man only through the universal life of thought and\ngoodness in which he shares, and which, at once an indwelling presence\nand an unattainable ideal, draws him on and always on.\u201d \u201cPersonality\nis\u201d thus \u201cnot \u2018unitary\u2019 in Martineau\u2019s sense, as occupying one side\nof a relation, and unable to be also on the other. The very capacity\nof knowledge and morality implies that the person \u2026 is capable of\nregarding himself and all other beings from what Martineau well names\n\u2018the station of the Father of Spirits.\u2019\u201d[420]\n\nI would, however, guard here against any exclusion of a seeking\nor finding of God in Nature and in Conscience: only the contrary\nexclusion of the finding of God within the soul, and the insistence\nupon a complete separation of Him from that soul, are inacceptable in\nthe \u201cHebraic\u201d mood. For a coming and a going, a movement inwards and\noutwards, checks and counter-checks, friction, contrast, battle and\nstorm, are necessary conditions and ingredients of the soul\u2019s growth in\nits sense of appurtenance to Spirit and to Peace.\n\n(2) A further service rendered by this Pantheistic-seeming\nMysticism,--though always only so long as it remains not the only or\nlast word of Religion,--is that it alone discovers the truly spiritual\nfunction and fruitfulness of Deterministic Science. For only if Man\ndeeply requires a profound desubjectivizing, a great shifting of the\ncentre of his interest, away from the petty, claimful, animal self,\nwith its \u201cI against all the world,\u201d to a great kingdom of souls, in\nwhich Man gains his larger, spiritual, unique personality, with its\n\u201cI as part of, and for all the world,\u201d by accepting to be but one\namongst thousands of similar constituents in a system expressive of the\nthoughts of God; and only if Mathematico-Physical Science is specially\nfitted to provide such a bath, and hence is so taken, with all its\napparently ruinous Determinism and seeming Godlessness: is such Science\nreally safe from apologetic emasculation; or from running, a mere\nunrelated dilettantism, alongside of the deepest interests of the soul;\nor from, in its turn, crushing or at least hampering the deepest, the\nspiritual life of man. Hence all the greater Partial Mystics have got\na something about them which indicates that they have indeed passed\nthrough fire and water, that their poor selfishness has been purified\nin a bath of painfully-bracing spiritual air and light, through which\nthey have emerged into a larger, fuller life. And Nicolas of Coes,\nPascal, Malebranche are but three men out of many whose Mysticism and\nwhose Mathematico-Physical Science thus interstimulated each other and\njointly deepened their souls.\n\nWe shall find, further on, that this purificatory power of such Science\nhas been distinctly heightened for us now. Yet, both then and now,\nthere could and can be such purification only for those who realize\nand practise religion as sufficiently ultimate and wide and deep to\nenglobe, (as one of religion\u2019s necessary stimulants), an unweakened,\nutterly alien-seeming Determinism in the middle regions of the\nsoul\u2019s experience and outlook. Such an englobement can most justly\nbe declared to be Christianity driven fully home. For thus is Man\npurified and saved,--if he already possesses the dominant religious\nmotive and conviction,--by a close contact with Matter; and the Cross\nis plunged into the very centre of his soul\u2019s life, operating there a\nsure division between the perishing animal Individual and the abiding\nspiritual Personality: the deathless Incarnational and Redemptive\nreligion becomes thus truly operative there.\n\n(3) And the last service, rendered by such Mysticism, is to keep\nalive in the soul the profoundly important consciousness of the\nprerequisites, elements and affinities of a Universally Human kind,\nwhich are necessary to, and present in, all Religion, however\ndefinitely Concrete, Historical and Institutional it may have become.\nSuch special, characteristic Revelations, Doctrines and Institutions,\nas we find them in all the great Historical Religions, and in their\nfull normative substance and form in Christianity and Catholicism, can\nindeed alone completely develop, preserve and spread Religion in its\ndepth and truth; yet they ever presuppose a general, usually dim but\nmost real, religious sense and experience, indeed a real presence and\noperation of the Infinite and of God in all men.\n\nIt is, then, not an indifferentist blindness to the profound\ndifferences, in their degree of truth, between the religions of\nthe world, nor an insufficient realization of man\u2019s strict need of\nhistorical and institutional lights and aids for the development and\ndirection of that general religious sense and experience, which make\nthe mind revolt from sayings such as those we have already quoted from\nthe strongly Protestant Prof. Wilhelm Hermann, and to which we can\nadd the following. \u201cEverywhere, outside of Christianity, Mysticism\nwill arise, as the very flower of the religious development. But\nthe Christian must declare such Mystical experience of God to be a\ndelusion.\u201d For \u201cwhat is truly Christian is _ipso facto_ not Mystical.\u201d\n\u201cWe are Christians because, in the Humanity of Jesus, we have struck\nupon a fact which is of incomparably richer content, than are the\nfeelings that arise within our own selves.\u201d Indeed, \u201cI should have\nfailed to recognize the hand of God even in what my own dead father\ndid for me, had not, by means of my Christian education, God appeared\nto me, in the Historic Christ.\u201d[421]--As if it were possible to\nconsider Plato and Plotinus, in those religious intuitions and feelings\nof theirs which helped to win an Augustine from crass Manichaeism\nto a deep Spiritualism, and which continue to breathe and burn as\npart-elements in countless sayings of Christian philosophers and\nsaints, to have been simply deluded, or mere idle subjectivists! As if\nwe could apprehend even Christ, without some most real, however dim and\ngeneral, sense of religion and presence of God within us to which He\ncould appeal! And as if Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Maccabaean Martyrs,\nand many a devoted soul within Mohammedanism or in Brahmanic India,\ncould not and did not apprehend something of God\u2019s providence in their\nearthly father\u2019s love towards them!\n\nNo wonder that, after all this, Hermann can,--as against Richard Rothe\nwho, in spite of more than one fantastic if not fanatical aberration,\nhad, on some of the deepest religious matters, a rarely penetrating\nperception,--write in a thoroughly patronizing manner concerning\nCatholic Mysticism. For this Mysticism necessarily appears to him not\nas, at its best, the most massive and profound development of one type\nof the ultimate religion,--a type in which one necessary element of all\nbalanced religious life is at the fullest expansion compatible with a\nstill sufficient amount and healthiness of the other necessary elements\nof such a life,--but only as \u201ca form of religion which has brought out\nand rendered visible such a content of interior life as is capable of\nbeing produced within the limits of Catholic piety.\u201d[422] The true,\npure Protestant possesses, according to Hermann, apparently much less,\nin reality much more,--the Categorical Imperative of Conscience and the\nJesus of History, as the double one-and-all of his, the only spiritual\nreligion.--Yet if Christianity is indeed the religion of the Divine\nFounder, Who declared that he that is not against Him is for Him; or\nof Paul, who could appeal to the heathen Athenians and to all men for\nthe truth and experience that in God \u201cwe live and move and have our\nbeing\u201d; or of the great Fourth Gospel, which tells us that Christ,\nthe True Light, enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world, a\nlight which to this hour cannot, for the great majority, be through\nhistoric knowledge of the Historic Christ at all; or of Clement of\nAlexandria and of Justin Martyr, who loved to find deep apprehensions\nand operations of God scattered about among the Heathen; or of Aquinas,\nwho, in the wake of the Areopagite and others, so warmly dwells upon\nhow Grace does not destroy, but presupposes and perfects Nature: then\nsuch an exclusive amalgam of Moralism and History, though doubtless a\nmost honest and intelligible reaction against opposite excesses, is\na sad impoverishment of Christianity, in its essential, world-wide,\nCatholic character.\n\nIndeed, to be fair, there have never been wanting richer and more\nbalanced Protestant thinkers strongly to emphasize this profound\nmany-sidedness and universality of Christianity: so, at present,\nin Germany, Profs. Eucken, Troeltsch, Class, Siebeck and others;\nand, in England, Prof. A. S. P. Pattison and Mr. J. R. Illingworth.\nIn all these cases there is ever a strong sympathy with Mysticism\nproperly understood, as the surest safeguard against such distressing\ncontractions as is this of Hermann, and that of Albrecht Ritschl before\nhim.\n\n\n4._ Christianity excludes complete and final Pantheism._\n\nAnd yet, as we have repeatedly found, Christianity has, in its\nfundamental Revelation and Experience, ever implied and affirmed such a\nconception of Unity, of Self-Surrender, and of the Divine Action, as to\nrender any Pantheistic interpretation of these things ever incomplete\nand transitional.\n\n(1) The Unity here is nowhere, even ultimately, the sheer Oneness\nof a simply identical Substance, but a Unity deriving its very\nclose-knitness from its perfect organization of not simply identical\nelements or relations.\n\nThe Self-Surrender here is not a simply final resolution, of\nlaboriously constituted centres of human spiritual consciousness and\npersonality, back into a morally indifferent All, but a means and\npassage, for the soul, from a spiritually worthless self-entrenchment\nwithin a merely psycho-physical apartness and lust to live, on to a\nspiritual devotedness, an incorporation, as one necessary subject, into\nthe Kingdom of souls,--the abiding, living expression of the abiding,\nliving God.\n\nAnd, above all, God\u2019s Action is not a mechanico-physical, determinist,\nsimultaneous Extension, nor even an automatic, accidental, unconscious\nEmanation, but, as already Plato divined,--an intuition lost again by\nAristotle, and, in his logic, denied by Plotinus,--a voluntary outgoing\nand self-communication of the supreme self-conscious Spirit, God. For\nPlato tells us that \u201cthe reason why Nature and this Universe of things\nwas framed by Him Who framed it, is that God is good \u2026 and desired\nthat all things should be as like Himself as it was possible for them\nto be.\u201d[423] Yet this pregnant apprehension never attains here to its\nfull significance, because the Divine Intelligence is conceived only as\nmanifesting itself in relation to something given from without,--the\npre-existing, chaotic Matter. And for Aristotle God does not love this\nGivenness; for \u201cthe first Mover moves\u201d (all things) only \u201cas desired\u201d\nby them: He Himself desires, loves, wills nothing whatsoever, and\nthinks and knows nothing but His own self alone.[424] And in Plotinus\nthis same transcendence is still further emphasized, for the Absolute\nOne here transcends even all thought and self-consciousness.\n\n(2) It is in Christianity, after noble preludings in Judaism, that we\nget the full deliberate proclamation, in the great Life and Teaching,\nof the profound fact,--the Self-Manifestation of the Loving God, the\nSpirit-God moving out to the spirit-man, and spirit-man only thus\ncapable of a return movement to the Spirit-God. As Schelling said, \u201cGod\ncan only give Himself to His creatures as He gives a self to them,\u201d\nand, with it, the capacity of participating in His life. We thus get\na relation begun and rendered possible by God\u2019s utterly prevenient,\npure, _ecstatic_ love of Man, a relation which, in its essence\nspiritual, personal and libertarian, leaves behind it, as but vain\ntravesties of such ultimate Realities, all Emanational or Parallelistic\nPantheism, useful though these latter systems are as symbols of the\nMathematico-Physical level and kind of reality and apprehension.\nYet this spiritual relation is here, unlike Plotinus\u2019s more or less\nEmanational conception of it, not indeed simply invertible, as Spinoza\nwould have it, (for Man is ontologically dependent upon God, whereas\nGod is not thus dependent upon Man), but nevertheless largely one of\ntrue mutuality. And this mutuality of the relation is not simply a\npositive enactment of God, but is expressive, in its degree and mode,\nof God\u2019s intrinsic moral nature. For God is here the Source as well\nas the Object of all love; hence He Himself possesses the supreme\nequivalent for this our noblest emotion, and is moved to free acts of\noutgoing, in the creation and preservation, the revelation to, and\nthe redemption of finite spirits, as so many successive, mutually\nsupplementary, and increasingly fuller expressions and objects of this\nHis nature. \u201cGod is Love\u201d; \u201cGod so loved the world, as to give His\nonly-begotten Son\u201d; \u201cLet us love God, for God hath first loved us\u201d; \u201cif\nany man will do the will of God, he shall know of the doctrine if it be\nfrom God\u201d: God\u2019s Infinity is here, not the negation of the relatively\nindependent life of His creatures, but the very reason and source of\ntheir freedom.[425]\n\nIn the concluding chapter I hope to give a sketch of the actual\noperation of the true correctives to any excessive, Plotinian or\nSpinozistic, tendencies in the Mystical trend, especially when\nutilizing Mathematico-Physical Science at the soul\u2019s middle level; and\nof History at the ultimate reaches of the soul\u2019s life.\n\n\nIV. THE DIVINE IMMANENCE; SPIRITUAL PERSONALITY.\n\n\n1. _Panentheism._\n\nAs to our fourth question, the Divine Immanence and Personality,\nour last quotations from St. Teresa give us, I think, our true\nstarting-point. For it is evident that, between affirming the simple\nDivinity of the innermost centre of the soul, and declaring that the\nsoul ever experiences only the Grace of God, _i.e._ certain created\neffects, sent by Him from the far-away seat of His own full presence,\nthere is room for a middle position which, whilst ever holding the\ndefinite creatureliness of the soul, in all its reaches, puts God\nHimself into the soul and the soul into God, in degrees and with\nresults which vary indeed indefinitely according to its good-will\nand its call, yet which all involve and constitute a presence ever\nprofoundly real, ever operative before and beyond all the soul\u2019s own\noperations. These latter operations are, indeed, even possible only\nthrough all this Divine anticipation, origination, preservation,\nstimulation, and, at bottom,--in so far as man is enabled and required\nby God to reach a certain real self-constitution,--through a mysterious\nSelf-Limitation of God\u2019s own Action,--a Divine Self-Restraint.\n\nThere can be little doubt that such a _Panentheism_ is all that\nmany a daring, in strictness Pantheistic, saying of the Christian,\nperhaps also of the Jewish and Mohammedan, Mystics aimed at. Only the\nsoul\u2019s ineradicable capacity, need and desire for its Divine Lodger\nand Sustainer would constitute, in this conception, the intrinsic\ncharacteristic of human nature; and it is rather the too close\nidentification, in feeling and emotional expression, of the desire\nand the Desired, of the hunger and the Food, and the too exclusive\nrealization of the deep truth that this desire and hunger do not cause,\nbut are themselves preceded and caused by, their Object,--it is the\nover-vivid perception of this real dynamism, rather than any _a priori_\ntheory of static substances and identities--which, certainly in many\ncases, has produced the appearance of Pantheism.\n\nAnd again it is certain that we have to beware of taking the apparent\nirruption or ingrafting,--in the case of the operations of Grace,--of\nan entirely heterogeneous Force and Reality into what seems the already\ncompletely closed circle of our natural functions and aspirations,\nas the complete and ultimate truth of the situation. However utterly\ndifferent that Force may feel to all else that we are aware of within\nourselves, however entirely unmeditated may seem its manifestations:\nit is clear that we should be unable to recognize even this Its\ndifference, to welcome or resist It, above all to find It a response to\nour deepest cravings, unless we had some natural true affinity to It,\nand some dim but most real experience of It from the first. Only with\nsuch a general religiosity and vague sense, from a certain contact,\nof the Infinite, is the recognition of definite, historical Religious\nFacts and Figures as true, significant, binding upon my will and\nconscience, explicable at all.\n\n\n2. _Aquinas on our direct semi-consciousness of God\u2019s indwelling._\n\nSt. Thomas, along one line of doctrine, has some excellent teachings\nabout all this group of questions. For though he tells us that \u201cthe\nnames which we give to God and creatures, are predicated of God\u201d\nonly \u201caccording to a certain relation of the creature to God, as its\nPrinciple and Cause, in which latter the perfections of all things\npre-exist in an excellent manner\u201d: yet he explicitly admits, in one\nplace, that we necessarily have some real, immediate experience of the\nNature of God, for that \u201cit is impossible, with regard to anything,\nto know whether it exists,\u201d--and he has admitted that natural reason\ncan attain to a knowledge of God\u2019s bare existence,--\u201cunless we somehow\nknow what is its nature,\u201d at least \u201cwith a confused knowledge\u201d; whence\n\u201calso with regard to God, we could not know whether He exists, unless\nwe somehow knew, even though confusedly, what He is.\u201d[426]--God, though\ntranscendent, is also truly immanent in the human soul: \u201cGod is in all\nthings, as the agent is present in that wherein it acts. Created Being\nis as true an effect of God\u2019s Being, as to burn is the true effect of\nfire. God is above all things,--by the excellence of His nature, and\nyet He is intimately present within all things, as the cause of the\nBeing of all.\u201d--And man has a natural exigency of the face-to-face\nVision of God, hence of the Order of Grace, however entirely its\nattainment may be beyond his natural powers: \u201cThere is in man a natural\nlonging to know the cause, when he sees an effect: whence if the\nintellect of the rational creature could not attain to the First Cause\nof things,\u201d--here in the highest form, that of the Beatific vision of\nGod--\u201cthe longing of its nature would remain void and vain.\u201d[427]\n\nBut it is the great Mystical Saints and writers who continuously have,\nin the very forefront of their consciousness and assumptions, not a\nsimply moral and aspirational, but an Ontological and Pre-established\nrelation between the soul and God; and not a simply discursive\napprehension, but a direct though dim Experience of the Infinite\nand of God. And these positions really underlie even their most\ncomplete-seeming negations, as we have already seen in the case of the\nAreopagite.\n\n\n3. _Gradual recognition of the function of subconsciousness._\n\nIndeed, we can safely affirm that the last four centuries, and even\nthe last four decades, have more and more confirmed the reality and\nindirect demonstrableness of such a presence and sense of the Infinite;\never more or less obscurely, but none the less profoundly, operative\nin the innermost normal consciousness of mankind: a presence and sense\nwhich, though they can be starved and verbally denied, cannot be\ncompletely suppressed; and which, though they do not, if unendorsed,\nconstitute even the most elementary faith, far less a developed\nHistorical or Mystical Religion, are simply necessary prerequisites to\nall these latter stimulations and consolidations.\n\n(1) As we have already found, it is only since Leibniz that we\nknow, systematically, how great is the range of every man\u2019s Obscure\nPresentations, his dim Experience as against his Clear or distinct\nPresentations, his explicit Knowledge; and how the Clear depends even\nmore upon the Dim, than the Dim upon the Clear. And further discoveries\nand proofs in this direction are no older than 1888.[428]\n\n(2) Again, it is the growing experience of the difficulties and\ncomplexities of Psychology, History, Epistemology, and of the apparent\nunescapableness and yet pain of man\u2019s mere anthropomorphisms, that\nmakes the persistence of his search for, and sense of, Objective Truth\nand Reality, and the keenness of his suffering when he appears to\nhimself as imprisoned in mere subjectivity, deeply impressive. For the\nmore man feels, and suffers from feeling himself purely subjective,\nthe more is it clear that he is not merely subjective: he could never\nbe conscious of the fact, if he were. \u201cSuppose that all your objects\nin life were realized \u2026 would this be a great joy and happiness\nto you?\u201d John Stuart Mill asked himself; and \u201can irrepressible\nself-consciousness distinctly answered \u2018No.\u2019\u201d[429] Whether in bad\nhealth just then or not, Mill was here touching the very depths of\nthe characteristically human sense. In all such cases only a certain\nprofound apprehension of Abiding Reality, the Infinite, adequately\nexplains the keen, operative sense of contrast and disappointment.\n\n(3) And further, we have before us, with a fulness and delicate\ndiscrimination undreamed of in other ages, the immense variety,\nwithin a certain general psychological unity, of the great and small\nHistorical Religions, past and present, of the world. Facing all this\nmass of evidence, Prof. Troeltsch can ask, more confidently than\never: \u201cAre not our religious requirements, requirements of Something\nthat one must have somehow first experienced in order to require It?\nAre they not founded upon some kind of Experience as to the Object,\nWhich Itself first awakens the thought of an ultimate infinite meaning\nattaching to existence, and Which, in the conflict with selfishness,\nsensuality and self-will, draws the nobler part of the human will,\nwith ever new force, to Itself?\u201d \u201cAll deep and energetic religion is\nin a certain state of tension towards Culture, for the simple reason\nthat it is seeking something else and something higher.\u201d[430] And\nProf. C. P. Tiele, so massively learned in all the great religions,\nconcludes: \u201c\u2018Religion,\u2019 says Feuerbach, \u2018proceeds from man\u2019s wishes\u2019 \u2026;\naccording to others, it is the outcome of man\u2019s dissatisfaction with\nthe external world.\u2026 But why should man torment himself with wishes\nwhich he never sees fulfilled around him, and which the rationalistic\nphilosopher declares to be illusions? Why? surely, because he cannot\nhelp it.\u2026 The Infinite, very Being as opposed to continual becoming\nand perishing,--or call It what you will,--_that_ is the Principle\nwhich gives him constant unrest, because It dwells within him.\u201d And\nagainst Prof. Max M\u00fcller,--who had, however, on this point, arrived at\na position very like Tiele\u2019s own,--he impressively insists that \u201cthe\norigin of religion consists,\u201d not in a \u201cperception of the Infinite,\u201d\nbut \u201cin the fact that Man _has_ the Infinite within him.\u201d--I would\nonly contend further that the instinct of the Infinite awakens\nsimultaneously with our sense-perceptions and categories of thinking,\nand passes, together with them and with the deeper, more volitional\nexperiences, through every degree and stage of obscurity and relative\nclearness. \u201cWhatever name we give it,--instinct; innate, original,\nor unconscious form of thought; or form of conception,--it is the\nspecifically human element in man.\u201d[431] But if all this be true, then\nthe Mystics are amongst the great benefactors of our race: for it is\nespecially this presence of the Infinite in Man, and man\u2019s universal\nsubjection to an operative consciousness of it, which are the deepest\ncause and the constant object of the adoring awe of all truly spiritual\nMystics, in all times and places.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV\n\nSUMMING UP OF THE WHOLE BOOK. BACK THROUGH ASCETICISM, SOCIAL RELIGION,\nAND THE SCIENTIFIC HABIT OF MIND, TO THE MYSTICAL ELEMENT OF RELIGION.\n\n\nI now propose to conclude, by getting, through three successively\neasier matters, back to the starting-point of this whole book,\nand, in doing so, to sum up and delimitate, more and more clearly,\nthe practical lessons learnt during its long course. These three\nlast matters and points of observation shall be Asceticism,\nInstitutionalism, and Mental Activity and Discipline, or the Scientific\nHabit--all three in their relation to the Mystical Element of Religion.\n\n\nI. ASCETICISM AND MYSTICISM.\n\nNow in the matter of Asceticism, we can again conveniently consider\nthree points.\n\n\n1. _Ordinary Asceticism practised by Mystics._\n\nThere is, first, the (generally severe) Asceticism which is ever\nconnected with at least some one phase, an early one, of every genuine\nMystic\u2019s history, yet which does not differ essentially from the direct\ntraining in self-conquest to which practically all pre-Protestant, and\nmost of the old Protestant earnest Christians considered themselves\nobliged.\n\n(1) Now it is deeply interesting to note how marked has been, off\nand on throughout the last century and now again quite recently,\nthe renewal of comprehension and respect for the general principle\nof Asceticism, in quarters certainly free from all preliminary bias\nin favour of Medieval Christianity. Schopenhauer wrote in 1843:\n\u201cNot only the religions of the East but also genuine Christianity\nshows, throughout its systems, that fundamental characteristic of\nAsceticism which my philosophy elucidates.\u2026 Precisely in its doctrines\nof renunciation, self-denial, complete chastity, in a word, of\ngeneral mortification of the will, lie the deepest truth, the high\nvalue, the sublime character of Christianity. It thus belongs to the\nold, true, and lofty ideal of mankind, in opposition to the false,\nshallow, and ruinous optimism of Greek Paganism, Judaism and Islam.\u201d\n\u201cProtestantism, by eliminating Asceticism and its central point, the\nmeritoriousness of celibacy, has, by this alone, already abandoned the\ninnermost kernel of Christianity.\u2026 For Christianity is the doctrine\nof the deep guilt of the human race \u2026 and of the heart\u2019s thirst after\nredemption from it, a redemption which can be acquired only through the\nabnegation of self,--that is, through a complete conversion of human\nnature.\u201d[432]--And the optimistically tempered American Unitarian,\nthe deeply versed Psychologist, Prof. William James, tells us in\n1902: \u201cIn its spiritual meaning, Asceticism stands for nothing less\nthan for the essence of the twice-born philosophy.\u201d \u201cThe Metaphysical\nmystery, that he who feeds on death, that feeds on men, possesses life\nsupereminently, and meets best the secret demands of the Universe,\nis the truth of which Asceticism has been the faithful champion. The\nfolly of the cross, so inexplicable by the intellect, has, yet, its\nindestructible, vital meaning.\u2026 Naturalistic optimism is mere syllabub\nand sponge-cake in comparison.\u201d[433]\n\n(2) Indeed, the only thing at all special to Mysticism, in its attitude\ntowards this general principle and practice of Asceticism, is that\nit ever practises Asceticism as a means towards, or at least as the\nmake-weight and safeguard of, Contemplation, which latter is as\nessentially Synthetic, and, in so far, peaceful and delightful, as the\nformer is Analytic, polemical and painful; whereas non-Mystical souls\nwill practise Asceticism directly with a view to greater aloofness\nfrom sin, and greater readiness and strength to perform the various\ncalls of duty. And hence, if we but grant the legitimacy of the general\nprinciple of ordinary Asceticism, we shall find the Mystical form of\nthis Asceticism to be the more easily comprehensible variety of that\nprinciple. For the Mystic\u2019s practice, as concerns this point, is more\nvaried and inclusive than that of others, since he does not even tend\nto make the whole of his inner life into a system of checks and of\ntension. The expansive, reconciling movement operates in him most\nstrongly also, and, where of the right kind, this expansive movement\nhelps, even more than the restrictive one, to purify, humble, and\ndeepen his heart and soul.\n\n\n2. _God\u2019s Transcendence a source of suffering._\n\nThere is, however, a second, essentially different source and kind of\nsuffering in some sorts and degrees of Mysticism, and indeed in other\n_attraits_ of the spiritual life, which is deeply interesting, because\nbased upon a profound Metaphysical apprehension. Although, at bottom,\nthe opposite extreme to Pantheism, it readily expresses itself, for\nreasons that will presently appear, in terms that have a curiously\nPantheistic colour.\n\n(1) St. John of the Cross writes in 1578: \u201cIt is a principle of\nphilosophy, that all means must \u2026 have a certain resemblance to the\nend, such as shall be sufficient for the object in view. If therefore\nthe understanding is to be united to God, \u2026 it must make use of\nthose means which can effect that union, that is, means which are\nmost like unto God.\u2026 But there is no essential likeness or communion\nbetween creatures and Him, the distance between His divine nature and\ntheir nature is infinite. No creature therefore \u2026 nothing that the\nimagination may conceive or the understanding comprehend \u2026 in this life\n\u2026 can be a proximate means of union with God,\u201d for \u201cit is all most\nunlike God, and most disproportionate to Him.\u201d \u201cThe understanding \u2026\nmust be pure and empty of all sensible objects, all clear intellectual\nperceptions, resting on faith: for faith is the sole proximate and\nproportionate means of the soul\u2019s union with God.\u201d[434]\n\nNow it is certain, as we have already found, that the awakened human\nsoul ever possesses a dim but real experience of the Infinite, and\nthat, in proportion as it is called to the Mystical way, this sense\nwill be deepened into various degrees of the Prayer of Quiet and of\nUnion, and that here, more plainly than elsewhere, will appear the\nuniversal necessity of the soul\u2019s own response, by acts and the habit\nof Faith, to all and every experience which otherwise remains but\nso much unused material for the soul\u2019s advance. And it is equally\ncertain that St. John of the Cross is one of the greatest of such\ncontemplatives, and that neither his intuition and actual practice,\nnor even his sayings, (so long as any one saying belonging to one\ntrend is set off against another belonging to the other trend),\ncontravenes the Christian and Catholic positions.--Yet it cannot be\ndenied that, were we to press his \u201cnegative way\u201d into becoming the only\none; and especially were we to take, without discount, such a virtual\nrepudiation, as is furnished by any insistence upon the above words,\nof any essential, objective difference in value between our various\napprehensions of Him and approaches to Him: the whole system and\n_rationale_ of External, Sacramental and Historical Religion, indeed of\nthe Incarnation, in any degree and form, would have to go, as so many\nstumbling-blocks to the soul\u2019s advance. For the whole principle of all\nsuch Religion implies the profound importance of the Here and the Now,\nthe Contingent and the Finite, and of the Immanence of God, in various\ndegrees and ways, within them.\n\nIndications of this incompatibility, as little systematically realized\nhere as in the Areopagite, are afforded by various remarks of his,\nbelonging in reality to another trend. Thus, immediately before his\ndenial of any essential likeness or communion between any creature and\nGod, he says: \u201cIt is true that all creatures bear a certain relation to\nGod and are tokens of His being, some more, some less, according to the\ngreater perfection of their nature.\u201d And of Our Lord\u2019s sacred Humanity\nhe says: \u201cWhat a perfect living image was Our Saviour upon earth: yet\nthose who had no faith, though they were constantly about Him, and saw\nHis wonderful works, were not benefited by His presence.\u201d[435] But even\nhere the immense importance, indeed downright necessity for Faith,\nof such external and historical stimuli, objects and materials,--in\nthe latter instance all this at its very deepest,--remains\nunemphasized, through his engrossment in the necessity of Faith for the\nfructification of all these things.\n\nIn other places this Faith appears as though working so outside of all\nthings imageable, as to have to turn rapidly away from all picturings,\nas, at best, only momentary starting-points for the advanced soul.\n\u201cLet the faithful soul take care that, whilst contemplating an\nimage, the senses be not absorbed in it, whether it be material or\nin the imagination, and whether the devotion it excites be spiritual\nor sensible. Let him \u2026 venerate the image as the Church commands\nand lift up his mind at once from the material image to those whom\nit represents. He who shall do this, will never be deluded.\u201d[436]\nHere, again, along the line of argument absorbing the saint in this\nbook, there is no fully logical ground left for the Incarnational,\nHistorical, Sacramental scheme of the Infinite immanent in the finite,\nand of spirit stimulated in contact with matter, with everywhere the\nneed of the condescensions of God and of our ascensions by means of\ncareful attention to them.\n\nS\u00f6ren Kierkegaard, that deep solitary Dane, with so much about him\nlike to Pascal the Frenchman, and Hurrell Froude the Englishman, and\nwho, though Lutheran in all his bringing up, was so deeply attracted\nby Catholic Asceticism, has, in recent times (he died in 1855), pushed\nthe doctrine of the qualitative, absolute difference between God and\nall that we ourselves can think, feel, will or be, to lengths beyond\neven the transcendental element,--we must admit this to be the greatly\npreponderant one,--in the great Spaniard\u2019s formal teaching. And it\nis especially in this non-Mystical Ascetic that we get an impressive\npicture of the peculiar kind of suffering and asceticism, which results\nfrom such a conviction to a profoundly sensitive, absorbedly religious\nsoul; and here too we can, I think, discover the precise excess and\none-sidedness involved in this whole tendency. Professor H\u00f6ffding,\nin his most interesting monograph on his friend, tells us how \u201cfor\nKierkegaard, \u2026 the will gets monopolized by religious Ethics from the\nvery first; there is no time for Contemplation or Mysticism.\u201d \u201cTo tear\nthe will away,\u201d Kierkegaard himself says, \u201cfrom all finite aims and\nconditions \u2026 requires a painful effort and this effort\u2019s ceaseless\nrepetition. And if, in addition to this, the soul has, in spite of all\nits striving, to be as though it simply were not, it becomes clear\nthat the religious life signifies a dedication to suffering and to\nself-destruction. What wonder, then, that, for the Jew, death was the\nprice of seeing God; or that, for the Gentile, the soul\u2019s entering\ninto closer relations with the Deity meant the beginning of madness?\u201d\nFor \u201cthe soul\u2019s relation to God is a relation to a Being absolutely\ndifferent from Man, who cannot confront him as his Superlative or\nIdeal, and who, nevertheless, is to rule in his inmost soul. Hence a\nnecessary division, ever productive of new pains, is operative within\nman, as long as he perseveres in this spiritual endeavour.\u2026 A finite\nbeing, he is to live in the Infinite and Absolute: he is there like a\nfish upon dry land.\u201d[437]\n\nNow Prof. H\u00f6ffding applies a double, most cogent criticism to this\nposition.--The one is religious, and has already been quoted. \u201cA\nGod Who is not Ideal and Pattern is no God. Hence the contention\nthat the Nature of the Godhead is, of necessity, qualitatively\ndifferent from that of Man, has ever occasioned ethical and religious\nmisgivings.\u201d--And the other is psychological. \u201cTension can indeed be\nnecessary for the truth and the force of life. But tension, taken\nby itself, cannot furnish the true measure of life. For the general\nnature of consciousness is a synthesis, a comprehensive unity: not only\ncontrast, but also concentration, must make itself felt, as long as the\nlife of consciousness endures.\u201d[438]\n\nIt is deeply interesting to note how Catherine, and at bottom St. John\nof the Cross and the Exclusive Mystics generally, escape, through\ntheir practice and in some of their most emphatic teachings, from\nKierkegaard\u2019s excess, no doubt in part precisely because they _are_\nMystics, since the exclusive Mystic\u2019s contemplative habit is, at\nbottom, a Synthetic one. Yet we should realize the deep truth which\nunderlies the very exaggerations of this one-sidedly Analytic and\nAscetical view. For if God is the deepest ideal, the ultimate driving\nforce and the true congenital element and environment of Man, such as\nMan cannot but secretly wish to will deliberately, and which, at his\nbest, Man truly wills to hold and serve: yet God remains ever simply\nincompatible with that part of each man\u2019s condition and volition which\ndoes not correspond to the best and deepest which that Man himself sees\nor could see to be the better, _hic et nunc_; and, again, He is ever,\neven as compared with any man\u2019s potential best, infinitely more and\nnobler, and, though here not in simple contradiction, yet at a degree\nof perfection which enables Him, the Supreme Spirit, to penetrate, as\nImmanent Sustainer or Stimulator, and to confront, as Transcendent\nIdeal and End, the little human spirit, so great in precisely this its\nkeen sense of experienced contrast.\n\nCatherine exhibits well this double relation, of true contradiction,\nand of contrast, both based upon a certain genuine affinity between\nthe human soul and God. On one side of herself she is indeed a\nveritable fish out of water; but, on the other side of her, she is a\nfish happily disporting itself in its very element, in the boundless\nocean of God. On the one side, snapping after air, in that seemingly\nover-rarified atmosphere in which the animal man, the mere selfish\nindividual, cannot live; on the other side, expanding her soul\u2019s\nlungs and drinking in light, life, and love, in that same truly rich\natmosphere, which, Itself Spirit, feeds and sustains her growing\nspiritual personality. And the _Dialogo_, in spite of its frequently\npainful abstractness and empty unity, has, upon the whole, a profound\nhold upon this great doctrine.\n\nYet it is in Catherine\u2019s own culminating intuition,--of the soul\u2019s\nfree choice of Purgatory, as a joyful relief from the piercing pain of\nwhat otherwise would last for ever,--the vividly perceived contrast\nbetween God\u2019s purity and her soul\u2019s impurity, that we get, in the\nclosest combination, indeed mutual causation, this double sense of\nMan\u2019s nearness to and distance from, of his likeness and unlikeness to\nGod. For only if man is, in the deepest instincts of his soul, truly\nrelated to God, and is capable of feeling, (indeed he ever actually,\nthough mostly dimly, experiences,) God\u2019s presence and this, man\u2019s\nown, in great part but potential, affinity to Him: can suffering be\nconceived to arise from the keen realization of the contrast between\nGod and man\u2019s own actual condition at any one moment; and can any\nexpectation, indeed a swift vivid instinct, arise within man\u2019s soul\nthat the painful, directly contradictory, discrepancy can and will,\ngradually though never simply automatically, be removed. And though,\neven eventually, the creature cannot, doubtless, ever become simply\nGod, yet it can attain, in an indefinitely higher degree, to that\naffinity and union of will with God, which, in its highest reaches and\nmoments, it already now substantially possesses; and hence to that\nfull creaturely self-constitution and joy in which, utterly trusting,\ngiving itself to, and willing God, it will, through and in Him, form\nan abidingly specific, unique constituent and link of His invisible\nkingdom of souls, on and on.\n\n\n3. _Discipline of fleeing and of facing the Multiple and Contingent._\n\nBut there is a third attitude, peculiar (because of its preponderance)\nto the Mystics as such, an attitude in a manner intermediate between\nthat of ordinary Asceticism, and that of the Suffering just described.\nThe implications and effects of, and the correctives for, this third\nattitude will occupy us up to the end of this book. I refer to the\ncareful turning-away from all Multiplicity and Contingency, from\nthe Visible and Successive, from all that does or can distract and\ndissipate, which is so essential and prevailing a feature in all\nMysticism, which indeed, in Exclusive Mysticism, is frankly made into\nthe one sole movement towards, and measure of, the soul\u2019s perfection.\n\n(1) It is true that to this tendency, when and in so far as it has\ncome so deeply to permeate the habits of a soul as to form a kind of\nsecond nature, the name Asceticism cannot, in strictness, be any more\napplied; since now the pain will lie, not in this turning away from all\nthat dust and friction, but, on the contrary, in any forcing of the\nsoul back into that turmoil. And doubtless many, perhaps most, souls\nwith a pronouncedly mystical _attrait_, are particularly sensitive to\nall, even partial and momentary, conflict. Yet we can nevertheless\nappropriately discuss the matter under the general heading of\nAsceticism, since, as a rule, much practice and sacrifice go to build\nup this habit; since, in every case, this Abstractive Habit shares\nwith Ordinary Asceticism a pronounced hostility to many influences and\nforces ever actually operative within and around the undisciplined\nnatural man; and since, above all, the very complements and correctives\nfor this Abstractiveness will have to come from a further, deeper and\nwider Asceticism, to be described presently.\n\n(2) As to Ordinary Asceticism and this Abstractiveness, the former\nfights the world and the self directly, and then only in so far as they\nare discovered to be positively evil or definitely to hinder positive\ngood; it is directly attracted by the clash and friction involved in\nsuch fighting; and it has no special desire for even a transitory\nintense unification of the soul\u2019s life: whereas the Abstractiveness\nturns away from, and rises above, the world and the phenomenal self;\ntheir very existence, their contingency, the struggles alive within\nthem, and their (as it seems) inevitably disturbing effect upon the\nsoul,--are all felt as purely dissatisfying; and an innermost longing\nfor a perfect and continuous unification and overflowing harmony of its\ninner life here possess the spirit.\n\n(3) Now we have just seen how a movement of integration, of\nsynthesizing all the soul\u2019s piecemeal, inter-jostling acquisitions,\nof restful healing of its wounds and rents, of sinking back, (from\nthe glare and glitter of clear, and then ever fragmentary perception,\nand from the hurry, strain and rapidly ensuing distraction involved\nin all lengthy external action), into a peaceful, dim rumination and\nunification, is absolutely necessary, though in very various degrees\nand forms, for all in any way complete and mature souls.--And we have,\nfurther back, realized that a certain, obscure but profoundly powerful,\ndirect instinct and impression of God in the soul is doubtless at work\nhere, and, indeed, throughout all the deeper and nobler movements of\nour wondrously various inner life. But what concerns us here, is the\nquestion whether the _complete_ action of the soul, (if man would\ngrow in accordance with his ineradicable nature, environment, and\nspecific grace and call), does not as truly involve a corresponding\ncounter-movement to this intensely unitive and intuitive movement\nwhich, with most men, and in most moments of even the minority of men,\nforms but an indirectly willed condition and spontaneous background of\nthe soul.\n\n(4) We have been finding, further, that all the Contingencies,\nMultiplicities and Mediations which, one and all, tend to appear to the\nMystic as so many resistances and distractions, can roughly be grouped\nunder two ultimate heads. These intruders are fellow-souls, or groups\nof fellow-souls,--some social organism, the Family, Society, the State,\nthe Church, who provoke, in numberless degrees and ways, individual\naffection, devotion, distraction, jealousy, as from person towards\nperson. Or else the intruders are Things and Mechanical Laws, and these\nusually leave the Mystic indifferent or irritate or distract him; but\nthey can become for him great opportunities of rest, and occasions for\nself-discipline.\n\nYet this distinction between Persons and Things, (although vital for\nthe true apprehension of all deeper, above all of the deepest Reality,\nand for the delicate discrimination between what are but the means and\nwhat are the ends in a truly spiritual life), does not prevent various\ngradations within, and continuous interaction between, each of these\ntwo great groups. For in proportion as, in the Personal group, the\nIndividual appears as but parcel and expression of one of the social\norganisms, does the impression of determinist Law, of an impersonal\nThing or blind Force, begin to mix with, and gradually to prevail\nover, that of Personality. And in proportion as, in the Impersonal\ngroup, Science comes to include all careful and methodical study,\naccording to the most appropriate methods, of any and every kind of\ntruth and reality; and as it moves away from the conceptions of purely\nquantitative matter, and of the merely numerically different, entirely\ninterchangeable, physical happenings, (all so many mere automatic\nillustrations of mechanical Law), on, through the lowly organisms of\nplant-life, and the ever higher interiority and richer consciousness of\nanimal life, up to Man, with his ever qualitative Mind, and his ever\nnon-interchangeable, ever \u201ceffortful,\u201d achievements and elaborations\nof types of beauty, truth and goodness in Human History,--does Science\nitself come back, in its very method and subject-matter, ever more\nnearly, to the great personal starting-point, standard and ultimate\nmotive of all our specifically human activity and worth.\n\n(5) Indeed, the two great continuous facts of man\u2019s life, first that\nhe thinks, feels, wills, and acts, in and with the help or hindrance\nof that profoundly material Thing, his physical body, and on occasion\nof, and with regard to, the materials furnished by the stimulations and\nimpressions of his senses; and again, that these latter awaken within\nhim those, in themselves, highly abstract and Thing-like categories of\nhis mind which penetrate and give form to these materials; are enough\nto show how close is the pressure, and how continuous the effect, of\nThings upon the slow upbuilding of Personality.\n\n(6) Fair approximations to these two kinds of Things, with their quite\nirreplaceable specific functions within the economy of the human mental\nlife,--the intensely concrete and particular Sense-Impressions, and\nthe intensely abstract and general Mental Categories,--reappear within\nthe economy of Characteristic Religion, in its Sacraments and its\nDoctrine. And conversely, there exists, _in rerum natura_, no Science\nworth having which is not, ultimately, the resultant of, and which does\nnot require and call forth, on and on, certain special qualities, and\ncombinations of qualities, of the truly ethical, spiritual Personality.\nCourage, patience, perseverance, candour, simplicity, self-oblivion,\ncontinuous generosity towards others and willing correction of even\none\u2019s own most cherished views,--these things and their like are\nnot the quantitative determinations of Matter, but the qualitative\ncharacteristics of Mind.\n\n(7) I shall now, therefore, successively take Mysticism in its attitude\ntowards these two great groups of claimants upon its attention,\nthe Personal and the Impersonal, even though any strictly separate\ndiscussion of elements which, in practice, ever appear together, cannot\nbut have some artificiality. And an apparent further complication will\nbe caused by our having, in each case, to contrast what Mysticism would\ndo, if it became Exclusive, with what it must be restricted to doing,\nif it is to remain Inclusive, _i.e._ if it is to be but one element\nin the constitution of that multiplicity in unity, the deep spiritual\nPersonality. The larger Asceticism will thus turn out to be a wider and\ndeeper means towards perfection than even genuine Mysticism itself,\nsince this Asceticism will have to include both this Mysticism and the\ncounter movement within the one single, disciplined and purified life\nof the soul.\n\n\nII. SOCIAL RELIGION AND MYSTICISM.\n\n\n_Introductory: the ruinousness of Exclusive Mysticism._\n\nProf. Harnack says in his _Dogmengeschichte_: \u201cAn old fairy tale tells\nof a man who lived in ignorance, dirt and wretchedness; and whom God\ninvited, on a certain day, to wish whatsoever he might fancy, and it\nshould be given him. And the man began to wish things, and ever more\nthings, and ever higher things, and all these things were given him.\nAt last he became presumptuous, and desired to become as the great God\nHimself: when lo, instantly he was sitting there again, in his dirt and\nmisery. Now the history of Religion,--especially amongst the Greeks\nand Orientals,--closely resembles this fairy tale. For they began by\nwishing for themselves certain sensible goods, and then political,\naesthetic, moral and intellectual goods: and they were given them all.\nAnd then they became Christians and desired perfect knowledge and a\nsuper-moral life: they even wished to become, already here below, as\nGod Himself, in insight, beatitude and life. And behold, they fell,\nnot at once indeed, but with a fall that could not be arrested, down\nto the lowest level, back into ignorance, dirt and barbarism.\u2026 Like\nunto their near spiritual relations, the Neo-Platonists, they were at\nfirst over-stimulated, and soon became jaded, and hence required ever\nstronger stimulants. And in the end, all these exquisite aspirations\nand enjoyments turned into their opposite extreme.\u201d[439]\n\nHowever much may want discounting or supplementing here, there is,\nsurely, a formidable amount of truth in this picture. And, if so, is\nMysticism, at least in its Dionysian type, not deeply to blame? And\nwhere is the safeguard against such terrible abuses?\n\nNow Prof. Harnack has himself shown us elsewhere that there is a sense\nin which Monasticism should be considered eternal, even among and for\nProtestants. \u201cMonasticism,\u201d he says plaintively, in his account of the\nfirst three centuries of Protestantism, \u201ceven as it is conceivable\nand necessary among Evangelical Christians, disappeared altogether.\nAnd yet every community requires persons, who live _exclusively_ for\nits purposes; hence the Church too requires volunteers who shall\nrenounce \u2018the world\u2019 and shall dedicate themselves entirely to the\nservice of their neighbour.\u201d[440]--And again, scholars of such breadth\nof knowledge and independence of judgement as Professor Tiele and\nhis school, insist strongly upon the necessity of Ecclesiastical\nInstitutions and Doctrines. The day of belief in the normality,\nindeed in the possibility for mankind in general, of a would-be quite\nindividual, entirely spiritual, quite \u201cpure\u201d religion, is certainly\nover and gone, presumably for good and all, amongst all competent\nworkers.--Nor, once more, can the general Mystical sense of the\nunsatisfying character of all things finite, and of the Immanence of\nthe Infinite in our poor lives, be, in itself, to blame: for we have\nfound these experiences to mingle with, and to characterize, all the\nnoblest, most fully human acts and personalities.--But, if so, what\nare the peculiarities in the religion of those times and races, which\nhelped to produce the result pictured in the _Dogmengeschichte?_\n\nNow here, to get a fairly final answer, we must throw together\nthe question of the ordinary Christian Asceticism and that of the\nAbstraction peculiar to the Mystics; and we must ask whether the\ngeneral emotive-volitional attitude towards Man and Life,--the\ntheory and practice as to Transcendence and Immanence, Detachment\nand Attachment, which, from about 500 A.D. to, say, 1450 _A.D._,\npredominantly preceded, accompanied, and both expanded and deflected\nthe specific ally Christian and normally human experience in Eastern\nChristendom, were not (however natural, indeed inevitable, and in\npart useful for those times and races), the chief of the causes\nwhich turned so much of the good of Mysticism into downright harm. At\nbottom this is once more the question as to the one-sided character of\nNeo-Platonism,--its incapacity to find any descending movement of the\nDivine into Human life.\n\n\n1. _True relation of the soul to its fellows. God\u2019s \u201cjealousy.\u201d_\n\nLet us take first the relation of the single human soul to its\nfellow-souls.\n\n(1) Now Kierkegaard tells us: \u201cthe Absolute is cruel, for it demands\n_all_, whilst the Relative ever continues to demand _some_ attention\nfrom us.\u201d[441] And the Reverend George Tyrrell, in his stimulating\npaper, _Poet and Mystic_, shows us that, as regards the relations\nbetween man\u2019s love for man and man\u2019s love for God, there are two\nconceptions and answers in reply to the question as to the precise\nsense in which God is \u201ca jealous God,\u201d and demands to be loved alone.\nIn the first, easier, more popular conception, He is practically\nthought of as the First of Creatures, competing with the rest for Man\u2019s\nlove, and is here placed alongside of them. Hence the inference that\nwhatever love they win from us by reason of their inherent goodness,\nis taken from Him: He is not loved perfectly, till He is loved alone.\nBut in the second, more difficult and rarer conception, God is placed,\nnot alongside of creatures but behind them, as the light which shines\nthrough a crystal and lends it whatever lustre it may have. He is\nloved here, not apart from, but through and in them. Hence if only\nthe affection be of the right kind as to mode and object, the more\nthe better. The love of Him is the \u201cform,\u201d the principle of order and\nharmony; our natural affections are the \u201cmatter\u201d harmonized and set in\norder; it is the soul, they are the body, of that one Divine Love whose\nadequate object is God in, and not apart from, His creatures.[442] Thus\nwe have already found that even the immensely abstractive and austere\nSt. John of the Cross tells us: \u201cNo one desires to be loved except\nfor his goodness; and when we love in this way, our love is pleasing\nunto God and in great liberty; and if there be attachment in it, there\nis greater attachment to God.\u201d And this doctrine he continuously,\ndeliberately practises, half-a-century after his Profession, for he\nwrites to his penitent, Donna Juana de Pedrazas in 1589: \u201cAll that is\nwanting now, is that I should forget you; but consider how that is to\nbe forgotten which is ever present to the soul.\u201d[443]\n\nBut Father Tyrrell rightly observes: \u201cTo square this view with the\ngeneral ascetic tradition of the faithful at large is exceedingly\ndifficult.\u201d[444] Yet I cannot help thinking that a somewhat different\nreconciliation, than the one attempted by him,[445] really meets all\nthe substantial requirements of the case.\n\n(2) I take it, then, that an all-important double law or twin fact, or\nrather a single law and fact whose unity is composed of two elements,\nis, to some extent, present throughout all characteristically human\nlife, although its full and balanced realization, even in theory\nand still more in practice, is ever, necessarily, a more or less\nunfulfilled ideal: viz. that not only there exist certain objects,\nacts, and affections that are simply wrong, and others that are simply\nright or perfect, either for all men or for some men: but that there\nexist simply no acts and affections which, however right, however\nobligatory, however essential to the perfection of us all or of some\nof us, that do not require, on our own part, a certain alternation\nof interior reserve and detachment away from, and of familiarity and\nattachment to, them and their objects. This general law applies as\ntruly to Contemplation as it does to Marriage.\n\nAnd next, the element of detachment which has to penetrate and purify\nsimply all attachments,--even the attachment to detachment itself,--is\nthe more difficult, the less obvious, the more profoundly spiritual\nand human element and movement, although only on condition that ever\nsome amount of the other, of the outgoing element and movement, and\nof attachment, remains. For here, as everywhere, there is no good and\noperative yeast except with and in flour; there can be no purification\nand unity without a material and a multiplicity to purify and to unite.\n\nAnd again, given the very limited power of attention and articulation\npossessed by individual man, and the importance to the human community\nof having impressive embodiments and examples of this, in various\ndegrees and ways, universally ever all-but-forgotten, universally\ndifficult, universally necessary, universally ennobling renunciation:\nwe get the reason and justification for the setting apart of men\nspecially drawn and devoted to a maximum, or to the most difficult\nkinds, of this renunciation. As the practically universal instinct,\nor rudimentary capacity, for Art, Science, and Philanthropy finds its\nfull expression in artists, scientists, philanthropists, whose specific\nglory and ever necessary corrective it is that they but articulate\nclearly, embody massively and, as it were, precipitate what is dimly\nand intermittingly present, as it were in solution, throughout the\nconsciousness and requirements of Mankind; and neither the inarticulate\ninstinct, diffused among all, would completely suffice for any one of\nthe majority, without the full articulation by a few, nor the full\narticulation by this minority could thrive, even for this minority\nitself, were it not environed by, and did it not voice, that dumb\nyearning of the race at large: so, and far more, does the general\nreligiosity and sense of the Infinite, and even its ever-present\nelement and requirement of Transcendence and Detachment, seek and call\nforth some typical, wholesomely provocative incorporation,--yet, here,\nwith an even subtler and stronger interdependence, between the general\ndemand and the particular supply.\n\nAnd note that, if the minority will thus represent a maximum of\n\u201cform,\u201d with a minimum of \u201cmatter,\u201d and the majority a maximum of\n\u201cmatter,\u201d with a minimum of \u201cform\u201d: yet some form as well as some\nmatter must be held by each; and the ideal to which, by their mutual\nsupplementations, antagonisms, and corrections, they will have more\nand more to approximate our corporate humanity will be a maximum of\n\u201cmatter,\u201d permeated and spiritualized by a maximum of \u201cform.\u201d If it\nis easy for the soul to let itself be invaded and choked by the wrong\nkind of \u201cmatter,\u201d or even simply by an excess of the right kind, so\nthat it will be unable to stamp the \u201cmatter\u201d with spiritual \u201cform\u201d; the\nopposite extreme also, where the spiritual forces have not left to them\na sufficiency of material to penetrate or of life-giving friction to\novercome, is ever a most real abuse.\n\n\n2. _Ordinary Ascesis corrected by Social Christianity._\n\nNow it is very certain that Ordinary Asceticism and Social Christianity\nare, in their conjunction, far less open to this latter danger than is\nthe Mystical and Contemplative Detachment. For the former combination\npossesses the priceless conception of the soul\u2019s personality being\nconstituted in and through the organism of the religious society,--the\nvisible and invisible Church. This Society is no mere congeries of\nseverally self-sufficing units, each exclusively and directly dependent\nupon God alone; but, as in St. Paul\u2019s grand figure of the body, an\norganism, giving their place and dignity to each several organ, each\ndifferent, each necessary, and each influencing and influenced by all\nthe others. We have here, as it were, a great living Cloth of Gold,\nwith, not only the woof going from God to Man and from Man to God,\nbut also the warp going from Man to Man,--the greatest to the least,\nand the least back to the greatest. And thus here the primary and\nfull Bride of Christ never is, nor can be, any individual soul, but\nonly this complete organism of all faithful souls throughout time and\nspace; and the single soul is such a Bride only in so far as it forms\nan operative constituent of this larger whole.--And hence the soul of a\nMystical habit will escape the danger of emptiness and inflation if it\nkeeps up some,--as much indeed as it can, without permanent distraction\nor real violation of its special helps and call,--of that outgoing,\nsocial, co-operative action and spirit, which, in the more ordinary\nChristian life, has to form the all but exclusive occupation of the\nsoul, and which here, indeed, runs the risk of degenerating into mere\nfeverish, distracted \u201cactivity.\u201d\n\nI take the right scheme for this complex matter to have been all but\ncompletely outlined by Plato, in the first plan of his _Republic_, and\nindeed to have been largely derived by Christian thinkers from this\nsource; and the excessive and one-sided conception to have been largely\ndetermined by his later additions and changes in that great book,\nespecially as these have been all but exclusively enforced, and still\nfurther exaggerated, by Plotinus and Proclus. As Erwin Rhode finely\nsays of this later teaching of Plato: \u201cIt was at the zenith of his\nlife and thinking that Plato completed his ideal picture of the State,\naccording to the requirements of his wisdom. Over the broad foundation\nof a population discriminated according to classes, (a foundation\nwhich, in its totality and organization, was to embody the virtue of\njustice in a form visible even from afar, and which formerly had seemed\nto him to fulfil the whole function of the perfect State), there now\nsoars, pointing up into the super-mundane ether, a highest crown and\npinnacle, to which all the lower serves but as a substructure to render\npossible this life in the highest air. A small handful of citizens,\nthe Philosophers, form this final point of the pyramid of the State.\nIn this State, ordered throughout according to the ends of ethics,\nthese Philosophers will, it is true, take part in the Government, not\njoyously, but for duty\u2019s sake; as soon, however, as duty permits,\nthey will eagerly return to that super-mundane contemplation, which\nis the end and true content of their life\u2019s activity. Indeed, in\nreality, the Ideal State is now built up, step by step, for the \u2018one\nultimate\u2019 purpose of preparing an abode for these Contemplatives, of\ntraining them in their vocation, the highest extant, and of providing\na means for the insertion of Dialectic, as a special form of life and\nthe highest aim of human endeavour, into the general organism of the\nearthly, civilized life. \u2018The so-called virtues\u2019 all here sink into the\nshade before the highest force of the soul, the mystic Contemplation\nof the Eternal.\u2026 To bring his own life to ripeness for its own\nredemption, _that_ is now the perfect sage\u2019s true, his immediate duty.\nIf, nevertheless, he has still to bethink himself of acting upon and of\nmoulding the world the virtues will spontaneously present themselves to\nhim: for he now possesses Virtue itself; it has become his essential\ncondition.\u201d[446]\n\nIt is truly impressive to find here, in its most perfect and most\ninfluential form, that ruinously untrue doctrine of the separation of\nany one set of men from the mass of their fellows, and of Contemplation\nfrom interest in other souls, taking the place, (in the same great\nmind, in the same great book), of the beautifully humble, rich, and\ntrue view of a constant, necessary interchange of gifts and duties\nbetween the various constituents of a highly articulated organism, a\nwhole which is indefinitely greater than, and is alone the full means,\nend and measure of, all its several, even its noblest, parts.--Yet the\nChristian, indeed every at all specifically religious, reader, will\nhave strongly felt that the second scheme possesses, nevertheless, at\nleast one point of advantage over the earlier one. For it alone brings\nout clearly that element of Transcendence, that sense and thirst of the\nInfinite, which we have agreed upon as the deepest characteristic of\nman. And if this point be thus true and important, then another,--the\nmaking of Contemplation into a special vocation,--can hardly be\naltogether incorrect.\n\nBut if this is our judgment, how are we to harmonize these two points\nof Plato\u2019s later scheme with the general positions of the earlier\none. Or, rather, how are we to actuate and to synthesize our complex\npresent-day requirements and duties, Christian and yet also Modern,\nTranscendental and yet Immanental too? For if we have any delicately\nvivid sense of, and sympathy with, the original, very simple, intensely\ntranscendental, form and emphasis of the Christian teaching, and any\nsubstantial share in the present complex sense of obligation to various\nlaws and conceptions immanent in different this-world organizations and\nsystems: we shall readily feel how indefinitely more difficult and deep\nthe question has become since Plato\u2019s, and indeed since the Schoolmen\u2019s\ntime.\n\n\n3. _Preliminary Pessimism and ultimate Optimism of Christianity._\n\nNow I think it is Prof. Ernst Troeltsch who has most fully explicitated\nthe precise centre of this difficulty, which, in its acuteness, is a\ndistinctly modern one, and the direction in which alone the problem\u2019s\ntrue solution should be sought.\n\n(1) \u201cThe chief problem of Christian Ethics,\u201d he says, \u201cis busy,\u201d not\nwith the relation between certain subjective means and dispositions,\nbut \u201cwith the relation between certain objective ends, which have, in\nsome way, to be thought together by the same mind as so many several\nobjects, and to be brought by it and within it to the greatest possible\nunity. And the difficulty here lies in the fact, that the sublunar\namong these ends are none the less moral ends, bearing the full\nspecific character of moral values,--that they are ends-in-themselves,\nand necessary for their own sakes, even at the cost of man\u2019s natural\nhappiness; and yet that they operate in the visible world, and adhere\nto historical formations which proceed from man\u2019s natural constitution,\nand dominate his earthly horizon; whilst the Super-worldly End cannot\nshare its rule with any other end. Yet the special characteristic\nof modern civilization resides precisely in such a simultaneous\ninsistence upon the Inner-worldly Ends, as possessing the nature of\nends-in-themselves, and upon the Religious, Super-worldly End: it is\nindeed from just this combination that this civilization derives its\npeculiar richness, power, and freedom, but also its painful, interior\ntension and its difficult problems.\u201d\n\n(2) The true solution of the difficulty surely is that \u201cEthical life is\nnot, in its beginnings, a unity but a multiplicity: man grows up amidst\na number of moral ends, whose unification is not his starting-point\nbut his problem. And this multiplicity can be still further defined\nas the polarity of two poles, inherent in man\u2019s nature, of which the\ntwo chief types proceed respectively from the religious and from\nthe inner-worldly self-determination of the soul,--the polarity of\nReligious, and that of Humane Ethics, neither of which can be dispensed\nwith without moral damage, yet which cannot be brought completely under\na common formula. On this polarity depends the richness, but also the\ndifficulty, of our life, since the sublunar ends remain, to a large\nextent, conditioned by the necessities and prerequisites of their own\nspecial subject-matters, and since only on condition of being thus\nrecognized as ends in themselves, can they attain to their morally\neducative power.\u201d[447]\n\n(3) Or, to put the same matter from the point of view of definitely\nChristian experience and conviction: \u201cThe formula, for the specific\nnature of Christianity, can only be a complex conception,--the special\nChristian form,\u201d articulation and correction, \u201cof the fundamental\nthoughts concerning God, World, Man and Redemption which,\u201d with\nindefinite variations of fulness and worth, \u201care found existing\ntogether in all the religions. And the tension present in this\nmultiplicity of elements thus brought together is of an importance\nequal to that of the multiplicity itself; indeed in this tension\nresides the main driving-force of Religion. Christianity\u201d in particular\n\u201cembraces a polarity within itself, and its formula must be dualistic;\nit resembles, not a circle with one centre, but an ellipse with two\nfocuses. For Christianity is,\u201d unchangeably, \u201can Ethics of Redemption,\nwith a conception of the world both optimistic and pessimistic, both\ntranscendental and immanental, and an apprehension both of a severe\nantagonism and of a close interior union between the world and God. It\nis, in principle, a Dualism, and yet a Dualism which is ever in process\nof abolition by Faith and Action. It is a purely Religious Ethic, which\nconcentrates man\u2019s soul, with abrupt exclusiveness, upon the values of\nthe interior life; and yet, again, it is a Humane Ethic, busy with the\nmoulding and transforming of nature, and through love bringing about\nan eventual reconciliation with it. At one time the one, at another\ntime the other, of these poles is prominent: but neither of them may be\ncompletely absent, if the Christian outlook is to be maintained.--And\nyet the original germ of the whole vast growth and movement ever\nremains an intensely, abruptly Transcendent Ethic, and can never simply\npass over into a purely Immanental Ethic. The Gospel ever remains,\nwith all possible clearness and keenness, a Promise of Redemption,\nleading us, away from the world, from nature and from sin, from earthly\nsorrow and earthly error, on and on to God; and which cannot allow\nthe last word to be spoken in this life. Great as are its incentives\nto Reconciliation, it is never entirely resolvable into them. And the\nimportance of that classical beginning ever consists in continuously\ncalling back the human heart, away from all Culture and Immanence, to\nthat which lies above both.\u201d[448]\n\n(4) We thus get at last a conception which really covers, I think,\nall the chief elements of this complex matter. But the reader will\nhave noted that it does so by treating the whole problem as one of\nSpiritual Dynamics, and not of Intellectual Statics. For the conception\nholds and requires the existence and cultivation of three kinds of\naction and movement in the soul. There are, first, the various centres\nof human energy and duty of a primarily This-world character, each\nof which possesses its own kind and degree of autonomy, laws, and\nobligations. There is, next, the attempt at organizing an increasing\ninteraction between, and at harmonizing, (whilst never emasculating\nor eliminating), these various, severally characteristic, systems of\nlife and production into an ever larger ultimate unity. And, lastly,\nthere is as strong a turning away from all this occupation with the\nContingent and Finite, to the sense and apprehension of the Infinite\nand Abiding. And this dynamic system is so rich, even in the amount of\nit which can claim the practice of the majority of souls, as to require\ndefinite alternations in the occupations of such souls, ranging thus,\nin more or less rhythmic succession, from earth to Heaven and from\nHeaven back again to earth.\n\n(5) And so great and so inexhaustible is this living system, even by\nmankind at large, that it has to be more or less parcelled out amongst\nvarious groups of men, each group possessing its own predominant\n_attrait_,--either to work out one of those immanental interests, say\nArt, Natural Science, Politics; or to fructify one or more of these\nrelatively independent interests, by crossing it with one or more of\nthe others; or to attempt to embrace the whole of these intra-mundane\ninterests in one preliminary final system; or to turn away from this\nwhole system and its contents to the Transcendent and Infinite; or\nfinally to strive to combine, as far as possible, this latter Fleeing\nto the Infinite with all that former Seeking of the Finite.--We shall\nthus get specialists within one single domain; and more many-sided\nworkers who fertilize one Science by another; and philosophers of\nScience or of History, or of both, who strive to reach the _rationale_\nof all knowledge of the Finite and Contingent; and Ascetics and\nContemplatives who, respectively, call forth and dwell upon the sense\nand presence of the Infinite and Abiding, underlying and accompanying\nall the definite apprehensions of things contingent; and finally, the\nminds and wills that feel called to attempt as complete a development\nand organization as possible of all these movements.\n\n\n4. _Subdivision of spiritual labour: its necessity and its dangers._\n\nAnd yet all the subdivision of labour we have just required can avoid\ndoing harm, directly or indirectly, (by leading to Materialism,\nRationalism, or Fanaticism, to one or other of the frequent but ever\nmischievous \u201cAtomisms\u201d), only on condition that it is felt and worked\n_as_ such a subdivision. In other words, every soul must retain and\ncultivate some sense of, and respect for, the other chief human\nactivities not primarily its own. For, as a matter of fact, even the\nleast rich or developed individual requires and practises a certain\namount, in an inchoate form, of each and all of these energizings; and\nhe can, fruitfully for himself and others, exercise a maximum amount\nof any one of them, only if he does not altogether and deliberately\nneglect and exclude the others; and, above all, if, in imagination and\nin actual practice, he habitually turns to his fellow-men, of the other\ntypes and centres, to supplement, and to be supplemented by, them.\n\nIt will be found, I think, that the quite undeniable abuses that have\nbeen special to the Ascetic and Contemplative methods and states,\nhave all primarily sprung from that most plausible error that, if\nthese energizings are, in a sense, the highest in and for man, then\nthey can, at least in man\u2019s ideal action and condition, dispense with\nother and lower energizings and objects altogether. Yet both for man\u2019s\npractice here and even for his ideal state in the hereafter, this is\nnot so. There is no such thing,--either in human experience or in the\nhuman ideal, when both are adequately analyzed and formulated,--as\ndiscursive reasoning, without intuitive reason; or clear analysis and\nsense of contrast, without dim synthesis and a deep consciousness of\nsimilarity or continuity; or detachment of the will from evil, without\nattachment of the higher feelings to things good; or the apprehension\nand requirements of Multiplicity, without those of Unity; or the vivid\nexperience of Contingency, Mutation, and the Worthlessly Subjective,\nwithout the, if obscure yet most powerful, instinct of the Infinite\nand Abiding, of the true Objective and Valuable Subjective. Thus, for\nhumanity at large entirely, and for each human individual more or less,\neach member of these couples requires, and is occasioned by, the other,\nand _vice versa_.\n\nThe maxims that follow from this great fact are as plain in reason,\nand as immensely fruitful in practice, as they are difficult, though\never freshly interesting, to carry out, at all consistently, even in\ntheory and still more in act. For the object of a wise living will now\nconsist in introducing an ever greater unity into the multiplicity of\nour lives,--up to the point where this unity\u2019s constituents would,\nlike the opposing metals in an electric battery, become too much alike\nstill to produce a fruitful interaction, and where the unity would,\nthus and otherwise, become empty and mechanical; and an ever greater\nmultiplicity into the unity,--up to the point where that multiplicity\nwould, seriously and permanently, break up or weaken true recollection;\nand in more and more expanding this whole individual organism, by its\ninsertion, as a constituent part, into larger groups and systems of\ninterests. The Family, the Nation, Human Society, the Church,--these\nare the chief of the larger organizations into which the inchoate,\nlargely only potential, organism of the individual man is at first\nsimply passively born, yet which, if he would grow, (not in spite of\nthem, a hopeless task, but by them), he will have deliberately to\nendorse and will, as though they were his own creations.\n\n\n5. _Mystics and Spiritual Direction._\n\nIt is interesting to note the special characteristics attaching to the\none social relation emphasized by the medieval and modern varieties of\nWestern Catholic Mysticism; and the effect which a larger development\nof the other chief forces and modalities of the Catholic spiritual life\nnecessarily has upon this relation. I am thinking of the part played\nby the Director, the soul\u2019s leader and adviser, in the lives of these\nMystics,--a part which differs, in three respects, from that of the\nordinary Confessor in the life of the more active or \u201cmixed\u201d type of\nCatholic.\n\n(1) For one thing, there is here a striking variety and range, in the\necclesiastical and social position of the persons thus providentially\ngiven and deliberately chosen. The early German Franciscan Preacher,\nBerthold of Regensburg, owes his initiation into the Interior Life to\nhis Franciscan Novice-Master, the Partial Mystic, David of Augsburg,\nwhose writings still give forth for us their steady light and genial\nwarmth; the French widowed noblewoman and Religious Foundress, St.\nJane Frances de Chantal, is helped on her course to high contemplation\nby the Secular Priest and Bishop, St. Francis de Sales; the French\nJesuit, Jean Nicolas Grou, is initiated, after twenty-four years\u2019\nlife and training in his Order, by the Visitation Nun, Soeur P\u00e9lagie,\ninto that more Mystical spirituality, which constitutes the special\ncharacteristic of his chief spiritual books; the great Spaniard, St.\nTeresa herself, tells us how \u201ca saintly nobleman \u2026 a married layman,\nwho had spent nearly forty years in prayer, seems to me to have been,\nby the pains he took, the beginning of salvation to my soul\u201d--\u201chis\npower was great\u201d; and the English Anchorite, Mother Juliana of Norwich,\n\u201ca simple, unlettered creature,\u201d seems to have found no special leader\non to her rarely deep, wide, and tender teachings, but to have been\nled and stimulated, beyond and after her first general Benedictine\ntraining, by God\u2019s Providence alone, working through the few and quite\nordinary surroundings and influences of her Anchorage at Norwich.[449]\nIt would be difficult to find anything to improve in this noble liberty\nof these great children of God; nor would a larger influence of the\nother modalities necessarily restrict this ample range.\n\n(2) Again, the souls of this type seem, for the most part, to realize\nmore fully and continuously than those of the ordinary, simply active\nand ascetical kind, that the \u201cblind obedience\u201d towards such leaders, so\noften praised in their disciples and penitents, is, where wholesome\nand strengthening, essentially a simple, tenacious adherence, during\nthe inevitable times of darkness and perplexity, to the encouragements\ngiven by the guide to persevere along the course and towards the truths\nwhich this soul itself saw clearly, often through the instrumentality\nof this leader, when it was in light and capable of a peaceful,\ndeliberate decision. For however much the light may have been given it\nthrough this human mediation, (and the most numerous, and generally\nthe most important, of our lights, have been acquired thus through\nthe spoken, written, or acted instrumentality of fellow-souls),--yet\nthe light was seen, and had (in the first instance), to be seen, by\nthe disciple\u2019s own spiritual eye; and it is but to help it in keeping\nfaithful to this light (which, in the first and last instance, is God\u2019s\nlight and its own) that the leader stands by and helps. But, given\nthis important condition, there remains the simple, experimental fact\nthat, not only can and do others often see our spiritual whereabouts\nand God\u2019s _attrait_ for us more clearly than we do ourselves, but such\nunselfseeking transmission and such humbly simple reception of light\nbetween man and man adds a moral and spiritual security and beauty to\nthe illumination, (all other conditions being equal and appropriate),\nnot to be found otherwise. It is interesting to note the courageous,\nbalanced, and certainly quite unprejudiced, testimony borne to these\nimportant points, by so widely read, and yet upon the whole strongly\nProtestant, a pair of scholars, as Miss Alice Gardner and her very\ndistinguished brother, Professor Percy Gardner.[450]\n\n(3) And finally, the souls of this type have, (at least for the two\npurposes of the suscitation of actual insight, and for bearing witness\nto this, now past, experience during the soul\u2019s periods of gloom),\noften tended,--in Western Christendom and during Medieval and still\nmore in Modern times,--to exalt the office and power of the Director,\nin the life of the soul of the Mystical type, very markedly beyond the\nfunctions, rights and duties of the ordinary Confessor in the spiritual\nlife of the ordinary Catholic.\n\nIndeed they and their interpreters have, in those times and places,\noften insisted upon the guarantee of safety thus afforded, and upon the\nnecessity of such formal and systematic mediation, with an absoluteness\nand vehemence impossible to conciliate with any full and balanced,\nespecially with any at all orthodox, reading of Church History. For\nthis feature is as marked in the condemned book of Molinos and of most\nof the other Quietists, as it is in such thoroughly approved Partial\nMysticism as that of P\u00e8re Lallemant and P\u00e8re Grou: hence it alone\ncannot, surely, render a soul completely safe against excesses and\ndelusions. And this feature was markedly in abeyance, often indeed,\nfor aught we know, completely wanting, at least in any frequent and\nmethodic form, in the numerous cases of the Egyptian and other Fathers\nof the Desert: hence it cannot be strictly essential to all genuine\nContemplation in all times and places.\n\n(4) The dominant and quite certain fact here seems to be that, in\nproportion as the Abstractive movement of the soul is taken as\nself-sufficient, and a Contemplative life is attempted as something\nsubstantially independent of any concrete, social, and devotional helps\nand duties, the soul gets into a state of danger, which no amount\nof predominance of the Director can really render safe; whereas, in\nproportion as the soul takes care to practise, in its own special\ndegree and manner, the outgoing movement towards Multiplicity and\nContingency, (particular attention to particular religious facts and\nparticular service of particular persons), does such right, quite\nordinary-seeming, active subordination to, and incorporation within,\nthe great sacred organisms of the Family, Society, and the Church,\nor of any wise and helpful subdivision of these, furnish material,\npurgation and check for the other movement, and render superfluous any\ngreat or universal predominance of Direction. St. Teresa is, here also,\nwonderfully many-sided and balanced. Just as she comes to regret having\never turned aside from Christ\u2019s Sacred Humanity, so too she possesses,\nindeed she never loses, the sense of the profoundly social character of\nChristianity: she dies as she had lived, full of an explicit and deep\nlove for the Kingdom of God and the Church.\n\n\n6. _Mysticism predominantly Individualistic._\n\nYet it is clear that the strong point of the Mystics, as such, does not\nlie in the direction of the great social spirituality which finds God\nin our neighbour and in the great human organizations, through and in\nwhich, after all, man in great part becomes and is truly man. They are,\nas such, Individualistic; the relation between God and the individual\nsoul here ever tends to appear as constituted by these two forces\nalone. A fresh proof, if one were still wanting, that Mysticism is but\none of the elements of Religion,--for Religion requires both the Social\nand the Individual, the Corporate and the Lonely movement and life.\n\nIt is truly inspiring to note how emphatic is the concurrence of\nall the deepest and most circumspect contemporary Psychology,\nEpistemology, Ethics, and History and Philosophy of the Sciences and\nof Religion, in these general conclusions, which find, within the slow\nand many-sided growth and upbuilding of the spiritual personality, a\ntrue and necessary place and function for all the great and permanent\ncapabilities, aspirations and energizings of the human soul. Thus no\nsystem of religion can be complete and deeply fruitful which does not\nembrace, (in every possible kind of healthy development, proportion\nand combination), the several souls and the several types of souls\nwho, between them, will afford a maximum of clear apprehension and\nprecise reasoning, _and_ of dim experience and intuitive reason; of\nparticular attention to the Contingent (Historical Events and Persons,\nand Institutional Acts and Means) _and_ of General Recollection and\nContemplation and Hungering after the Infinite; and of reproductive\nAdmiration and Loving Intellection, _and_ of quasi-creative, truly\nproductive Action upon and within Nature and other souls, attaining, by\nsuch Action, most nearly to the supreme attribute, the Pure Energizing\nof God.\n\nThus Pseudo-Dionysius and St. John of the Cross will, even in their\nmost Negative doctrines, remain right and necessary in all stages of\nthe Church\u2019s life,--on condition, however, of being taken as but one\nof two great movements, of which the other, the Positive movement,\nmust also ever receive careful attention: since only between them is\nattained that all-important oscillation of the religious pendulum,\nthat interaction between the soul\u2019s meal and the soul\u2019s yeast, that\nfurnishing of friction for force to overcome, and of force to overcome\nthe friction, that material for the soul to mould, and in moulding\nwhich to develop itself, that alternate expiration and inspiration,\nupon which the soul\u2019s mysterious death-in-life and life-in-death so\ncontinuously depends.\n\n\nIII. THE SCIENTIFIC HABIT AND MYSTICISM.\n\n\n_Introductory. Difficulty yet Necessity of finding a True Place and\nFunction for Science in the Spiritual Life._\n\nNow it is certain that such an oscillatory movement, such a\ngive-and-take, such a larger Asceticism, built up out of the alternate\nengrossment in and abstraction from variously, yet in each case\nreally, attractive levels, functions and objects of human life and\nexperience, is still comparatively easy, as long as we restrict it\nto two out of the three great groups of energizings which are ever,\nat least potentially, present in the soul, and which ever inevitably\nhelp to make or mar, to develop or to stunt, the totality of the\nsoul\u2019s life, and hence also of the strictly spiritual life. The\nHistorical-Institutional, and the Mystical-Volitional groups and\nforces, the High-Church and the Low-Church trend, the Memory- and\nthe Will-energies, do indeed coalesce, in times of peace, with the\nReason-energy, though, even then, with some difficulty. But in times\nof war,--on occasion of any special or excessive action on the part of\nthis third group, the Critical-Speculative, the Broad-Church trend,\nand the energizing of the Understanding,--they readily combine against\nevery degree of the latter. It is as though the fundamental vowels A\nand U could not but combine to oust the fundamental vowel I; or as if\nthe primary colours Red and Blue _must_ join to crush out the primary\ncolour Yellow.\n\nIndeed, it is undoubtedly just this matter of the full and continuous\nrecognition of, and allocation of a special function to, this third\nelement within the same great spiritual organism which englobes the\nother two, which is now the great central difficulty and pressing\nproblem of more or less every degree and kind of religious life. For\nthe admission of this third element appears frequently to be ruinous to\nthe other two; yet the other two, when kept away from it, seem to lose\ntheir vigour and persuasive power.--And yet it is, I think, exactly\nat this crucial point that the conception of the spiritual life as\nessentially a Dynamism, a slow constitution of an ever fuller, deeper,\nmore close-knit unity in, and by means of, the soul\u2019s ineradicable\ntrinity of forces, shows all its fruitfulness, if we but work down to a\nsufficiently large apprehension of the capacities and requirements of\nhuman nature, moved and aided by divine grace, and to a very precise\ndelimitation of the special object and function of Mysticism.\n\n\n1. _Science and Religion: each autonomous at its own level; and, thus,\neach helpful to the other._\n\nErwin Rhode has well described Plato\u2019s attitude towards Science\nand Mysticism respectively, and towards the question of their\ninter-relation. \u201cThe flight from the things of this World is, for\nPlato, already in itself an acquisition of those of the Beyond, and\nan assimilation to the Divine. For this poor world, that solicits our\nsenses, the philosopher has, at bottom, nothing but negation. Incapable\nas it is of furnishing a material that can be truly known, the whole\ndomain of the Transitory and Becoming has no intrinsic significance\nfor Science as understood by him. The perception of things which are\never merely relative, and which simultaneously manifest contradictory\nqualities, has its sole use in stimulating and inviting the soul to\npress on to the Absolute.\u201d[451]\n\nHere we should frankly admit that the soul\u2019s hunger for the Infinite\nis, as the great Athenian so deeply realized, the very mainspring of\nReligion; and yet we must maintain that it is precisely this single\nbound away, instead of the ever-repeated double movement of a coming\nand a going, which not only helped to suppress, or at least gravely\nto stunt, the growth of the sciences of external observation and\nexperiment, but (and this is the special point,--the demonstrable\nother side of the medal,) also, in its degree, prevented religion from\nattaining to its true depth, by thus cutting off, as far as Plato\u2019s\nconviction prevailed, the very material, stimulation, and in part the\ninstruments, for the soul\u2019s outgoing, spiritualizing work, together\nwith this work\u2019s profound reflex effect upon the worker, as a unique\noccasion for the growth and self-detachment of the soul.\n\nNow the necessity for such a first stage and movement, which, as far\nas possible both immanental and phenomenalist, shall be applied and\nrestricted to the special methods, direct objects, and precise range\nof each particular Science, and the importance of the safeguarding of\nthis scientific liberty, are now clearly perceived, by the leading men\nof Religion, Philosophy, Psychology and Physics, in connection with\nthe maintenance and acquisition of sincere and fruitful Science.--It\nis also increasingly seen that, even short of Religion, a second,\nan interpretative, an at least Philosophical stage and movement is\nnecessary for the full explicitation of Science\u2019s own assumptions and\naffinities. And the keeping of these two movements clearly distinct or\neven strongly contrasted, is felt, by some far-sighted Theologians,\nto be a help towards securing, not only a candid attitude of Science\ntowards its own subject matters, but also a right independence of\nPhilosophy and Theology towards the other Sciences. Thus Cardinal\nNewman has brought out, with startling force, the necessarily\nnon-moral, non-religious character of Physico-Mathematical Science,\ntaken simply within its direct subject-matter and method. \u201cPhysical\nscience never travels beyond the examination of cause and effect.\nIts object is to resolve the complexity of phenomena into simple\nelements and principles; but when it has reached those first elements,\nprinciples and laws, its mission is at an end; it keeps within that\nmaterial system with which it began, and never ventures beyond the\n\u2018flammantia moenia mundi.\u2019 The physicist as such will never ask himself\nby what influence, external to the universe, the universe is sustained;\nsimply because he is a physicist. If, indeed, he be a religious man,\nhe will, of course, have a very different view of the subject; \u2026 and\nthis, not because physical science says anything different, but simply\nbecause it says nothing at all on the subject, nor can do by the very\nundertaking with which it set out.\u201d Or, as he elsewhere sympathetically\nsums up Bacon\u2019s method of proceeding: \u201cThe inquiry into physical causes\npasses over for the moment the existence of God. In other words,\nphysical science is, in a certain sense, atheistic, for the very reason\nthat it is not theology.\u201d[452]\n\n\n2. _Science builds up a preliminary world that has to be corrected by\nPhilosophy and Religion, at and for their deeper levels._\n\nThe additional experience and analysis of the last half-century\napparently forces us, however, to maintain not only that\nPhysico-Mathematical Science, and all knowledge brought strictly to\nthe type of that Science, does not itself pronounce on the Ultimate\nQuestions; but that this Science, as such, actually presents us with a\npicture of reality which, at the deeper level even of Epistemology and\nof the more ultimate Psychology, and still more at that of Religion,\nrequires to be taken as more or less artificial, and as demanding, not\nsimply completion, but, except for its own special purposes, correction\nas well. Thus we have seen how M. Bergson finds Clock-Time to be an\nartificial, compound concept, which seriously travesties Duration, the\nreality actually experienced by us; and Space appears as in even a\nworse predicament. M. Emil Boutroux in France, Dottore Igino Petrone\nin Italy, Profs. Eucken and Troeltsch in Germany, Profs. James Ward\nand Pringle Pattison in Great Britain, and Profs. William James, Hugo\nM\u00fcnsterberg and Josiah Royce in America are, in spite of differences\non other points, united in insistence upon, or have even worked out\nin much detail, such a distinction between the first stage and level\nof Determinist, Atomistic, Inorganic Nature and our concepts of it,\nand the second stage and level of Libertarian, Synthetic, and Organic\nSpiritual Reality, and our experience of it. And the penetrating\nlabours of Profs. Windelband, Rickert, and others, towards building up\na veritable _Organon_ of the Historical Sciences, are bringing into\nthe clearest relief these two several degrees of Reality and types\nof Knowledge, the Historical being the indefinitely deeper and more\nadequate, and the one which ultimately englobes the other.[453]\n\nA profoundly significant current in modern philosophy will thus be\nbrought, in part at least, to articulate expression and application.\nThis current is well described by Prof. Volkelt. \u201cGerman philosophy\nsince Kant reveals, in manifold forms and under various disguises, the\nattempt to recognize, in Epistemology, Metaphysics, and Ethics, such\nkinds of Certainty, such domains of Being, such human Volitions and\nValues, as lie beyond reason, constitute a something that it cannot\ngrasp, and are rooted in some other kind of foundation. In variously\nstruggling, indeed stammering utterances, expression is given to the\nassurance that not everything in the world is resolvable into Logic\nand Thought, but that mighty resisting remainders are extant, which\nperhaps even constitute the most important thing in the world.\u2026 Such a\nlonging after such a Reality can be traced in Hamann, Jacobi, Herder,\nin Novalis, Friedrich Schlegel, the youthful Schleiermacher, and Jean\nPaul. Indeed, even in Hegel, the adorer of Reason, the movement of\nNegation, which is the very soul of his philosophy, is, at bottom,\nnothing but the Irrational,\u201d the Super-Rational, \u201celement violently\npressed into the form of Reason; and again the single Thing, the This,\nthe Here and the Now, are felt by him as \u2026 a something beyond Reason.\nAnd has not the Irrational found expression in Kant, in his doctrines\nof the unconditional Liberty of the Will and of Radical Evil? In the\nlater Schelling and his spiritual relatives the Irrational has found\nfar more explicit recognition; whilst Schopenhauer brings the point\nto its fullest expression. Yet even Nietzsche still possesses such an\nelement, in his doctrine of the \u2018Over-Man.\u2019\u201d[454] And in England we\nfind this same element, in various degrees and in two chief divergent\nforms, in the Cambridge Platonists, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and Thomas\nHill Green on the one hand; and in Bishop Butler and Cardinal Newman on\nthe other hand.\n\nWe can thus point to much clear recognition, or at least to a\nconsiderable influence, of the profound truth that Science and Wisdom\ncan each prosper and help and supplement the other, only if each\npossesses a certain real autonomy, a power fully to become and to\nremain itself, and, in various degrees and ways, to stimulate, check\nand thwart the other. And this truth ever presupposes, what human\nexperience, in the long run, proves to be a fact,--that the different\nkinds, spheres, and levels of man\u2019s apprehension, and of the total\nreality thus apprehended by him, are already immanently planned each\nfor the other, within a great, largely dormant system of the world.\nThus Man can and should call this congenital inter-relatedness into\never more vigorous and more fruitful play; whereas, if it were not\nalready present deep within the very nature of things, no amount of\nhuman effort or ingenuity could ever evoke or insert it. Prof. Volkelt\nhas, as we have seen, illustrated this great fact very strikingly,\nwith regard to the relation extant between the apparently sheer\ncontingencies of human History and the requirements of Philosophy, of\nnormative thought and ideal truth. Yet a similar inter-connection can\nbe traced elsewhere, between any other two or more levels and spheres\nof wholesome and permanent human apprehension and action, in their\nrelation to various degrees and kinds of reality, as this environs man\nor inheres in him.\n\n\n3. _Necessity of the \u201cThing-element\u201d in Religion._\n\nBut let us note that the recognition, of an at all emphatic, systematic\nkind, of such inter-relatedness is, so far, almost limited to the\nmoods and persons preoccupied with the right claims of Science or of\nPhilosophy upon each other or upon the remainder of Life; and is, as\nyet, all but wanting, when Life is approached from the side of the\nspecifically Religious requirements and of the Spiritual consolidation\nof man\u2019s soul. Yet here especially, at by far the most important point\nof the whole matter, the unique place and significance of Science can\nnow be very clearly grasped.\n\nIndeed it is deeply interesting to note how largely the fundamental\ncharacteristics of Catholicism really meet, or rather how they strictly\nrequire, some such vivid conception and vigorous use of the Determinist\nThing and of its level for the full constitution of our true depth,\nour Spiritual Personality itself. If we take, _e.g._, the criticisms\naddressed, by so earnest and acute a mind as the intensely Protestant\nEmile Sulze, to the whole Thing-Element and -Concept, as these are at\nwork in the Catholic practice and position, we shall find his sense of\nthe difference between Thing and Spirit to be as enviably keen, and his\nidea of the end and ultimate measure of Religion to be as sound and\ndeep, as his conception of the means towards developing Religion and\nthe Spirit is curiously inadequate.\n\n(1) \u201cPersonality,\u201d says Sulze, \u201cis, for Religion and Morality, the\nsupreme Good, of which the source is in God, and the end, the fruit,\nand the manifestation is in Man.\u201d[455] This I take to be profoundly\ntrue, especially if we insist upon Perfect Personality being Supreme\nand Perfect Spirit; and, again, upon our imperfect personality\nand spirit as possessed of certain profound affinities to, and as\npenetrable and actually moved by, that Perfect Spirit.\n\n(2) \u201cThe value of Personality nowhere finds a full recognition in\nCatholicism; Catholicism indeed is Pantheism.\u201d Now this harsh judgment\nis based upon two sets of allegations, which, though treated by Sulze\nas of the same nature, are, I would submit, essentially different, and\nthis because of their definitely different places and functions in the\nCatholic system.\n\n\u201cThe Impersonal Godhead, the bond which unites the three Persons,\nstands above the Persons. Hence those who took religion seriously had\nto lose themselves, pantheistically, in the abyss of the Divinity.\nAnd in Christ the Person was even looked upon as the product of\ntwo Natures, the Divine and the Human, hence of two Impersonal\nForces.\u201d[456] Here two peculiarities in the early Conciliar Definitions\nare emphasized, which were doubtless as helpful, indeed necessary,\nfor the apprehension of the great abiding truths thus conveyed to the\nGraeco-Roman mind, as they are now in need of reinterpretation in the\nlight of our greater sensitiveness to the difference, in character and\nin value, which obtains between the concept of Spirit and Personality\nand that of Substances and Things.\n\nBut Sulze continues, without any change in the kind or degree of his\ncriticism: \u201cImpersonal miraculous means, created by the Hierarchy, are\nput by it in the place of the sanctifying mutual intercourse of the\nchildren of God.\u201d \u201cChristianity, torn away from the religious and moral\nlife, became thus a special, technical apparatus, without any religious\nor spiritual worth. Ecclesiastical Christianity has become a Pantheism,\nMaterialism, indeed Atheism.\u201d[457] We have so continuously ourselves\ninsisted upon the profound danger, and frequently operative abuse, of\nany and all complete apartness between any one means, function, or\n_attrait_ of the spiritual life and the others, that we can, without\nany unfairness, restrict ourselves here to the attack upon the general\nacceptation of Impersonal means as helps towards the constitution of\nPersonality. Now Sulze\u2019s principle here,--that only directly personal\nmeans can help to achieve the end of Personality,--is most undoubtedly\nfalse, unless Mathematico-Physical Science is also to be ruled out\nof life, as necessarily destructive of, or at least as necessarily\nnon-conductive to, Personality.\n\n(3) Indeed Sulze himself tells us, most truly, that, \u201cfor Religion\nalso, Science is a bath of purification\u201d; and that \u201cDoctrine and the\nSacraments are aids, in the hands of Christ and of the Community,\ntowards representing the riches of their interior life and offering\nthese to believing hearts.\u201d[458] This latter pronouncement is, however,\nstill clearly insufficient. For if there is a double truth which,\nat the end of well-nigh five centuries, ought to have burnt itself\nindelibly into the mind and conscience of us all, it is, surely,\nthe following. On the one hand, Man, unless he develops a vigorous\nalternating counter-movement, ever grows like to the instruments of\nhis labour and self-development, and hence, whilst busy with Things,\n(whether these be Natural Happenings and their Sciences, or Religious\nInstitutions and Doctrines), he inclines to become, quite unawares,\nlimited and assimilated to them,--himself thus a Thing among Things,\ninstead of, through such various Things, winning an ever fuller\napprehension of and growth in Spiritual Personality. Yet, on the\nother hand, without such a movement of close contact with the Thing,\n(both the intensely concrete, the Here and Now Contingency, and the\nprofoundly Abstract, the stringent Universal Law) and without the\npleasure and pain derived from the accompanying sense of contraction\nand of expansion, of contrast, conflict, supplementation and\nrenovation,--there is no fullest discipline or most solid growth of the\ntrue spiritual Personality.\n\n(4) Thus Science, as Sulze himself clearly sees, not merely aids us\nto represent and to communicate our personality acquired elsewhere,\nbut the shock, friction, contrast, the slow, continuous discipline,\nfar more, beyond doubt, than any positive content furnished by such\nscience, can and should constitute an essential part of the soul\u2019s\nspiritual fertilization. And similarly, if we move on into the directly\nreligious life, the Sacramental contacts and Doctrinal systems (the\nformer so intensely concrete, the latter often so abstract,) are\nnot simply means towards representing and transmitting spirituality\nacquired elsewhere: but they are amongst the means, and, in some form\nand degree, the necessary, indeed actually universal means, towards\nthe awakening and developing and fulfilling of this our spiritual\npersonality.\n\n\n4. _Three possible relations between Thing and Thought, Determinism and\nSpirit._\n\nIt remains no doubt profoundly true that, with the awakening of the\nMystical sense, will come a more or less acute consciousness of an at\nleast superficial and preliminary, difference between this sense, with\nits specific habits and informations, and those means and forms, in\npart so contingent and external, in part so intensely abstract and yet\nso precise. But it is equally certain that such a soul, and at such a\nstage, even as it continues to require, in some respects more than\never, for its general balanced development, some of the irreplaceable\ndiscipline and manly, bracing humiliation of the close external\nobservation and severe abstract generalization of Science: so also\ndoes it continue to require, for the deepening of the spirit and for\nthe growth of creatureliness, the contact with religious Things,--the\nprofoundly concrete Sacraments and the intensely abstract Doctrines of\nthe religious community.\n\n(1) In one of Trendelenburg\u2019s most penetrating essays, he shows us\nhow, between blind Force and conscious Thought,--if we presuppose\nany tendency towards unity to exist between them,--there can be but\nthree possible relations. \u201cEither Force stands before Thought, so that\nThought is not the primitive reality, but the result and accident of\nblind Force; or Thought stands before Force, so that blind Force is not\nitself the primitive reality, but the effluence of Thought; or finally,\nThought and Force are, at bottom, only one and the same thing, and\ndiffer only in our mind\u2019s conception of them.\u201d And only one of these\nthree positions can, by any possibility, be the true one: hence their\ninternecine conflict.[459]\n\n(2) Now Religion, in its normal, central stream, stands most\nundoubtedly for Thought before Force, the second, the Theistic view.\nAnd yet it would be profoundly impoverishing for our outlook and\npractice, and would but prepare a dangerous reaction in ourselves or\nothers, were we ever to ignore the immense influence, in the history,\nnot only of philosophical speculation, but even of religious feeling\nand aspiration, not indeed of the first, the Materialist, view, (which\nowes all its strength to non-religious causes or to a rebound against\nreligious excesses), but of the third, the Pantheistic, Monistic, view,\nwhose classical exponent Spinoza will probably remain unto all time.\n\n(3) If we examine into what constitutes the religious plausibility and\npower of this view, we shall find, I think, that it proceeds, above\nall, from the fact that, only too often, the second, the Theistic view\nand practice, leaves almost or quite out of sight the purification\nand slow constitution of the Individual into a Person, by means of\nthe Thing-element, the apparently blind Determinism of Natural Law\nand Natural Happenings. Yet nothing can be more certain than that we\nmust admit and place this undeniable, increasingly obtrusive, element\nand power _somewhere_ in our lives: if we will not own it as a means,\nit will grip us as our end. The unpurified, all but merely natural,\nanimal, lustful and selfish individual man, is far too like to the\nbrutes and plants, indeed even to the inorganic substances that so\npalpably surround him, for it not to be a fantastic thought to such\nthinkers as Spinoza, (and indeed it would be an excessive effort to\nhimself,) to believe that he is likely, taken simply in this condition,\nto outlast, and is capable of dominating, the huge framework of the\nvisible world, into which his whole bodily and psychical mechanism\nis placed, and to which it is bound by a thousand ties and closest\nsimilarities: his little selfish thinkings cannot but seem mere bubbles\non a boundless expanse of mere matter; all creation cannot, surely,\noriginate in, depend from, and move up to, a Mind and Spirit in any way\nlike unto this trivial ingenuity.\n\n(4) It is true, of course, that Spinoza ended,--as far as the logic\nof his system went,--by \u201cpurifying\u201d away not only this animal\nIndividualism, but Spiritual Personality as well, and this because he\ntakes Mathematico-Physical concepts to be as directly applicable and as\nadequate to Ultimate Reality as are the Ethico-Spiritual categories.\nWe have then to admit that even so rich and rare, so deeply religious\na spirit as Spinoza could insist upon purification by the \u201cpreliminary\nPantheism,\u201d and yet could remain, in theory, the eager exponent of\nan ultimate Pantheism. Like the Greeks, he not only passes through\na middle distance, a range of experience which appears dominated\nby austere Fate and blind Fortune, but finds Fate even in ultimate\nReality. Whilst, however, the Greeks often thought of Fate as superior\neven to the Gods, Spinoza finds Ultimate Reality to be neither Nature\nnor Spirit, but simply Being in General, with a Law which is neither\nNatural nor Spiritual Law, but Law in general. This General Being and\nGeneral Law then bifurcate, with the most rigorous determinism and\ncomplete impartiality, step by step, into parallel and ever co-present\nmanifestations of Nature and of Spirit, and of their respective laws,\nwhich, though different, are also each strictly determined within their\nown series.[460]\n\n(5) But Spinoza\u2019s error here undoubtedly lies in his _de facto_\nviolent bending (in spite of this theoretical Parallelism) of all\nKnowledge, Reality, and Life, under the sole Mathematico-Physical\ncategories and method; and in the insistence upon attaining to ultimate\nTruth by one single bound and with complete adequacy and clearness.\nAnd the greatness here consists in the keen and massive sense of three\nprofound truths. He never forgets that Mathematico-Physical Science\nis rigidly determinist, and that it stands for a certain important\ntruth and penetrates to a certain depth of reality. He never ceases\nto feel how impure, selfish, petty is the natural man, and how pure,\ndisinterested, noble, can and should be the spiritual personality. And\nhe never lets go the sense that, somehow, that science must be able to\nhelp towards this purification.\n\n(6) Now these three truths must be preserved, whilst the\nMathematico-Physical one-sidedness and the \u201cone-step\u201d error must\nbe carefully eliminated. And indeed it is plain that only by such\nelimination can those truths operate within a fully congenial\nsystem. For only thus, with a dissimilarity between the Ultimate,\nLibertarian, Spiritual Reality, and the Intermediate, Determinist,\nPhysico-Mathematical Range, can we explain and maintain the pain, not\nonly of the selfish but also of the true self, in face the Mere Thing;\nand only thus is all such pain and trouble worth having, since only\nthus it leads to the fuller development and the solid constitution of\nan abiding, interior, mental and volitional Personality.\n\n\n5. _Purification of the Personality by the impersonal._\n\nProf. H. J. Holtzmann has got an eloquent page concerning the kind of\nDualism which is more than ever desirable for souls, if they would\nachieve a full and virile personality in this our day. \u201cIt would appear\nto be the wiser course for us to recognize the incompatibility between\nmerely natural existence and truly personal life, just as it is, in\nits whole acute non-reconciliation; to insert this conflict into our\ncomplete outlook on to Life in its full breadth and depth, and to find\nthe harmonization in God the Infinite, in whom alone such parallels can\nmeet, and not deliberately to blind our right eye or our left, in order\nto force that outlook into one single aspect,--a degree of unification\nwhich, when achieved in this violent manner, would mean for us, at the\nsame time, a point of absolute inertia, of eternal stagnation.\u201d And\nhe then shows how it is precisely the interaction within our minds,\nfeelings, and volitions, of, on the one hand, the boundless world\nof nature, with its majestic impersonality, and on the other hand,\nthe inexhaustible, indefinitely deeper realm of personal life, as it\nappears within the stream of human history, which is best adapted\nto give us some fuller glimpses of the greatness of God and of the\nspecific character of religion.[461]\n\nThe religious imagination, mind, heart, and will,--that is to say,\nthe complete, fully normal human being at his deepest,--has thus been\nmore and more forced, by an increasingly articulated experience of\nthe forces and requirements of actual life, to hold and to practise,\nwith ever-renewed attempts at their most perfect inter-stimulation and\nmutual supplementation, a profoundly costing, yet immensely fruitful,\ntrinity in unity of convictions on this point.\n\nIn every time, place, and race, man will continue to be or to become\nreligious, in proportion to his efficacious faith in, and love of,\nthe overflowing reality and worth of the great direct objects of\nreligion,--God and the soul, and their inter-relation in and through\nthe Kingdom of God, the Church, and its Divine-Human Head,--the whole\nconstituting God\u2019s condescension towards and immanence in man, and\nman\u2019s response and orientation towards the transcendent God.\n\nAnd again, in every age, place, and race, man will be or will become\ndeeply religious, in proportion to the keenness with which he realizes\nthe immense need of spiritual growth and purification for his, at best,\nbut inchoate personality.\n\nBut,--and this third point we must admit, in the precise extension and\napplication given to it here, to be characteristically modern,--man\nwill, (if he belongs to our time and to our Western races, and is\ndetermined fully to utilize our special circumstances, lights and\ntrials, as so many means towards his own spiritualization), have\ncarefully to keep in living touch with that secondary and preliminary\nreality, the Thing-world, the Impersonal Element, Physical Science and\nDeterminist Law. He will have to pass and repass beneath these Caudine\nforks; to plunge and to replunge into and through this fiery torrent;\nand, almost a merely animal individual at the beginning and on this\nside of such docile bendings and such courageous plungings, he will,\n(if he combines them with, and effects them through, those two other,\nabiding and ultimate, directly religious convictions), straighten\nhimself up again to greater heights, and will come forth from the\ntorrent each time a somewhat purer and more developed spiritual person\nthan he was before such contraction and purgation.\n\n\n6. _This position new for Science, not for Religion._\n\nYet even this third point has, if we will but look to its substantial\nsignificance and religious function, been equivalently held and\npractised ever since the Twice-Born life, the deeper religion, has been\nlived at all.\n\n(1) The Ascetic\u2019s self-thwarting, and the Mystic\u2019s self-oblivion and\nseeking after Pure Love, what are they but the expressions of the very\nsame necessities and motives which we would wish to see fully operative\nhere? For we are not, of course, here thinking of anything simply\nintellectual, and fit only for the educated few. Any poor laundry-girl,\nwho carefully studies and carries out the laws of successful washing,\nwho moves, in alternation, away from this concentration on the Thing,\nto recollection and increasingly affective prayer and rudimentary\ncontemplation, and who seeks the fuller growth of her spirit and of\nits union with God, in this coming and going, to and from the Visible\nand Contingent, to and from the Spiritual and Infinite, and in what\nthese several levels have of contrast and of conflict; or any lowly\nfarm-labourer or blacksmith or miner, who would proceed similarly with\nhis external determinist mechanical work, and with his deeply internal\nrequirements and spiritual growth and consolidation: would all be\ncarrying out precisely what is here intended.\n\n(2) As a matter of fact, the source of such novelty, as may be\nfound here, is not on the side of religion, but on that of science.\nFor the conception of Nature of the ancient Greek Physicists, and\nindeed that of Aristotle, required to be profoundly de-humanized,\nde-sentimentalized: a rigorous mathematical Determinism and soulless\nMechanism became the right and necessary ideal of Physical Science.\nBut, long before the elaboration of this concept of the ruthless Thing,\nand of its blind Force, Our Lord had, by His Life and Teaching, brought\nto man, with abidingly unforgettable, divine depth and vividness, the\nsense of Spirit and Personality, with its liberty and interiority, its\nfar-looking wisdom and its regenerating, creative power of love. And\nfor some thirteen centuries after this supreme spiritual revelation\nand discovery, that old anthropomorphic and anthropocentric conception\nof the Physical Universe continued, well-nigh unchanged, even among\nthe earlier and middle schoolmen, and was readily harmonized with\nthat Spiritual world. Yet they were harmonized, upon the whole, by a\njuxtaposition which, in proportion as the conception of Nature became\nDeterminist and Mechanical, has turned out more and more untenable;\nand which, like all simple juxtapositions, could not, as such, have\nany spiritually educative force. But Spiritual Reality has now,--for\nthose who have become thoroughly awake to the great changes operated,\nfor good and all, in man\u2019s conception of the Physical Universe during\nnow three centuries,--to be found under, behind, across these Physical\nPhenomena and Laws, which both check and beckon on the mind and soul of\nman, in quest of their ultimate mainstay and motivation.\n\n(3) And let us note how much some such discipline and asceticism is\nrequired by the whole Christian temper and tradition, and the weakening\nof some older forms of it.\n\nDuring the first three generations Christians were profoundly sobered\nby the keen expectation of Our Lord\u2019s proximate Second Coming, and\nof the end of the entire earthly order of things, to which all their\nnatural affections spontaneously clung; and again and again, up to\nwell-nigh the Crusading Age, this poignant and yet exultant expectation\nseized upon the hearts of Christians. And then, especially from St.\nAugustine\u2019s teaching onwards, an all-pervading, frequently very severe,\nconviction as to the profound effects of Original Sin, a pessimistic\nturning away from the future of this sublunar world, as leading up\nto the great Apostacy, and a concentration upon Man\u2019s prehistoric\nbeginnings, as incomparably eclipsing all that mankind would ever\nachieve here below, came and largely took the place, as the sobering,\ndetaching element in Christianity, of the vivid expectation of the\nParousia which had characterized the earlier Christian times.\n\nClearly, the Parousia and the Original Sin conception have ceased to\nexercise their old, poignantly detaching power upon us. Yet we much\nrequire some such special channel and instrument for the preservation\nand acquisition of the absolutely essential temper of Detachment\nand Other-Worldiness. I think that this instrument and channel of\npurification and detachment--if we have that thirst for the More and\nthe Other than all things visible can give to our souls, (a thirst\nwhich the religious sense alone can supply and without which we are\nreligiously but half-awake)--is offered to us now by Science, in the\nsense and for the reasons already described.\n\n\n7. _Three kinds of occupation with Science._\n\nLet the reader note that thus, and, I submit, thus only, we can and\ndo enlist the religious passion itself on the side of disinterested,\nrightly autonomous science. For thus the harmony between the different\naspects and levels of life is not, (except for our general faith in\nits already present latent reality, and in its capacity for ultimate\nfull realization and manifestation), the static starting-point or\nautomatically persisting fact in man\u2019s life; but it is, on the\ncontrary, his ever difficult, never completely realized goal,--a goal\nwhich can be reached only by an even greater transformation within the\nworker than within the materials worked upon by him,--a transformation\nin great part effected by the enlargement and purification, incidental\nto the inclusion of that large range of Determinist Thing-laws and\nexperiences within the Spirit\u2019s Libertarian, Personal life.\n\nIt is plain that there are three kinds and degrees of occupation with\nThings and Science, and with their special level of truth and reality;\nand that in proportion as their practice within, and in aid of, the\nspiritual life is difficult, in the same proportion, (given the soul\u2019s\nadequacy to this particular amount of differentiation and pressure)--is\nthis practice purifying. And though but few souls will be called to\nany appreciable amount of activity within the third degree, all souls\ncan be proved, I think, to require a considerable amount of the first\ntwo kinds, whilst mankind at large most undoubtedly demands careful,\nthorough work of all three sorts.\n\nThe first kind is that of the man with a hobby. His directly religious\nacts and his toilsome bread-winning will thus get relieved and\nalternated by, say, a little Botany or a little Numismatics, or by any\nother \u201csafe\u201d science, taken in a \u201csafe\u201d dose, in an easy, _dilettante_\nfashion, for purposes of such recreation. This kind is already in\nfairly general operation, and is clearly useful in its degree and way,\nbut it has, of course, no purificatory force at all.\n\nThe second kind is that of the man whose profession is some kind\nof science which has, by now, achieved a more or less secure place\nalongside of, or even within, religious doctrines and feelings,--such\nas Astronomy or Greek Archaeology. Here the purification will be in\nproportion to the loyal thoroughness with which he fully maintains,\nindeed develops, the special characteristics and autonomy both of\nthese Sciences, as the foreground, part-material and stimulation, and\nof Religion, as the groundwork, background and ultimate interpreter\nand moulder of his complete and organized life; and with which he\nmakes each contribute to the development of the other and of the\nentire personality, its apprehensions and its work. This second kind\nis still comparatively rare, doubtless, in great part, because of the\nconsiderable cost and the lifelong practice and training involved in\nwhat readily looks like a deliberate complicating and endangering of\nthings, otherwise, each severally, simple and safe.\n\nAnd the third kind is that of him whose systematic mental activity\nis devoted to some science or research, which is still in process of\nwinning full and peaceful recognition by official Theology,--say,\nBiological Evolution or Biblical Criticism. Here the purification will,\nfor a soul capable of such a strain, be at its fullest, provided such a\nsoul is deeply moved by, and keeps devotedly faithful to, the love of\nGod and of man, of humble labour and of self-renouncing purification,\nand, within this great ideal and determination, maintains and\nameliorates with care the methods, categories and tests special both to\nthese sciences and investigations, and to their ultimate interpretation\nand utilization in the philosophy and life of religion. For here there\nwill, as yet, be no possibility of so shunting the scientific activity\non to one side, or of limiting it to a carefully pegged-out region,\nas to let Religion and Science energize as forces of the same kind\nand same level, the same clearness and same finality; but the Science\nwill here have to be passed through, as the surface-level, on the way\nto Religion as underlying all. What would otherwise readily tend to\nbecome, as it were, a mental Geography, would thus here give way to\nwhat might be pictured as a spiritual Geology.\n\n\n8. _Historical Science, Religion\u2019s present, but not ultimate, problem._\n\nThe reader will have noted that, for each of these three stages, I have\ntaken an Historico-Cultural as well as a Mathematico-Physical Science,\nthough I am well aware of the profound difference between them, both as\nto their prerequisites and method, and their aim and depth. And, again,\nI know well that, for the present, the chief intellectual difficulty\nof Religion, or at least the main conflict or friction between the\nSciences and Theology, seems to proceed, not from Physical Science but\nfrom Historical Criticism, especially as applied to the New Testament,\nso that, on this ground also, I ought, apparently, to keep these two\ntypes of Science separate.--Yet it is clear, I think, that, however\ndistinct, indeed different, should be the methods of these two sorts of\nScience, they are in so far alike, if taken as a means of purification\nfor the soul bent upon its own deepening, that both require a slow,\norderly, disinterested procedure, capable of fruitfulness only by\nthe recurring sacrifice of endless petty self-seekings and obstinate\nfancies, and this in face of that natural eagerness and absoluteness\nof mind which strong religious emotions will, unless they too be\ndisciplined and purified, only tend to increase and stereotype.\n\nThe matters brought up by Historical Criticism for the study and\nreadjustment of Theology, and for utilization by Religion, are indeed\nnumerous and in part difficult. Yet the still more general and\nfundamental alternatives lie not here, but with the questions as to the\nnature and range of Science taken in its narrower sense,--as concerned\nwith Quantity, Mechanism, and Determinism alone.\n\nIf Science of this Thing-type be all that, in any manner or degree, we\ncan apprehend in conformity with reality or can live by fruitfully:\nthen History and Religion of every kind must be capable of a strict\nassimilation to it, or they must go. But if such Science constitute\nonly one kind, and, though the clearest and most easily transferable,\nyet the least deep, and the least adequate to the ultimate and\nspiritual reality, among the chief levels of apprehension and of life\nwhich can be truly experienced and fruitfully lived by man; and if the\nHistorical and Spiritual level can be shown to find room for, indeed to\nrequire, the Natural and Mechanical level, whilst this latter, taken\nas ultimate, cannot accommodate, but is forced to crush or to deny,\nthe former: then a refusal to accept more than can be expressed and\nanalyzed by such Physico-Mathematical Science would be an uprooting and\na discrowning of the fuller life, and would ignore the complete human\npersonality, from one of whose wants the entire impulse to such Science\ntook its rise.\n\nAs a matter of fact, we find the following three alternatives.\n\nLevel all down to Mathematico-Physical Science, and you deny the\nspecific constituents of Spirituality, and you render impossible the\ngrowth of the Person out of, and at the expense of, the Individual.\nProclaim the Person and its Religion, as though they were static\nsubstances adequately present from the first, and ignore, evade or\nthwart that Thing-level and method as far as ever you can, and you\nwill, in so far, keep back the all but simply animal Individual from\nattaining to his full spiritual Personality. But let grace wake up,\nin such an Individual, the sense of the specific characteristics of\nSpirituality and the thirst to become a full and ever fuller Person,\nand this in contact and conflict with, as well as in recollective\nabstraction from, the apparently chance contingencies of History and\nCriticism, and the seemingly fatalistic mechanisms of Physics and\nMathematics: and you will be able, by humility, generosity, and an\never-renewed alternation of such outgoing, dispersive efforts and of\nsuch incoming recollection and affective prayer, gradually to push out\nand to fill in the outlines of your better nature, and to reorganize it\nall according to the Spirit and to Grace, becoming thus a deep man, a\ntrue personality.\n\nOnce again: take the intermediate, the Thing-level as final, and you\nyourself sink down more and more into a casual Thing, a soulless Law;\nMaterialism, or, at best, some kind of Pantheism, must become your\npractice and your creed.--Take the anterior, the Individual-level as\nfinal, and you will remain something all but stationary, and if not\nmerely a Thing yet not fully a Person; and if brought face to face\nwith many an Agnostic or Pantheist of the nobler sort, who is in\nprocess of purification from such childish self-centredness by means\nof the persistently frank and vivid apprehension of the Mechanical,\nDeterminist, Thing-and-Fate level of experience and degree of truth,\nyou will, even if you have acquired certain fragmentary convictions and\npractices of religion, appear strangely less, instead of more, than\nyour adversary, to any one capable of equitably comparing that Agnostic\nand yourself--you who, if Faith be right, ought surely to be not less\nbut more of a personality than that non-believing soul.\n\nBut take the last, the Spiritual, Personal level as alone ultimate,\nand yet as necessarily requiring, to be truly reached and maintained,\nthat the little, selfish, predominantly animal-minded, human being\nshould ever pass and repass from this, his Individualistic plane\nand attitude, through the Thing-and-Fate region, out and on to the\n\u201cshining table-land, whereof our God Himself is sun and moon\u201d: and\nyou will, in time, gain a depth and an expansion, a persuasive force,\nan harmoniousness and intelligibleness with which, everything else\nbeing equal, the Pantheistic or Agnostic self-renunciation cannot\ntruly compare. For, in these circumstances, the latter type will, at\nbest, but prophesy and prepare the consummation actually reached by\nthe integrational, dynamic religiousness, the Individual transformed\nmore and more into Spirit and Person, by the help of the Thing and of\nDeterminist Law. Freedom, Interiority, Intelligence, Will, Grace, and\nLove, the profoundest Personality, a reality out of all proportion\nmore worthy and more ultimate than the most utterly unbounded universe\nof a simply material kind could ever be, thus appear here, in full\ncontradiction of Pantheism, as ultimate and abiding; and yet all\nthat is great and legitimate in Pantheism has been retained, as an\nintermediate element and stage, of a deeply purifying kind.\n\n\n9. _Return to Saints John of the Cross and Catherine of Genoa._\n\nAnd thus we come back to the old, sublime wisdom of St. John of the\nCross, in all that it has of continuous thirst after the soul\u2019s\npurification and expansion, and of a longing to lose itself, its\nevery pettiness and egoistic separateness, in an abstract, universal,\nquasi-impersonal disposition and reality, such as God here seems\nto require and to offer as the means to Himself. Only that now we\nhave been furnished, by the ever-clearer self-differentiation of\nMathematico-Physical Science, with a zone of pure, sheer Thing, mere\nsoulless Law, a zone capable of absorbing all those elements from out\nof our thought and feeling which, if left freely to mingle with the\ndeeper level of the growing Spiritual Personality, would give to this\nan unmistakably Pantheistic tinge and trend. Hence, now the soul will\nhave, in one of its two latter movements, to give a close attention to\ncontingent facts and happenings and to abstract laws, possessed of no\ndirect religious significance or interpretableness which, precisely\nbecause of this, will, if practised as part of the larger whole of\nthe purificatory, spiritual upbuilding of the soul, in no way weaken,\nbut stimulate and furnish materials for the other movement, the one\nspecially propounded by the great Spaniard, in which the soul turns\naway, from all this particularity, to a general recollection and\ncontemplative prayer.\n\nAnd we are thus, perhaps, in even closer touch with Catherine\u2019s\ncentral idea,--the soul\u2019s voluntary plunge into a painful yet joyous\npurgation, into a state, and as it were an element, which purges away,\n(since the soul itself freely accepts the process), all that deflects,\nstunts, or weakens the realization of the soul\u2019s deepest longings,--the\nhard self-centredness, petty self-mirrorings, and jealous claimfulness,\nabove all. For though, in Catherine\u2019s conception, this at first both\npainful and joyful, and then more and more, and at last entirely,\njoyful, ocean of light and fire is directly God and His effects upon\nthe increasingly responsive and unresisting soul: yet the apparent\nThing-quality here, the seemingly ruthless Determinism of Law, in\nwhich the little individual is lost for good and all, and which only\nthe spiritual personality can survive, are impressively prominent\nthroughout this great scheme. And though we cannot, of course, take the\nelement and zone of the sheer Thing and of Determinist Law as God, or\nas directly expressive of His nature, yet we can and must hold it, (in\nwhat it is in itself, in what it is as a construction of our minds,\nand in its purificatory function and influence upon our unpurified but\npurifiable souls), to come from God and to lead to Him. And thus here\nalso we escape any touch of ultimate Pantheism, without falling into\nany cold Deism or shallow Optimism. For just because we retain, at the\nshallower level, the ruthlessly impersonal element, can we, by freely\nwilled, repeated passing through such fatalistic-seeming law, become,\nfrom individuals, persons; from semi-things, spirits,--spirits more and\nmore penetrated by and apprehensive of the Spirit, God, the source and\nsustainer of all this growth and reality.\n\nAnd yet, let us remember once more, the foreground and preliminary\nstage to even the sublimest of such lives will never, here below at\nleast, be abidingly transcended, or completely harmonized with the\ngroundwork and ultimate stage, by the human personality. Indeed our\nwhole contention has been that, with every conceivable variation of\ndegree, of kind, and of mutual relation, these two stages, and some\nsort of friction between them, are necessary, throughout this life,\nfor the full development, the self-discipline, and the adequate\nconsolidation, at the expense of the childish, sophistic individual, of\nthe true spiritual Personality.\n\n\n\n\nIV. FINAL SUMMARY AND RETURN TO THE STARTING-POINT OF THE WHOLE\nINQUIRY: THE NECESSITY, AND YET THE ALMOST INEVITABLE MUTUAL HOSTILITY,\nOF THE THREE GREAT FORCES OF THE SOUL AND OF THE THREE CORRESPONDING\nELEMENTS OF RELIGION.\n\n\nOur introductory position as to the three great forces of the soul,\nwith the corresponding three great elements of religion, appears, then,\nto have stood the test of our detailed investigation. For each of these\nforces and corresponding elements has turned out to be necessary to\nreligion, and yet to become destructive of itself and of religion in\ngeneral where this soul-force and religious element is allowed gravely\nto cripple, or all but to exclude, the other forces and elements, and\ntheir vigorous and normal action and influence.\n\n\n1. _Each of these three forces and elements is indeed necessary, but\nruinously destructive where it more or less ousts the other two._\n\n(1) The psychic force or faculty by which we remember and picture\nthings and scenes; the law of our being which requires that\nsense-impressions should stimulate our thinking and feeling into\naction, and that symbols, woven by the picturing faculty out of these\nimpressions, should then express these our thoughts and feelings; and\nthe need we have, for the due awakening, discipline and supplementation\nof every kind and degree of experience and action, that social\ntradition, social environment, social succession should ever be before\nand around and after our single lives: correspond to and demand the\nInstitutional and Historical Element of Religion. This element is as\nstrictly necessary as are that force and that law.\n\nYet if this force and need of the soul, and this religious element\nare allowed to emasculate the other two primary soul-forces and needs\nand the religious elements corresponding to them, it will inevitably\ndegenerate into more or less of a Superstition,--an oppressive\nmaterialization and dangerous would-be absolute fixation of even quite\nsecondary and temporary expressions and analyses of religion; a ruinous\nbelief in the direct transferableness of religious conviction; and a\npredominance of political, legal, physically coercive concepts and\npractices with regard to those most interior, strong yet delicate,\nreadily thwarted or weakened, springs of all moral and religious\ncharacter,--spiritual sincerity and spontaneity and the liberty of\nthe children of God. We thus get too great a preponderance of the\n\u201cObjective,\u201d of Law and Thing, as against Conviction and Person; of\nPriest as against Prophet; of the movement from without inwards, as\nagainst the movements from within outwards.\n\nThe Spanish Inquisition we found to be probably the most striking\nexample and warning here. Yet the Eastern Christian Churches have\ndoubtless exhibited these symptoms, if less acutely, yet more\nextensively and persistently. And the Protestant Reformation-Movement,\n(even in the later lives of its protagonists, Luther, Zwingli, and\nCalvin), much of orthodox Lutheranism and Calvinism, and some forms and\nphases of Anglican Highchurchism and of Scotch Presbyterianism, show\nvarious degrees and forms of a similar one-sidedness. In Judaism the\nexcesses in the Priestly type of Old Testament religion, especially\nas traceable after the Exile, and their partial continuation in\nRabbinism, furnish other, instructive instances of such more or less\npartial growth,--the Pharisees and the Jerusalem Sanhedrin being here\nthe fullest representatives of the spirit in question. The classical\nHeathen Roman religion was, throughout, too Naturalistic for its,\nall but exclusive, externalism and legalism to be felt as seriously\noppressive of any other, considerable element of that religion. And\nmuch the same could doubtless be said of Indian Brahmanism to this\nday. But in orthodox Mohammedanism we get the truly classical instance\nof such a predominance, in all its imposing strength and terrible,\nbecause all but irremediable, weakness--with its utterly unanalytic,\nunspeculative, unmystical, thing-like, rock-solid faith; its detailed\nrigidity and exhaustive fixity; its stringent unity of organization\nand military spirit of entirely blind obedience; its direct, quite\nunambiguous intolerance, and ever ready appeal to the sword, as the\nnormal and chief instrument for the propagation of the spirit; and its\nentirely inadequate apprehension of man\u2019s need of purification and\nregeneration in all his untutored loves, fears, hopes and hates.\n\n(2) Then there is the soul-force by which we analyze and synthesize,\nand the law of our being which requires us to weigh, compare, combine,\ntransfer, or ignore the details and the evidential worth of what has\nbeen brought home to us through the stimulation of our senses, by our\npicturing faculty and memory, and by means of our Social, Historical,\nand Institutional environment, and which orders us to harmonize all\nthese findings into as much as may be of an intelligible whole of\nreligion, and to integrate this religious whole within some kind of,\nat least rough, general conception as to our entire life\u2019s experience.\nAnd this force and law are answered by the Critical-Historical and\nSynthetic-Philosophical element of religion. We thus get Positive\nand Dogmatic Theology. And this element is as humanly inevitable and\nreligiously necessary as is that soul-force and law.\n\nYet here again, if this force, law, and element are allowed\nsuperciliously to ignore, or violently to explain away, the other kinds\nof approaches and contributions to religious truth and experience,\nspecial to the other two soul-forces and religious elements, we shall\nget another destructive one-sidedness, a Rationalistic Fanaticism,\nonly too often followed by a lengthy Agnosticism and Indifference.\nWhilst the Rationalist Fanaticism lasts, everything will doubtless\nappear clear and simple to the soul, but then this \u201ceverything\u201d will\nbut represent the merest skimmings upon the face of the mighty deep\nof living, complete religion,--a petty, artificial arrangement by the\nhuman mind of the little which, there and then, it can easily harmonize\ninto a whole, or even simply a direct hypostatizing of the mind\u2019s own\nbare categories.\n\nThe worship of the Goddess of Reason at Notre-Dame of Paris we found to\nbe here, perhaps, the most striking instance. Yet Rationalist excesses,\nvarying from a cold Deism down to an ever short-lived formal Atheism,\nand the lassitude of a worldly-wise Indifferentism, are traceable\nwithin all the great religions. Thus a large proportion of the educated\nmembers of the ancient Graeco-Roman world were, from the Sophists and\nthe Second Punic War onward, stricken with such a blight. The Sadducees\nare typical of this tendency among the Jews for some two centuries.\nThe tough persistence of a mostly obscure current of destructive\nfree-thought throughout Western Europe in the Middle Ages shows well\nthe difficulty and importance of a mental and spiritual victory over\nthese forces of radical negation, and of not simply driving them\nbeneath the surface of society. And the ready lapse of the most daring\nand intense of the Medieval, Jewish and Christian, Scholastics into a\nthoroughly Pantheistic Panlogism, points to the prevalence, among these\ncircles, of a certain tyranny of the abstractive and logical faculty\nover the other powers and intimations of the soul.--Unitarianism again\nis, in its origins and older form, notwithstanding its even excessive\nanti-Pantheism, strongly Scholastic in its whole temper and method, and\nthis without the important correctives and supplementations brought\nto that method by the largely Mystical and Immanental Angel of the\nSchools. The greater part of the \u201cAufkl\u00e4rung\u201d-Movement was vitiated\nby an often even severer, impoverishment of the whole conception of\nreligion. And, in our day, the Liberal movements within the various\nChristian bodies, and again among Brahmanic religionists in India,\nrarely escape altogether from ignoring or explaining away the dark\nand toilsome aspects of life, and the inevitable excess of all deep\nreality, and indeed of our very experience of it, above our clear,\nmethodical, intellectual analysis and synthesis of it. Too often and\nfor too long all such groups have inclined to assimilate all Experience\nto clear Knowledge, all clear Knowledge to Physico-Mathematical\nScience, all Religion to Ethics, and all Ethics to a simple belief\nin the ultimacy of Determinist, Atomistic Science. The situation is\ndecidedly improving now; History and Culture are being found to have\nother, more ultimate categories, than are those of Mathematics and\nPhysics, and to bring us a larger amount of reality, and Ethics and\nReligion are discovered to be as truly distinct as they are closely\nallied and necessary, each to the deepest development of the other.\n\n(3) The faculty and action of the soul, finally, by which we have an\nhowever dim yet direct and (in its general effects) immensely potent,\nsense and feeling, an immediate experience of Objective Reality, of\nthe Infinite and Abiding, of a Spirit not all unlike yet distinct from\nour own, Which penetrates and works within these our finite spirits\nand in the world at large, especially in human history; and by which\nwe will, and give a definite result and expression to, our various\nmemories, thinkings, feelings, and intuitions, as waked up by their\nvarious special stimulants and by the influence of each upon all the\nothers: is met by the Mystical and the directly Operative element of\nReligion. And here again we have a force and law of the human spirit,\nand a corresponding element of religion, which can indeed be starved\nor driven into a most dangerous isolation and revolt, but which are\nsimply indestructible.\n\nThe Apocalyptic Orgies of the M\u00fcnster Anabaptists we found to be\nperhaps the most striking illustration of the dire mischief that can\nspring from this third group of elemental soul-forces, when they ignore\nor dominate the other two. Yet some such Emotional Fanaticism can be\ntraced, in various degrees and forms, throughout all such religious\ngroups, schools, and individuals as seriously attempt to practise Pure\nMysticism,--that is, religious Intuition and Emotion unchecked by the\nother two soul-forces and religious elements, or by the alternation of\nexternal action and careful contact with human Society and its needs\nand helps, Art and Science, and the rest.\n\nThus we find that, after the immense, luxuriant prevalence of an\nintensely intuitive, emotional, tumultuously various apprehension\nand manifestation of religion during the first two generations\nof Christians, and even after the deep, wise supplementation and\nspiritualization of this element by St. Paul, who in his own person so\nstrikingly combined the Institutional, Rational and Intuitive-Emotional\nforces and elements, this whole force and element rapidly all but\ndisappeared for long from Western Christian orthodoxy. And Montanism\nin still early times, and, during the very height of the Middle\nAges, the Waldensian and Albigensian movements--all predominantly\nintuitive, enthusiastic, individualist--appear as so many revolutionary\nexplosions, threatening the whole fabric of Christendom with\ndissolution. The \u201cEternal Gospel\u201d movement of Abbot Joachim, on\nthe other hand, gives us the intuitional-emotive element in a more\npurified, institutionally and rationally supplemented form.\n\nAgain we find that, for a while, in reaction from an all but hopelessly\ncorrupt civilization, the Fathers of the Desert attained in many cases,\nby means of an all but Exclusive Mysticism, to a type of sanctity\nand to the inculcation of a lesson which the Church has gratefully\nrecognized. We have to admit that many of the Italian, French and\nSpanish Quietists of the Seventeenth Century were no doubt excessively,\nor even quite unjustly, suspected or pursued, as far at least as their\nown personal motives and the effect of their doctrines upon their own\ncharacters were concerned; and that the general reaction against even\nthe proved, grave excesses of some of these men and women, went often\ndangerously far in the contrary direction. Indeed even the fierce\nfanaticism of the Dutch-Westphalian Apocalyptic Intuitionists can but\nexcuse, not justify, the policy of quite indiscriminately ruthless\nextermination pursued by Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, and by their\nofficial churches after their deaths, towards any and all Illuminism,\nhowever ethically pure and socially operative. The \u201cSociety of Friends\u201d\nwhich, measured by the smallness of its numbers, has given to the world\nan astonishingly large band of devoted lovers of humankind, is a living\nwitness to the possibility of such an Illuminism.\n\nAnd we can note how the sane and solid, deep and delicate constituents,\nwhich had existed, mixed up with all kinds of fantastic, often\nhysterical and anti-moral exaltations, within most of those all but\npurely Intuitionist circles, gradually found their escape away into all\nsorts of unlikely quarters, helping to give much of their interiority\nand religious warmth, not only to various, now fairly sober-minded,\nNonconformist Protestant bodies on the Continent, in England and\nAmerica, but also to the more religious-tempered and more spiritually\nperceptive among modern philosophers--such as Spinoza, Kant, Fichte,\nSchleiermacher, Schelling and Fechner.\n\nWithin the Jewish world, we get much of this element at its noblest\nand at its worst, in the true and false Prophets respectively; then\namong the Essenes, for the times between the Maccabean resistance and\nthe revolt of Bar Cochba; and later on in the Kabbala. The Mohammedans\nstill furnish the example of the Sufi-movement. The Classical Heathen\nworld produced the Neo-Platonist and the Mithraic movements; and we can\nstill study, as a living thing, the Buddhist Mysticism of Thibet.\n\nWe have then, here too, something thoroughly elemental, which requires\nboth persistent operative recognition and a continuous and profound\npurification and supplementation by becoming incorporated within a\nlarge living system of all the fundamental forces of the soul, each\noperating and operated upon according to the intrinsic nature and\nlegitimate range of each.\n\n\n2. _Each element double; endless combinations and conflicts._\n\nWe have also found that these three forces and elements are each\ndouble, and that collisions, but also most fruitful interactions, can\nand do obtain between even these yoke-fellows: between Institutionalise\nand History,--the Present and the Past, a direct Sense-Impression and\nPicture and a Memory; between Criticism and Construction,--Analysis\nand acuteness of mind, and Synthesis and richness and balance of\nimagination, head, heart, and will; and between Mysticism and Action,\nas respectively Intuitive and quiescent and Volitional and effortful.\n\nAnd both the three forces and elements as a whole, and the single\nmembers of each pair, can and do appear in every possible variety of\ncombination with, and of opposition against, the others, although\nthere is a special affinity between the Critical-Speculative and the\nIntuitive-Volitional pairs (in combination against the Sense-and-Memory\npair); between the Sense-and-Memory pair and the single member of\nAction; and between the single members of Speculation and of Intuition.\nYet, ultimately, not any one pair or member can bear its fullest fruit,\nwithout the aid of all the others; and there is not one that, in actual\nhuman nature, does not tend to emasculate, or to oust as much as\npossible from the soul, the other pairs or single members.\n\n\n3. _Our entire religious activity but one element of our complete\nspirit-life._\n\nAnd we have noted further, how even the fullest development in\nany one soul of all these three couples of specifically religious\nactivities--even supposing that they could be developed to their\nfullest, without any participation in and conflict with other degrees\nand kinds of life and reality--do not, by any means, exhaust the range\nof even the simplest soul\u2019s actual energizings.\n\n(1) For over and beyond the specifically religious life--though this,\nwhere genuine, is ever the deepest, the central life--every soul lives,\nand has to live, various other lives. And indeed--and this is the\npoint which specially concerns religion--the soul cannot attain to its\nfullest possible spiritual development, without the vigorous specific\naction and differentiation of forces and functions of a not directly\nreligious character, which will have to energize, each according\nto its own intrinsic nature, within the ever ampler, and ever more\nclosely-knit, organization of the complete life of the soul.\n\n(2) And within this complete life, the three pairs of religious forces\nand elements each possess their own special affinities and antipathies\nfor certain of the forces and elements which constitute the other,\nless central organizations of man\u2019s marvellously rich activity.\nThe Historical-Institutional element of Religion has necessarily\na special affinity for, and borrows much of its form from, social,\nlegal, political history and institutions of a general kind. The\nCritical-Speculative element of religion is necessarily cognate to, and\nin a state of interchange with, the general historical criticism and\nphilosophical insight attained during the ages and amongst the races in\nwhich any particular religion is intellectually systematized. And the\nMystical-Operative element is necessarily influenced by, and largely\nutilizes the general emotive and volitional gifts and habits, peculiar\nto the various ages and peoples within which this double religious\nelement is in operation.\n\n(3) It is thus abundantly clear how greatly a work so manifold in its\nmeans, and so harmonious in its end, requires, if it is to come to\na considerable degree of realization, that single souls, and single\nclasses and types of souls, should have around them a large and varied\nHistorical and Institutional, a Social life both of a specifically\nreligious and of a general kind, and that, within this large ambit of\nthe actualized religion of others and of the still largely potential\nreligion of their own souls, they shall develop and be helped to\nrealize their own deepest spiritual capacities and _attrait_. They\nwill have to develop these special capabilities to the utmost degree\ncompatible with some practice of the other chief elements of religion,\nwith a continuous respect for and belief in the necessity of the other\ntypes of soul, and with a profound belief in, and love of, the full,\norganized community of all devoted souls, which builds up, and is built\nup by, all this variety in unity. The Kingdom of God, the Church, will\nthus be more and more found and made to be the means of an ever more\ndistinct articulation, within an ever more fruitful interaction, of\nthe various _attraits_, gifts, vocations, and types of souls which\nconstitute its society. And these souls in return will, precisely\nby this their articulation within this ampler system, bring to this\nsociety an ever richer content of variety in harmony, of action and\nwarfare within an ever deeper fruitfulness and peace.\n\n\n4. _Two conditions of the fruitfulness of the entire process._\n\nYet even the simplest effort, within this innumerable sequence and\nsimultaneity of activities, will lack the fullest truth and religious\ndepth and fruitfulness, unless two experiences, convictions and motives\nare in operation throughout the whole, and penetrate its every part,\nas salt and yeast, atmosphere and light penetrate, and purify and\npreserve our physical food and bodily senses.\n\nThe vivid, continuous sense that God, the Spirit upholding our poor\nlittle spirits, is the true originator and the true end of the whole\nmovement, in all it may have of spiritual beauty, truth, goodness\nand vitality; that all the various levels and kinds of reality and\naction are, in whatever they have of worth, already immanently\nfitted to stimulate, supplement and purify each other by Him Who, an\nInfinite Spiritual Interiority Himself, gives thus to each one of us\nindefinite opportunities for actualizing our own degree and kind of\nspiritual possibility and ideal; and that He it is Who, however dimly\nyet directly, touches our souls and awakens them, in and through all\nthose minor stimulations and apprehensions, to that noblest, incurable\ndiscontent with our own petty self and to that sense of and thirst for\nthe Infinite and Abiding, which articulates man\u2019s deepest requirement\nand characteristic: this is the first experience and conviction,\nwithout which all life, and life\u2019s centre, religion, are flat and\ndreary, vain and philistine.\n\nAnd the second conviction is the continuous sense of the ever\nnecessary, ever fruitful, ever bliss-producing Cross of Christ--the\ngreat law and fact that only through self-renunciation and suffering\ncan the soul win its true self, its abiding joy in union with the\nSource of Life, with God Who has left to us, human souls, the choice\nbetween two things alone: the noble pangs of spiritual child-birth, of\npainful-joyous expansion and growth; and the shameful ache of spiritual\ndeath, of dreary contraction and decay.\n\nNow it is especially these two, ever primary and supreme, ever deepest\nand simplest yet most easily forgotten, bracing yet costing, supremely\nvirile truths and experiences--facts which increasingly can and\never should waken up, and themselves be vivified by, all the other\nactivities and gifts of God which we have studied--these two eyes\nof religion and twin pulse-beats of its very heart, that have been\nrealized, with magnificent persistence and intensity, by the greatest\nof the Inclusive Mystics.\n\nAnd amongst these Mystics, Caterinetta Fiesca Adorna, the Saint\nof Genoa, has appeared to us as one who, in spite of not a little\nobscurity and uncertainty and vagueness in the historical evidences for\nher life and teaching, of not a few limitations of natural character\nand of opportunity, and of several peculiarities which, wonderful to\nher _entourage_, can but perplex or repel us now, shines forth, in\nprecisely these two central matters, with a penetrating attractiveness,\nrarely matched, hardly surpassed, by Saints and Heroes of far more\nvaried, humorous, readily understandable, massive gifts and actions.\nAnd these very limits and defects of her natural character and\nopportunities, of her contemporary disciples and later panegyrists,\nand of our means for studying and ascertaining the facts and precise\nvalue of the life she lived, and of the legend which it occasioned,\nmay, we can hope, but help to give a richer articulation and wider\napplicability to our study of the character and necessity, the limits,\ndangers and helpfulness of the Mystic Element of Religion.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n(_Some corrections of mistakes in names and references, as given in the\nforegoing work, have been silently effected in the following Index_)\n\n\nI. OF SUBJECT-MATTERS\n\n Abelard, I. 61\n\n Absorptions of St. Catherine, I. 226-229\n\n Acarie, Madame, I. 89\n\n Acquasola, Genoa, I. 144, 145 _n._ 1, 168\n\n Action (reflex), its three elements, I. 57-58\n\n Adorni Family, I. 96, =101=, 102\n various, I. 102, 145 _n._ 1, 151, 153-155, 173, 300, 327, 377\n\n Adorno, Giuliano, I. =101=, =102=, 103, 138, 145 _n._ 1, =149=, 153,\n 173, 187, 225, 296, 297 _n._ 1, 300, 307, 308, 309, 311, 313,\n 325 _n._ 1, 377, 378, 379, 382, 386, 388, 394, 454, 455; II. 29, 74\n he becomes a Tertiary of the Order of St. Francis, I. 130\n his bankruptcy, I. 128-129\n character, I. 102\n conversion, I. 129\n his death, I. 149-156, 379\n his illness, I. 149 _n._ 1.\n his life in the little house within the Hospital, I. 129-131\n his monument, I. 297 _n._ 1\n his natural daughter, I. 129\n his will, I. =151-152=, 378-379\n moves into the Hospital, I. 141, 142\n sells his palace, I. 148 _n._ 1\n\n Adorno Palazzo, I. 108, 128, 148, 327, 377, 379, 403\n\n Aeschylus, II. 189, 271\n\n Afer, Victorinus, I. 266 _n._ 3\n\n Affinities, human, furthered by Mysticism, II. 331-335\n\n After-life beliefs, in Asiatic countries, II. 183-185\n in Greece, II. 185-189\n of the Jews, II. 189-191\n problems, ethico-practical difficulties of, II. 197-199\n historical difficulties of, II. 182-194\n philosophical difficulties of, II. 194-197\n\n After-life, its forecasts in St. Catherine, II. 200-203\n Plato\u2019s influence on them, II. 203-211\n\n Agnosticism (Mystical), criticism of, II. 287-296\n\n Agrigentum, II. 188\n\n Aix, Cathedral of, and triptych, I. 96\n\n Akiba, Rabbi, II. 233, 268, 292\n\n Alacoque, St. Marie Marguerite, II. 42, 56, 58\n\n Albigensian movement, II. 391\n\n Alcantara, St. Peter of, II. 143\n\n Alexander VI, Pope (Borgia), I. 95\n VII, Pope (Chigi), II. 168 _n._ 1\n\n Alexandrian School, I. 61\n\n Alfred, King, II. 44\n\n Aloysius, St. Gonzaga, I. 88\n\n Alvarez, Venerable Balthazar, S.J., I. 64\n\n Ambrosian Library, Milan, I. 411 _n._ 1, 466\n\n America, II. 370, 392\n\n Amos, II. 189, 268\n\n Anabaptists, I. 9, 63; II. 391\n their orgies, I. 10, 340; II. 391\n\n Anaxagoras, I. 12\n\n Andrew, Monastery of St., Genoa, I. 325 _n._ 2\n\n Andrewes, Anglican Bp. Lancelot, I. 63\n\n Angelica Library, Rome, I. 411 _n._ 1\n\n Angelo, Castel S., Rome, I. 327\n of Chiavasso, Blessed, O.S.F., I. 116\n\n Anglican Highchurchism, II. 63, 388\n\n Anglicanism, its three elements, I. 8, 9, 63\n\n Anguisola, Donna Andronica, I. 359, 361, 363, 364, 403, 413, 416\n\n Animal-life, St. Catherine\u2019s sympathy with, I. 163, 164\n\n Anjou, Charles I. of, I. 96\n Margaret of, I. 96\n Ren\u00e9 of, King of Naples, I. 96\n\n Annunciation, Church of the, Sturla, I. 451\n\n Annunziata in Portorio, Church of Sma., Genoa, I. 98 _n._ 1 (99), 130,\n 201 _n._ 3, 297 _n._ 1, 313, 325 _n._ 1\n Monastery of, I. 319, 325\n\n Annunziata, Piazza della Sma., Genoa, I. 102\n\n Anselm, St., Archbishop, I. 78; II. 142, 181\n\n Anthony, St., I. 373\n\n Antiochene School, I. 61\n\n Antiochus Epiphanes, II. 292\n\n Antonietta (servant), I. 149, 153, 226\n\n Apocalypse, II. 269\n\n Apollo Katharsios, II. 93\n\n Apostles, I. 27, 389\n\n Apprehension, Mystical, no distinct faculty of, II. =283-284=\n\n Arc, Jeanne d\u2019, Ven., II. 47\n\n Archives, Archiepiscopal, of Genoa, I. 411 _n._ 1\n of the Cathedral Chapter, Genoa, I. 384\n\n Archivio di Stato in Genoa, I. 153 _n._ 1, 172, 176 _n._ 1, 2,\n 378 _n._ 1, 379 _n._ 1, 381 _n._ 1, 203 _n._ 1, 213; II. 10 _n._ 1.\n\n Argentina, del Sale (de Ripalta), I. 149, 151, 162 _n._ 2 (163),\n =169-171=, 173, 175, 197 _n._ 4 (198), 210 _n._ 1, 213 _n._ 1,\n =215-219=, 223, 226, 297 _n._ 1, 298, 299, 367, 310-312, =313=,\n =314=, 387-389, 402, =452=, =453=, 464; II. 4, 26\n adopted by St. Catherine, I. 170, 171\n her fate, I. 313, 314\n much alone with St. Catherine in 1510, she helps on growth of\n legends, I. 203; II. 4, 26, 197 _n._ 4 (198), 203, 209, 210 _n._ 1,\n 219, 452, 453\n wills of, I. 313, 381\n\n Arias, Francisco, S.J., I. 89\n\n Aristotle, I. 7, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 41, 42; II. 131, 132, 194, 203, 249,\n 250, 252, 264, 310, 311, 312, 320, 324, 379\n his conception of \u201cUnmoving Energy,\u201d II. =131=, =132=, 250\n of the No\u00fbs, II. 32\n of God as sheer abstract Thought, II. 251\n his general doctrine, I. 19-23\n\n Arnold, Dr. Thomas, of Rugby, I. 63\n\n Ars, Cur\u00e9 d\u2019, the Bl. J. B. Vianney, II. 143\n\n Arvenza, on the Riviera, I. 318\n\n Asceticism and Mystical abstractiveness, II. 348-349\n ordinary and social Christianity, II. 355-358\n ordinary, as practised by Mystics, II. 341-343\n\n Asia Minor, II. 188\n\n Assyria, II. 185\n\n Atman, II. 183\n\n Augsburg, David of, O. S. F., II. 363\n\n Augustine, St., I. 61, 100; II. 117, 129, 131, 142, 205, 211, 212, 213,\n 214, 215, 261, 266 _n._ 3, 270, 282, 298, 380\n on Evil as negative, II. 293\n on fire of Hell, II. 216\n on mitigation of sufferings of the Lost, II. 225\n on Purgatory, II. 216, 217\n on soul\u2019s Rest between death and resurrection, II. 211, 212\n on Original Sin, II. 298-301\n on God and the soul as out of Space, II. =212=, =213=\n on Time and Eternity, II. 165 _n._, =248=\n\n Augustinian Canonesses, I. 103 _n._ 1; II. 62\n Canons, I. 103 _n._ 1\n\n Augustinianesses, Chapel of the, Genoa, I. 109, 170\n\n Avicebron, _see_ Gebirol Ibn\n\n Avicenna, II. 317\n\n Avignon exile, I. 94\n\n Azzolini, Cardinal, I. 305\n dei Manfredi, cavaliere, I. 99 _n._\n\n\n Babylonia, II. 185\n\n Bacon, Francis, II. 369\n\n Baius, condemnation of, II. 242\n\n Balilla, via, Genoa, I. 129\n\n Ballerini, Father Antonio, S. J., I. 121\n\n Bar Cochba, revolt of, II. 392\n\n Barnabites, I. 340\n\n Baronius, Cardinal, I. 318\n\n Basil, St., II. 166\n\n Beethoven, L. von, II. 27, 42, 265\n\n Beguards, II. 131 _n._ 1\n\n Bellarmine, Cardinal, S.J., I. 88\n\n Bell\u2019Huomo, G., S.J., II. 144\n\n Benedetta Lombarda, servant, I. 130, 149, 153, 172, 176, 226,\n =311=, =312=, 317, 379\n\n Benedict XIV, Pope (Lambertini), I. 136, 253\n St., I. 104, 127, 240, 460\n\n Benedictines, I. =63=, =64=, 103 _n._ 1, 373; II. 161,\n 363\n\n Bentham, Jeremy, II. 272\n\n Bergson, Henri, Professor, II. 247, 282, 370\n\n Bernard, St., of Clairvaux, I. 7, 61, 69; II. 242, 182\n Claude, II. 192\n\n Berni\u00e8res-Louvigny, Jean de, II. 141\n\n Bernouilli, Dr. C. A., I. 373\n\n Berulle, Venerable Cardinal de, I. 88, 317\n\n Bible, Catherine\u2019s love of the, I. 258\n\n Biographies, religious, the three attitudes possible concerning,\n I. =374-375=\n\n Biography, religious, laws regulating its growth, I. =371=\n\n Bismarck, Otto von, II. 272\n\n Bliss, its \u201cpain\u201d-element, II. =255=\n\n Blondel, Prof. Maurice, II. 282\n\n Body, Catherine\u2019s view concerning it, and the elements of this view,\n II. 123-126\n dualistic view concerning it, ever only pragmatic, II. =126-129=\n dualistic view, un-Catholic, II. 126, 127\n its valuation in the N. T., II. 122-123\n\n Boerio, Maestro G. B., I. 200, 201 _n._ 3, 202, 208, 217, 218, 389, 451,\n 464; II. 14, 15, 17\n Don Giovanni, I. 201 _n._ 3 (202), 208, 451\n\n Boetius, II. 317\n\n Bollandists, I. 372\n\n Bona, Cardinal, Cistercian, I. 88\n\n Boniface VIII, Pope (Gaetani), II. 83\n his Bull \u201cUnam Sanctam,\u201d I. 94\n\n Bosco Bartolomeo, I. 130\n\n Bossuet, Bishop J. B., I. 64, 89; II. 141, 161, 162, 171, 173\n\n Boudon, Archdeacon H. M., II. 141\n\n Bousset, Prof. W., on individual experience and traditional form, II. 309\n\n Brahman, II. 183\n\n Brahmanism, II. 388\n its three elements, I. 60\n\n Brescia, Hospital in, I. 322\n Vincenzo da, painter, I. 99\n\n Bridgettines, Convent of the, Genoa, I. 312\n\n Browning, Robert, II. 57, 108, 223, 227, 271\n\n Buddha, Gautama, I. 71; II. 184, 268\n\n Buddhism, II. 183, 184, 273\n its three elements, I. 60\n\n Buddhist Mysticism, II. 392\n\n Bunyan, John, his works, I. 63\n\n Burke, Edmund, II. 271\n\n Burmah, II. 183\n\n Burnet, Anglican Bishop Gilbert, II. 145\n\n Busenbaum, Hermann, S. J., I. 121\n\n Butler, Anglican Bishop Joseph, II. 371\n\n\n Caesar, II. 272\n\n Caird, Professor Edward, II. 91 _n._ 1, 282\n\n Cajetanus, Thomas de Vio, Cardinal, O.P., II. 162\n\n Callisto da Piacenza, Padre, I. 323, 324\n\n Calvin, I. 341, 414, 415; II. 117, 118, 388, 392\n _Institutio Religionis Christian\u00e6_ I. 340\n Calvinism, I. 9, 63\n early stages of, I. 339-341\n\n Cambridge Platonists, the, II. 371\n\n Camillus of Lellis, St., I. 129 _n._ 2\n\n Campanaro Family, of Genoa, I. 101\n\n Campion, Blessed Edmund, S.J., I. 64; II. 129\n\n Campofregoso, Paolo, of Genoa, I. 101\n\n Canada, II. 141\n\n _Canticle of Canticles_, I. 258, 356\n its imagery dear to V. Battista Vernazza, I. 111, 356, 432\n remote from St. Catherine\u2019s mind, I. 229, 258, 432;\n II. 100, 101, 107\n\n Capuchins, I. 311, 340, 341\n\n Caraccioli, Cardinal, Archbishop of Naples, II. 139\n\n Caraffa, Cardinal, _see_ also Paul IV. (Pope), I. 327, 340\n\n Carenzio, Don Jacobo, 155 _n._ 1, 175, 202, 204 _n._ 1, 213, 216, 217,\n 295, 299, 301, =307-309=, 310 _n._ 1, 384, 464; II. 26\n his fate, I. 307-309\n\n Carenzio, Don Jacobo, his funeral, I. 381\n\n Carlyle, Thomas, II. 271\n\n Cassian, I. 78\n\n Cassino, Monte, I. 103 _n._ 1\n\n Castagneto, Brigidina, I. 175\n\n Catherine, of Alexandria, St., I. 97, 348\n\n Catherine of Genoa, St. (Caterinetta Fieschi Adorno), I. 86, 95, 97,\n 98 _n._ 1, 100, 101, 102, 103, 103 _n._ 1, 104, 105, 111, 112,\n 113, 123, 151, 168, 169, 170, 171, 338, 339, 376, 382, 387, 388,\n 389; II. 42, 50, 56, 58, 63, 64, 96, 97, 98, 109, 131, 136, 142,\n 146, 170, 172, 206, 208, 209, 218, 288, 289, 297, 298, 304, 306,\n 395, 396\n\n Catherine, St., her AFTER-LIFE CONCEPTIONS, II. 199-218\n her apparitions after death, I. 216, 218\n her external appearance, I. 97\n ecclesiastical approbation of her doctrine, I. 255, 256, 413,\n =448=, =449=, 464\n and Argentina del Sale, I. 170, 171, 203, 209, 210, 213, 217, 298\n her BAPTISM, I. 97\n and Baptism, I. 436; II. 76\n her birth, I. 93, 97\n her breadth of sympathy and unsuspiciousness, II. 83, 84\n her brothers, I. 97, 167, 172, 176\n her burial, I. 296, 297\n her burial-place, shifting of, I. 152, =185-187=, 213\n and business, I. 154, 186\n the three CATEGORIES of her teaching, \u2018In,\u2019 \u2018Out,\u2019 \u2018Over,\u2019\n I. 273-276\n her codicils of 1503, I. 168, 169, 380\n of 1508, I. 175, 176, 380\n of 1510, I. 212-214, 380\n colours, her sensitiveness to, I. 208, 210, 298; II. 17, 24\n compared with St. Augustine, II. 211-214, 216, 225, 248, 293, 294\n with Clement and Origen of Alexandria, II. 219, 234-236\n with Pseudo-Dionysius, II. 90-101, 205, 236\n with the Joannine writings, II. 79-90\n with St. John of the Cross, II. 257, 258, 346, 347, 385, 386\n with the Pauline writings, I. 140; II. 63-79, 322\n with Plato, II. 66, 201-211, 235, 251\n with Plotinus, II. 204, 322, 323\n with Proclus, II. 204, 205, 294, 313\n with the Synoptic Gospels, II. 122-124, 153-158\n with St. Teresa, II. 288, 289, 324, 325\n with St. Thomas Aquinas, I. 120; II. 162-164, 222-224, 301,\n 337, 338\n with Ven. Battista Vernazza, I. =332-366=, 408, 409, 423,\n 429-433\n with Ettore Vernazza, I. 317-323, 328, 329, 331-335\n and Confession, I. 109, =117-121=, 158, 159, =424-427=\n and her Confessor (Don Marabotto), I. 155-158, 184, 185, 193-196,\n 455-457\n her Conversion, I. 104-109, 403-406, 458-462; II. 29-31\n Cross and Passion, her attitude towards, I. 108, 109, 205, 209, 210,\n =403-406=, 409, =411-413=, 452, 453\n Cultus, her popular, I. 301-303, 332, 335, 394\n her DEATH, I. 215, 216\n her Deed of Cession, 1456, I. 376, 377\n her _Deposito_, I. 98 _n._\n her desire for death, I. 183, 184, 192, 210\n for life, I. 200-202\n for human sympathy, I. 195\n and the Devil, I. 124, 125, 205, 206, 264; II. 36, 37\n men devoted to her spirit, I. 89, 90\n her DIALOGO, _see_ Vita (D) in Index II\n her _Dicchiarazione, see_ Vita (T) in Index II\n her doctrine presented in theological order, I. 257, 260-294\n dualistic tendencies in, considered, II. 121-129\n her ECSTATIC states, I. 161, 162, 226, 229; II. 34\n and the H. Eucharist, I. 113, 114, 116, 204, 208, 214, 240, 241,\n 288, 289, 263; II. =87=, =88=\n her attitude towards Evil, I. 266-270; II. 294\n her FASTS, I. 135-139, 155; II. 34\n her Father, I. 96, 97, 101\n and Tommasa Fiesca, I. 131, 132, 168, 169, 174\n GROWTH, her spiritual, I. 112, 113, =236-239=\n and HEAVEN, I. 159-161; II. =246-258=\n and Hell, I. 281-288; II. =218-230=\n her attitude towards historical and institutional religion, I. 190,\n 204, 206, =239-241=\n and the Hospital _Chronici_, I. 173, 174\n and the Hospital _Pammatone_, I. 129-131, 141-143, 175, 202\n and her husband, I. 102-104, 129, 152, 153\n hysteriform appearances in her health, II. 20, 21, 23-25\n her fundamental difference from hysteria-patients, II. =25-27=\n her ILLNESS, during last days, I. 207, 214; II. 13\n during last months, I. 193; II. 9, 10\n and Indulgences, I. 123-126, 202\n and intercessory prayer, I. 127\n and invocation of saints, I. 104, 127\n LESSONS of her life, I. 244-246\n Life, conceptions of, in, II. 88-90\n her literary obligations, I. 234-238; II. 62-110, 203-211\n Pure Love, her doctrine of, I, 108, =139-141=, =159-161=, 262, 263,\n 265, 266\n her practice of, I. 116, 144, 170, 184, 185, 187, 197\n and MARRIAGE, I. 101, 223-225, 246, 248, 249\n her Marriage-settlement, I. 377\n materialization of her experiences and ideas, I. 218, 219\n matron of Hospital, I. 143, 147, 148\n and her NEPHEWS, I. 154, 167, 171, 176, 213\n and her Nieces, I. 154, 167, 172, 173\n ORIGINALITY of her doctrine, I. =246-250=, 347\n and PAIN, physical and psycho-physical, 196-198, 198-200; II. 10, 11\n her penitence, I. 109-112, 131-134\n the periods of her convert life, I. 111, 112, 112 _n._ 1, 118, 119,\n 138, 390-393\n first period, I. 128-131\n second period, I. 128-140\n third period, I. 157-159, 175, 176\n and physicians, I. 200, 201, 208, 211, 212\n pictures, her care for religious, I. 99, =168=, =169=, 188, 189,\n 191; II. 29, 30\n portraits of, I. 98 _n._ i, 301\n her possessions at time of her death, I. 297-299\n her psycho-physical peculiarities, in themselves, I. 176-181, 193,\n 196-200; II. 10-13, 17-21\n her attitude towards them, I. 164, 165, 211, 212; II. 16, =35-39=\n and Purgatory, I. 283-294; II. =230-246=\n and prayer of QUIET, I. 227\n her quietistic-sounding sayings, I. =236=, =237=, 265, 266, 271, 279\n causes of her apparent quietism, II. =34-36=\n her RELICS, I. 98, _n._ 1, 300-304\n her Rigoristic trend, I. 342\n her \u201cSCINTILLA\u201d-experience, I. 187-191, 451\n and Holy Scripture, I. 258\n her self-knowledge, I. 164, 165, =206=, =207=, 247; II. 14, 15\n her extreme sensitiveness, I. 176-181, 207-209\n \u201cSerafina,\u201d I. 161, 262\n and her servants, I. 148, 149, 161, 162, 169, 171, 172, 175, 176,\n 217; II. 26\n and her sister, I. 100, 105, 167\n social interests in 1506, I. 172-174\n in 1506-1510, I. 175-176\n Spirit, the, her conception of, II. =67-69=, =84=, 320-322\n symbols used by,: air and flying, I. 189; II. 103\n arrow and wounding, I. 97; II. 105, 106\n bread and eating or being devoured, I. 288, 289, =270=\n cork under water, I. 275\n dog and his master, I. 263\n drops, liquid, I. 159, 160, 189; II. 52\n fountain, I. 189, 260, 261\n fragments and table, I. 277\n heat and cold, I. 194, 197; II. 109\n light, rays of the sun, and fire, sparks of, I. 178-180, 187,\n 188, 269, 276, =290-292=; II. 94, 95, 323\n motes, spots, stains, rust, I. 189, 267; II. 236, =238=, =239=\n nakedness and garments, I. =275=, =276=, 290-292, 428, 432;\n II. 77, 78, 98, 123, =209=, =210=\n places and abiding in them, I. =277=, =278=; II. =69=, =70=,\n 77, =80=, =81=, 212, 213, 322\n the plunge, I. 268, =284=, =285=, 332; II. 70, 89, =207=,\n =208=, 385\n prison, exile, I. 273, 274; II. 105, 126, 239\n the (golden) rope, I. 432; II. 92, 93\n water (the sea) and drowning, I. =274=, =275=; II. 103, 106,\n =108=, =109=, 322\n symbols used by her, why material and extensional, not personal\n and successive, I. 237-239, =245-247=; II. =39=, =40=, =100=, =101=,\n 285, 286, 330, 331, 349, 350\n her TEACHING, general character of, I. 229-234\n fortunate circumstances of, I. 255, 256\n her special temperament, I. 220-223\n and Thobia, I. 129, 153, 169\n her times, I. 94, 95\n and Transcendence, I. 274-277; II. =100=\n and UNCTION, Extreme, I. 195, 197, 204, 206\n Union, her thirst for absolute, I. 116, 159-161, 263, =265=,\n =266=, 269-271, 280\n and Battista VERNAZZA, I. 149, 337\n and Ettore Vernazza, I. 145-147, 191-193, 203, 204, 226, 331-335,\n =453-455=\n veracity of her mind, I. 119\n her VISION of the Bleeding Christ, I. =107-109=, 181, 209, 239,\n 403, 405, 418, =460-462=, 466 _n._ 2; II. 31, 32, 71\n WARFARE, method of her spiritual, II. =34-39=\n and the two ways, negative and positive, I. 276-280\n words, her last, I. 216, 465\n her Wills, i, I. 152, 153, 377-378\n ii, I. 152-154, 380\n iii, I. 172-174, 380\n iv, I. 172-173, 174, 176, 185-187, 202, 203, 308, 380\n her wills in general, I. 297-299; II. 26\n her \u201cwritings\u201d not her composition, I. 87, 407, 433, 447, 448, =466=\n her YOUTH, I. 99-101\n of Siena, I. 87, 94, 306, 341, 382; II. 42, 47, 306, 307\n\n Catholicism, its three elements, I. 63-64\n\n Catholic mind, its characteristics, I. =122-123=\n\n Caussade, P\u00e8re de, S.J., II. 143\n\n Censor, Dominican, the, of the _Vita_, I. 372, =413=, 464\n\n Centurione, Adam, Lord, I. 385\n Ginetta, Lady, I. 385\n Orientina, Donna, I. 385, 391\n\n Cesarini, Cardinal, I. 305\n\n Chantal, St. Jane Frances de, II. 142, 143, 363\n\n Child, the, its apprehension of religion, I. 51\n\n China, II. 182, 183\n\n Chios, Isle of, I. 101, 151; II. 27, 83\n\n Christian conception of life, I. 48-49\n doctrine (survey of), I. =25-28=\n its three N. T. presentations, I. =28-39=\n\n Christianity, conflicts between its Intuitive-Emotional and its other\n elements, I. =70-77=\n excludes Pantheism, II. 334-335\n its preliminary Pessimism and ultimate Optimism, II. 358-361\n its three elements, II. 61\n in the Humanist Renaissance, I. 62\n the Middle Ages, I. 61-62\n the Protestant Reformation, I. 62-63\n\n Christina, Queen of Sweden, I. 305, 305 _n._ 1\n\n Christofero of Chiavari, I. 168, 298\n\n _Chronici_, Spedale dei, Genoa, I. =173=, =174=, 317, 319, 326, 327, 333;\n II. 10\n Protectors of, I. 318, 326\n Sindaco of, I. 319\n\n Chroniclers of St. Catherine, rivalry between them, I. 216\n\n Chronicles, Books of, David in, I. 373\n\n Church, the, her life and spirit, I. 123\n\n Cibo Donna Maddalena (born Vernazza), I. 322\n\n Cicero, Don Blasio, I. 152\n\n Clement of Alexandria, I. 61, 78; II. 131, 142, =166=, =219=, =235=, 239,\n 268, 282, 306, 333\n\n Clement XI, Pope (Albani), II. 131, 161\n F\u00e9nelon\u2019s letter to, I. 69\n X, Pope (Altieri), I. 305\n XII, Pope (Orsini), I. 306\n his Bull of Catherine\u2019s Canonization, I. 466\n\n Cogoleto, on Riviera, I. 318\n\n Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, II. 371\n\n Collino, Padre Serafino, C.R.L., I. 364, 366\n\n Colonna, Vittoria, I. 341, 342 _n._ 2\n\n Chrysostom, St. John, II. 225\n\n Columbus, Christopher, I. 94, 146\n\n Confucianism, II. 182, 183\n\n Confucius, II. 183\n\n Constance, Council of, I. 94, 342\n\n Constantinople, I. 94\n\n Contarini, Gaspar, Cardinal, I. 342 _n._ 2\n\n Contemplation and Social Christianity, II. =355-358=\n\n _Conversione_-booklet, I. 449, 464\n\n _Convertite_ the, Genoa, I. 327\n\n Corsica, I. 156\n\n Counter-reformation, I. 62\n\n Covenant, Book of the, I. 373\n\n Criticism, of the writings of Saints, how far allowed, I. 254 and foll.\n\n Croton, II. 188\n\n Crusading Age, the, II. 380\n\n Cynic school, I. 23\n\n Cyprian, St., II. 43\n\n Cyrenaic school, I. 23\n\n\n Dante, II. 165, 265\n\n Darwin, Charles, II. 271\n\n David, three stages of his biography, I. 373\n\n Delphi, II. 187\n\n Demeter, II. 97\n\n Democritus, II. 12\n\n Descartes, Ren\u00e9, I. 7, 40, 317\n his apprehension of law, I. 40\n\n Determinism, its place in the spiritual life, II. 330, 331, =369-379=,\n 385, 386\n\n Deuteronomy, Book of, Moses in, I. 373\n\n Developments, partial, of the Gospel-Ideal, II. 116-120\n\n de Vere, Aubrey, paraphrases the _Trattato_, I. 89\n\n _Dialogo_ of St. Catherine, see _Vita e Dottrina_\n\n Diano, Castello of, on Riviera, I. 308, 309\n\n _Dicchiarazione_-booklet, I. 464, and see _Vita_ (T)\n\n Dionysiac sect, II. 188\n\n Dionysius (Pseudo-) Areopagite, I. 163 _n._, 177, 256, 259, 266 _n._ 3;\n II. 63, 109, 131, 142, 205, 211, 288, 307, 313, 329, 333, 344, 366\n and Catherine, II. =90-101=\n Catherine\u2019s direct knowledge of, II. 258, 259\n his conception of God\u2019s general action, II. 91-94\n Deification, II. 99, 100\n the soul\u2019s reaction, II. 94-99\n his influence in Middle Ages, II. 314-317\n Neo-Platonism in, II. 91-99, 294, 312, 313\n Platonism, in, II. 93, 94, 96, 97, 101\n\n Diotima, in Plato\u2019s _Symposium_, St. Catherine compared to, I. 257\n\n Direction, spiritual, its advantages, II. 364\n\n Disciple, the Beloved, symbol of, I. 111\n\n Domenico, Monastero Nuovo di S., Genoa, I. 132, 168, 174, 451\n de Ponzo, Padre, O.S.F., I. 140 _n._ 4\n\n Dominicans, I. =63=, =64=, 253, 413, 464; II. 52, 53 _n._ 1, 316,\n 317, 324\n\n Doria, Andrea, Admiral, I. 93, 104-146\n other members of family, I. 96, 376\n\n Draco, laws of, II. 87\n\n Drexel, Jeremias, S.J., I. 89\n\n Droysen, J. G., II. 271\n\n Dualism, as regards body, II. 121-129, 289, 298\n and question of Evil, II. =290-308=\n unconscious, in Kant\u2019s Epistemology, II. 278\n\n\n Eberhard, Father, O.P., II. 52\n\n Ecclesiastes, II. 189\n\n Eckhart, Meister, his Deistic tendencies, II. 252\n on Evil as purely negative, II. 294\n on Godhead as distinct from God, II. 317, 318\n Father Denifle, on, II. 317\n\n Ecstasies, difficulty in testing them, I. 161, 162; II. 49-51\n of St. Catherine, I, 139-140, 226-229; II. 34\n\n Ecstasy, in Dionysius, II. 95, 96\n in Plotinus and Proclus, I. 24; II. 95, 96\n\n Ecstatics, their psycho-physical organisation, II. =40-47=\n\n Egypt, II. 185, 233\n\n Eleatic philosophers, II. 188\n\n Eleazar, Rabbi, II. 153\n\n Eleusinian Mysteries, II. 185, 187, 189\n\n Elijah, II. 268\n\n Eliot, George, II. 199\n\n Elohist, the, writer, and figure of Moses, I. 373\n\n Embriaco, Guilielmo, I. 100\n\n Emmerich, Anne Catherine, I. 334, 335\n\n Emotional-intuitive element in Religion, I. 8-10\n in the various Churches, I. 8-10\n in Christian Religion, its exclusiveness, I. =73-79=\n its danger and yet necessity, I. 6, 59, 60; II. =260-263=, =387-393=\n\n Emotional-intuitive personalities, movements and races, I. 6-7\n\n Empedocles, I. 11; II. 188\n\n _Energeia_, Aristotle\u2019s great contribution, II. 250-251\n\n England, I. 62, 63, 65, 200; II. 371, 392\n\n Epictetus, II. 268\n\n Epicurean school, I. 23\n\n Epistles, Pastoral, II. 269\n\n Epopteia, the Eleusinian, II. 97\n\n Erasmus of Rotterdam, I. 311, 340; II. 119 _n._ 1\n\n Eschatology, Catherine\u2019s simplifications of it, II. =211-218=\n\n Esparta, Father Martin, S.J., II. 144\n\n _Essays and Reviews_, I. 63\n\n Essenes, I. 61; II. 392\n\n Este, Eleonora d\u2019, I. 341\n\n Estius, William, II. 63 _n._ 2\n\n Eucken, Prof. R., II. 63 _n._ 2, 282, 333, 370\n on Evil as positive, II. 296\n hyper-empirical processes as a _sine qua non_ for religion,\n II. 270, 271\n \u201cuniversal\u201d religion and \u201ccharacteristic\u201d religion, II. 296\n\n Euripides, II. 189\n\n Evangelicalism, I. 8-10; II. 392\n\n Evil denied by extreme Mysticism, II. 292-293\n its origin and Mysticism, II. =279-302=\n Mysticism and the warfare against, II. 302-308\n positive but not supreme, II. =291-297=\n positive conceptions of, II. 304, 305\n\n Experience not directly transmissible, I. 4-5\n of the human race, I. 6-7\n personal, its influence upon our convictions, I. 4\n\n Experiences, distinguished from their expression, and their analysis,\n II. =130-134=\n\n Experimental matter and theoretical form, II. 308-309\n\n Ezekiel, II. 189, 220, 268, 292, 332\n his ecstasies and psycho-physical peculiarities, II. =45-46=\n his individualistic trend, II. 189, 220\n\n\n Faber, Frederick, Father, I. 65\n\n Falconi, Juan, II. 146\n his _Alfabeto_ and _Lettera_ II. 143, 144\n\n Falconieri, St. Juliana, I. 306; II. 56\n\n Fasts, Catherine\u2019s, II. 33\n end of, II. 148\n\n Fechner, G. T., II. 392\n\n Felicitas, St., I. 361\n\n F\u00e9nelon, I. 64, 68, 89; II. 138, 141, 142, 143, =160-162=, 174, 177\n his condemnation, the questions to which it applies, II. =165-169=\n on need of Metaphysics in Theology, II. 181\n on \u201cPassivity,\u201d II. 141, 142\n works of, distinction between them, II. 160, 161\n\n Ferrara, Duchess of (Ren\u00e9e de Valois), I. 340, 341\n\n Ferretto, Dottore Augusto, I. 125 _n._ 1, 152 _n._ 1, 155 _n._ 1,\n 172 _n._ 2, 176 _n._ 1, 2; 203 _n._ 1, 213 _n._ 1, 378 _n._ 1,\n 381 _n._ 1\n\n Feuerbach, Ludwig, II. 332\n\n Fichte, J. G., II. 271, 392\n\n Ficino Marsilio, his translation of Dionysius\u2019 works, I. 259\n\n Fiesca, Adorna Caterinetta, _see_ Catherine, St.\n\n Fiesca, Francesca, I. 376, 377\n Maria, B., I. 176, 302\n Tommasa Suor, I. =131=, =132=, 143, 217, 259, 384, 387, 457, 464;\n II. 62, 175\n possible contributions to the _Vita_, by, I. 457\n death of, I. 381\n life and works (upon the Areopagite and the Apocalypse), I. 132\n\n Fieschi, Battista, I. 153, 154, 172\n Family, I. 95-97, 101, 157, 303\n Francesco, I. 125, 213, 315\n Giorgio, Cardinal, I. 102\n Giovanni, I. 97, 153, 154, 377, 378\n death of, I. 167 _n._ 3 (168), 172\n sons of, I. 167\n Cardinal, I. 125, 126\n Jacobo, I. 149 _n._ 1; 153, 167 _n._ 3 (168), 376, 384\n death of, I. 172\n his daughters, I. 167, 379\n Limbania, I. 97, 100, 105, 153, 167, 172, 186, 321, 379; II. 62\n Lorenzo, I. 97, 153, 154, 167 _n._ 3 (168), 172, 187, 215, 299,\n 370, 377\n Cardinal, I. 302\n Luca, Cardinal, I. 96\n Maria, I. 153, 154, 167, 172\n Marietta, I. 146\n Napoleone, Cardinal, I. 102\n Nicol\u00f2, Cardinal, I. 96\n Roberto dei, I. 95\n\n Fieschi, Sinibaldo de, _see_ Innocent IV, Pope\n\n Fiesco, Emmanuele, I. 175\n\n Fisher, Bishop John, Blessed, I. 340\n\n Florence, Council of, II. 226\n decisions concerning Purgatory, II. 217, 242\n\n Fontana, Padre, Barnabite, II. 226\n\n France, I. 64, 94; II. 148\n\n Franchi, de\u2019, Archbishop, I. 306\n Tobia dei, I. 102\n\n Francis, St., of Assisi, I. 8, 65, 389; II. 42, 47, 261\n his life and legend, I. 372\n\n Franciscans, I. =61=, =64=, 130, 140 _n._ 4, 385, 386, 389, 390;\n II. 105, 106, 109, 143, 144, 316, 317, 363\n\n Francis, St., de Sales, I. 88; II. 142, 143, 363\n\n Frank, Sebastian, I. 63\n\n Fregosi Family, Genoa, I. 96, 101\n\n Ottaviano, Doge, I. 327, 329, 330\n\n Friendship, St. Catherine\u2019s attitude concerning, I. 225, 226\n\n Fust, Printer, I. 94\n\n\n Galilei, Galileo, I. 7\n\n Gamaliel, II. 63\n\n Ganymede, II. 187\n\n Gardner, Prof. P. and Miss A. on Confession and Direction,\n II. 364 _n._ 1\n\n Gemiluth Chasadim, II. 153\n\n General, its relation to Particular according to Greek philosophy,\n I. 10-25; II. =310-319=\n\n Geneva, I. 9\n\n Genoa, I. 96, 100-102, and _passim_\n position and climate, I. 93\n Republic of, I. 303, 305, 306, 449\n\n Genoese Republic, I. 203\n the people, their character, I. 93-94\n\n George, Bank of Saint, I. 125, 152, 153, 169, 172, 318, 326 _n._ 1,\n 330, 365, 376, 379\n cartulary of the, I. 149 _n._ 1, 365, 379\n\n Germano, Borgo San, Genoa, I. 145 _n._ 1\n\n Germany, I. 62, 94; II. 370\n\n Geronimo of Genoa, Fra, O.P., I. 253, 413, 464\n\n Gerson, John, Chancellor of Paris, I. 62, 94, 342\n\n Gertrude, Saint, I. 64\n\n Giovo, Angelo L., Prot. Ap., I. 93, 172 _n._ 1, 208 _n._ 2, 297 _n._ 1,\n 395, 396\n\n _Giuseppine_, Genoa, I. 327\n\n Giustiniano, Agostino, Bishop, his account of St. Catherine\u2019s life,\n remains and biography, I. 382-384\n\n Gnosticism, approximations and antagonisms to, in Fourth Gospel, II. 81,\n 82\n\n God as supremely concrete, II. 249, 255\n natural conformity between, and all rational creatures, I. 261\n hunger after, I. 263\n His illumination of souls, I. 270-271\n His way of winning souls, I. 271-272\n co-operation of the living, and the living soul, I. 73\n ever apprehended in His relation to ourselves, II. =169-170=\n as the _Actus Purus_, II. 80, 81, 131, 132\n the essence of things, I. 256, 266\n Unity and Trinity of, I. 66-67\n various conceptions concerning His relations with the human soul,\n II. 319-325\n God\u2019s \u201canger\u201d and offendedness, I. 292; II. 69, 70\n \u201cecstasy,\u201d I. 260, 262, 352; II. 95, 96, =254=\n immanence, I. 276, 280; II. 280-284, =287-290=, 324, 325, 330,\n =336-340=\n \u201cjealousy,\u201d II. 353, 355\n transcendence, I. 276, 280\n\n Goethe, II. 229, 271, 327\n\n Gordon, Charles, General, I. 89; II. 271\n\n G\u00f6rres, Joseph von, and question of true Mysticism, II. 315\n\n Gospels, pre-Pauline and Pauline, apprehensions in the, II. 117-118\n\n Gospels, the, _see_ John, St., Evangelist, and Synoptic Gospels\n\n Grace and Free Will, I. =69=, =70=; II. 141, 142, =174=\n\n Graces, Interior, I. 263, 265\n\n Grasso, Don Giacomo C., I. 299 _n._ 1\n\n Greece, II. 185, 191, 192\n\n Greeks, I. =10-25=, 151, 155, 246, 259; II. 83, 90-101, 131, 132,\n 185-189, 205-211, 294, 310-314, 319, 320, 325-327, 333, 356-358,\n 389\n\n Green, Thomas Hill, II. 371\n\n Gregory I, the Great, Pope, Saint, I. 64\n VII, Pope (Hildebrand), I. 64\n St., of Nazianzum, II. 166, 181\n of Nyssa, I. 61; II. 31, 166\n\n Grimm, Jacob, II. 271\n\n Grisell, Hartwell, I. 98 _n._ 1 (99)\n\n Grou, P\u00e8re J. N., S.J., I. 64; II. 143, 363, 365\n combines deep mystical life and critical labours, II. =138=\n\n Gutenberg (John Gensfleisch), I. 94\n\n Guyon, Madame la Mothe, II. 138, 143, 175\n\n\n Hadrian, Emperor, II. 292\n V, Pope (Fieschi), I. 95\n VI, Pope (Dedel), I. 340\n\n Hamann, J. C., II. 371\n\n Hannibal, II. 272\n\n Heaven and Pure Love according to St. Catherine\u2019s conception,\n I. =159-160=\n and Time; concreteness; and pain, II. =247-258=\n\n Hecker, Father Isaac, I. 89; II. 58\n\n Hedley, Bishop J. C., O.S.B., on the condemnation of F\u00e8nelon, II. 161\n\n Hegel, G. W. F., II. 271, 291, 296, 371\n\n Hegelian school, II. 269\n\n Hell, St. Catherine and, II. =218-230=\n disposition of souls in, II. 221-225\n endlessness of, II. 227-230\n fire of, II. 215-218\n mitigation of its pains, II. 225-227\n St. Catherine\u2019s doctrine concerning, I. =281-283=\n\n Hellenism, I. =11-25=\n its qualities, I. 48\n its three religious elements, I. 60\n\n Henry VI, of England, I. 96\n VII, of England, I. 200, 201, and _n._ 2\n VIII, of England, I. 311\n\n Hensel, Luise, I. 334\n\n Heraclitus, I. 11, 12; II. 188\n his doctrine, I. 4, 11\n\n Herder, J. G., II. 327, 371\n\n Hermann, Prof. Wilhelm, II. 263, 264, 265\n impossible simplification of religion, II. =269-272=\n Panchristism of, II. 266\n\n Heroes, Cultus of, II. 187\n\n Hezekiah, II. 190\n\n Hildegard of Bingen, St., I. 64\n\n Hindooism, II. 273\n\n Historical element of Religion, its division, I. 85\n science, _see_ Science\n\n Hobbes, Thomas, I. 7\n\n H\u00f6ffding, Prof. Harald, on religious \u201cAgnosticism,\u201d II. =287=, =288=\n\n Holtzmann, Prof. H., on retaining vivid sense both of determinist\n physical law and of libertarian spiritual life, II. =377=, =378=\n on Conditional Immortality, II. 229\n on Metaphysical factors in N. T. writings, II. =269=, =270=\n\n Holtzmann, Prof. H., on category of time, as secondary in man\u2019s spiritual\n life, II. =247=, =248=\n\n Hume, David, II. 272\n\n Hus, John, I. 94\n\n Huxley, Prof. Thomas, II. 272\n\n Huysmans, J. K., II. 56\n\n Hylozoism, I. 12\n\n Hysteria, St. Catherine\u2019s condition only superficially like, II. =22-27=\n three popular errors concerning, II. 22, 23\n\n\n Ignatius, of Antioch, St., I. 219 _n._ 2; II. 43, 133 _n._\n of Loyola, St., I. =68, 80=; II. 142\n\n Illingworth, Rev. J. B., II. 333\n\n Illuminists, I. 9\n\n Imagery, Battista Vernazza\u2019s, I. 409, 432\n St. Catherine dominates her own imagery, I. 237, 238\n St. Catherine\u2019s imagery, I. 266-268, 270, 277, 284-285, 287-293\n compared to B. Vernazzas, I. 409, 432\n\n Immanence, Divine, II. 287-290, =336-340=\n facts indicative of the, II. =280-284=\n in V. Battista Vernazza, I. 352; II. 289\n St. Catherine, I. 261-263; II. 347\n St. Paul, II. 70\n Plotinus, II. 92, 96\n St. Teresa, II. =324=, =325=\n St. Thomas, II. 288, 289, =337=, =338=\n recent thinkers, I. 270, 271, =339-340=\n\n Immortality, belief in, among great Eastern religions, II. 181-185\n its beginnings amongst Greeks and Jews, II. 185-191\n morbid, character of the Greek beginnings, II. 191-194\n philosophical and ethical difficulties of, II. =194-199=\n\n Imperiali, Cardinal, I. 305\n\n Incarnational doctrine, I. 369; II. 136, 139, 194, 195, 237, 238,\n =253-255=, 343, 344, =355-357=, 395, 396\n\n Incorruption of St. Catherine\u2019s body, I. 302 and _n._ 2\n\n India, II. 183, 332\n\n Individual, the, its apparent power over the emotions and the will,\n I. 3-6;\n its power derived from expressing the Abiding and Personal,\n =I. 367-370=\n\n Individuality, right, of every soul, II. =255=, =256=\n\n Indulgences, St. Catherine\u2019s assertions about them, I. 123-124\n authenticity of, I. 124\n St. Catherine\u2019s attitude towards them, I. 124-125\n the Congregation of Rites on St. Catherine\u2019s attitude towards\n indulgences, I. 125-126\n\n Innocent IV, Pope (Fieschi), I. 95\n XI. Pope (Odescalchi), I, 253, 305; II. 140, 144, 168 _n._ 1\n\n Inquisition, Roman, I. 341\n Spanish, I. 72; II. 380\n\n Intellectual element of Religion, its division, I. 85-86\n personalities, movements and races, I. 6-7\n gaps in, stopped by the Emotional-volitional element, I. 7\n\n Intercommunication, will-moving, between men, its conditions, I. 367-370\n\n Interiorization, the soul\u2019s, of God, I. 263\n\n Intuitionists, Dutch-Westphalian Apocalyptic, I. 63; II. 392\n\n Invocation of Saints, by St. Catherine, I. 240\n her attitude concerning it, I. 126-127\n\n Isolation, moral and spiritual, I. 5-6\n\n Isaiah, I. 258; II. 189, 268\n\n Italy, I. 65, 94, 259, 311, 315, 341; II. 29, 270, 370\n Quietism in, II. 148\n\n\n Jacobi, F. H., II. 371\n\n Jacopone, da Todi, I. 130, 163 _n._, 177, 234, 235, 255, 258, 259, 275,\n 386; II. 62, 63, 83, 205\n his _Lode_, their influence upon Catherine\u2019s conceptions,\n II. =102-110=\n Neo-Platonism in, II. 104, 109\n Platonism in, II. 103-105, 109\n\n Jahvist and Elohist writings, Moses in, I. 373\n\n Jamblichus, I. 6\n\n James, Saint, _Epistle of_, II. 116, 269\n Prof. William, II. 6, 265\n on psychical normality and fruitfulness of formless recollection,\n II. =266=\n on pace of conversion, as primarily a temperamental matter, II. 30\n\n Janet, Pierre, Professor, II. 265\n on three popular errors concerning Hysteria, II. 22, 23\n hysterical peculiarities registered by him, II. 23-25\n\n Japan, II. 183\n\n Jean Baptiste de la Salle, St., I. 78\n\n Jean, Fran\u00e7ois St. Regis, S.J., I. 306\n\n Jean Paul Friedrich Richter, II. 371\n\n Jeremiah, II. 189, 190, 268, 292, 332\n\n Jerome, St., I. 78\n\n Jesuits, I. =63=, =64=, 121; II. 129, 142, 144, 162, 170 _n._, 225, 226,\n 241, 242, 245, 288, 307\n\n Jesus Christ, compared with Buddha and Mohamed, I. 71\n His Cross, its necessity for the soul\u2019s fullest life, I. 82;\n II. 331, =360=, =361=, 395\n multiplicity within unity of His action and interests, I. =25-28=\n His place in teaching of V. Battista Vernazzo, I. 359, 360, 405,\n 406, 413\n St. Catherine, I. 108, 109, 209, =239-241=, 360, 412, 413;\n II. 70-74, 77, 79-83, 85\n Joannine writings, II. 80, 81\n St. Paul, II. 71, 72, 76-79, 158, 159\n in conception of Prof. W. Hermann, II. 263-268, 332\n His teaching, primarily not moral, but religious, II. =274=\n on Pure Love, II. 153-158\n its Petrine, Pauline, Joannine presentations, II. 28-39\n\n Jews, II. =189-191=, 194, 213, 214, 220, 224, 233, 234, 239, 315, 316\n\n Joachim, Abbot, II. 391\n\n Job, II. 189\n\n John, St. Damascene, II. 225\n St., Evangelist; the Joannine writings, I. 223, 234, 235, 258, 353,\n 374; II. 62, 63, 116, 202, 205, 253\n and organized Ecclesiastical Christianity, II. 83, 84\n and St. Paul, II. 80, 82, 85, 87, 88\n and the Synoptic Gospels, II. =81-86=, =116=, =117=\n and other systems, II. 79, 80, 81-83\n on God, Salvation, Sacraments, Last Things, compared with St.\n Catherine\u2019s teachings, II. =84-90=\n\n John, St., on Pure Love, II. 160\n the Baptist, St., I. 65, 97\n chapel of, Cathedral, Genoa, I. 77, 161\n the Beheaded, Company of, I. 327, 328, 430\n XXII, Pope (Du\u00e8se), II. 318\n St., of the Cross, I. 67, 87, 180, 247; II. 50, 59, 142, 143, 146,\n 147, 288, 306-308, 346, 366\n on right attachment, II. =353=\n on faith, as sole proportionate means of union with God, II. 343,\n 348\n on a loving knowledge producible by God\u2019s aid alone, II. 307\n on perception of God\u2019s incomprehensibleness, II. =257=, =258=\n on the true test of perfection, II. =51=\n his helpfulness towards finding place for temper of determinist\n science within the spiritual life, II. 385\n his predominant theory requires continuous remembrance of his\n practice and occasional description of the soul\u2019s other movement,\n II. =343-345=\n\n Josephus, II. 233\n\n Jowett, Benjamin, I. 63\n\n Judaism, II. 79\n its three elements, I. =61=; II. 388, 389, 392\n\n Judas Maccabaeus, II. 233, 292\n\n Juliana, Mother, of Norwich, on Eternal Punishment, II. 218, 219\n on negative character of Evil, II. 394\n and Direction, II. 363\n her Christian optimism, II. =305=, =306=\n\n Julianus, Monk, Pelagianizer, II. 293\n\n Julius II, Pope (Rovere), I. 94, 146, 155\n\n Justina, Benedictine, Congregation of St., Padua, I. 103 _n._ 1\n\n Justin, St., Martyr, II. 268, 333\n\n\n Kabbala, II. 392\n\n Kant, Immanuel, I. 43; II. 27, 42, 168, 179, 247, 261, 264, 275, 295, 370,\n 371, 392\n deepens contrast between quantitative science and qualitative\n spiritual life, I. 43\n his defective religious sense, II. =260-262=\n on disinterested religion, II. 177-179\n his dualistic assumption in epistemology, II. 278\n on Evil as positive and radical, II. =295=, =296=\n on obscure apprehensions, II. 265\n\n Keble, Rev. John, I. 63\n\n Kempen, Thomas of, I. 62\n\n Kepler, Johann, I. 7; II. 27\n\n Kierkegaard S\u00f6ren, his radical Asceticism, II. 345, 346, 353\n on God\u2019s utter difference from Man, II. =287=, =288=\n on \u201cRepetition,\u201d II. 285\n\n Knowledge, its three constituents, I. 54-57\n\n\n Laberthonni\u00e8re, Abb\u00e9 L., _Annales de Philosophie Chr\u00e9tienne_, 1905, 1906,\n II. 307\n\n Lallemant, Louis, P\u00e9re, S.J., I. 64; II. 365\n\n Lancisius, Nicolas, S.J., I. 89\n\n Laplace, P. S. de, II. 272\n\n Lateran, Fourth Council of, I. 120, 121\n\n Laud, William, Anglican Archbishop, I. 63\n\n Laurence, St., quarter of, Genoa, I. 377\n\n Lavagna, on Riviera, I. 95\n\n Lazaretto, Genoa, I. 332\n\n Lazzaro, S., Genoa, I. 406\n poor of, I. 145 _n._ 1\n\n Leibniz, I. 42, 113; II. 145, 177, 231, 261, 271, 282, 291\n on dim Presentations, II. =338=\n on Pure Love, II. =176=\n his share in development of modern scientific spirit, I. =42=, =43=\n\n Leo X (Medici), Pope, I. 259, 311, 321, 322\n _Bull \u201cExurge Domine,\u201d_ I. 340, 448\n\n Lessing, G. E., II. 271, 327\n on soul\u2019s incapacity for any unmixed emotion, II. =256=\n on Purgatory, II. 231\n\n Leucippus, I. 11\n\n Library, University, of Genoa, I. 171 _n._ 1, 172 _n._ 1\n\n Life, Spiritual, three stages of, I. =241-244=\n\n Liguria, I. 96\n\n Ligurians, I. 96\n\n Limbania, Beata, of Genoa, I. 97, 100\n\n Littr\u00e9, Emil, II. 271\n\n Locke, John, II. 261\n\n Loisy, Alfred, Abb\u00e9, II. 360 _n._ 1\n\n Lombard, Peter, I. 120; II. 325 _n._ 3\n\n Lomellini family, Genoa, I. 327\n\n Lorenzo, Cathedral of S., Genoa, I. 97, 101, 320\n Piazza S., I. 97\n\n Lost, mitigation of sufferings of the, II. 225-227\n perversion, their total moral, II. =221-225=\n\n Lotze, Hermann, II. 271\n\n Louis XII, King of France, I. 340\n XIV, King of France, I. 305\n St., King of France, I. 361\n\n Love, of God and of oneself, I. 262-263\n Pure, I. 261\n according to St. Catherine\u2019s conception, I. 159-160\n according to the New Testament, I. =153-159=\n acts, single, of, II. =163-164=\n pleasurableness that follows them, II. =170-172=\n relation of, to Contemplative Prayer, II. 172\n and its cognate problems, II. =169-174=\n Catherine\u2019s, I. 140-141\n controversy concerning, II. =160-169=\n distinction from Quietism, II. 151-181\n exactingness of, I. 268-269\n F\u00e9nelon on, II. 161, 165\n the Joannine writings on, II. 160\n Kant on, II. 177\n Leibniz on, II. 176\n Our Lord\u2019s teaching concerning, II. =153-158=\n St. Paul on, II. =158-160=\n three rules of, according to St. Catherine, I. 138-139\n Spinoza\u2019s view concerning, II. 175, 176\n state of, II. =165-169=\n St. Thomas Aquinas on, II. =162-165=, 301\n\n Loyola, St. Ignatius of, I. 68, 80; II. 142\n\n Lucretius, II. 271\n\n Lugo, John Cardinal de, S.J., I. 121\n\n Lukardis, Venerable Sister, Cistercian, II. 52, 53, 54, 55, 58\n\n Luke, St., I. 351, 374\n _Acts of the Apostles_, I. 162, 374; II. 269\n _Gospel according to_, I. 223\n and St. Paul, II. 157, 158\n\n Lunga, Signora, I. 329\n\n Luther, I. 9, 62, 63, 95, 340, 412, 448; II. =117-119=, 263, 388, 392\n Theses of, I. 252, 311, =448=\n\n Lutheranism, I. 9; II. 388\n early stages of, I. 339-341\n\n Lyell, Sir Charles, II. 271\n\n\n Maccabean Heroes, I. 373\n resistance, I. 392\n\n Maccabees, First and Second Books of, the, the Maccabean heroes in,\n I. 373\n\n \u201cMaest\u00e0\u201d (triptych), I. =168=, 172, 181, 239, 298\n\n Magdalen, Mary, St., I. 110, 170\n\n Maldonatus, Juan, S.J., I. 64\n\n Malebranche, Nicholas, P\u00e8re, I. 63; II. 331\n\n _Mandiletto_, Compagnia del, I. 154, 332\n\n Manichaeans, II. 221, 289\n\n Manichaeism, II. 230\n\n Manning, H. E., Cardinal, I. 89\n\n Manuscripts, Genoese, of the _Vita_, I. 93\n\n Manuscript \u201cA\u201d (University Library), I. 112 _n._ 1, 159 _n._ 1,\n 162 _n._ 3 (163), 166, 188 _n._ 1, 197 _n._ 2, 214, 304, 434,\n 435, 442, 451\n additions and variations of, as compared with Printed _Vita_,\n I. =384-394=\n and Argentina del Sale, I. 387\n characteristics of, I. 396\n authentic contributions of, I. =387-388=\n date and scribe of, I. 385\n modification from a tripartite to a quadripartite scheme,\n I. =390-394=\n\n Manuscript \u201cB\u201d (Archives of the Cathedral-chapter), I. 162 _n._ 3 (163),\n 166, 188, 197 _n._ 2, 214, 396, 412, 415, 442\n dependence from MS. \u201cA\u201d, I. 394\n its divisions, I. 394-395\n its very primitive heading, I. =394=\n\n Manuscript \u201cC\u201d (University Library), differences from MSS. A and B,\n origin and attribution, I. 395-396\n\n \u201cMaona\u201d Company, Genoa, I. 151\n\n Marabotti, various, I. 156, 157\n\n Marabotto Cattaneo, Don, I. 90, 98 _n._ 1, 110, 117 _n._ 2, 118, 119,\n 120, 121 _n._ 3, 135 _n._ 1, 140 _n._ 4, 147 _n._ 1, =156-159=,\n 162 _n._ 3 (163), 166, 172, 173, 175, 176, =185=, =186=, 187, 191,\n 193, 204 _n._ 1, 207, 213, 216, 217, 218, 225, 252, 256, 264, 296,\n 299, 300, 301, 308, 309, 313, 314, 356, 371, 384, 390, 393, =415=,\n =416=, =419=, =421=, 431, 432, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 454, 455,\n =463=, =464=; II. 9, =15=, =17=, =25=, =26=\n attitude concerning Catherine, I. 218\n character of, I. =157=\n Catherine\u2019s confessor, I. =157-158=\n contributions to _Vita_-proper, I. 392-394, =455-457=\n contributions to _Dicchiarazione_ (_Trattato_), I. 447-448\n death of, I. 381\n family, I. 156-157\n fate of, I. 310-311\n first relations with Catherine, I. 155-156\n influence and work concerning Catherine, I. 193-196\n misunderstandings, I. 120 _n._ 1\n scruples, I. 194-195\n scent-impression from his hand, I. 184-185\n will of, I. 381\n\n Marco del Sale, I. 127, 203, 388, 402\n story of his death, I. =169-171=\n\n Marcus Aurelius, Emperor, II. 268\n\n Maria delle Grazie, Santa, Genoa, church and convent of, I. =99-101=,\n 132, 143, 170, 186, 319, 321, 325, 339, 365, 366 n. 2, =395=, 460;\n II. 205\n\n Maria delle Grazie Vecchia, S., church of, Genoa, I. 170\n\n Maria di Castello, church of S., Genoa, I. 100, 101, 366 _n._ 1\n\n Marie de l\u2019Incarnation, the Ven., Ursuline, II. 141\n\n Mariola Bastarda, servant, I. 149, 153, 161, 162 _n._ 3 (163), 172, 175,\n 176, 216, 217, 226, =310-313=, 379, 381, 384, 457\n\n Mark, Bishop of Ephesus, II. 225\n\n Mark, St., Gospel according to, I. 67, 257, 374\n\n Marriage, Catherine\u2019s attitude concerning, I, 223-225; II. 124\n settlement, Catherine\u2019s, I. 337\n Church teaching concerning, II. =128-129=\n\n Martineau, Dr. James, II. 329, 330\n\n Martin St., of Tours, I. 373\n\n Mary, Blessed Virgin, I. 99, 127, 168, 338, 426, 432\n (Tudor), Queen of England, I. 95\n (Stuart), Queen of Scots, I. 366\n\n Matthew, St., Gospel according to, I. 374\n Levi, Apostle, I. 374\n\n Maurice, Frederic Denison, II. 227\n\n Mazone, Giovanni, painter, I. 98 _n._ 1 (99)\n\n Mazzini, Giuseppe, I. 97\n\n Megaric School, I. 23\n\n Melanchthon, and his _Loci_, I. 341\n\n Menelaus, II. 186\n\n Mercier, D. Cardinal, _Crit\u00e9riologie G\u00e9n\u00e9rale_, II. 7 _n._ 1\n\n Merovingian Saints, I. 373\n\n Metaphysics and Religion, II. 181, 262, =269-272=\n\n Micah, Prophet, II. 189\n\n Michael Angelo Buonarotti, I. 94\n\n Milan, Dukes of, I. 96\n\n Milano, Carlo da, painter, I. 98 _n._ 1 (99)\n\n Mill, John Stuart, I. 51; II. 227, 271\n\n Misericordia, Donne della, Genoa, I. 130, 131, 401, 402\n Office of, Genoa, I. 152, 154, 319\n\n Missione Urbana, Biblioteca della, Genoa, I. 98 _n._ 1, 125 _n._ 1,\n 167 _n._ 3 (168), 171 _n._ 1 (172), 202 _n._ 2, 203 _n._ 1,\n 208 _n._ 2, 3; 296 _n._ 1, 297 _n._ 1, 299 _n._ 1, 301 _n._ 1,\n 308 _n._ 1, 309 _n._ 1, 312 _n._ 1, 313 _n._ 1, 381 _n._ 1, 2\n\n Mithraic movement, II. 392\n\n Mohamed, compared with Christ, I. 71\n\n Mohammedanism, II. 270, 388\n its three elements, I. =60-61=\n\n Mohammedans, II. 392\n\n Molinos, Miguel de, I. 253; II. 131 _n._ 1, 141, 145, 365\n his condemnation, its history, motives, limits, II. =136-148=\n _Guida Spirituale_, II. 140, 143, 144\n _Breve Trattato_, II. 144\n\n Moltke, Field-Marshal von, II. 271\n\n Mommsen, Theodor, II. 272\n\n Monasticism, the abiding needs met by, II. =352-355=\n\n Monica, St., I. 361\n\n Monism, I. 40; II. 294, 314, 326, =377-379=\n\n Montanism, II. 391\n\n Morality, relations to Mysticism, Philosophy and Religion, II. =259-275=\n\n More, Sir Thomas, Blessed, I. 62, 340; II. 129\n\n Moro, Dottore Tommaso, I. 149, 252, 337, 341, 358, 364, 414, 415; II. 83\n becomes a Calvinist, I. 341-342\n\n Moro, Dottore Tommaso, his letter to Battista Vernazza; and her letter\n to him, I. 341-342, =342-344=\n his return to the Catholic Church, I. 344\n Morone, Giovanni, Cardinal, I. 327, 342 _n._ 2\n\n Moses, I. =373=; II. 189, 268\n\n M\u00fchlhausen, Father Henry of, O.P., II. 52\n\n Multiplicity, within every living Unity, I. =66-70=\n difficulty of its maintenance, I. 65, =70-77=; II. 264, =273-275=\n needful for all spiritual life, II. =150-152=, 283, 284, 343, 344\n\n M\u00fcnsterberg, Prof. Hugo, II. 308, 370\n\n Mysteries, Eleusynian, I. 60; II. 97\n\n Mystical Element, its apparent worthlessness but essential importance,\n I. 6-10, 48, 49, 50-53, 58-65; II. =260-269=\n\n Mysticism and Pantheism, II. 325-340\n and the limits of human knowledge, II. 275-290\n and the question of Evil, II. 290-308\n and historical religion, II. 263-269\n Christian, II. 251, 252\n \u201cexclusive\u201d or pseudo-mysticism and \u201cinclusive\u201d or true mysticism,\n II. 283, =290-291=, 319\n ruinousness of exclusive, II. 304-308, =351-353=\n its place in complete Religion, II. =272-275=\n and the scientific habit of mind, II. =367-372=\n points on which it approaches Pantheism, II. =329-334=\n predominantly individualistic, II. 365-366\n tends to neglect the sensible, the successive, and spiritual\n self-excitation, II. =284-287=\n\n Mystic Saints, II. 142-143\n\n Mystics, I. 61, 247\n and spiritual Direction, II. 362-363\n their special weaknesses and strengths, II. =284-289=, =289-295=,\n 297, 298, 301, 302, =343-346=, 385, 386\n\n\n Naples, I. 97\n Hospital in, I. 323, 329\n Kingdom of, I. 96\n Society for escorting culprits to death, I. 323-324\n\n Napoleon, II. 41-42, 133, 272\n\n Negri Family, Genoa, various members of, I. 97, 100, 377\n\n Nelson, Admiral Lord, II. 133\n\n Neo-Platonism, in general, I. =23-25=, 61\n its direct influence with St. Augustine, II. =212=, =213=, =248=,\n =293=\n Pseudo-Dionysius, II. =91-99=, 294, =312=, =313=\n Its influence, through Dionysius, with V. Battista Vernazza,\n I. =352-354=, 356, 358, 428\n St. Catherine, II. =91-99=, =123-126=, =234-239=, 294\n Jacopone da Todi, II. 104, 108, 109\n Medieval Mystics and Pantheists, II. 131, 147, 314, 315, 317,\n 318, 323, 324\n St. Thomas Aquinas, II. =249-252=, 254, 294, 316, 317\n its truth, II. =92=, =248=\n its weaknesses and errors, II. 252, =287=, =288=, =293=, =294=,\n =351-353=\n\n Neri, St. Philip, I. 318\n Church of, Genoa, I. 102\n\n Nero, Emperor, II. 292\n\n Nervous system, late realization of, II. 4, 5\n\n \u201cNettezza,\u201d I. 266 _n._ 3\n\n Newman, John Henry, Cardinal, I. 65, 78; II. 371\n _Dream of Gerontius_, I. 89; II. 245\n on Eternal Punishment, II. 230\n on Physical Science, its limited scope and its autonomy, II. =369=\n\n Newton, John, I. 63\n Sir Isaac, II. 27, 41, 42, 271\n\n Nicolas of Coes (Cusanus), Cardinal, I. 62, 78, 96; II. 131, 142, 282,\n 291, 331\n\n Nicolas V, Pope (Parentucelli), I. 103 _n._ 1\n\n Nicolo in Boschelto, S., near Genoa, church and monastery of, I. 103,\n 189, 213, 313, 319, 321, 325; II. 274\n\n Nietzsche, Friedrich, II. 274\n\n Nominalism, I. 61, 62\n\n Nonconformists, I. 63; II. 392\n\n Nonconformity, I. 8, 9\n\n Novara, Luca da, painter, I. 98 _n._ 1 (99)\n\n\n Occam, William of, O.S.F., I. 64\n\n Occhino, Bernardino, I. 341, 342\n\n Oldenberg, H., on _Nirvana_, II. 183-185\n\n Oratory (French), I. 63\n\n Orders, Catholic, religious, their three tendencies, I. 64\n\n Organic life, the successive stages of, II. 281, 304\n\n Origen, I. 6; II. 131, 142, 219, 239, 268\n his _Apocatastasis_--doctrine, II. 225, 228\n on fire of Hell, II. 216\n on an ameliorative Purgatory, II. 234-237\n\n Originality, treble, of St. Catherine, I. 246-249\n\n Orphic belief, II. 193\n influence, through Plato, upon Christian thought, II. 123, 124,\n =235-238=\n literature, II. 235\n mysteries, II. 188\n sect, II. 192\n\n\n Palaeologus, Michael, his confession of faith, II. 242\n\n Palladius, _Historia Monachorum_, I. 373\n\n Pammatone, Hospital of, I. =129-132=, 142, 145 _n._ 1, 148-153, 169,\n 170, 213, 226, 300, 303, 310 _n._ 1, 311, 317, 325-327, 377, 380,\n 395, 401, 407; II. 9, 10, 17, 27, 33, 62\n Books, of the, I. 143 _n._ 2, 208\n Cartulary, of, I. 202 _n._ 2, 313\n Church, of the, I. 98 _n._ 1, 152, 202 and _n._ 3, 296, 297 _n._ 1,\n 300, 302, 309, 321, 332, 382\n House surgeon, of the, I. 200; II. 14\n Protectors, of the, I. 175, 187, 216, 297, 299, 307\n Book of the Acts of the, I. 172 _n._ 1, 175 _n._ 1\n\n Pantheism in Middle Ages, II. 314-318\n useful preliminary, of Inclusive Mystics, II. =329-334=\n escaped by full development of scientific habit within shallower\n level of a deep spiritual life, II. =374-386=\n in Spinoza, secret of its power, II. =326-329=\n ultimate, not Christian, nor generally religious, II. =334=, =335=\n\n Paracelsus, I. 7\n\n Paris, II. 389\n University of, I. 62\n\n Parker, Rev. James, I. 250, 266 _n._ 3\n\n Parmenides, I. 11; II. 188\n his doctrine, I. 11\n\n _Parousia_, the, II. 380\n\n Parpera, Giacinto, P., Oratorian, I. 92, 390\n\n Pascal, I. 78; II. 261, 331\n\n Pascoli, Giovanni, II. 199\n\n Passivity, _see_ Quietism\n\n Pattison, A. S. Pringle, II. 329, 330, 333, 370\n\n Paul, Saint, I. 111, 256, 265, 320, 363, 361, 373, 453; II. 43, 44, 47,\n 80, 82, 87, 122, 124, 125, 129, 131, 142, 181, 186, 209, 237, 253,\n 298, 324, 333, 356\n and Joannine writings, II. 84-88\n and Synoptic Gospels, II. 65, =122-125=, =157=, =158=\n anthropology of, II. =64-67=\n his conceptions of God, II. =69-71=\n of Spirit, II. =67-69=, =320-322=\n of reconciliation, justification and sanctification, II. 71-74\n ecstasies and psycho-physical peculiarities of, II. 43-44\n Epistles of, I. 162, 234, 235, 258, 353, 374; II. 62, 63, 116,\n 202, 205\n Eschatology of, II. 76-79, =209=, =210=\n Judaic conceptions of, II. 69, 71, 72\n Platonic influences in, II. 64, =66=, =67=, 69, 122, 123\n and the Risen Christ, II. 71\n Sacramental teachings of, II. 75-76\n Social ethics of, II. =74-75=\n IV, Pope (Caraffa), I. 322, 327\n\n Pazzi, Maria Magdalena dei, St., II. 42, 56\n\n Peasants\u2019 War, I. 10, 311, 340\n\n Personality, its purification, II. =377-387=\n Spiritual, II. =336-340=\n\n Petau, Denys, S.J., II. 225\n\n Peter, St., I. 67, 374\n Epistles of, II. 116\n\n Peters, Margarethe, Lutheran Quietist, II. 139\n\n Petrone, Igino, Prof., II. 282, 370\n\n Petrucci, Pietro M., Cardinal, II. 140, 141\n his writings, II. 144, 145\n\n Pharisees, I. 61, 68; II. 388\n\n Philo, I. 61; II. 63, 69, 93, 131, 196, 233\n and the Joannine writings, II. 80, 81\n and St. Paul, II. 69, 70\n\n Physicians, and St. Catherine, I. 200, 201, 208, 211, 212\n\n Physicists, the ancient Greek, II. 379\n\n Pico della Mirandoia, I. 7\n\n \u201cPiet\u00e0,\u201d picture, I. 181, 209, 239, 460; II. 28\n\n Pietism, Protestant, I. 10\n\n Pindar, II. 188, 189, 271\n\n Pius IV, Pope (Medici), I. 123\n VII, Pope (Chiaramonti), II. 226\n\n Plague, in Genoa, 1493, I. 143\n St. Catherine and the, I. 143-145\n Ettore Vernazza and the, I. 330-332\n\n Plant-life, Catherine\u2019s sympathy for, I. 163, 164\n probably dimly conscious, II. 281, 304\n\n Plato, I. 12, 14, 19, 20, 21, 23, 28, 234, 257, 266 _n._ 3, 353;\n II. =66=, =124=, 185 _n._ 2, 186, 188, 192, 193, 196, 199, =202=,\n =203=, =204=, 249, 252, 253, 268, 282, 311, 357\n on amelioration by suffering, II. 208, 209\n his earlier and later beliefs as to place of contemplation in\n complete life, II. =306-309=\n Immortality, II. 186\n his abidingly fruitful combination of four characteristics,\n I. =17-19=\n on the Heavenly Eros, I. 17; II. 101, 203, 251\n God, how far concrete and ethical in, II. 311, 312\n on God\u2019s goodness as cause of His framing this universe, I. 24;\n II. =334=\n on the No\u00fbs, II. 319-320\n the Orphic strain in, II. 66, 67, =123-126=, 235, 236\n his five preformations of St. Catherine\u2019s _Trattato_ teachings,\n II. =205-211=\n his _Republic_, Catherine\u2019s purgatorial picturings compared with,\n II. 200, 201\n on the soul\u2019s determinedness and liberty, II. 210, 211\n the soul\u2019s nakedness, II. 209, 210\n the soul\u2019s \u201cplaces,\u201d II. 205-207\n the soul\u2019s plunge, II. 207, 208\n on Science and Mysticism, respectively, II. 368\n on _Thumos_, II. 203\n\n Plotinus, I. 6, 234, 257, 266 _n._ 3; II. 93, 97, 98, 99, 101, 109, 120,\n 196, 202, 204, 212, 213, 248, 268, 282, 298, 324, 326, 327, 329, 356\n his doctrine generally, I. =23-25=\n on Ecstasy, II. 322, 323\n places Godhead above all multiplicity, II. 312, 313\n on the Henad, the No\u00fbs and the Soul, II. 322, 323\n and Spinoza, II. 325-328\n\n Plunge, voluntary of the Soul, I. 249, 250, =284=, =285=; II. 89, =207=,\n =208=, =385-386=\n\n Plutarch, II. 236\n\n Poor, Catherine\u2019s love for the, I. 225-226\n\n Positivist, Epistemology, II. =275-283=\n\n Possession, Persons in state of, I. 161, 162 _n._ 3\n\n Possessions, Catherine\u2019s, at her death, I. 297-299\n\n Poveri, Albergo dei, Genoa, I. 332\n\n Pr\u00e0, near Genoa, I. 102, 103, 128, 129, 186, 313\n\n Prayers for the Dead, Jewish, II. 233-234\n\n Presbyterianism, II. 388\n\n Pre-Socratics, their doctrines, I. 11-12\n\n Priestly code, Moses in, I. 373\n\n Proclus, I. 234, 257; II. 91, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 109, 120, 196, 204,\n 205, 211, 294, 356\n doctrine of, I. =23-25=; II. 313, 329, 356\n the Areopagite reproduces directly, not Plotinus but, II. 91,\n 96-101, 205\n\n Prophets, Hebrew, I. 353\n\n Protestantism, II. 273\n continental, I. 8, =62=, =63=\n English, I. =8-9=\n German, I. 9\n\n Proverbs, Book of, Individual retribution in, II. 189\n\n Psalms, Book of, St. Catherine and, I. 258\n Future life in, II. 189-191\n David in, I. 373\n\n Psycho-physical and temperamental characteristics of St. Catherine during\n 1447-1477, II. 28-32\n 1477-1499, II. 32-40\n 1497-1510, II. 9-21\n Aug. 10-27, 1510, I. 204-209\n occasions or expressions, not causes, of Catherine\u2019s doctrine,\n I. 211, 212, 260; II. =14-20=\n\n Psycho-physical and temperamental characteristics of St. Catherine,\n inquiry into, difficulty of, II. 7-9\n organism, of St. Catherine, I. 176-181\n peculiarities of great men, II. 41, 42\n peculiarities of ecstatic saints, II. =42-47=, =52-56=\n abidingly sure spiritual tests of, applied by great mystical\n saints, II. =48-51=\n theory, defects and value of ancient, II. 3-6, 47, 48\n\n Purgatory, I. 190, 249, 382\n Alexandrine Fathers on, II. 234-236\n Catherine\u2019s conceptions of, harbour two currents of thought, II. 232\n Catherine\u2019s doctrine concerning, I. 179. 189, =283-294=;\n II. =230-246=\n the three sets of theological \u201ccorrections\u201d of, traceable in\n Trattato\u2019s text, I. =434-449=\n and the New Testament, II. 233, 239, 240\n initial experience and act of the soul in, I. 283-285\n subsequent state of the soul in, I. 285-294\n change of feeling among Protestant thinkers concerning, II. 230-232\n fire of, II. 215-218\n Judaeo-Roman conceptions of, II. 239-245\n Luther\u2019s theses concerning, I. 311, 448\n Orphic conception and, II. 237, 238\n Platonic conception of, II. =206-211=\n a truly purging, and Suarez\u2019 simple _Satisfactorium_, II. =240-245=\n\n \u201cPurit\u00e0,\u201d I. 266 _n._ 3\n\n Puritan excesses, I. 10\n\n Pusey, Dr. Edward B., I. 63\n\n Pythagoras, II. 188, 192\n\n\n Quietism, II. 130, 131, 133, 135, 138, 139, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148,\n 160, 168\n four aberrations of, II. =136-139=\n Rome\u2019s condemnation of, II. 139-143\n distinct from Pure Love question, II. 152, 193\n four needs recognized by, II. =148-150=\n Rome\u2019s alleged change of front concerning, II. 143-148\n\n\n Rabbinism, II. 63, 213, 214, 233, 234, 268, 388\n\n Rafael Sanzio, the painter, II. 132, 165\n\n Ranke, Leopold von, II. 271\n\n Rationalism, I. 8, 9; II. =260-263=, 275, 276, =382-387=, 389, 390\n\n Rauwenhoff, Prof. L. W. E., on Mysticism as a necessary form of\n religion, II. 268, 269\n\n Realism, I. 61, 62\n advantages of, II. =318-319=\n Pantheistic trend of strict, II. =314-319=\n\n Reason, goddess of, II. 389\n\n Redactor of _Conversione_-booklet, I. 464\n of _Dicchiarazione_-booklet, I. 464\n 1 of _Vita_-proper, I. 162 _n._ 3, 188 _n._ 1, 372, 414\n 2 of _Vita_-proper, I. 159, 162 _n._ 3, 372\n of _Vita-Dicchiarazione-Dialogo_, I. 464\n\n Reformation, Protestant, I. 62, 282, 339-341, 448; II. 232, 388\n\n Reform, Franciscan, I. 341\n\n Regio, Clerk Regular, criticizes Molinos, II. 144\n\n Reinach Salomon, on beginnings of Jewish prayers for the dead, II. 233,\n 234\n\n Religion and morality, II. =272-275=\n apprehension by man of, I. =50-55=\n through sense and memory, I. 51\n through Mysticism, I. 53\n through speculation, I. 51-52\n apprehension by St. Catherine of, I. 247\n conflicts between its elements, I. =70-77=; II. 392-393\n difficulties of the subjective element of, II. 112-114\n disinterested, _see_ Love, Pure\n emotional-volitional element, its exclusiveness, I. 73-77\n historical, relations with Mysticism, II. 266-268\n institutional element, its exclusiveness, I. 71-73\n relation to Science of, I. 45-48; II. =367-386=\n Social, and Mysticism, II. 351-366\n Subjective and Objective elements of, II. 118-120, =263-266=, 270\n the three elements of, I. 50-55; II. =387-396=\n and their due proportions, II. 387-388\n continuous concomitance of, I. 53-55\n distribution among men of, I. 58-59\n distribution among religions of, I. 60-65\n multiplicity of each of them, I. 85, 86\n succession in history of, I. 59-60\n\n Religious temper, its longing for simplification, I. 65-66\n\n Renaissance, humanist, I. 62\n\n Rent\u00e9, Baron de, I. 89\n\n Rhode, Erwin, on the Dionysian and Orphic movements, II. 191, 192\n on Plato\u2019s later teaching as to contemplation, II. 356, 357\n\n Ribet, Abb\u00e9, and question as to true Mysticism, II. 305\n\n Riccordo, Padre, da Lucca, I. 136\n\n Richelieu, Cardinal, II. 41\n\n Rickert, H., his building up an Organon of the Historical Sciences,\n II. 370\n\n Rig-Veda, II. 183\n\n Rigorism among pre-Reformation devoted Catholics, I. 339-342\n touches of, in V. Battista Vernazza, I. 400-407, 422, 431\n St. Catherine, I. 342\n\n Rites, Sacred Congregation of, Rome, I. 126, 253, 305, 306\n\n Ritschl, Albrecht, and his school; their excessive reaction against\n Hegel, II. 263, 269\n\n Ritschlian school, II. 263\n\n Robespierre, II. 292\n\n Rodriguez, Alfonso, Fr., S.J., I. 89\n\n Romans, the ancient, I. 93; II. 185, 239, 240\n\n Rome, I. 98, 99 _n._ ; 156, 203, 305, 322; II. 185\n Arch-Hospital in, I. 322\n Church of, I. 8, 9, 10, 63; II. 273\n condemns some propositions of F\u00e9nelon, II. 160, 162\n condemns Quietism, II. =139-143=\n sack of, I. 311\n\n Rosmini, Antonio, I. 65, 78\n\n Rothe, Richard, II. 229, 332, 333\n\n Royce, Josiah, Professor, II. 370\n\n Ruysbroek, Johannes, Augustinian Canon-Regular, on the two-fold unity\n of our spirit with God, II. 323\n\n\n Sabatier, Paul, his critical labours in early Franciscan history, I. 372\n\n Saccheri, Notary, Genoa, I. 213\n\n Sacraments and St. Catherine:\n Baptism, I. 436; II. 76, 87\n Holy Eucharist, I. 113-116, 204, 208, 240, 241; II. 19, 87, 88\n Penance, I. 117-123\n Extreme Unction, I. 195, 197, 204, 206\n\n Sadducees, I. 61; II. 389\n\n Saint-Jure, de, S.J., I. 89\n\n Saint-Simon, Duc de, II. 271\n\n Saints, canonized, Catholic principles concerning the teaching of,\n I. 253-255\n invocation of, Catherine\u2019s, I. 240\n\n Samaria, Woman of, I. 188, 189, 406; II. 17\n\n Samaritans, I. 27, 38\n\n Samuel, Books of, David in, I. 373\n\n Sandreau, Abb\u00e9 A., his sober Mystical doctrine, II. 307\n\n Sauli, Cardinal, of Genoa, I. 322, 327\n\n Savonarola, Fra Girolamo, contrasted with Luther and Calvin, II. 118\n\n Sceptical schools, the, of ancient Greece, I. 23\n\n Schelling, W. S. von, II. 335, 371, 392\n\n Schiller, Friedrich, his \u201cFiesco,\u201d I. 96\n\n Schism, Papal, I. 95\n\n Schlegel, Friedrich von, I. 89, 424; II. 371\n\n Schleiermacher, Friedrich, II. 231, 296, 371, 392\n\n Scholastics, the, I. 61, 62; II. 162-168, 214, 215, 217, 222-225, 236,\n 242, 244, 245, =252-254=, 294, 301, =316=, =317=\n\n Schopenhauer, Arthur, II. 271, 291, 371\n his appreciation of Asceticism, II. 341, 342\n\n Schram, Dom, _Institutiones Theologiae Mysticae_, the Preternatural in,\n II. 305\n\n Schwab, J. B., on Mysticism requiring the Immanence of God, II. 325\n\n Science, character and motives of spirit\u2019s occupation with, I. 40-43\n historical and physical sciences have each their specific method\n and level, II. 370, 382, 384\n historical, Religion\u2019s present, but not ultimate, problem,\n II. =382-385=\n occupation with, three kinds, II. 381-382\n its place and function in man\u2019s spiritual life, I. 43-45, 369, 370;\n II. =330=, =331=, =376=, =377=\n and Religion, each autonomous at its own level, I. 45-48; II. 368,\n 369\n Religion and Metaphysics, I. 39-40\n Religion, and Philosophy, their respective functions, II. 369-372\n to be taken throughout life in a double sense and way, I. 45-47;\n II. =374-379=\n and Things, and Religious Doctrine and Sacraments, as variously\n deep, parallel helps and necessities in man\u2019s spiritual life,\n II. =372-379=\n novelty of this position very limited, II. =379-381=, 385, 386\n\n \u201cScintilla,\u201d experience of St Catherine, I. 187-190, 451; II. 19\n\n Scotland, I. 72\n\n Scott, Thomas, the Evangelical, I. 63\n Walter, Sir, his _Anne of Geierstein_, I. 96\n\n Scotus, John Duns, I. 64, 78\n Proclus\u2019 indirect influence upon, II. 315, 316\n\n Scotus, John, Eriugena, II. 252\n Proclus\u2019 influence upon, II. 314, 315\n\n Segneri, Paolo, S.J., I. 89; II. 144\n his critiques of Molinos, II. 144\n\n Self-knowledge, persistent in St. Catherine, I. 206-207; II. 14, 15\n\n Semeria, --, _Secoli Cristiani della Liguria_, I. 337\n\n Sensitiveness, extreme, of Catherine, I. 176-181\n\n Sensuousness, lack of, in Catherine, I. 246\n\n Shakespeare, _Romeo and Juliet_, I. 101\n\n Siegwart, Professor Christian, II. 282\n\n Sight, Catherine\u2019s impressions connected with, I. 181\n\n Silvestro, Convent of S., Genoa, I. 457\n\n Simmel, Georg, Dr., on the specifically religious sense, II. 260, 261\n on religion as _requiring_ that man should seek his own beatitude,\n II. 179\n\n Simon, the Just, Rabbi, II. 153\n\n Simon, Richard, I. 63, 64\n\n Simplicity, causes of, Quietists\u2019 inadequate analysis of, II. 134-136\n longing of religious temper for, I. 65-66\n all living, ever constituted in multiplicity, I. =66-70=\n\n Sin, and the body, according to St. Catherine, I. 230, 235, 236, 264,\n 265, 298; II. =123-125=\n the Orphics, II. 192, 237\n St. Paul, II. 66, =68=, =69=, 122, 123\n Proclus, II. 98\n the Synoptists, II. 69, =122=\n as purely negative, in Ps.-Dionysius, Eckhart, Spinoza, II. 294\n as positive in Kant, Eucken, II. 294-296\n as positive and negative in St. Augustine, St. Thomas, Mother\n Juliana, II. 293, 294\n in St. Catherine, II. 235, 294\n original, according to Neo-Platonists, II. =298=\n St. Augustine, II. 298, 299\n Tridentine definition concerning, II. 300, 301\n difficulty in doctrine of, and Tennant\u2019s interpretation,\n II. =298-300=\n value of Mystics\u2019 attitude towards, II. =301=, =302=\n\n Sixtus IV. (Della Rovere), Pope, I. 94\n\n Sixtus V. (Peretti), Pope, I. 366\n\n Smell, Catherine\u2019s impressions connected with, I. 180-181\n\n Socinianism, I. 9, 342; II. 390\n\n Socino, Fausto and Lelio, I. 63, 342\n\n Socrates, I. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 41, 60; II. 64, 186\n doctrine of, I. =12-13=\n\n Socratic school, I. 23\n\n Sophists, I. 12\n\n Sophocles, II. 189\n\n Sorbonne, the, Paris, II. 325 _n._ 3\n\n Soul, according to Aristotle, I. 20, 22\n Plato, I. 16, 17\n Plotinus, I. 24\n and the _No\u00fbs_ in Eckhart, II. 323\n St. Paul, II. 64, 65\n Plotinus, II. 322, 323\n and the spirit in V. Battista, I. 353, 354, 399, 431\n St. Catherine, I. 189; II. 68\n St. Paul, II. =67-69=, =320-322=\n St. Teresa, II. 324\n the three forces of, I. 50-53; II. 387-396\n Immanence of God in the, II. 324-325, =336-338=\n life of, according to St. Catherine, I. 266-270\n usual succession in, I. 50-55\n its relation to its fellows, II. =353-355=\n\n Soul, its unity in multiplicity, I. 66\n\n Sources, literary of Catherine\u2019s conceptions I. 254, 255, 258-260;\n II. =62-110=\n difficulties in their utilization, I. 251-253\n\n Space, and the soul and spirit, in St. Augustine, II. =212=, =213=\n St. Catherine. I. =277=, =278=; II. 69, 70, 77-81, =212=, =213=\n Plato, II. 205-207\n Plotinus, II. 248\n St. Thomas, II. 214\n recent writers, II. 247\n\n Spain, I. 62, 64, 72, 95, 96, 305; II. 388\n\n Spencer, Herbert, II. 271\n\n Speyer, Diet of, I. 340\n\n Spinola, Archbishop of Genoa, I. 305\n family, and members of, I. 96, 146, 175\n\n Spinoza, I. 7, 40-42; II. 169, 197, 198, 271, 296, 315, 326, 327, 375,\n 376, 392\n compared with Plotinus, II. 325-328\n on disinterested Religion, II. 175, 176\n doctrine of, I. 41-43\n errors of his speculation, greatness of his intuitions, II. =376=,\n =377=\n greatest Pure Pantheist, II. 325-327\n Reality and Perfection identical for, II. 294\n\n Spirit, Christ as, II. 70, 84, =320=, =321=\n God as, II. 84, 322\n the soul as, _see_ under Soul\n visitations of the, their suddenness and vehemence, I. 105, 107;\n II. 30, 96, 97\n and Space, II. 212, 213\n and Time and Duration, II. =247-249=\n\n Stanley, Arthur P., Dean, I. 63\n\n Stein, Freiherr von, II. 271\n\n Stigmata \u201cSpiritual,\u201d legend of St. Catherine\u2019s, the, I. 209 _n._ 1,\n 210 _n._ 1, =452=, =453=\n\n Stoics, I. 23\n\n Strata, Battista, Notary, I. 155, 308, 379\n\n Strauss, David F., on Purgatory, II. 231\n\n Suarez, Francis, Father, S.J., I. 121; II. =241=\n\n Subconsciousness, late full recognition of, II. 47, 48, 265, =338-340=\n often described by Plotinus and St. Augustine, II. 91, 92, 248\n its deepest equivalent in St. Thomas\u2019s \u201cconfused knowledge,\u201d\n II. =288-289=, 337\n\n Sulze, Emile, fails to recognize necessity of Thing-element in religion,\n II. =372-374=\n\n Surin, Jean Joseph, S.J., I. 64, 89; II. 141\n\n Suso, Henry, Blessed, Dominican, I. 64, 94\n\n Sylvius, Francis, II. 162\n\n Synoptic Gospels and St. Catherine, II. 69, 84, 87, 89, =122-126=,\n 153-158\n and Joannine writings, II. 84-88\n and St. Paul, II. 65, 122-125, =157-158=\n on forgiveness as of single acts, II. 245, 246\n God\u2019s direct interest in world, II. =254=, =255=\n Pure Love, II. =153-158=\n present most manifold picture of Jesus\u2019 life and teaching,\n II. =116-120=\n\n\n Tacitus, II. 271\n\n Taigi, Anna Maria, Venerable, I. 78\n\n Tarsus, II. 63, 66\n\n Tasso, Torquato, I. 341\n\n Taste, Catherine\u2019s impressions connected with, I. 180\n\n Tauler, John, Dominican, I. 64, 94\n\n Taylor, Prof. A. E., his criticism of Kant\u2019s doctrine of Pure Love,\n II. 179-180\n\n Tennant, Rev. F. R., on Original Sin, II. 299, 300\n\n Tennyson, Alfred, I. 112; II. 227, 247\n\n Teresa, St., I. 64, 68, 87, 247; II. 5, 27 _n._ 1, 42, 45, 47, 48, 59,\n 137, 142, 143, 336, 363, 365\n and Direction, II. 363\n on occupation with our Lord\u2019s Humanity, II. 169, =365=\n God\u2019s immanence in the soul, II. =324=, =325=\n nerves and muscles, II. 5\n her psycho-physical peculiarities, II. notes to pp. 14-18, 20, 21,\n 27, 43, 44\n on soul and spirit, II. 324\n her tests for locutions and visions, =II. 47=, =50=\n and social Religion, II. 365\n\n Tertullian, on St. Paul\u2019s \u201cthorn,\u201d \u201cstake\u201d in the flesh, II. 43\n prayer for the dead, II. 233, 234\n\n Thales, I. 12\n\n Theatines, I. 322, 340\n\n Thibet, II. 392\n\n Thing-element, its necessity in Religion, I. 245-247; II. =372-374=,\n =377-381=, 385, 386\n\n Thing, three relations of, with thought. II. =374-377=\n\n Thobia, I. 129, 151, 153, 154, 223, 225, 378, 380; II. 26, 29, 169, 172\n\n Thobia\u2019s Mother, I. 151, 153, 154, 172, 176, 225; II. 29\n\n Thomas, St., Aquinas, I. 7, 61, 78, 120, 121; II. 142, 162, 181, 217,\n 218, 245, 253, 288, 315, 317, 325, 333\n on God as _Actus Purus_, II. 132, 250\n on God\u2019s Being as distinct from His Essence, II. 316, 317\n on the soul\u2019s direct dim knowledge of God, II. =288=, =289=, 337\n on obligation of Confession, I. 120\n on the dispositions of the Lost, II. 222, 223\n on the fire of Purgatory and Hell, II. 217\n on God\u2019s _ecstacy_ and creative acts, as His supreme\n self-expression, II. =252-254=\n on every soul\u2019s individuality, II. =255=, =256=\n on Pure Love, II. =162-168=\n on man\u2019s natural exigency of the vision of God, II. =337=, =338=\n on term \u201cperson\u201d as applicable to God, II. 257, 258\n on the other-world \u201cplaces,\u201d II. 214\n on Purgatory as truly purgative, II. 244, 245\n on simultaneity of soul\u2019s vision of all things in future life,\n II. 248\n St., of Canterbury, I. 372\n\n Thomassin, Louis, Oratorian, I. 64\n\n Thucydides, II. 271\n\n Tiele, C. P., Professor, on the Infinite as present within man, II. 268,\n =339=, =340=\n necessity for Ecclesiastical Institutions, II. 352\n for metaphysical convictions in Religion, II. 270\n\n Tobit, Book of, the Eminent Good Works in, II. 154\n\n Toleto, Gaspare, Father, Inquisitor, I. 464\n\n Toqueville, Alexis de, II. 271\n\n Touch, St. Catherine\u2019s impressions connected with, I. 178-180\n\n _Tracts for the Times_, I. 63\n\n Transcendence of God, attitude towards, of V. Battista Vennazza, II. 289\n St. Catherine, I. 276, 280; II. =346=, =347=\n\n Transcendence of God, attitude towards, of St. John of the Cross,\n II. =257=, =258=, 343-345\n S\u00f6ren Kierkegaard, II. 287, 288, =345=, =346=\n St. Thomas, II. =257=\n recent thinkers, II. 270, 271, 339, 340, =358=, =359=\n\n Translations of St. Catherine\u2019s relics, I. 300-302, 381 _n._\n\n _Trattato_, see _Vita_ (_Dic._ or _T._).\n\n Trendelenburg, Adolf, on blind Force and conscious Thought, their only\n possible relations, II. =375=\n\n Trent, Council of, on abuses connected with purgatorial doctrines and\n practices, II. 232\n on Purgatory, II. =242=\n on Original Sin, II. 300\n\n Troeltsch, Prof. Ernst, II. 282, 333, 370\n on Christianity as Inner-worldly and Super-worldly, II. =358-360=\n abiding individuality of all things historical, II. 256, 257\n Kant\u2019s actual conceptions as more religious than his theory of\n religion, II. 261, 262\n the testimony involved in our religious requirements, II. =339=\n\n Tyrrell, Rev. G., on the possibly _Totum-Simul_ consciousness of the\n Lost, II. 230\n the relations between love of God and love of creatures,\n II. 354, 355\n purely natural religion, what might have been but never was,\n II. =288=\n\n\n Unity, constituted by multiplicity, I. =66-70=\n needful for all spiritual life, II. 150\n\n Universe, conditions of its power upon human will, I. 3\n\n _Upanishads_, the, II. 183\n\n Upton, Prof., II. 330\n\n Urban VIII, Pope (Barberini), I. 98, 304\n Bull on Cultus of Saints, I. 98 _n._ i (99), 304, 305\n\n\n Varni, Santo, sculptor, I. 332\n\n Vaughan, Diana, II. 305\n\n Venice, I. 93, 203\n Hospital in, I. 322\n\n Vergil, II. 271\n on the burning out of the soul\u2019s stains, II. 236\n\n Vernaccia (Vernazza) Family, I. 146\n\n Vernazza, Venerable Battista (Tommasa), I. 91, 117 _n._ 1, 146 _n._ 2,\n 217, 252, 253, 316, 321, 322, 325, 327 _n._ 1, 328, 329, 330, 331,\n 372, 381, 384, 395, 403, 407, 410, 413, 414, 429, 432, 447, 451,\n 453, 454, 457, 461, 462; II. 27, 38 _n._ 1, 48\n and Tommaso Moro, I. 339-344\n author of Dialogo I, I. =407-410=\n II, III, I. =429-433=\n _Preface_ (ancient) of _Vita_ (probably), I. 416\n birth of, I. 419\n character of, I. 365, 366\n death of, I. =366=, =367=, 366 _n._ 2, 381\n _Colloquies_, I. =344-358=, 416, 433\n compared with Catherine\u2019s doctrine, I. 346-358\n the _Dialogo_, I. 399, 403, 408, 431\n compared to St. Catherine and E. Vernazza, I. 336, 337\n _Dialogo della Beata Caterina_ based practically throughout upon\n _Vita-Dicchiarazione_ yet shows everywhere thought, feeling, aims,\n information of, I. 397-410, =417-433=\n _Letters of_, I. 345\n to Donna Anguisola, I. 359-364\n to Padre Collino (1), I. 316-318, 321-324, 327-331 (2), I. 366\n to Tommaso Moro, I. 342-344\n portrait, I. 366 _n._ 2\n final redactor of _Vita_, _Dicchiarazione_, _Dialogo_, I. 464\n her youth, I. 337-339\n her writings, I. 344, 345\n Catetta (Daniela), I. 166, 321, 325, 339\n Ettore, I. 90, 91, 105 _n._ 1, 114 _n._ 2, 121 _n._ 3, 127,\n 140 _n._ 4, 145 _n._ 1, 147 _n._ 1, 150 _n._ 1, 154, 159, 166,\n 167, 169, 174, 175, 183 _n._ 1, 187, 191, 193, 202, 213, 216,\n 217, 246, 252, 256, 279, 299, 308, 337, 338, 339, 340, 371, 384,\n 415, 430, 444, 449, 450, 451, 456, 463, 464; II. 9, 16, 26, 27, 29\n his philanthropic work, its character, I. 319-321, 323, 327\n its effects, I. 364, 365\n in Genoa, _Chronici_, I. 173, 316, 317\n Lazaretto, I. 330, 331\n _Mandiletto_, I. 154, 332\n Prisons, I. 327-329\n his wills, ii, I. 318-321\n iii, I. 166, =324-327=\n Ven. Battista and, in general, I. 314-316, 336, 337\n in June 1524, I. =330-332=\n traces of their intercourse in _Dialogo_, I. =406=, =407=,\n =429-431=\n St. Catherine and his absence from her death-bed, I. 202-204, 226\n his authorization to write about her, I. =191-192=\n her influence with him, I. 314, 315, 320, 321, 331, 332\n his influence with her, I. 159-161, 191-193\n upon her memory, I. 145, 146, 453-457\n their mutual likeness and unlikeness, I. 314, 315\n his character, I. =146=, =147=\n his contributions to St. Catherine\u2019s biography in _Vita_-proper,\n I. 166, =453-455=, 464\n in _Trattato_, I. 447, 448\n their general character, I. 147\n daughters of, I. 149, 166, 299, 300, 325, 326\n his death, I. =331=, 381\n his posthumous fame, its unlikeness to Catherine\u2019s, I. 332, 333\n Leo X, Pope, and, I. 322\n Lunga, Se\u00f1ora, and, I. 329, 330\n Manuscript C wrongly attributed to, I. 395, 396\n married life of, I. 316-318, 330\n monuments to, I. 332, 333\n Ginevrina (Maria Archangela), I. 166, 325, 326, 339\n Tommasa, _see_ Vernazza Battista\n village, I. 318\n\n Vernazzi, clan of, I. 318, 320\n\n Vincent, St., de Paul, I. 306\n\n Vinci, Leonardo da, School of, I. 98 _n._ 1 (99)\n\n Visions of St. Catherine\u2019s, I. 181\n\n _Vita e Dottrina di S. Caterina_, as in Thirteenth, Ninth Genoese, ed.,\n _Sordi Muti_, and its three parts, _Vita_-proper, _Dicchiarazione_\n or _Trattato_, _Dialogo_, I. 90, 91\n its additions to MSS. A and B in _Vita_-proper, I. 389, 390, 394,\n 451-453\n in _Trattato_, I. 442\n of entire _Dialogo_ I. 389, 395\n its additions to MS. C in _Vita_-proper, I. 396\n of _Dialogo_, Parts II, III, I. 396, 397\n to MSS. A, B, C of Title, Approbation, Preface, Subscription,\n I. 411-417\n its changes since first printed edition, 1551, I. 464-466\n final redaction for printing of entire corpus, I. 464\n booklets, evidence for _Conversione-_, _Dicchiarazione-_,\n _Passione-_, in about 1512, I. 394, 434, =447-449=, 450, 451, 464\n the _Dialogo_, Part I, I. 396, 397\n its author (Battista Vernazza), I. 407, 410\n compared with _Vita_-proper, I. =399-407=\n its authentic contributions, I. 406, 407\n the _Dialogo_, Parts II, III, their author and character,\n I. 418, 419, =427-433=\n compared with _Vita_-proper, I. 419-424, =424-427=\n the _Trattato_ (_Dicchiarazione_), earlier and later part\n of, I. 439, 440\n earlier part, its theological glosses, I. =440-442=\n later part, its secondary expansions, I. =435-440=\n upbuilding of whole, and authorship (predominantly Ettore\n Vernazza), I. 447-449\n the _Vita_-proper, original tripartite scheme of, become\n quadripartite, I. =390-394=\n its great divisions and secondary constituents, I. 453\n age and authorship of retained constituents, I. =453-463=\n three tests for discriminating authentic from secondary\n sayings, I. 462, 463\n\n Volkelt, Johannes, Prof., on immanental inter-relatedness of History and\n Philosophy, II. =279=, =280=\n dualism in Kant\u2019s Epistemology, II. 278\n fallacy of Positivistic Epistemology, II. =275-278=\n ultimate Power in world, alive in analogy to a willing individual,\n II. 277, 278\n\n\n Wagner, Richard, II. 165\n\n Waldensian movement, II. 391\n\n Ward, James, Prof., II. 265, 287, 370\n on receptivity as activity; experience as wider than knowledge; and\n our own experience, the only one immediately accessible to us,\n II. =277-280=\n\n Weinel, Heinrich, on visions and psycho-physical peculiarities in\n sub-apostolic times, II. 42, 43, 308\n\n White, Edward, on Conditional Immortality, II. 229 _n._ 2\n\n Will, the things and conditions that move the human, I. 3, 367-370;\n II. 375-385\n\n Wilson, Archdeacon Andrew, on the Fall of Man, II. 299-300\n\n Windelband, W., Prof., on religion\u2019s various elements including\n metaphysical life, II. 262\n\n Wisdom, Book of, I. 61\n attitude towards the body in, and St. Paul, I. 234; II. 227\n\n Wittenberg, I. 9, 95, 311\n\n Wordsworth, William, II. 271\n\n Wycliffe, I. 94\n\n\n Xenophon, I. 28\n\n Ximenes, Cardinal Francis, O.S.F., I. 62\n\n\n Youth, its apprehension of religion, I. 51-52\n\n\n Zaccaria, F. A., S.J., II. 225 _n._ 2\n\n Zedakah, II. 153\n\n Zeller, Edward, _Philosophie der Griechen_, I. 11 _n._ 1; II. 320\n\n Zeus, II. 93, 187\n\n Zwingli, I. 62, 63; II. 119 _n._ 1, 388, 392\n\n Zwinglianism, I. 9\n\n\nII. OF LITERARY REFERENCES\n\n(_The more general literary references given under names of authors in\nPart I_)\n\n\nHOLY SCRIPTURE--OLD TESTAMENT\n\n Daniel ix. 24; I. 408\n xii. 2; II. 190\n\n Ecclesiasticus vii. 17; II. 224\n\n Ezekiel i. 1-28, etc.; II. 45 _n._\n iv. 1-3, 7, etc.; II. 45 _n._\n iv. 4-8; II. 45, 46 _n._\n viii. i-ix. 11, etc.; II. 45 _n._\n viii. 16, xi. 13, xxiv. 1; II. 45 _n._\n\n Genesis i. 5, iii. 18; II. 89\n xv. 1; I. 348\n\n Isaiah vi. 3; I. 352\n xxvi. 1-19; II. 190\n xliii. 10, xliv. 1, xlviii. 10; I. 349\n xlix. 6; I. 351\n\n Job xix. 25, 26; II. 190\n\n Maccabees, Book of, ii. 43-45; II. 233\n\n Psalms lxxiii. (lxxii.) 25; II. 159\n ci. 13; I. 362\n ciii. 13, 14; II. 69\n cix. 31; I. 358\n\n Solomon, Cant. v. 10; I. 349\n Prov. viii. 31; I. 360\n Wisd. of., ix. 15; II. 66, 123\n\n Tobit, Book of, xii. 8, 9; II. 154\n\n\nNEW TESTAMENT\n\n Acts of the Apostles xxvi. 9-10; I. 33\n\n John, St., Apocalypse, v. 11; I. 349\n vii. 9; II. 254\n 1 Ep., i. 1; I. 36\n i. 2; I. 37\n iii. 2; II. 82, 257\n iii. 14; I. 39; II. 89\n v. 10; I. 37\n v. 20; I. 39; II. 84\n Gospel according to, i. 4, 5; II. 82\n i. 9-11; II. 79\n i. 14; I. 36\n i. 17; II. 79\n i. 18; I. 358; II. 81\n i. 29; II. 85\n ii. 11; I. 37; II. 86\n ii. 23, 24; I. 38\n iii. 2-5; I. 38\n iii. 16; II. 79-80, 83\n iii. 18; II. 89\n iii. 19; II. 82\n iii. 21; I. 37; II. 79-83, 82\n iii. 31; II. 82\n iii. 34; II. 84\n iii. 36; I. 39\n iv. 18; II. 160\n iv. 24; I. 37; II. 80, 88\n iv. 31; II. 81\n iv. 42; I. 38; II. 79-80\n v. 6; I. 38\n v. 24; II. 88-89, 90\n v. 28-29; I. 36\n vi. 27; II. 88\n vi. 35; I. 37; II. 90\n vi. 44; I. 37; II. 87\n vi. 61, 63; II. 88\n vi. 69; II. 86, 88\n viii. 21; II. 80\n viii. 23; II. 81\n viii. 44; II. 80\n ix. 41; II. 80\n x. 8; II. 80\n x. 38; I. 360\n xiii. 23; I. 358\n xiv. 6; I. 37\n xiv. 10; II. 80\n xiv. 11; I. 38\n xiv. 20-21; I. 39\n xiv. 23; I. 360\n xvii. 1-13; I. 210 _n._ 1\n xvii. 3; II. 82, 90\n xvii. 6; II. 90\n xvii. 8, etc.; II. 82\n xvii. 18; I. 37\n xvii. 21; II. 83\n xviii. 9; I. 362\n xviii. 37; II. 79\n xix. 24; II. 83\n xx. 8; II. 86\n xx. 29; I. 38; II. 86\n\n Luke, St., Gospel according to, ii. 32; I. 351\n vi. 33, 34; II. 158\n vi. 38; II. 155\n vii. 47; II. 157\n ix. 23-24; I. 31\n ix. 51-56; I. 27-28\n x. 7; II. 154\n xii. 6; II. 254\n xiv. 27; I. 31\n xvi. 23; I. 358\n xvii. 10; II. 157\n xvii. 33; I. 31\n xx. 34-38; I. 32\n xxii. 3-11; I. 33\n xxii. 15-19; I. 31\n xxvi. 9-18; I. 33\n\n Mark, St., Gospel according to, i. 13; II. 122\n iv. 27-28; I. 30\n vii. 14, 15; I. 31\n viii. 34; I. 31\n ix. 30-32; I. 27-28\n ix. 35-36; I. 32\n ix. 38-41 (& Par.); II. 84\n ix. 41; II. 154\n x. 13-16; I. 27-28\n x. 14, 15; I. 32\n x. 21; II. 154\n x. 23; II. 155\n xii. 28-34 (& Par.); II. 254\n xii. 36; II. 322\n xiv. 22-25; I. 31\n xiv. 25; II. 254\n xiv. 38 (& Par.); II. 122\n\n Matth., St., Gospel according to, iii. 13-19; I. 31\n v. 3; I. 31\n v. 5; II. 155\n v. 7; II. 154\n v. 8; I. 31; II. 154, 155\n v. 12; II. 154\n v. 17; I. 30\n v. 23; I. 30\n v. 44, 45, 48; II. 157\n vi. 4, 6; II. 154\n vi. 16; I. 30\n vi. 14, 18, 20; II. 154\n vi. 23, 26, 28; I. 30\n vi. 33; II. 157\n x. 29; II. 254\n xii. 24-27; I. 32\n xiii. 30-32; II. 122\n xvi. 24, 25; I. 31\n xvii. 12-14; II. 255\n xviii. 32; II. 154\n xxii. 3; II. 155\n xxii. 11; II. 156\n xxii. 12; II. 155-156\n xxii. 29-33; I. 32\n xxiv. 47; II. 155\n xxv. 10; II. 254\n xxv. 14-30; II. 157\n xxv. 21; II. 155\n xxvi. 26-29; I. 31\n xxxiv. 42; II. 122\n xxxvi. 51, 52; II. 27-28\n\n Paul, St., Ep. to Col. i. 15-17; I. 35\n i. 26; I. 34\n ii. 2; I. 34\n iii. 1; I. 35\n iii. 3-4; I. 34\n iii. 4; II. 322\n 1 Ep. to Cor. i. 18; I. 33\n i. 22-25; I. 33\n ii. 6; I. 34\n ii. 10; I. 34\n ii. 11; I. 34; II. 321\n ii. 14, 15; I. 33; II. 321\n iii. 1; I. 34\n iii. 10-15; II. 239\n v. 5; II. 68\n v. 11; II. 67\n vi. 19; II. 72, 321\n vii. 7; II. 43\n x. 3; II. 76\n x. 4; I. 35\n xi. 7; II. 75\n xi. 11; I. 32; II. 75\n xi. 23, 26; I. 32\n xii.; I. 33; II. 65-66\n xiii. 7; II. 160\n xiv.; I. 33\n xiv. 25; II. 65\n xv. 3-8; I. 32\n xv. 19, 32; II. 158\n xv. 35, 53; II. 64\n 2 Ep. to Cor. i. 22; II. 65\n ii. 4; II. 65\n iii. 17; II. 70, 88\n iii. 18; I. 35\n iv. 4; II. 68, 321\n iv. 16; II. 64, 159\n v. 1-4; II. 66, 77, 123\n v. 4; II. 66\n v. 11; II. 73\n vi. 14; II. 73, 77\n vii. 1; II. 68, 73, 321\n x. 10; II. 43\n xii. 9; II. 159\n xiii. 4; II. 78\n xviii. 7-8; II. 43\n Ep. to Eph. i. 10; I. 35\n i. 18; II. 65\n iii. 5; I. 35\n iv. 13; I. 35\n Ep. to Gal. ii. 20; I. 35; II. 322\n iv. 6; II. 65\n iv. 14-15; II. 43\n iv. 30; II. 160\n Ep. to Phil. i. 23; II. 77\n iii. 12; II. 257\n iv. 1; I. 361\n Ep. to Rom. ii. 5; II. 65\n ii. 6; II. 158\n iii.-xi.; I. 32\n v. 5; I. 360; II. 65, 72\n v. 15-19; I. 352\n vi. 6, 8; I. 35\n vi. 12-13; II. 68, 73\n vi. 14; II. 68-69\n vii. 18; II. 123\n vii. 23; II. 65, 68\n vii. 24; II. 123\n viii. 4-13; II. 68-69\n viii. 10; II. 68\n viii. 11; I. 35; II. 321\n viii. 16; II. 68\n viii. 19; II. 74\n viii. 31; II. 159\n viii. 35, 37-39; II. 159\n x. 9; II. 65\n xii. 2; II. 65\n xiii. 11-14; II. 73\n xiv. 14-20; II. 74\n 1 Ep. to Thess. iv. 15, 16; II. 77\n v. 4-8; II. 73\n\n Peter, St., 2 Ep. of, iii. 12; II. 239\n\n\n Abbott, Dr. E. A., _St. Thomas of Canterbury, his Death and Miracles_,\n 2 vols., 1898; I. 372\n\n Alizieri, Federico, \u201cVita di Suor Tommasa Fieschi,\u201d in _Atti della Soc.\n di Storia Patria_, Vol. VIII., 1868; II. 381 _n._ 2\n\n Ambrose, St., _In Lucam_, VII. 205; II. 216\n\n Anrich, G., \u201cClemens und Origenes als Begr\u00fcnder, etc.,\u201d in _Theol.\n Abhandlungen f\u00fcr H. J. Holtzmann_, 1892; II. 236, 244 _n._ 1\n\n Aristotle, _de Anima_, III. 5, 430_a_; II. 320\n _Gen. animal_, II. 3, 736_b_; II. 320\n _Metaph._ VII. 1072_b_, IX. 1074_b_; II. 334\n XII. 7-10; II. 320\n XII. 1072_b_-1074_b_; II. 251\n\n Pseudo-Aristotle, _Liber de Causis_, ed. Bardenhewer, 1882, \u00a7\u00a7 2, 4;\n II. 315\n\n Arnold, Matthew, _Culture and Anarchy_, 1869; II. 57\n\n Atzberger, Dr. L., continuation of Dr. J. Scheeben\u2019s _Dogmatik_,\n Vol. IV., 1903; II. 227\n\n Augustine, St., ed. Ben. Reprint Gaume, _Confessiones_, I. c. 2; II. 213\n VI. c. 15, VII. c. 12, VIII. cc. 5, 11; II. 293\n X. c. 26, XIII. c. 17; II. 213\n XI. cc. 11, 20; II. 248\n XI. c. 23 \u00a7 1; II. 306\n XI. c. 27 \u00a7 3; II. 248\n _De Civitate Dei_, lib. xxi. c. 26 _n._ 4; II. 211\n _Contra Julianum_, IV. 58 (Vol. X. col. 1073 _c_); II. 128\n _De Nuptiis et concupisc._, I. 8 (Vol. X. col. 613 _a_); II. 128\n I. 23; II. 293\n _De Octo Dulcitii quaest._, 12, 13; II. 217, 244\n _De Trinitate_, L. XV. c. 16; II. 248\n _Enarratio_ in Ps. xxxvi. \u00a7 i _n._ 10; II. 211\n _Enchiridion_, CX. CXII; II. 225\n _Liber de Fide_, I. 27, 29; II. 317\n _Opus imperfectum_, III. 56; II. 293\n _De Peccato Orginali_, 40 (Vol. X. col. 590 _b_); II. 128\n _Tract in Joannis Ev._, VIII. 1; II. 306\n XXIV. 1; II. 306\n\n Avicenna, _Comm. in Arist. Metaph., Tract._ VIII. c. 6; II. 315\n\n\n Bacher, Prof. W., _Die Agada der Pal\u00e4stinensischen Amor\u00e4er_, Vol. I.\n 1892; II. 234\n\n Baring-Gould, Rev. S., _Lives of the Saints_, 1898, Vol. X., Sept.\n 15; I. 92; II. 22\n\n Baruch, _Apocalypse of_, XXX. 2; II. 214\n\n Basil, St., _Prooemium in Reg. Fus. Tract_, _n._ 3; II. 166\n\n Bellarmine, Cardinal, _De Gratia primi hominis_, XIV.; II. 214\n _De Purgat_, I. c. IV. 6, c. XIV. 22; II. 245\n Lib. II. c. 11; II. 217\n\n Benedicti XIV., _De Servorum Beatificatione et Beatorum\n Canonizatione_, 1743, Vol. II. p. 239 _a_; I. 126, 253, 254\n\n Bergson, H., _Les Donn\u00e9es Imm\u00e9diates de la Conscience_, ed. 1898;\n II. 7 _n._ 1, 165\n\n Berkeley, George, Bp., _Alciphron_, IV. _nos._ 17-21; II. 288\n\n Bernard, St., _Sermons on the Canticle of Cant._, ch. XXVI.; I. 385\n _Tract. de Gratia et Lib. Arbitrio_, ch. XIV. \u00a7 47; I. 69-70\n\n Blondel, Maurice, Prof., _L\u2019Action_, 1893; I. 48 _n._ 1; II. 7 _n._ 1\n\n Bossuet, J. B., Bishop, \u0152uvres, ed. 1816, 1817, _Sermons_, Vol. XI.\n p. 376; II. 218\n _Instruction sur les Etats d\u2019Oraison_, and Documents, Vol. XXVII.;\n II. 131 _n._\n _Relation sur le Qui\u00e9tism_, Vol. XXIX.; II. 141\n\n Boudhinon, Abb\u00e9 A., \u201cSur l\u2019Histoire des Indulgences,\u201d in _Revue d\u2019Hist.\n et de Litt. Relig._, 1898; I. 121; II. 242\n\n Bousset, W., _Die Religion des Judenthums_, 1903; II. 153 _n._ 1\n\n Boutroux, Emile, Prof., \u201cLa Psychologie du Mysticisme,\u201d _Bull. de l\u2019Inst.\n Psych. Internat._, 1902; II. 61\n\n Brieger, T., Prof., \u201cN. Paulus\u2019 Johann Tetzel,\u201d in _Theol.\n Literaturzeitung_, 1900; II. 232\n\n Bugge, _Die Hauptparabeln Jesu_, 1900; II. 156\n\n Butler, Abbot, E. Cuthbert, O.S.B., _The Lausiac History of Palladius_,\n 1898, 1904; II. 371\n\n\n Cadr\u00e8s, Alphonse, S.J., _le P\u00e8re Jean N. Grou_, 1866; II. 363 _n._\n\n Caird, Edward, _Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers_, Vol. I,\n Lecture XIII.; II. 264 _n._ 2\n Vol. II. L. XIV.; II. 251, 320\n LL. XXII. XXIII.; II. 325-327\n L. XXV.; II. 273\n L. XXVI.; II. 335\n \u201cSt. Paul and the Idea of Evolution,\u201d _Hibbert Journal_, Vol. II.;\n II. 119\n\n Cajetanus, Card, _Comm. in Summam_, II., ii., qu. 23, art. 1.; II. 162\n\n Celesia, P., Vinc., _Storia dell\u2019Ospedale di Pammatone_ (MS.); I.\n 155 _n._ 1, 308 _n._ 1\n\n Chantepie de la Saussaye, _Lehrbuch der Religions-Geschichte_, Vol. I.,\n ed. 1887; ed. 1905; II. 183\n\n Charles, Dr. R. H., _Critical Hist. of the doctrine of Future Life_,\n 1899; II. 189, 190, 220\n\n Class, Prof. G., _Ph\u00e4nomenologie u. Ontologie des menschl-Geistes_, 1896;\n II. 229 _n._ 2\n\n Clement, of Alexandria, _Paedagogus_, I. c. VIII.; II. 235\n _Stromata_, I. c. XXVI. 168, 2 (St\u00e4hlin); II. 234\n IV. c. IV. 15, 6 (St.); II. 166\n IV. c. VI. 30, 1 (St.); II. 166\n IV. c. XXIV. 154, 3 (St.); II. 236\n V. c. III. 16, 7 (St.); II. 236\n VII. c. VI.; II. 216\n VII. c. XXVI.; II. 234\n\n Coconnier, P\u00e8re, M.Th., _L\u2019Hypnotisme Franc_, 1897; II. 6 _n._ 2\n\n Corderins, Bathazar, S.J., \u201cQuaestio Mystica,\u201d in _Dionysius Areop.,\n Migne._, Vol. I. pp. 1050-1058; II. 288\n\n Crusius, O., _Erwin Rhode_, 1902; II. 191, 192\n\n\n Dante, _Purgatorio_, II. 40-42; II. 244\n\n Deharbe, Joseph, S.J., _Die Volkommene Liebe Gottes_; II. 162,\n 170 _n._ 1\n\n Denifle, H. S., Father, \u201cMeister Eckharts Lateinische Schriften,\u201d in\n _Arch f. Litt. u. Kirchengesch. des M. A._, 1886; II. 294, 315, 317\n\n Denzinger, H., _Enchiridion Definitionum_, ed. 1888, No. 38;\n I. 448 _n._ 1\n No. 73; I. 217\n Nos. 387, 588, 859; II. 242\n No. 363; I. 120, 121\n No. 454; II. 323\n Nos. 437, 455; II. 318\n\n Dilthey, W., Prof., \u201cAuffassung d. Menschen, i. 15 _u._ 16, Jahrh.,\u201d in\n _Arch. f. Gesh. der Philosophie_, 1892; II. 119\n\n Dionysius, the Areopagite (tr. Parker, Oxford, 1897, 1899), _Divine\n Names_, I. i; II. 95, 98\n I. 5; II. 97, 99\n I. 6; II. 100\n III. i; II. 91, 98\n IV. 1; II. 93\n IV. 2; II. 94\n IV. 5; II. 93\n IV. 6; II. 97\n IV. 8-10; II. 95\n IV. 13; II. 96\n IV. 13, 4, 16; I. 353\n IV. 22; II. 222\n IV. 23; II. 224, 228\n IV. 24; II. 222, 228, 236, 294\n V. 1; II. 314\n VII. 1, 3; II. 95\n VIII. 3, 5; II. 100\n VIII. 7; II. 92\n IX. 4; II. 91, 92\n IX. 5; II. 99\n XI. 1; II. 94\n _Eccl. Hierarchy_, I. 2; II. 99\n III. 3, 7; II. 99\n _Heavenly Hierarchy_, XV. 2; II. 94\n XV. 3; II. 98\n _Mystic Theology_, I.; II. 95, 97\n III.; II. 95, 97, 289-290, 314\n IV.; II. 314\n V.; II. 98\n\n _Documenti su S. Caterina_ (Bibl-Univ. Genoa), I. 115 _n._ 1, 149 _n._ 1,\n 171 _n._ 1, 172 _n._ 1, 179 _n._ 1, 310 _n._ 2, 376-379\n\n Dubors, F., Abb\u00e9, \u201cLe feu du Purgatoire, est-il un feu corporal?\u201d _Revue\n du Clerg\u00e9 Fran\u00e7ais_, 1902, II. 218\n\n Duhm, B., Prof., _das Geheinniss in der Religion_, 1896; II. 6 _n._ 3,\n 159 _n._ 2\n\n\n Eckhart, Meister, _Werke_, ed. Pfeiffer, 1857; II. 318, 323\n\n Elliott, Walter, _The Life of Father Hecker_, 1894; II. 56\n\n Emery, Abb\u00e9 J. A., _Sur la Mitigation des Peines des Damn\u00e9s_; II. 226\n\n Enoch, Book of; II. 239\n\n Esra, IV. iv. 35; II. 213-214\n\n Eucken, R., Prof., _Der Kampf um einen geistig. Lebensinhalt_, 1896;\n II. 271\n _Der Wahrheitsgehalt der Religion_, 1901; II. 269, 296\n _Die Lebensanschaungen der grossen Denker_; I. 39 _n._ 3\n\n Euripides, _Orestes_, XXX.; II. 237\n\n\n Faber, Rev. F. W., _All for Jesus_, ed. 1889, ch. IX., \u00a7 3-5; I. 89;\n II. 244, 245\n\n Federici, F., _Famiglie Nobili di Genova_, MS., I. 157 _n._ 1;\n II. 231 _n._\n\n Fechner, G. T., _Die Drei Gr\u00fcnde u. Motive des Glaubens_, 1863;\n II. 231 _n._ 1\n\n F\u00e9nelon, Fr. de S., Archbishop; \u0152uvres, Versailles, 1817-1821, _Epistle\n II to Pope Clement XI_, Vol. IX; I. 68, 69; II. 161\n _Explication \u2026 des Propositions de Molinos_, Vol. IV.; II. 142\n _Existence de Dieu_, Vol. I; I. 1, 31; II. 5\n _Instruction pastorale_, 1697, Vol. IV; II. 131, 161\n _Lettre sur la Charit\u00e9_, Vol. IX; II. 161\n _Lettre sur l\u2019Oraison Passive_, Vol. VIII; II. 131, 161, 173, 174\n _Premi\u00e8re R\u00e9ponse aux Difficult\u00e9s de M. l\u2019Ev\u00eaque de Chartres_, Vol.\n IV; II. 161\n _Seconde Lettre \u00e0 M. de Paris_, Vol. V; II. 181\n\n Ficino Marsilio, _Theologia Platonica_, 1482; II. 203, 204\n\n Francis, St., de Sales, _Les Controverses_ in _\u0152uvres_, ed. 1892, Vol. I.\n pt. iii. ch. II.; II. 245\n\n Froude, R. E., \u201cScientific Speculation and the Unity of Truth,\u201d _Dublin\n Review_, Oct. 1900; II. 369\n\n\n Gardner, Percy, Prof., _New Chapters in Greek History_, 1892, pp. 333-334;\n II. 188\n _Oxford at the Cross Roads_, 1903; II. 57\n\n Gebirol Ibn., _Fons Vitae_, ed. 1895; II. 316\n\n Giovo, Angelo, _Vita di S. Caterina_ (MS.); I. 172 _n._, 310 _n._ 2\n\n Giustiniano, Agostino, _Castigatissimi Annali della Rep. di Genova_,\n 1537; I. 382-384\n\n G\u00f6rres, Joseph, _Die Christliche Mystik_, 1836, 1842; II. 305\n\n Gosselin, Abb\u00e9, _Analyse raisonn\u00e9e de la Controverse du Qui\u00e9tisme_\n (F\u00e9nelon, \u0152uvres, Vol. IV.); II. 162, 172, 173\n _Vie de M. Emery_, 1862, Vol. II.; II. 226\n\n Gousset, Cardinal, _Th\u00e9ologie Dogmatique_, 1856, Vol. II.; II. 217\n\n Grafe, E., \u201cVerh\u00e4ltniss der paulinischen Schriften zur Sapientia\n Salomonis,\u201d in _Theol. Abhandl. C. von. Weizs\u00e4cker Gewidmet_, 1892;\n II. 66\n\n Grandgeorge, M. L., _St. Augustin et le Neo-Platonisme_, 1896; I. 126,\n 127, 130, 131; II. 293\n\n Greg, W. E., _Enigmas of Life_; II. 227, 231\n\n Gregory, St., of Nazianzum, _Poema de Seipso_; I. 546; II. 216\n St., of Nyssa, _Catecheticus_, VIII. c. 35; II. 244\n _Orationes_, XL. 36; II. 216\n\n Grou, Jean N., S.J., _M\u00e9ditations sur l\u2019Amour de Dieu_; II. 307\n\n Gunkel, Prof. H., _die Wirkungen des H. Geistes_, ed. 1899; II. 6 _n._ 1\n\n\n Harnack, Prof. A., _Das Wesen des Christenthums_, 1902; II. 352\n _Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte_, ed. 1888, Vol. II.; II. 351\n\n Hase, Carl von, _Handbuch der protest. Polemik_, ed. 1864; II. 231 _n._ 1\n\n Hedley, Bishop J. C., _The Spiritual Letters of F\u00e9nelon_, 1892, Vol. I.\n Preface; II. 161\n\n Heppe, Heinrich, Prof., _Geschichte der Quietistischen Mystik_, 1875;\n II. 139-140\n\n Hermann, Wilhelm, Prof., _Der Verkehr des Christen mit Gott_, 1892; II.\n 263-265, 332, 333\n\n Hesiod, _Works and Days_, II. 187\n\n H\u00f6ffding, H., Prof., _S\u00f6ron Kirkegaard_, 1896; II. 285, 288, 345, 346,\n 353\n\n Holtzmann, H. J., Prof., _Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Theologie_,\n 1897; I. 30 _n._; II. 153 _n._\n Vol. II., ch. i.; II. 63 _n._ 2, 72, 73, 321, 322\n Vol. II., ch. iii.; II. 79 _n._, 190\n _Richard Rothe\u2019s Speculative System_, 1899; II. 229, 247, 248,\n 269, 270, 377, 378\n\n Homer, _Iliad_, VIII. 17-20; II. 93\n XX. 232 _seq._; II. 186-187\n _Od._ IV. 560-568; II. 186-187\n\n Hurter, H., Father, S.J., _Theologiae Dogmaticae Compendium_, 1893,\n Vol. III.; II. 242\n\n\n Inge, W. R., Prof., _Christian Mysticism_, 1897; I. 30 _n._ 1;\n II. 305 _n._\n\n\n Jacopone da Todi, _Laudi Spirituali_, ed. Florence, 1490; I. 259-260\n _Lauda_, XIII. _v._ 1-7, 8; II. 102\n XXIII. _v._ 1-6, 10; _ibid._\n XXV. _v._ 7, 10, 11; _ibid._\n XLV.; II. 103\n LVIII. _a_, _v._ 10, 11, 12; _ibid._\n LVIII. _b_, 1-9; II. 204\n LVIII. _v._ 3, 8, 11-14, 16, 19, 20-22; II. 104\n LVIII. _v._ 23; II. 104, 259, 275\n LVIII. _v._ 24, 26, 27, 28-30; II. 105\n LXXIV. _v._ 6; _ibid._\n LXXIV. _v._ 13; II. 106\n LXXIX. _v._ 3, 6, 16, 24, 26; II. 106\n LXXXI. _v._ 17; II. 106\n LXXXIII. _v._ 5, 15; _ibid._\n LXXXVII. _v._ 12-20; II. 109\n LXXXVIII. _v._ 5, 6, 7, 10; II. 107\n LXXXVIII. _v._ 11; II. 107, 219 _n._ 2\n LXXXVIII. _v._ 14, 21, 22, 27; II. 107\n LXXXVIII. _v._ 32, 33; II. 108\n LXXXIX. _v._ 12, 13, 52-54, 70, 98; _ibid._\n LXXXX. _v._ 4, 13; _ibid._\n LXXXX. _v._ 18; II. 109\n LXXXXIX. _v._ 6, 12, 13, 14; _ibid._\n\n James, William, Prof., _The Principles of Psychology_, 1891, Vol. II.;\n II. 194\n _Varieties of Religious Experience_, 1902; II. 30, 41 _n._ 1, 48,\n 266, 338 _n._ 1, 342\n _The Will to Believe_, 1897; I. 51 _n._ 1\n\n Janet, Pierre, Prof., _l\u2019Automatisme Psychologique_, ed. 1903; II. 192\n _Etat Mental des Hysteriques_, 1892, 1894, Vol. I.; II. 22-25\n Vol. II.; II. 22, 23, 25\n\n Jastrow, Morice, Prof., _The Study of Religion_, 1901; II. 269\n\n Jerome, St., _Apol. c. Rufinum_, II.; II. 216\n _Ep._, 124, 7; II. 216\n _In Isa._ lxv. 24; II. 216\n\n John, St., of Cross, Works, tr. David Lewis, ed. 1889:\n _Ascent of Mt. Carmel_, Bk. I. ch. v. (pp. 26, 27); II. 51, 206\n Bk. II. ch. viii. (94); II. 343, 344\n Bk. II. ch. viii. (95-97); II. 343\n Bk. II. ch. x. (102); II. 51\n Bk. II. ch. xix. (159); II. 51, 306\n Bk. II. ch. xix. (163); II. 51\n Bk. II. ch. xxii. (195); II. 51, 306\n Bk. III. ch. viii. (264, 265); II. 51, 306\n Bk. III. ch. xix. (298); I. 68\n Bk. III. ch. xxii. (307, 308); II. 354\n Bk. III. ch. xxxvi. (353); II. 345\n _Spiritual Canticle_, St. VII. (206, 207); II. 51, 257, 258\n St. XIII. (238); II. 51\n _Letters_, L. XIV. (541, 542); I. 68\n\n John, St., Damascene, _De Fide Orthodoxa_, II. 216 _n._ 1\n\n Joly, Henry, _Psychology of the Saints_, Engl. tr. 1898; II. 61\n\n Jones, Henry, Prof., _A Critical Account of the Philosophy of Lotze_,\n 1895; II. 278, 279\n\n Josephus, _Antiquities_, XI. ii. 3; II. 239\n\n Juliana, Mother, of Norwich, _Sixteen Revelations of Divine Love_, ed.\n 1902; II. 94, 218, 306, 307\n\n J\u00fclicher, A., _Gleichnissreden Jesu_, Th. II. 1899; II. 153 _n._ 1\n\n\n Kant, Immanuel, _Anthropologie_, Werke, Berlin, Vol. VII., 1907; II. 165\n _Briefe_, Werke, Berlin, Vol. I., 1900; II. 278\n \u201cDer Kanon der reinen Vernunft,\u201d in _Kritik der reinen Vernunft_,\n ed. Kehrbach: Werke, Berlin, Vol. III.; II. 177, 178\n _Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten_, Werke, Berlin, Vol. IV.,\n 1903; II. 178, 296\n _Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft_, ed.\n Hartenstein, Werke, Berlin, Vol. VI., 1907; II. 260, 296\n\n Koch, Dr. Hugo, _Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita_, 1900; II. 91 _n._ 1, 95\n\n Kr\u00e4tzschmar, R., Prof., _Das Buch Ezechiel_, 1900; II. 46\n\n\n Laberthonni\u00e8re, Abb\u00e9 L., in _Annales de Philosophic Chr\u00e9tienne_, 1905,\n 1906; II. 307 _n._ 3\n\n Leibniz, G. W. (Philosophische Schriften, ed. Gerhardt, 1882-1885).\n _Nouveaux Essais sur l\u2019Entendement_, Vol. V.; II. 265, 266, 338\n _Principes de la Nature et de la Grace_, Vol. VI., 1885; II. 176\n\n Lejeune, Abb\u00e9 P., _Manuel de Th\u00e9ologie Mystique_, 1897; II. 307\n\n Lessing, G. E., _Leibniz von den Ewigen Strafen_, in Lessing\u2019s, Werke,\n ed. Lachmann-Muncker, Vol. XI., 1895; II. 257, 258\n\n Lightfoot, Bishop J. B., _St. Paul\u2019s Epistle to the Galatians_, 1881;\n II. 43-44 _n._ 1\n\n Loyola, St. Ignatius of, _Testament_, 1900, p. 91, 92; II. 31\n\n\n Maineri, Padre, S. J., _Vita di S. Caterina_; I. 92, 302, 303 _n._ 1,\n 302 _n._ 1\n\n Manning, H. E., Cardinal, _Treatise on Purgatory by St. Catherine of\n Genoa_, 1886, Appendix; II. 237, 243\n\n MS. \u201cA\u201d; I. 112 _n._ 1, 384, 392\n Ch. 7 (of MS.) p. 24; I. 136 _n._ 2\n Ch. 10 (of MS.) 40; I. 390 _n._ 4\n Ch. 15 (of MS.) 87, 88; I. 387\n (of MS.) 92; I. 162 _n._ 3\n Ch. 20 (of MS.) 134; I. 387\n Ch. 24 (of MS.) 160; I. 386-387\n (of MS.) 163; I. 388\n (of MS.) 168; I. 387, 390 _n._ 3\n Ch. 25 (of MS.) 169; I. 388\n (of MS.) 174; I. 402, _n._ 2\n Ch. 29 (of MS.) 193; I. 187 _n._ 1, 387-388 (no. is omitted in MS.)\n Ch. 31 (of MS) 198-200; I. 387\n Ch. 42 (of MS.) 329; I. 387\n 348; I. 452\n 361, 363, 364; I. 386\n 366; I. 147 _n._ 1\n 394, 395, 396; I. 412-416\n\n MS. \u201cB,\u201d 1 _v_; I. 396\n Ch. 5 (of MS.) f. 2 _r_, _v_; I. 394\n (of MS.) f. 19 _r_; I. 394\n Ch. 24 (of MS.) f. 30 _r_, _v_; I. 395\n\n MS. \u201cF\u201d; I. 216\n\n Mercier, D., Cardinal, _Crit\u00e9riologie G\u00e9n\u00e9rale_, ed. 1900; II. 7 _n._ 1\n\n Mill, J. Stuart, _Autobiography_, 1875; II. 339\n _Three Essays on Religion_, 1874; II. 231\n\n Molinos, M. de, _Guida Spirituale_, French, tr., in Recueil de Diverses\n Pi\u00e8ces concernant le Qui\u00e9tisme, Amsterdam, 1688; II. 146\n\n Morro, Giuseppe, _Inaugurazione della Statua d\u2019Ettore Vernazza_, 1863;\n I. 146 _n._ 1, 167, 317 _n._ 1, 320, 324-329, 331 _n._ 1, 333, 364,\n 365, 381 _n._ 2, 382 _n._ 2\n\n M\u00fcnsterberg, Prof., _Grundz\u00fcge der Psychologie_, Vol I., 1900; II. 303\n _Psychology and Life_, 1899; II. 302-303\n\n Mystiker, deutsche, des Mittelalters, Vol. I., David von Augsburg, ed.\n Pfeiffer, 1845; II. 363 _n._\n\n\n Newman, John Henry, Cardinal, _Grammar of Assent_, 1870; II. 230\n _Idea of a University_, ed. 1873; II. 369\n _The Via Media_, Vol. I., Preface, 1877; I. 53 _n._\n\n Nicholas, of Coes (Cusanus), Cardinal, _Exercitationum_, Lib. VIII.;\n II. 256\n\n\n Oldenberg, _Buddha_, 1897; II. 183-185\n\n Origen, _Contra Celsum_, IV. 13; II. 236\n VII. 13; II. 236, 239\n _De Orat._, XXIX. 15 (263); II. 234-235, 239\n _De Princ._, II. 10, 4; II. 216\n _In Rom._, T. II. i. 477; II. 245\n\n\n Pammatone Hospital _Cartulary_, 62; I. 98 _n._ i, 300, 312\n Doc. nos. 8, 14, 30; I. 125\n\n Parpera, Giacinto, _B Caterina da Genova \u2026 illustrata_, 1682; I. 92,\n 305 _n._ 1\n\n Pattison, A. S. Pringle, Prof., _Hegelianism and Personality_, ed. 1893;\n II. 318\n \u201cMartineau\u2019s Philosophy,\u201d _Hibbert Journal_, Vol. I., 1902; II. 330\n\n Pescetto, G. B., _Biografia Medica Ligure_, 1846, Vol. I.; I. 201 _n._ 3,\n 451 _n._ 1\n\n Petavius (Petau), Denys, S.J., _Dogmata Theologica_, ed. Fournials, 1866,\n Vol. IV., _De Angelis_, III. viii. 16, 17; II. 225-226\n\n Petre, M. D., _The Soul\u2019s Orbit_, 1904; II. 308\n\n Philo, _Legg. Alleg._, I. 3; II. 80\n\n _Pirke Aboth_, V. 23; II. 154\n\n Plato, _Cratylus_; II. 67\n 400 _c_; II. 237\n _Gorgias_, 477 _a_; II. 235\n 523 _b-e_, 525 _b_, _c_, 526 _c_, _d_; II. 208-209\n _Laws_, 904 _a-e_; II. 206\n _Parmenides_, 134 _c_; I. 19\n _Phaedo_, 64, 67 _c_, 69 _c_; I. 18\n 81 _a_, 82 _a_; II. 205\n 81 _c_; II. 66\n 110 _b_-114 _d_; II. 206-208\n _Phaedrus_, 245 _d_; II. 320\n 246 _b_, _c_; II. 103\n 249 _b_; II. 210\n _Philebus_, 22 _c_; II. 312\n _Republic_, II. 10 _c_, V. 460 _c_; II. 186\n II. 364, _b_, _c_, _e_; II. 235\n II. 364 _e_; II. 236\n V. 471 _c_-VIII.; II. 186\n VI. 508 _c_; II. 94, 312\n VII. 517 _b_; II. 312\n VII. 518 _b_; I. 18\n IX 560 _d_-588 _a_; II. 186\n X. 595 _a_-608 _b_; II. 186\n X. 616 _b_, _c_; II. 93\n X. 617 _e_, 619 _e_, 920 _e_; II. 210\n _Symposium_, 197 _a_; II. 104\n 216 _e_; II. 64\n _Theaetetus_, 153 _c_; II. 93, 94\n 168 _a_; I. 18\n 176 _a_; I. 19\n _Timaeus_, 28 _a_, _c_; II. 312\n 29 _e_ seq.; II. 334\n 41 _d_, _e_, 42 _d_; II. 206\n 92 _c_; II. 312\n\n Plotinus, _Enneads_, I. vii. 1, 61 _d_; II. 312\n I. viii. 2, 72 _e_; II. 312\n V. i. 3, 6; II. 323\n V. ii.; II. 326\n V. v. 8; II. 95\n VI. viii. 16; II. 312\n VI. ix. 4; II. 192\n VI. ix. 8-9; II. 96\n VI. ix. 9; II. 91\n VI. ix. 9-11; II. 323\n VI. ix. 11; II. 95, 104\n\n Proclus, _In Cratylum_, 103, 107; II. 93\n _Institutio Theologica_, c. 31, 35; II. 91\n c. 129; II. 99\n _In Parmenidem_, IV. 34; II. 93, 100\n VI. 52; II. 95\n _In Platonis Alcibidem_, II. 78; II. 93\n Platonic Theology, III. 132; II. 95\n\n\n Rauwenhoff, L. W. E., Prof., _Religions-philosophie_, Germ. tr., 1894;\n II. 269 _n._ 2, 291 _n._ 1, 328\n\n Reinach, S., _Cultes, Mythes et Religions_, Vol. I. 1905; II. 233, 234\n\n Reumont, Alfred von, _Vittoria Colonna_, 1881; I. 341 _n._ 1\n\n Reusch, F. H., _Der Index der verbotenen B\u00fccher_, 1885, Vol. II.; II. 141\n\n Rhode, Erwin, _Psyche_, ed. 1898, Vol. I.; II. 185, 188\n Vol. II.; II. 125 _n._ 1, 185, 235, 237, 356, 357, 368\n\n Rickert, H., Prof., _die Grenzen der naturwissenschaftlichen\n Begriffsbildung_, 1902; II. 370 _n._\n\n Royce, Josiah, Prof., _The World and the Individual_, 1901, Vol. II.;\n II. 256 _n._ 4\n\n Ruysbroek Johannes, \u201cZierde der geistlichen Hochzeit,\u201d _Vier Schriften_,\n ed. Ullmann, 1848, ch. xlvi. 107, 108; II. 324\n\n\n Sandreau, Abb\u00e9 A., _L\u2019Etat Mystique_, 1903; _La Vie d\u2019Union \u00e0 Dieu_,\n 1900; II. 307 _n._ 3\n\n Schiller, F. C. S., Dr., \u201cActivity and Substance,\u201d in _Humanism_, 1903;\n II. 131, 132, 250 _n._ 1\n \u201cThe Desire for Immortality,\u201d in same; II. 197\n\n Schm\u00f6ger, K. E., _Leben der gottscligen Anna Katharina Emmerich_,\n 1869-70; II. 335\n\n Schopenhauer, Arthur, _Die Welt als Wille u. Vorstellung_, ed. Grisebach,\n Vol. I., Anhang; II. 274\n Vol. II., bk. iv., ch. 48; II. 342\n\n Schwab, J. B., _Johannes Gerson_, 1858; II. 325\n\n Schweizer, Albert, _Die Religions-Philosophie Kants_; 1899, II. 177\n\n Scotus, John, Eriugena, _De divisione naturae_; II. 314\n _De rerum principio_; II. 316, 317\n\n Seneca, L. Annaeus, _Natur. Quaest._, Bk. III. ch. xx. 7, ch. xxx. 7, 8;\n II. 240\n\n Seth, James, _A Study of Ethical Principles_, 1894; II. 57 _n._ 1,\n 180 _n._ 3\n\n Simmel, Prof. Georg, _Kant_, 1904; II. 179, 260, 261\n\n Smith, W. Robertson, Prof., _The Prophets of Israel_, ed. 1882; II. 267\n\n Spinoza, ed. Van Vloten and Land, 1895, _Ethica_, Part II., Defin.\n vi., 75; II. 294\n Part IV., Prop. lxiv., Coroll., 225; II. 294\n Part V., Prop. xix., 251; II. 175, 176\n Prop. xli., 264; II. 175, 176\n Prop. xli., Scholion, 265; II. 175, 176\n _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_, Cap. IV., Vol. II. 3, 4;\n II. 175-176\n\n Stade, B., Prof., _Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments_, 1905,\n Vol. I.; II. 191\n\n Sticker, Fr., Urban, Bollandist, _Life of St. Catherine_, in Acta\n Sanctorum, Sept., Vol. V., ed. 1866, 123-195; I. 94, 167\n 183 _b-e_; I. 466 _n._ 2\n 192-196; I. 342 _n._ 1\n\n Strata Battista, _Atti Notarili_, in \u201cArchivio di Stato,\u201d Genova;\n I. 379 _n._ 1\n\n Suarez, Francesco, Fr., S.J., Opera, Vol. IV., Disp. XI., sec. iv.,\n art. 2; II. 241\n XLVII., sec. 1, art. 6; II. 241\n\n Sulze, Emile, _Wie ist der Kampf um die Bedeutung \u2026 Jesu zu beendigen?_\n 1901; II. 372, 373\n\n\n Taylor, A. E., _The Problem of Conduct_, 1901; II. 169, 179-181, 274\n\n Tennant, Rev. F. R., _The Origin and Propagation of Sin_, 1902; II. 296,\n 299-300\n\n Teresa, St., _Life Written by Herself_, Eng. tr., D. Lewis, 1888, Ch.\n iv. 17; II. 11\n Ch. v. 23, 27, 28, 29; II. 14; 5, 11; 13, 20; 13\n Ch. vi. 30, 31; II. 10, 11\n Ch. vii. 40, 41; II. 21, 50\n Ch. ix. 57, 58; II. 18 _n._ 1\n Ch. xiii. 86; II. 15\n Ch. xviii. 124, 130; II. 324, 325\n Ch. xix. 136; II. 44\n Ch. xx. 146, 149; II. 324, 44\n Ch. xxii. 162-174: II. 169\n Ch. xxiii. 174; II. 325\n Ch. xxv. 190 _b_, _c_, 192 _c_, 193 _a_, 196 _b_; II. 48-49\n Ch. xxvii. 206; II. 50\n Ch. xxviii. 224; II. 48-49\n Ch. xxix. 231, 234, 235; II. 18; 10; 11, 20, 44\n Ch. xxx. 247; II. 18\n Ch. xxxi. 248, 249, 251; II. 21\n Ch. xxxii. 263; II. 11\n Ch. xxxv. 295; II. 48-49\n Ch. xxxviii. 335; II. 325\n Rel. vii. 408; II. 16 _n._ 1(2), 50\n Rel. viii. 420, 421, 423; II. 5, 44; 324; 20\n Rel. ix. 430, 431; II. 325; 48, 49\n\n Thomas Aquinas, St., _De Beatitudine_, ch. iii. 3; II. 151-152\n _De Ente et Essentia_, c. 11; II. 316\n _In libr. Boetii de Trinitate_, ed. Ven. 2, ch. viii. 291 _a_,\n 341 _b_, 342 _a_; II. 289, 337\n _In libros Sententiarum_, Sent. II., dist. 30, qu. 1, art. 2;\n II. 163\n Sent. III., dist. 30, art. 5; II. 164\n _Summa contra Gentiles_, I. 1-3, c. 70 in fine; I. 81\n Lib. II. c. xciv. inst.; c. xciii; II. 256\n Lib. III. c. xxi. in fine; II. 253\n _Summa Theologica_, I. qu. 4, art. 1 concl.; II. 250\n I. qu. 8, art. 2; II. 338\n I. qu. 12, art. 1 in corp.; II. 257, 338\n I. qu. 12, art. 6 ad 1; II. 257\n I. qu. 12, art. 7, in corp.; II. 257\n I. qu. 12, art. 8 ad 4; II. 253\n I. qu. 12, art. 10, in corp.; II. 248\n I. qu. 13, art. 5, concl., et in corp.; II. 337\n I. qu. 14, art. 2 ad 2; II. 253\n I. qu. 14, art. 4, in corp.; II. 252\n I. qu. 14, art. 8, concl.; II. 253\n I. qu. 14, art. 11 ad. 3 contra et concl.; II. 253\n I. qu. 19, art. 1, concl.; II. 252\n I. qu. 19, art. 2, in corp.; II. 254\n I. qu. 20, art. 1 ad 1 ad 3; II. 254\n I. qu. 20, art. 1, concl.; II. 252\n I. qu. 20, art. 2 ad 1; II. 254\n I. qu. 25, art. 1 ad 2, and concl.; II. 250\n I. qu. 28, art 1, in corp. and ad 2; II. 163\n I. qu. 29, art. 3 ad 2 ad 4, and in corp.; II. 256\n I. qu. 47, art. 1, in corp.; II. 256\n I. ii. qu. 3, art. 2 ad 4; II. 253\n I. ii. qu. 3, art. 2 ad 4, and concl.; II. 252\n I. ii. qu. 28, art. 1 ad 2, and in corp.; II. 163\n I. ii. qu. 86, art. 1 ad 3, and concl.; II. 236, 294\n I. ii. qu. 114, art. 4, in corp.; II. 164\n II. ii. qu. 3, art. 4 ad 4; II. 254\n II. ii. qu. 17, art. 8, in corp.; II. 162\n II. ii. qu. 23, art. 6, concl. and in corp.; II. 163\n III. qu. 85, art. 2 ad 1; II. 164\n III. suppl., qu. 6, art. 3; I. 120, 121\n Suppl., qu. 62, art. 2; II. 127, 128\n Suppl., qu. 69, art. 1 ad 3, and in corp.; II. 214\n Suppl., qu. 69, art. 6, in corp.; _ib._\n Suppl., qu. 69, art. 7, concl.; _ib._\n Suppl., qu. 69, art. 7 ad 9; II. 223\n Append.; qu. 2, art 4, in corp. and ad 4; II. 244\n _App. de Purg._, art. 2, in corp.; II. 214\n\n Tiele, C. P., Prof., _Elements of the Science of Religion_, 1897,\n Vol. I.; II. 262-263\n Vol. II.; II. 268-270, 340\n\n Touzard, Abb\u00e9 J., \u201cLe D\u00e9veloppement de la Doctrine del Immortalit\u00e9,\u201d\n _Revue Biblique_, 1898, pp. 207-241; II. 189\n\n Trendelenburg, A., \u201cUeber den letzten Unterschied d. philos. Systeme,\u201d\n _Beitr\u00e4ge z. Philos._ 1855, II. 10; II. 375\n\n Troeltsch, Prof. Ernst, \u201cDas Historische in Kant\u2019s\n Religions-philosophie,\u201d _Kant Studien_, 1904; II. 261, 262\n \u201cReligions-philosophie,\u201d in _Die Philosophie im Beginn des XXten\n Jahrh._, 1904, Vol. I; II. 327, 376 _n._ 1\n \u201cDie Selbst\u00e4ndigkeit der Religion,\u201d _Zeitschr. f. Theologie u.\n Kirche_, 1895; II. 399\n \u201cGrundprobleme der Ethik,\u201d in _Zeitschr. f. Theologie u. Kirche_,\n 1902; II. 127 _n._ 1, 273, 274, 358, 359\n \u201cGeschichts philosophie,\u201d _Theol. Rundschau_, 1893, II. 256, 257\n \u201cWas heisst Wesen des Christenthums?\u201d _Christliche Welt_, 1903;\n II. 359, 360\n\n Turmel, Abb\u00e9 Joseph, \u201cLe Dogme du P\u00each\u00e9 Originel dans S. Augustin,\u201d\n _Rev. d\u2019Hist. et de Litt. Rel._, 1901, 1902; II. 29 _n._ 1\n\n Tyrrell, Rev. George, _Hard Sayings_, 1898; I. 89; II. 230\n _Lex Orandi_, 1903; II. 268, 337 _n._ 1\n _The faith of the Millions_, 1901, Vol. II.; II. 353, 354\n\n\n Ueberweg-Heinze, _Grundriss d. Gesch. d. Philosophie_, Part II., ed.\n 1898; II. 314, 316, 317\n\n\n Vallebona, Sebastiano, _La Perla dei Fieschi_, ed. 1887, I. 129 _n._ 3,\n 144, 145 _n._ 1, 337, 338 _n._ 1\n\n Vernazza Battista, Ven., _Opere Spirituali, Genova_, 1755, Vol. I.\n Preface; I. 100, 117, 344 _n._ 2\n Vol. V. 218-227, _Colloquii_; I. 346-358\n Vol. VI. 192-248, _Letters_; I. 343-344, 359-364, 409 _n._ 1, 2\n\n _Vita e Dottrina di S. Caterina da Genova._ Nona Ed. Genovese. Sordi-Muti\n (no date). Preface, vii_c_; I. 413, 414\n viii_a_, _b_; _ibid._\n viii_b_; I. 281\n\n _Vita_-proper, Cap. I. 3; I. 104 _n._ 1\n 3_c_; I. 127\n Cap. II. 4_a_, _b_, _c_; I. 105\n 4_a_-5_b_; I. 404-406\n 4_a_-5_c_; I. 458-460\n 4_c_-5_a_; I. 107, 108\n 4_c_; I. 108 _n._ 1\n 5_a-c_; _ibid._\n 5_b_; I. 181-412\n 5_b-c_; I. 108 _n._ 2\n 5_c_-6; I. 112, 121 _n._ 3\n 6; I. 118-119\n 6_a_; I. 334 _n._ 1\n 6_b_; I. 118, 412\n 6_c_; I. 397\n Cap. III. 7_a_; I. 114 _n._ 2\n 7_b_; I. 116\n 8_a_; I. 280\n 8-9; I. 115\n 8_c_; I. 263, 273, 280\n 9_b_; I. 180 _n._ 3, 263, 265, 273\n Cap. IV. 10_a_; I. 135 _n._ 1, 136 _n._ 2\n 10_b_; I. 180 _n._ 1\n 11_b_; I. 273\n 11_b-c_; I. 264\n 11_c_; I. 137 _n._ 1\n Cap. V. 12_b_-13_b_; I. 121 _n._ 3\n 13_c_; I. 401\n 14_b_; I. 134 _n._ 2\n Cap. VI. 14_c_; I. 121 _n._ 3, 393\n 15_b_; I. 139, 267, 273, 280\n 15_c_-16_a_; I. 140, 265\n 16_b_; I. 118 _n._ 2, 139\n Cap. VII. 17_b_; I. 140\n 19_b_; I. 274\n Cap. VIII. 20_a_; I. 401\n 20_b_; I. 142 _n._ 2\n 20_c_; I. 143\n 21_a_; I. 407\n 21_a-b_; I. 401\n 21_b_; I. 144, 145 _n._ 1\n 21_c_; I. 143 _n._ 2\n 22_b_; I. 265\n Cap. IX. 22_c_; I. 267, 277\n 23_a_; I. 139, 279\n 23_b_; I. 267, 274\n 23_c_; I. 263, 277\n 24_a_; I. 277, 279\n 24_b_; I. 274\n Cap. X. 25_c_-26_a_; I. 265\n 26_b_; I. 266\n Cap. XI. 27_a_; I. 280\n 28_c_-29_b_; I. 269\n 29_c_; I. 262, 278\n 30_a_; I. 278\n Cap. XII. 30_b_; I. 262\n 31_b_; I. 271\n 31_c_-32_a_; I. 268\n Cap. XIII. 32_c_; I. 409 _n._ 1\n 33_c_-33_b_; I. 261\n 33_b_; I. 283; II. 222\n Cap. XIV. 34_c_; I. 277\n 36_b_; I. 263, 266\n 36_c_; I. 266\n 37; I. 259\n 38_b_-39_a_; I. 282\n 39_b_; I. 162 _n._ 3\n Cap. XV. 39_b_-116_b_; II. 294\n Cap. XVI. 42_a_; I. 270\n 42_b_; I. 269\n 43_c_; I. 269, 278\n Cap. XVII. 47_b_; I. 139, 161, 162\n 47_c_-48_a_; II. 92\n Cap. XVIII. 48_b_; I. 266\n 49_a_; I. 139, 267\n 50_a_; I. 161, 162\n 50_b_; I. 266\n Cap. XIX. 51-52; I. 140 _n._ 4, 141 _n._ 1\n 51_a_-53_b_; I. 390 _n._ 2, 451\n 51_b_; I. 279\n 52_a_; I. 279\n 52_c_-53_a_; I. 272\n 53_b_; I. 265, 276\n Cap. XX. 54_b-c_; I. 272\n 55_c_-56_a_; I. 262\n 56_b_, _c_; I. 123, 124 _n._ 1\n Cap. XXII. 59_c_; I. 274, 275\n Cap. XXIII. 60_c_; I. 280\n 61_a_; I. 262\n 61_c_; I. 277\n 62_a_; I. 259, 387\n Cap. XXIV. 64_b_; I. 287\n Cap. XXV. 66_a_; I. 268\n 66_b_; I. 268\n 67_c_; I. 265\n Cap. XXVI. 69_a_; I. 267\n Cap. XXVII. 71_c_; I. 198 _n._ 1\n 72_b_; I. 162, 163. 164\n Cap. XXIX. 74_b_; I. 263\n 75_b_; I. 268\n 76; I. 387\n 76_a_; I. 272\n 76_c_; I. 262, 275\n 77_a_; I. 275\n 77_b_; I. 277; II. 50\n Cap. XXX. 78_c_; I. 284\n Cap. XXXI. 79_c_; I. 262\n 80_b_; I. 265\n 80_c_-81_a_; I. 263\n 81_b-c_; I. 271\n 82_a_: I. 271\n 82_b_-83_a_; I. 394-395\n 83_a_; I. 259\n Cap. XXXII. 83_c_-84_a_; I. 270\n 86_b_; _ibid._\n 87_a_; _ibid._\n 87_c_; I. 268, 276; II. 50\n Cap. XXXIV. 91_c_; I. 262\n 92_a_; I. 259\n Cap. XXXVI. 94_b_-95_c_; I. 160\n 94_a_; I. 276\n 94_b_-95_c_; I. 455\n 94_c_; I. 159 _n._ 1, 279\n 95_b_; I. 279\n 95_c_; I. 127, 272\n 96_b_; I. 148 _n._ 1\n Cap. XXXVII. 97_b_; I. 140, 148 _n._ 1, 160, 161, 409 _n._ 2\n 97_c_; I. 388\n Cap. XXXVIII. 98-99; I. 166, 183 _n._ 1\n 98_a-b_; I. 183, 454\n 98_a_-99_b_; I. 454-455\n 98_c_; I. 192 _n._ 1\n 99_a_; I. 192 _n._ 1\n Cap. XXXIX. 100_c_-101_b_; I. 455\n 101_a-b_; I. 262\n 103_b_; I. 271\n Cap. XL. 105_c_; I. 147 _n._ 1, 265\n Cap. XLI. 106_a_, _c_; I. 268\n 107_a_; I. 268\n 107_b_; I. 274\n 108_b_; I. 270\n 109_b_; I. 276\n Cap. XLII. 113_b_; I. 164 _n._ 2; II. 10\n 113_c_; I. 274\n 114_a_; I. 269\n Cap. XLIII. 115_a_, _b_; I. 162 _n._ 3, 457\n 115_c_; I. 457\n Cap. XLIV. 116_c_; I. 117 _n._ 2, 118 _n._ 1\n 116_c_-121_b_; I. 390 _n._ 4, 455-456\n 117_b_; I. 118 _n._ 1\n 117_b_-121_b_; I. 451, 455-457\n 118_a_, _b_; I. 158 _n._ 1\n 119_b_; I. 185 _n._ 1\n 119_c_; I. 118, 195 _n._ 1, 391\n 120_a_, _b_; I. 195 _n._ 1\n Cap. XLV. 122_b_, _c_-123_a_; I. 150 _n._ 1\n 122_c_; I. 272, 388\n 123, 124; I. 132 _n._ 3\n 123_b_; I. 167, 402\n 123_b_-124_b_; I. 390 _n._ 3, 457\n 124_b_; I. 387\n Cap. XLVI. 124_b_-125; I. 169-171\n 124_c_; I. 388\n 125_a_; I. 272\n 125_b_; I. 402 _n._ 2\n Cap. XLVII. 127-132; I. 166\n 127_a_, _c_; I. 420\n 129_b_; I. 119 _n._ 2\n 129_c_; I. 164 _n._ 2; II. 4\n 130_a_; I. 164 _n._ 2\n 132_a_; I. 188 _n._ 1\n Cap. XLVIII. 132_b_; 188 _n._ 1\n 133_b_; I. 187 _n._ 1, 188, 450\n 134_a_; I. 164 _n._ 2\n 135_a_; I. 189 _n._ 1\n 135_c_-136_a_; I. 189 _n._ 2\n 136_b_; I. 274\n 138_b_; II. 10\n 138_c_; I. 193\n Cap. XLIX. 139_a_; I. 388 _n._ 1\n 139_a_-140_c_; I. 390 _n._ 4\n 139_c_-140_b_; I. 388 _n._ 1\n 140_a_; I. 194 _n._ 1\n 140_b_, _c_; I. 119-120\n 141_b_-145_b_; I. 204 _n._ 1\n 142_a_, _b_, _c_; I. 197 _n._ 2, 3\n 143_b_; I. 197 n, 4; II. 10\n 144_a_; I. 198 _n._ 2\n 144_b_; I. 281\n 144_c_; I. 434\n 145_c_-146_a_; I. 198 _n._ 3\n 146_c_-147_c_; I. 201 _n._ 3 (202), 390, 451\n Cap. L. 148_c_; I. 204 _n._ 2\n 149_b_; I. 205 _n._ 1; II. 10\n 149_c_; I. 205 _n._ 1\n 151_a_, _b_; I. 205 _n._ 4\n 152_b_-153_c_; I. 204 _n._ 1\n 152_c_; II. 10\n 153_a_; I. 209 _n._ 1\n 154_b_; I. 208 _n._ 3, 390, 451\n 155_a_; I. 209 _n._ 1, 273; II. 10\n 155_b_-156_a_; I. 210 _n._ 1, 389, 412, 452\n 156_b_, _c_; I. 210 _n._ 1\n 157_c_; I. 209 _n._ 1\n 158_a_; I. 209 _n._ 1\n 158_b_; I. 210 _n._ 3\n 158_c_-159_a_; I. 211\n 159_c_; I. 213 _n._ 1\n 160_a_, _b_; I. 214\n 160_c_; I. 215\n 161; I. 387\n 161_a_; I. 215\n Cap. LI. 161_c_-163_a_; I. 216-218\n 162_a_; I. 162 _n._ 3\n Cap. LII. 163_b_-164_a_; I. 218 _n._ 2\n 164_b_, _c_; I. 300\n 165_a_; I. 454-455\n 165_c_; I. 300, 454, 455\n\n _Vita-Trattato_, Cap. I. 169_b_; I. 281\n 169_b_-175_c_; I. 435\n 169_b_-184_c_; I. 435-438\n 169_c_-170_a_; I. 286\n 169_c_-170_b_; I. 417\n 169_c_-170_c_; I. 440-442\n 170_b_; I. 283\n Cap. II. 170_c_; I. 287, 291\n 170_c_-171_b_; I. 442-444\n 171_b_; I. 287\n Cap. III. 171_c_; I. 278\n 172_a_; I. 278, 288\n 172_b_; I. 287, 444-445\n Cap. IV. 172_c_; I. 282\n 173_a_; I. 445\n 173_a_, _b_; I. 283\n 173_b_; I. 226; II. 222\n Cap. V. 173_c_, 174_a_; I. 287, 446-447\n Cap. VI. 174_b_; I. 288, 289\n Cap. VII. 175_a_; I. 277, 285\n 175_b_; I. 284\n Cap. IX. 176_a_; I. 284, 285\n Cap. X. 177_b_; I. 284, 287\n Cap. XI. 178_a-b_; I. 438-439\n 178_b_; I. 292, 293\n Cap. XIII. 180_a_-181_c_; I. 437\n 180_b_-181_c_; I. 438-439\n Cap. XVI. 181_c_, 182_b_; I. 438-439\n 182_b_; I. 286, 290\n Cap. XVII. 183_c_; I. 274\n\n _Vita-Dialogo_, Part I. 185-225; I. 396-397\n 185_c_-190_c_, 191_a_-198_a_; I. 397 _n._ 1\n Cap. VI. 197_a_; I. 400\n 198_b_-206_b_; I. 398 _n._ 1\n Cap. VIII. 199_c_-202_c_; I. 404\n 201_b_; I. 409 _n._ 2\n 202_c_-208_b_; I. 404-406\n 203_a_; I. 124\n Cap. XI. 208_c_-209_b_; I. 404, 405\n Cap. XII. 209_c_-211_b_; I. 409 _n._ 1\n 207_c_-212_a_; I. 398 _n._ 4\n 211_a_; I. 404-406, 409 _n._ 2\n 211_b_; I. 400, 404-406, 409 _n._ 1, 412\n 211_c_; I. 409 _n._ 1\n Cap. XIII. 212_b_, _c_; I. 398 _n._ 5\n 212_c_; I. 146, 429\n 212_c_-213_a_; I. 406-407\n Cap. XIV. 213_c_-225_c_; I. 398 _n._ 6, 420-421\n Cap. XV. 215_c_-216_a_; I. 399 _n._ 2, 408 _n._ 5\n Cap. XVIII. 220_c_; I. 401, 406-407\n 221_b_; I. 431\n Cap. XIX. 221_c_; 400, 406-407\n 221, 222_a_; I. 402\n 222_b_; I. 406-407\n Cap. XX. 222_c_; I. 401\n 223_c_; I. 400\n Part II. 226_b_-242_b_; I. 419\n 226_c_-241_b_; I. 420\n 227_a_-241_b_; I. 420-421\n Cap. III. 231_a_; I. 430\n 232_b_-245_c_; I. 419\n 232_b_; I. 431\n Cap. V. 234_b_: I. 427\n Cap. IX. 241_b_; I. 427-428\n 241_c_-245_c_; I. 491\n Cap. X. 242_b_; I. 430, 431\n Cap. XI. 245_c_; I. 417\n Part III. Cap. I. 247_b_; I. 432\n 248_c_; I. 430, 432\n 249_a_; I. 430\n Cap. II. 250_a_, _b_; I. 160, 161\n 250_a_-263_c_; I. 422\n 250_b_; I. 430\n Cap. VI. 259_c_; I. 432\n 260_b_; I. 428\n 264_a_-271_a_; I. 423\n Cap. VIII. 264_b_; I. 412, 433\n Cap. IX. 266_a_, _c_; I. 425, 426\n 266_b_; I. 432\n Cap. X. 268_c_; I. 428\n Cap. XI. 269_c_; I. 428\n 270_b_; I. 428\n C. XII. XIII. 271_b_-275_a_; I. 424\n Cap. XIII. 273_a_; I. 429\n 275_a_; I. 429\n\n _Vita-Brevi Notizie_ (Maineri), _Traslazione_, 278-282;\n I. 306 _n._ 1\n 278_b_, _c_; I. 304\n _Miracoli_, 282_b_; I. 302\n\n _Vita Venerabilis Lukardis_, in \u201cAnalecta Bollandiana,\u201d XVIII.\n 1899; II. 52-55\n\n Volkelt, J., Prof., _Erfahrung u. Denken_, 1886; II. 280\n _Kant\u2019s Erkenntnisstheorie_, 1879; I. 56 _n._ 1; II. 276-278\n _Schopenhauer_, 1900; II. 370, 371\n\n\n Ward, James, Prof., _Naturalism and Agnosticism_, ed. 1905;\n II. 196 _n._ 1\n \u201cMechanism and Morals,\u201d _Hibbert Journal_, Oct. 1905;\n II. 197 _n._ 1\n \u201cOn the Definition of Psychology,\u201d _Journal of Psych._, Vol. I.,\n 1904; II. 280\n \u201cPresent Problems of Psychology,\u201d (American) _Philosophical Review_,\n 1904; II. 277-278\n\n Weinel, Prof. H., _Die Wirkungen des Geistes u. der Geister_, 1899, 309;\n II. 43 _n._ 1\n\n Wesley, John, _Journal_, ed. Parker, 1903; II. 4 _n._ 4\n\n Windelband, Prof. W., \u201cDas Heilige,\u201d in _Pr\u00e4ludien_, 1903; II. 262\n\n\n Zeller, Prof. Edward, _Philosophie der Griechen_, Part II. ed. 1879;\n I. 312\n Part III., Div. 2, ed. 1881; II. 313\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] _Vita_, pp. 143_b_; 149_b_, 159_b_; 153_a_.\n\n[2] _Ibid._ p. 153_c_.\n\n[3] _Ibid._ pp. 129_c_, 134_a_.\n\n[4] I have already traced the steps in the growth of this legend. It\nis no doubt this element in the biography which irritated John Wesley,\nthe man of absolute judgments; although he himself, with shrewd good\nsense, indicates its possible secondary origin. \u201cI am sure this was a\nfool of a Saint; that is, if it was not the folly of her historian, who\nhas aggrandized her into a mere idiot\u201d (_Journal_, ed. P. L. Parker,\nLondon, 1903).\n\n[5] _Vita_, pp. 127_c_, 143_b_, 144_b_.\n\n[6] _Life_, tr. by D. Lewis, London, ed. 1888, pp. 27, 420.\n\n[7] _Existence de Dieu_, I, 1, 31: _\u0152uvres_, ed. Versailles, 1820, Vol.\nI, p. 51.\n\n[8] Pierre Janet, _Automatisme Psychologique_, ed. 1903; _Etat Mental\ndes Hysteriques_, 2 vols., 1892, 1893. Hermann Gunkel, _Die Wirkungen\ndes heiligen Geistes_, G\u00f6ttingen, 1899. Heinrich Weinel, _Die Wirkungen\ndes Geistes und der Geister_, Freiburg, 1899. William James, _The\nVarieties of Religious Experience_, London, 1902.\n\n[9] Pierre Janet, _op. cit._ Alfred Binet, _Les Alt\u00e9rations de la\nPersonnalit\u00e9_, Paris, 1902. M. Th. Coconnier, _L\u2019Hypnotisme Franc_,\nParis, 1897.\n\n[10] W. James, _op. cit._, especially pp. 1-25. H. Weinel, _op.\ncit._, especially pp. 128-137; 161-208. Bernouilli, _Die Heiligen der\nMerowinger_, T\u00fcbingen, 1900, pp. 2-6. B. Duhm, _Das Geheimniss in der\nReligion_, T\u00fcbingen, 1896.\n\n[11] H. Bergson, _Essai sur les Donn\u00e9es Imm\u00e9diates de la Conscience_,\ned. 1898. H. Jones, _The Philosophy of Lotze_, 1895. J. Ward,\n_Naturalism and Agnosticism_, 2 vols., 1899. M. Blondel, _l\u2019Action_,\n1893. J. Volkelt, _Kant\u2019s Erkenntnisstheorie_, 1879; _Erfahrung und\nDenken_, 1886. H. M\u00fcnsterberg, _Psychology and Life_, 1899. D. Mercier\n_Crit\u00e9riologie G\u00e9n\u00e9rale_, ed. 1900.\n\n[12] _Vita_, pp. 96_c_; 117_b_; 127_a_; 97_c_, 133_b_ (dated November\n11, 1509, in MSS.); 146_b_; 148_a_.\n\n[13] From my authenticated copies of the original wills in the Archivio\ndi Stato, Genoa.\n\n[14] _Vita_, pp. 113_b_, 149_c_; 143_b_, 152_c_; 138_b_, 155_a_. Note\nthe parallels in St. Teresa\u2019s _Life_, written by herself, tr. D.\nLewis, ed. 1888. P. 234: \u201cWhen these (spiritual) impetuosities are\nnot very violent, the soul seeks relief through certain penances; the\npainfulness of which, and even the shedding of blood, are no more felt\nthan if the body were dead.\u201d P. 30: \u201cI was unable to move either arm or\nfoot, or hand or head, unless others moved me. I could move, however,\nI think, one finger of my right hand.\u201d P. 31: \u201cI was paralytic, though\ngetting better, for about three years.\u201d\n\n[15] Hyper-aesthesia and sensation of heat: _Vita_, pp. 142_a_, 153_a_.\nIncrease of movement: _ibid._, and pp. 145_b_, 143_a_, 153_c_, 141_a_.\nLoss of speech and sight: pp. 141_b_, 141_c_, 159_c_. Localization of\nheat: p. 157_b_. Haemorrhages: 138_c_, 159_c_, 160_a_. Concavities\nand jaundice: pp. 144_a_, 153_a_. Spasms: pp. 143_c_, 71_c_, 141_c_,\n142_b_. Cf. St. Teresa, _loc. cit._ p. 30: \u201cAs to touching me, that was\nimpossible, for I was so bruised that I could not endure it. They used\nto move me in a sheet, one holding one end, and another the other.\u201d P.\n31: \u201cI began to crawl on my hands and feet.\u201d P. 263: \u201cI felt myself on\nfire: this inward fire and despair.\u2026\u201d P. 17: \u201cThe fainting fits began\nto be more frequent; and my heart was so seriously affected, that those\nwho saw it were alarmed.\u201d P. 27: \u201cIt seemed to me as if my heart had\nbeen seized by sharp teeth.\u201d P. 235: \u201cI saw, in the Angel\u2019s hand, a\nlong spear of gold, and at the iron\u2019s point there seemed to be a little\nfire. He appeared to me to be thrusting it at times into my heart, and\nto pierce my very entrails.\u2026 The pain is not bodily, but spiritual.\u201d\n\n[16] Swallow: _Vita_, pp. 149_c_, 150_a_; 159_b_; 159_c_; 150_a_.\nOdours and colours: 153_c_, 154_b_. Cf. St. Teresa, _loc. cit._ p. 27:\n\u201cI could eat nothing whatever, only drink. I had a great loathing for\nfood.\u201d P. 43: \u201cI have been suffering for twenty years from sickness\nevery morning.\u201d P. 30: \u201cThere was a choking in my throat \u2026 I could\nnot swallow even a drop of water.\u201d P. 263: \u201cA sense of oppression, of\nstifling.\u201d\n\n[17] Exclamations: _Vita_, pp. 144_a_, 148_b_, 155_a_. Laughter:\n_ibid._ 145_c_, 148_b_, 149_b_, 157_c_. Sudden changes of condition:\n135_b_, 138_c_, 159_b_. Cf. St. Teresa, _loc. cit._ pp. 28, 29: \u201cThat\nvery night,\u201d Feast of the Assumption, 1537, \u201cmy sickness became so\nacute that, for about four days, I remained insensible. For a day and a\nhalf the grave was open, waiting for my body. But it pleased Our Lord I\nshould come to myself. I wished to go to confession at once. Though my\nsufferings were unendurable, and my perceptions dull, yet my confession\nwas, I believe, complete. I communicated with many tears.\u201d\n\n[18] _Vita_, pp. 71_c_; 145_c_; 147_b_; 159_c_, 159_a_; 127_a_. Cf.\nSt. Teresa, _loc. cit._ p. 23: \u201cI was in my sister\u2019s house, for the\npurpose of undergoing medical treatment--they took the utmost care of\nmy comfort.\u201d P. 27: \u201cIn two months, so strong were the medicines, my\nlife was nearly worn out.\u201d \u201cThe physicians gave me up: they said I was\nconsumptive.\u201d\n\n[19] Self-knowledge as to \u201cquietudes\u201d: _Vita_, pp. 153_b_, 157_a_.\nMarabotto\u2019s attitude: 139_b_; 141_c_, 143_c_, 149_a_. Relations with\nBoerio: 147_c_, 147_b_. Cf. St. Teresa, _loc. cit._ p. 86: \u201cMy health\nhas been much better since I have ceased to look after my ease and\ncomforts.\u201d\n\n[20] Remark to Vernazza: _Vita_, pp. 98_c_, 99_a_. Persistence of\nintelligence: 141_c_; 159_b_, _c_; 143_a_; 143_c_; 145_b_. Cf. St.\nTeresa, _loc. cit._ p. 408: \u201cShe\u201d (Teresa herself) \u201cnever saw anything\nwith her bodily eyes, nor heard anything with her bodily ears.\u201d P.\n189: \u201cThe words of the divine locutions are very distinctly formed;\nbut by the bodily ear they are not heard.\u201d P. 191: \u201cIn ecstasy, the\nmemory can hardly do anything at all, and the imagination is, as it\nwere, suspended.\u201d P. 142: \u201cYou see and feel yourself carried away, you\nknow not whither.\u201d P. 187: \u201cI fell into a trance; I was carried out of\nmyself. It was most plain.\u201d\n\n[21] Picture: _Vita_, p. 135_a_;. Red and black robes: 154_b_, 156_c_.\nSuggestions of odour: 118_c_, 119_a_; 9_c_, 8_a_, 9_b_. Cf. St. Teresa,\n_loc. cit_. pp. 57, 58: \u201cOne day, I saw a picture of Christ most\ngrievously wounded: the very sight of it moved me.\u201d P. 247: \u201cI used to\npray much to Our Lord for that living water of which He spoke to the\nSamaritan woman: I had always a picture of it with this inscription:\n\u2018Domine, da mihi aquam.\u2019\u201d P. 231: \u201cOnce when I was holding in my\nhand the cross of my rosary, He took it from me into His own hand.\nHe returned it; but it was then four large stones incomparably more\nprecious than diamonds: the five wounds were delineated on them with\nthe most admirable art. He said to me that for the future that cross\nwould appear so to me always, and so it did. The precious stones were\nseen, however, only by myself.\u201d\n\n[22] Synchronisms: _Vita_, pp. 148_b_; 150_b_; 152_a_, 160_c_, 161_b_.\nCommunion and ordinary food: 154_a_, 154_c_, 138_c_; 154_c_. Heats:\n\u201cAssalto,\u201d _e.g._ 138_b_, _c_; 143_a_, _c_; \u201cferita\u201d and \u201csaetta,\u201d\n_e.g._ 141_a_, _c_; 145_a_. Their localization: 135_a_, 141_c_; 153_a_;\n142_a_, 158_a_. Their psycho-physical character: 135_b_, 144_b_. Thirst\nand its suggestion: 149_c_, 159_c_; 76_c_; 152_b_, 135_a_. Paralyses:\n134_b_; 149_c_. Cf. St. Teresa, _op. cit._ p. 28: her death-swoon\noccurs on evening of the Assumption. P. 235: Heat, piercing of the\nheart as by a spear, and a spiritual (not bodily) pain, are all united\nin the experience of the heart-piercing Angel. P. 423: \u201cAnother prayer\nvery common is a certain kind of wounding; for it really seems to the\nsoul as if an arrow were thrust through the heart or through itself.\nThe suffering is not one of sense, nor is the wound physical; it is in\nthe interior of the soul.\u201d\n\n[23] _Vita_, pp. 158_a_; 160_a_. Cf. St. Teresa, _op. cit._ p. 41: \u201cWe\nsaw something like a great toad crawling towards us.\u2026 The impression\nit made on me was such, that I think it must have had a meaning.\u201d\nContrast, with this na\u00efvely sensible sight and the absence of all\ninterior assurance, such a spiritual vision as \u201cChrist stood before me,\nstern and grave. I saw Him with the eyes of the soul. The impression\nremained with me that the vision was from God, and not an imagination\u201d\n(pp. 40, 41). Another quasi-sensible sight, with no interior assurance,\nor question as to its provenance and value, is given on pp. 248, 249:\n\u201cOnce Satan, in an abominable shape, appeared on my left hand. I looked\nat his mouth in particular, because he spoke, and it was horrible. A\nhuge flame seemed to issue out of his body, perfectly bright without\nany shadow.\u201d Another such impression is recorded on p. 252: \u201cI thought\nthe evil spirits would have suffocated me one night.\u2026 I saw a great\ntroop of them rush away as if tumbling over a precipice.\u201d\n\n[24] _Lives of the Saints_, ed. 1898, Vol. X, September 15.\n\n[25] Pierre Janet, _Etat Mental des Hysteriques_, 2 vols., Paris, 1892,\n1894: Vol. II, pp. 260, 261; 280; Vol. I, pp. 225, 63.\n\n[26] _Ibid._ Vol. I, pp. 63, 225, 226.\n\n[27] Pierre Janet, _Etat Mental_, Vol. I, pp. 226, 227.\n\n[28] _Ibid._ Vol. II, pp. 253, 257.\n\n[29] Pierre Janet, _Etat Mental_, Vol. I, pp. 7, 8, 11, 12, 57, 21.\n\n[30] _Ibid._ Vol. II, pp. 82, 91; 70, 71.\n\n[31] _Ibid._ Vol. II. Troubles of movement, pp. 105, 106; of nutrition,\npp. 285, 70, 71; strangulation, heart palpitation, fever heats, p. 282;\nhaemorrhages and red patches, p. 283; jaundice (_ict\u00e8re emotionnel_),\np. 287; and note the \u201cischurie,\u201d p. 283, top, compared with _Vita_, p.\n12_a_.\n\n[32] Pierre Janet, _Etat Mental_, Vol I, p. 140; Vol. II, pp. 14, 72,\n165.\n\n[33] _Ibid._ Vol. I, pp. 218, 219; 158, 159.\n\n[34] The biographical chapters of Volume I give all the facts and\nreferences alluded to in this paragraph. It would be easy to find\nparallels for most of these peripheral disturbances and great central\nnormalities in St. Teresa\u2019s life.\n\n[35] Prof. W. James has got some very sensible considerations on the\npace of a conversion (as distinct from its spiritual significance,\ndepth, persistence, and fruitfulness) being primarily a matter of\ntemperament: _Varieties of Religious Experience_, 1902, pp. 227-240.\n\n[36] By the term \u201cvisionless,\u201d I do not mean to affirm anything as to\nthe presence or absence of ideas or mental images during the times so\ndescribed, but to register the simple fact, that, for her own memory\nafter the event, she was, at the time, without any one persistent,\nexternal-seeming image.--Note how St. Ignatius Loyola in his\n_Testament_, ed. London, 1900, pp. 91, 92, considered the profoundest\nspiritual experience of his life to have been one unaccompanied or\nexpressed by any vision: \u201cOn his way\u201d to a Church near Manresa, \u201che sat\ndown facing the stream, which was running deep. While he was sitting\nthere, the eyes of his mind were opened,\u201d not so as to see any kind of\nvision, but \u201cso as to understand and comprehend spiritual things \u2026 with\nsuch clearness that for him all these things were made new. If all the\nenlightenment and help he had received from God in the whole course of\nhis life \u2026 were gathered together in one heap, these all would appear\nless than he had been given at this one time.\u201d\n\n[37] I would draw the reader\u2019s attention to the very interesting\nparallels to many of the above-mentioned peculiarities furnished both\nby St. Teresa in her _Life_, _passim_, and by Battista Vernazza in the\nAutobiographical statements which I have given here in Chapter VIII.\n\n[38] The omnipresence of neural conditions and consequences for all and\nevery mental and volitional activity has been admirably brought out by\nProf. W. James, in his _Varieties of Religious Experience_, 1902, Vol.\nI, pp. 1-25.\n\n[39] H. Weinel\u2019s _Die Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geister im\nnachapostolischen Zeitalter, bis auf Iren\u00e4us_, 1899, contains an\nadmirably careful investigation of these things.\n\n[40] _Life_, written by herself, ed. cit. pp. 235, 423; 136.\n\n[41] _Ibid._ pp. 149, 420.\n\n[42] _Ibid._ pp. xxii, 28.\n\n[43] It is to Dr. Lightfoot\u2019s fine _Excursus in St. Paul\u2019s Epistle to\nthe Galatians_, ed. 1881, pp. 186-191, that I owe all the Pauline texts\nand most of the considerations reproduced above.\n\n[44] Visions of Jahve\u2019s glory: i, 1-28; iii, 22-27 xl, 1; xliv, 4. The\nfive other Ecstasies and Visions: viii, 1 foll.; xi, 1 foll.; xxiv,\n1 foll.; xxxiii, 22; xxxvii, 1 foll. Second Sight: viii, 16; xi, 13;\nxxiv, 1. Representative Actions: iv, 1-3, 7; iv, 4-6, 8; iv, 10; ix,\n11-15; xii, 1-16; xii, 17-20; xxi, 11, 12; xxi, 23-32; xxiv, 1-14;\nxxiv, 15-27; xxxiii, 22; xxxvii, 15-28.\n\n[45] The above translation and interpretation is based upon\nKr\u00e4tzschmar\u2019s admirably psychological commentary, _Das Buch Ezechiel_,\nG\u00f6ttingen, 1900, pp. v, vi; 45, 49. But I think he is wrong in taking\nthat six months\u2019 abnormal condition to have given rise, in Ezekiel\u2019s\nmind, to a belief in a previous divine order and to an interpretation\nof this order. All the strictly analogical cases of religious ecstasy,\nnot hysteria, point to a strong mental impression, such as that order\nand belief having preceded and occasioned the peculiar psycho-physical\nstate.\n\n[46] _Op. cit._ pp. 190_c_; 192_c_, 193_a_.\n\n[47] See Prof. W. James\u2019s admirable account of these irruptions in his\n_Varieties of Religious Experience_, 1902, pp. 231-237.\n\n[48] _Life_, written by Herself, pp. 190_b_; 196_b_; 224_c_; 295_c_;\n413_b_.\n\n[49] _Vita_, passim; _Life_, ed. cit. pp. 40, 41; 408; 206. _Vita_, pp.\n87_c_, 77_b_.\n\n[50] _Ascent of Mount Carmel_, ed. cit. pp. 159, 163; 264, 265, 102,\n195; _Spiritual Canticle_, ed. cit. p. 238; _Ascent_, pp. 26, 27;\n_Canticle_, pp. 206, 207.\n\n[51] Two Confessors of hers are mentioned by her, _Vita_, p. 352:\nFathers Henry of M\u00fchlhausen, and Eberhard of the Friars Preachers.\n\n[52] _Analecta_, _loc. cit._ p. 310.\n\n[53] _Analecta_, pp. 311-313.\n\n[54] _Analecta_, pp. 314, 315.\n\n[55] _Vita_, _loc. cit._ pp. 317, 319.\n\n[56] _Vita_, pp. 319, 320.\n\n[57] _Ibid._, _loc. cit._ pp. 327, 334, 352.\n\n[58] _The Life of Father Hecker_, by the Rev. Walter Elliott, New York,\n1894, pp. 371, 372, 418.\n\n[59] Robert Browning, in _Rabbi Ben Ezra_, viii; Matthew Arnold, in\n_Culture and Anarchy_, 21; Prof. James Seth, in _A Study of Ethical\nPrinciples_, 1894, pp. 260-262; and Prof. Percy Gardner, in _Oxford at\nthe Cross Roads_, 1903, pp. 12-14, have all admirably insisted upon\nthis most important point.\n\n[60] I owe much clearness of conception as to the function of\nauto-suggestion and mono-ideism to the very remarkable paper of Prof.\nEmil Boutroux, \u201cLa Psychologie du Mysticisme,\u201d in the _Bulletin de\nl\u2019Institut Psychologique International_, Paris, 1902, pp. 9-26: Engl.\ntr. in the _International Journal of Ethics_, Philadelphia, Jan. 1908.\nThere are also many most useful facts and reflections in Prof. Henri\nJoly\u2019s _Psychology of the Saints_, Engl. tr., 1898, pp. 64-117.\n\n[61] In Chapter XII, \u00a7 iv, I shall show reason for strongly suspecting\nthat Catherine possessed some knowledge, probably derived from\nan intermediate Christian source, of certain passages in Plato\u2019s\nDialogues. But the influence of these passages can, in any case, only\nbe traced in her Purgatorial doctrine, and had better be discussed\ntogether with this doctrine itself.\n\n[62] My chief obligations are here to Prof. H. J. Holtzmann\u2019s _Lehrbuch\nder Neutestamentlichen Theologie_, 1897, Vol. II, pp. 1-225: \u201cDer\nPaulinismus\u201d; but I have also learnt from Estius and Dr. Lightfoot, and\nfrom my own direct studies in St. Paul, Philo, and Plato.\n\n[63] _Symposium_, 216_e_.\n\n[64] 1 Cor. xv, 35-53.\n\n[65] E. Grafe, \u201cVerh\u00e4ltniss der paulinischen Schriften zur Sapientia\nSalomonis,\u201d in _Theol. Abhandlungen Carl von Weizs\u00e4cker Gewidmet_,\n1892, pp. 274-276.\n\n[66] \u201cThe love of Christ,\u201d Rom. viii, 35, is identical with \u201cthe love\nof God which is in Christ Jesus,\u201d Rom. viii, 39. \u201cThe Spirit of God\ndwelleth in you,\u201d Rom. viii, 9; 1 Cor. iii, 16. \u201cI live, not I: but\nChrist dwelleth in me,\u201d Gal. ii, 20.\n\n[67] H. J. Holtzmann, _op. cit._ Vol. II, p. 145.\n\n[68] Holtzmann, _op. cit._ Vol. II, pp. 151, 152.\n\n[69] My chief obligations are here again to Dr. H. J. Holtzmann\u2019s\n_Neutestamentliche Theologie_, 1897, Vol. II, pp. 354-390; 394-396;\n399-401; 426-430; 447-466; 466-521.\n\n[70] I am much indebted to the thorough and convincing monograph of\nthe Catholic Priest and Professor Dr. Hugo Koch, _Pseudo-Dionysius\nAreopagita in seinen Beziehungen sum Neo-Platonismus und\nMysterienwesen_, Mainz, 1900, for a fuller understanding of the\nrelations between Dionysius, Proclus, and Plotinus. I have also\nfound much help in H. F. M\u00fcller\u2019s admirable German translation of\nPlotinus, a translation greatly superior to Thomas Taylor\u2019s English\nor to Bouillet\u2019s French translation. And I have greatly benefited by\nthe admirable study of Plotinus in Dr. Edward Caird\u2019s _Evolution of\nTheology in the Greek Philosophers_, 1904, Vol. II, pp. 210-346.\n\n[71] _The Divine Names_, iii, I; ix, 4: English translation by Parker,\n1897, pp. 49, 50; 106.\n\n[72] _Institutio Theologica_, c. 35; c. 31.\n\n[73] _Enneads_, vi, ch. ix, 9.\n\n[74] _Divine Names_, iii, 1; ix, 4: Parker, pp. 27, 104.\n\n[75] _Enneads_, vi, ch. ix, 4.\n\n[76] _Divine Names_, viii, 7: Parker, pp. 98, 99.\n\n[77] _Vita_, pp. 47_c_, 48_a_.\n\n[78] _Divine Names_, iii, 1: Parker, pp. 27, 28.\n\n[79] _In Platonis Alcibiadem_, ii, 78 _seq._\n\n[80] _Divine Names_, iv, 1; iv, 5: Parker, pp. 32, 33; 38.\n\n[81] _In Parmenidem_, iv, 34. _In Cratylum_, pp. 103; 107.\n\n[82] _Republic_, VI, 508_c_. _Theaetetus_, 153_c_.\n\n[83] _Heavenly Hierarchy_, xv, 2: Parker, pp. 56, 57.\n\n[84] _Divine Names_, xi, 1; iv, 2: Parker, pp. 113, 34. _Ad Magnesios_,\nviii, 2.\n\n[85] _Mystic Theology_, iii: Parker, p. 135.\n\n[86] _Platonic Theology_, III, p. 132.\n\n[87] _Enneads_, v, ch. v, 8; vi, ch. ix, 11.\n\n[88] _Divine Names_, iv, 8-10: Parker, pp. 42-45. _In Parmenidem_, vi,\n52 (see Koch, p. 152).\n\n[89] _Divine Names_, i, 1; vii, 3; vii, 1; Mystic Theology, 1; _Divine\nNames_, vii, 3: Parker, pp. 2; 91, 92; 87; 130; 91, 92.\n\n[90] _Divine Names_, iv, 13: Parker, p. 48.\n\n[91] _Enneads_ vi, ch. ix, 9.\n\n[92] _Ibid._ vi, ch. ix, 8; ch. vi, 11.\n\n[93] Parker, p. 142.\n\n[94] _Enneads_, vi, ch. vii, 36; v, ch. iii, 17; v, ch. v, 7.\n\n[95] _Symposium_, 210 E. See the admirable elucidations in Rhode\u2019s\n_Psyche_, ed. 1898, Vol. I, p. 298; Vol. II, pp. 279; 283, 284.\n\n[96] _Divine Names_, i, 5: Parker, p. 8.\n\n[97] _Divine Names_, iv, 6; _Mystic Theology_, i, iii: Parker, pp. 39,\n132.\n\n[98] _In Alcibiadem_, ii, 302.\n\n[99] _Mystic Theology_, iv, v; _Divine Names_ i, 1: Parker, pp. 136,\n137; 1; _In Alcibiadem_, ii, 302.\n\n[100] _Heavenly Hierarchy_, ch. xv, s. 3: Parker, p. 60.\n\n[101] _In Alcibiadem_, iii, 75.\n\n[102] _Divine Names_, iii, 1: Parker, pp. 27, 28. _In Parmenidem_, iv,\n68.\n\n[103] _Divine Names_, i, 5; _Ecclesiastical Hierarchy_, i, 2; _Divine\nNames_, ix, 5: Parker, pp. 8, 69, 104.\n\n[104] _Institutio Theologica_, c. 129.\n\n[105] _Ecclesiastical Hierarchy_, iii, 3, 7: Parker, p. 97.\n\n[106] _Divine Names_, i, 6; viii, 3; 5: Parker, pp. 10, 95, 96.\n\n[107] _In Parmenidem_, iv, 34; v.\n\n[108] _Divine Names_ viii, 2; iv, 4; iv, 20: Parker, pp. 95, 84, 57.\n\n[109] _Laude de lo contemplativo et extatico B. F. Jacopone de lo\nOrdine de lo Seraphico S. Francesco.\u2026_ In Firenze, per Ser Francesco\nBonaccorsi, MCCCCLXXXX. Only the sheets are numbered; and two Lode\nhave, by mistake, been both numbered LVIII: I have indicated them by\nLVIII_a_ and LVIII_b_ respectively. I have much felt the absence of any\nmonograph on the sources and character of Jacopone\u2019s doctrine.\n\n[110] _Enneads_, vi, ch. ix, II.\n\n[111] _Rabbi Ben Ezra_, XXXI.\n\n[112] E. Caird, \u201cSt. Paul and the Idea of Evolution,\u201d _Hibbert\nJournal_, Vol. II, 1904, pp. 1-19. W. Dilthey has shown this by\nimplication, in his studies of Erasmus, Luther, and Zwingli: _Archiv\nf\u00fcr Geschichte der Philosophie_, Vol. V, 1892, especially, pp. 381-385.\n\n[113] Mark i, 13, and parallels; Matt. xix, 10-12.\n\n[114] Mark vi, 8; Matt. x, 26-38; viii, 19-22; xiii, 30-32; xxxiv, 42,\nand parallels.\n\n[115] Matt. vii, 13, 14; xviii, 1-5; xvi, 24-28.\n\n[116] Mark xiv, 38, and parallels.\n\n[117] Rom. vii, 24, 18.\n\n[118] 2 Cor. v, 1-4 = Wisd. of Sol. ix, 15.\n\n[119] See Erwin Rhode\u2019s _Psyche_, ed. 1898, Vol. II, p. 101, n. 2.\n\n[120] I owe much help towards acquiring this very important conception,\nand all the above similes, to Prof. Ernst Troeltsch\u2019s admirable\nexposition in his \u201cGrundprobleme der Ethik,\u201d _Zeitschrift f. Theologie\nund Kirche_, 1902, pp. 163-178.\n\n[121] _St. Augustine_, ed. Ben., Vol. X, 590_b_, 613_a_, 1973_c_, etc.\nSt. Thomas, _Summa Theol._, suppl., qu. 62, art. 2.\n\n[122] My chief authorities throughout this section have been Bossuet\u2019s\n_Instruction sur les Etats d\u2019Oraison_ of 1687, with the important\ndocuments prefixed and appended to it (_\u0152uvres de Bossuet_, ed.\nVersailles, 1817, Vol. XXVII); F\u00e9nelon\u2019s chief apologetic works,\nespecially his _Instruction Pastorale_, his _Letteres en R\u00e9ponse \u00e0\nDivers Ecrits ou M\u00e9moires_, his _Lettre sur l\u2019Etat Passif_, and his two\nLatin Letters to Pope Clement XI (_\u0152uvres de F\u00e9nelon_, ed. Versailles,\n1820, Vols. IV, VI, VIII, and IX); and Abb\u00e9 Gosselin\u2019s admirably clear,\nimpartial, cautious, and authoritative _Analyse de la Controverse du\nQui\u00e9tisme_. I have studied these works, and the condemned propositions\nof the Beguards, of Molinos, and of F\u00e9nelon, very carefully, and\nbelieve myself to have, in my text, taken up a position identical with\nM. Gosselin\u2019s.\n\n[123] F. C. S. Schiller, Essay \u201cActivity and Substance,\u201d pp.\n204-227,--an admirably thorough piece of work, in _Humanism_, 1903. See\nhis p. 208.\n\n[124] See Heinrich Heppe, _Geschichte der Quietistischen Mystik_,\nBerlin, 1875, p. 521. The obviously strong partisan bias of the author\nagainst Rome,--of which more lower down,--does not destroy the great\nvalue of the large collection of now, in many cases, most rare and\ninaccessible documents given, often _in extenso_, in this interesting\nbook.\n\n[125] Heppe, _op. cit._ pp. 130-133.\n\n[126] There is a good article on Petrucci in the Catholic Freiburg\n_Kirchenlexikon_, 2nd ed., 1895; and Heppe, in his _Geschichte_,\npp. 135-144, gives extracts from his chief book. Bossuet\u2019s attack,\n_\u0152uvres_, ed. 1817, Vol. XXIX.\n\n[127] Reusch, _Der Index der verbotenen B\u00fccher_, 1885, Vol. II, pp.\n611; 622, 623; 625.\n\n[128] Gosselin\u2019s _Analyse, \u0152uvres de F\u00e9nelon_, ed. cit. Vol. IV, pp.\nxci-xcv.\n\n[129] F\u00e9nelon, _Explication \u2026 des Propositions de Molinos_ (_\u0152uvres_,\nVol. IV, pp. 25-86). Gosselin, _Analyse_ (_ibid._ pp. ccxvi-ccxxiii).\n\n[130] _\u0152uvres de F\u00e9nelon_, Vol. VIII, pp. 6, 7.\n\n[131] Heppe, _op. cit._ p. 62. Reusch, _op. cit._ Vol. II, pp. 619, 620.\n\n[132] I write with these approbations before me, as reprinted in the\n_Recueil de Diverses Pi\u00e8ces concernant le Qui\u00e9tisme_, Amsterdam, 1688.\n\n[133] _\u0152uvres de Bossuet_, ed. 1817, Vol. XXVII, pp. 497-502. Heppe,\n_op. cit._ pp. 27_g_ n.; 273-281. Denzinger, _Encheiridion_, ed. 1888,\npp. 266-274.\n\n[134] Reusch, _op. cit._ Vol. II, p. 618 _n._ 1.\n\n[135] See Heppe, p. 264, n.\n\n[136] _Recueil de Diverses Pi\u00e8ces_, pp. 61, 62.\n\n[137] _Varieties of Religious Experience_, 1902, pp. 209, 211.\n\n[138] _De Beatitudine_, c. 3, 3.\n\n[139] I have been much helped in my own direct studies of the sources\nby W. Bousset\u2019s _Die Religion des Judenthums im Neutestamentlichen\nZeitalter_, 1903; by H. J. Holtzmann\u2019s _Neutestamentliche Theologie_,\n1897; and A. J\u00fclicher\u2019s _Gleichnissreden Jesu_, Theil 2, 1899.\n\n[140] Bousset, pp. 395, 396.\n\n[141] Ch. xii, 8, 9; see too ch. ii, 2, 7.\n\n[142] Pirke Aboth, v, 23.\n\n[143] Matt. v, 12; vi, 4, 6, 18, 20; Mark x, 21; ix, 41; Luke x, 7.\n\n[144] Matt. v, 7; vi, 14; xviii, 32.\n\n[145] Matt. v, 5; Luke xiv, 8-11; Matt. x, 39.\n\n[146] Matt. v, 8.\n\n[147] Matt. x, 41, 42.\n\n[148] Matt. xix, 29; Mark x, 23; Luke vi, 38; Matt, xxii, 12; xxv, 21;\nxxiv, 47; Luke xii, 37.\n\n[149] Interesting reasons and parallels for holding the Wedding Garment\nto have been the gift of the King, in Bugge\u2019s _Die Haupt-Parabeln\nJesu_, 1900, pp. 316, 317.\n\n[150] J\u00fclicher, _op. cit._ p. 467. Bugge, _op. cit._ p. 277.\n\n[151] Matt. vi, 1, 2, 5, 16.\n\n[152] Matt. vi, 11; xx, 14; Luke xvii, 10; Matt. vi, 33; v, 48, 44, 45;\nLuke vii, 47. It seems plain that the Parable of the Two Debtors, which\nappears in this last passage, declares how pardon awakens love; and\nthat the sinful woman\u2019s act and Our Lord\u2019s direct comment on it, which\nare now made to serve as that Parable\u2019s frame, demonstrate how love\nproduces pardon. In my text I have been busy only with the second of\nthese twin truths.\n\n[153] Luke vi, 33, 34.\n\n[154] Rom. ii, 6; 2 Cor. v, 10.\n\n[155] 1 Cor. xv, 19, 32.\n\n[156] Gal. iii, 19; 2 Cor. iv, 16; xii, 9; Rom. viii, 31, 35, 37-39;\nxiv, 8.\n\n[157] Ps. lxxiii (lxii), v. 25. I follow Duhm\u2019s restoration of the text.\n\n[158] 1 Cor. xiii, 13; 8, 7.\n\n[159] _\u0152uvres_, ed. Versailles, 1820, Vols. IV to IX.\n\n[160] _R\u00e9ponse: \u0152uvres_, Vol. IV, pp. 119-132; _Instruction: ibid._ pp.\n181-308: _Lettre sur l\u2019Oraison_, Vol. VIII, pp. 3-82; _Lettre sur la\nCharit\u00e9_, Vol IX, pp. 3-56; _Epistola II, ibid._ pp. 617-677.\n\n[161] _The Spiritual Letters of F\u00e9nelon_, London, 1892, Vol. I, pp. xi,\nxii.\n\n[162] _\u0152uvres de F\u00e9nelon_, ed. 1820, Vol. IV, pp. lxxix-ccxxxiv.\n\n[163] _Summa Theologica_, II, ii, qu. 17, art. 8, in corp.\n\n[164] Comment in II, ii, qu. 23, art. 1.\n\n[165] _Summa_, II, ii, qu. 23, art. 6, concl., et in corp.; I, ii, qu.\n28, art. 1, in corp., et ad 2. See also II, ii, qu. 17, art. 6, in\ncorp.; qu. 28, art. 1 ad 3; I, ii, qu. 28, art. 1, in corp., et ad 2.\n\n[166] In Libr. sent. II, dist. 30, qu. 1 ad 2.\n\n[167] _Summa Theol._, III, qu. 85, art. 2 ad 1; I, ii, qu. 114, art. 4,\nin corp. In Libr. sent. III, dist. 30, art. 5.\n\n[168] Some of the finest descriptions of these profoundly organized\nstates common, in some degrees and forms, to all mankind, are to be\nfound in the tenth and eleventh books of St. Augustine\u2019s _Confessions_,\nA.D. 397, and in Henri Bergson\u2019s _Essai sur les Donn\u00e9es Imm\u00e9diates de\nla Conscience_, 1898.\n\n[169] _Stromata_, Book IV, ch. vi, 30, 1; ch. iv, 15, 6.\n\n[170] Proemium in _Reg. Fus. Tract._ n. 3, Vol. II, pp. 329, 330.\n\n[171] _Summa Theol._, II, ii, qu. 27, art. 3.\n\n[172] The obligation for all of acts of Pure Love is clearly taught\nby the condemnations, passed by Popes Alexander VII and Innocent XI,\nupon the opposite contention, in 1665 and 1679: \u201cHomo nullo unquam\nvitae suae tempore tenetur elicere actum Fidei, Spei et Charitatis,\nex vi praeceptorum divinorum ad eas virtutes pertinentium.\u201d Note here\nhow \u201cCharitas\u201d necessarily means Pure Love, since Imperfect Love has\nalready been mentioned in \u201cSpes.\u201d--\u201cProbabile est, ne singulis quidem\nrigorose quinquenniis per se obligare praeceptum charitatis erga Deum.\nTune solum obligat, quando tenemur justificari et non habemus aliam\nviam qua justificari possumus.\u201d Here Pure Love is undoubtedly meant\nby \u201cCharitas,\u201d since, outside of the use of the sacraments, Pure Love\nalone justifies.\n\n[173] _The Problem of Conduct_, 1901, p. 329, n.\n\n[174] _Life, written by Herself_, ch. XXII, tr. by David Lewis, ed.\n1888, pp. 162-174.\n\n[175] Deharbe, _op. cit._ pp. 139-179, has an admirable exposition and\nproof of this point, backed up by conclusive experiences and analyses\nof Saints and Schoolmen.\n\n[176] See Deharbe\u2019s excellent remarks, _op. cit._ pp. 109, 110, n.\n\n[177] _Analyse_, _loc. cit._ pp. cxxii, cxxiii, _Lettre sur l\u2019Oraison\nPassive_, _\u0152uvres_, Vol. VIII, p. 47.\n\n[178] _Analyse_, p. cxxiii.\n\n[179] _Lettre sur l\u2019Oraison Passive_, _\u0152uvres_, Vol. VIII, pp. 10; 18,\n11, 12; 14, 15; 74.\n\n[180] _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_, c. iv, opening of par. 4,\ned. Van Vloten et Land, 1895, Vol. II, p. 4; _ibid._ middle of par.\n3, p. 3; _Ethica_, p. v, prop. xli, _ibid._ Vol. I, p. 264; _ibid._\n_Scholion_, p. 265; _ibid._ prop. xix, p. 251; _ibid._ prop. xx, p.\n251; _ibid._ prop. xlii, p. 265; _ibid._ prop. xxxvi, p. 261.\n\n[181] _Die Philosophischen Schriften von Leibniz_, ed. Gebhardt, Vol.\nVI, 1885, pp. 605, 606; and quotation in Gosselin\u2019s _Analyse, \u0152uvres de\nF\u00e9nelon_, 1820, Vol. IV, pp. clxxviii, clxxvii.\n\n[182] It is to Schweizer\u2019s admirable monograph, _Die\nReligions-Philosophie Kant\u2019s_, 1899, pp. 4-70, that I owe my clear\napprehension of this very interesting doubleness in Kant\u2019s outlook.\n\n[183] _Loc. cit._ pp. 611, 614, 615, 616.\n\n[184] Kant\u2019s _Werke_, ed. Berlin Academy, Vol. IV, 1903, pp. 393, 394;\n396.\n\n[185] Kant, 1904, p. 131.\n\n[186] _The Problem of Conduct_, pp. 336, 337; 329.\n\n[187] _Ibid._ p. 327.\n\n[188] See James Seth, _A Study of Ethical Principles_, 1894, pp.\n193-236, where this position, denominated there \u201cEudaemonism,\u201d is\ncontrasted with \u201cHedonism,\u201d uniquely or at least predominantly occupied\nwith the act\u2019s sensational materials or concomitances, and \u201cRigorism,\u201d\nwith its one-sided insistence upon the rational form and end of action.\n\n[189] Taylor, _op. cit._ p. 901.\n\n[190] _Seconde Lettre \u00e0 Monsieur de Paris, \u0152uvres_, Vol. V, pp. 268,\n269. _Lettres de M. de Cambrai \u00e0 un de ses Amis, ibid._, Vol. IV, p.\n168.\n\n[191] Chantepie de la Saussaye, _Lehrbuch der Religions-Geschichte_,\ned. 1905, Vol. I, pp. 69, 73-83.\n\n[192] Chantepie de la Saussaye, _Lehrbuch der Religions-Geschichte_,\ned. 1887, Vol. I, pp. 248, 249.\n\n[193] _Ibid._ pp. 358, 373.\n\n[194] Oldenberg, _Buddha_, ed. 1897, pp. 310-328; especially 313, 314;\n316, 317; 327, 328.\n\n[195] My chief authority here has been that astonishingly living and\nmany-sided book, Erwin Rhode\u2019s _Psyche_, ed. 1898, especially Vol. II,\npp. 263-295 (Plato); Vol. I, pp. 14-90 (Homer); 91-110 (Hesiod); pp.\n146-199 (the Heroes); pp. 279-319, and Vol. II, pp. 1-136 (Eleusinian\nMysteries, Dionysian Religion, the Orphics). The culminating interest\nof this great work lies in this last treble section and in the Plato\npart.\n\n[196] _Psyche_, Vol. I, pp. 308, 312. _New Chapters in Greek History_,\n1892, pp. 333, 334.\n\n[197] See also the important study of the Abb\u00e9 Touzard, _Le\nD\u00e9veloppement de la Doctrine de l\u2019Immortalit\u00e9, Revue Biblique_, 1898,\npp. 207-241.\n\n[198] Charles, _op. cit._ pp. 52, 53; 58; 61; 84; 124, 125; 126-132;\n68-77.\n\n[199] B. Stade, _Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments_, Vol. I,\n1905, p. 184.\n\n[200] _L\u2019Automatisme Psychologique_, ed. 1903, p. 5.\n\n[201] W. James, _The Principles of Psychology_, 1891, Vol. II, pp.\n442-467.\n\n[202] See Prof. James Ward\u2019s closely knit proof in his _Naturalism and\nAgnosticism_, 2nd ed., 1905, and his striking address, \u201cMechanism and\nMorals,\u201d _Hibbert Journal_, October, 1905.\n\n[203] \u201cThe Desire for Immortality,\u201d in _Humanism_ 1903, pp. 228-249.\n\n[204] _Op. cit._ Lib. XVIII, c. x, ed. 1559, fol. 3413.\n\n[205] Neither she nor her friends can have derived these doctrines\nfrom Ficino\u2019s _Theologia Platonica_, Florence, 1482, since precisely\nthe points in question are quite curiously absent from, or barely\nrecognizable in, that book. See its cc. x and xi, Book XVIII, on\n\u201cthe State of the Impure Soul\u201d and \u201cthe State of the Imperfect Soul\u201d\nrespectively: ed. 1559, fol. 340, _v. seq._ See also foll. 318_r_,\n319_v_.\n\n[206] _Phaedo_, 81_a_-82_a_.\n\n[207] _Laws_, X, 904_a-e_.\n\n[208] _Timaeus_, 41_d_, _e_; 42_b_, _d_, I have, for clearness\u2019 sake,\nturned Plato\u2019s indirect sentences into direct ones; and have taken\nthe _Timaeus_ after the _Laws_, although it is chronologically prior\nto them, because the full balance of his system, (which requires the\noriginally lofty \u201cplace\u201d of each individual soul),--is, I think,\nabandoned in the _Laws_: see 904_a_.\n\n[209] These four passages are all within pp. 110_b_-114_d_ of the\n_Phaedo_.\n\n[210] _Gorgias_, pp. 525_b_, _c_; 526_c_, _d_.\n\n[211] _Ibid._ p. 523_b-e_.\n\n[212] 2 Cor. v, 2, 3.--_Vita_, pp. 109_b_, 66_a_, 171_a_.\n\n[213] _Republic_, X, pp. 617_e_, 619_e_, 920_e_.\n\n[214] _Phaedrus_, p. 249_b_.\n\n[215] _Enneads_, III, 4, 5.\n\n[216] Enarr. in Ps. xxxvi, \u00a7 1, n. 10, ed. Ben., col. 375_b_. See also\n_Enchiridion_, CIX, _ibid._ col. 402_d_.\n\n[217] So in the _De Civitate Dei_, Lib. XXI, c. xxvi, n. 4, _ibid._\ncol. 1037_d_.\n\n[218] _Confess._, Lib. I, c. 2, n. 1; X, c. 26; XIII, c. 7.\n\n[219] _De Genesi ad litt._, Lib. VIII, n. 39, ed. Ben. col. 387_b_; n.\n43, col. 389_a_.\n\n[220] _Ibid._ Lib. XII, n. 32, col. 507_c_. He soon after attempts\nto decide in favour of \u201cincorporeal places,\u201d as the other-world\ndestination of all classes of human souls.\n\n[221] Esra IV, iv, 35. See also iv, 41; vii, 32, 80, 95, 101.\nApocalypse of Baruch, xxx, 2.\n\n[222] _Summa Theol._ suppl., qu. 69, art. 1, in corp. et ad 3; art. 6,\nin corp.; Appendix de Purgat., art. 2, in corp.; suppl., qu. 69, art 7\nconcl.\n\n[223] _De gratia primi hominis_, XIV.\n\n[224] Clemens, _Stromata_, VII, 6. Origen, _De Princ._, II, 10, 4. St.\nGreg. Nyss., _Orat._, XL, 36. St. Greg. Nazianz., _Poema de Seipso_, I,\n546. St. Joann. Damasc., _De Fide Orthod._, cap. ult.\n\n[225] St. Ambros., _In Lucam_, VII, 205. St. Hieron., Ep. 124, 7;\n_Apol. contra Ruf._, II; in Isa. lxv, 24.\n\n[226] _Liber de Fide_ (413 A.D.), 27, 29; ed. Ben., coll. 313_b_,\n314_c_. _De octo Dulcit. quaestm_ (422 A.D.) 12, 13; _ibid._ coll.\n219_d_, 220_a_. Repeated in _Enchiridion_ (423 A.D.?), LXIX; _ibid._\ncol. 382_b_, _c_.\n\n[227] _De Purgatorio_, II, 11.\n\n[228] Denzinger, _Enchiridion_, ed. 1888, No. LXXIII.\n\n[229] _Theol. Dogm._, Vol. II, num. 206.\n\n[230] _\u0152uvres_, ed. Versailles, 1816, Vol. XI, p. 376.\n\n[231] _Le feu du Purgatoire est-il un feu corporel? op. cit._, 1902,\npp. 263-282; 270. I owe most of my references on this point to this\npaper.\n\n[232] _Sixteen Revelations of Mother Juliana of Norwich_, 1373, ed.\n1902, pp. 73, 74, 78.\n\n[233] _Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life_, 1899, pp.\n63, 64.\n\n[234] _Divine Names_, ch. iv, secs, xxiii, xxiv: Parker, pp. 61-64.\n\n[235] _Vita_, pp. 173_b_; 33_b_.\n\n[236] _Summa Theol._, suppl., qu. 69, art. 7 ad 9.\n\n[237] Dionysius, _Divine Names_, ch. iv, sec. xxiii: Parker, p. 63. St.\nThomas, _Summa Theol._, suppl., qu. 98, art. 1, in corp.\n\n[238] _Enchiridion_, CX, ed. Ben., col. 403_c_; CXII, col. 404_c_.\n\n[239] The passages here referred to will be found carefully quoted and\ndiscussed in Petavius\u2019s great _Dogmata Theologica, De Angelis_, III,\nviii, 16, 17, with Zaccaria\u2019s important note (ed. Fournials, 1866, Vol.\nIV, pp. 119-121).\n\n[240] _Dogmata Theologica_, Vol. IV, p. 120_b_. See also the\ninteresting note in the Benedictine Edition of _St. Augustine_, Vol.\nVI, col. 403.\n\n[241] _Vie de M. Emery_, by M. Gosselin, Paris, 1862, Vol. II, pp.\n322-324.\n\n[242] _Vita_ (_Trattato_), p. 173_b_.\n\n[243] So Atzberger, in Scheeben\u2019s _Dogmatik_, Vol. IV (1903), p. 826.\n\n[244] _Enigmas of Life_, ed. 1892, p. 255.\n\n[245] _Divine Names_, ch. iv, secs. 23, 24: Parker, pp, 70, 71.\n\n[246] 2 Cor. iv, 16.\n\n[247] See H. J. Holtzmann, Richard Rothe\u2019s _Speculatives System_, 1899,\npp. 110, 111; 123, 124;--Georg Class, _Ph\u00e4nomenologie und Ontologie des\nMenschlichen Geistes_, 1896, pp. 220, 221;--and that strange mixture of\nstimulating thought, deep earnestness, and fantastic prejudice, Edward\nWhite\u2019s _Life of Christ_, ed. 1876.\n\n[248] _Grammar of Assent_, 1870, p. 417. _Hard Sayings_, 1898, p. 113.\n\n[249] G. E. Lessing, \u201cLeibniz von den Ewigen Strafen,\u201d in Lessing\u2019s\n_S\u00e4mmtliche Werke_, ed. Lachmann-Muncker, 1895, Vol. XI, p. 486. D. F.\nStrauss, _Die christliche Glaubenslehre_, 1841, Vol. II, pp. 684, 685.\nCarl von Hase, _Handbuch der protestantischen Polemik_, ed. 1864, p.\n422. G. T. Fechner, _Die drei Gr\u00fcnde und Motive des Glaubens_, 1863,\npp. 146, 147, 177. G. Anrich, \u201cClemens und Origenes, als Begr\u00fcnder\nder Lehre vom Fegfeuer,\u201d in _Theologische Abhandlungen f\u00fcr H. J.\nHoltzmann_, 1902, p. 120.\n\n[250] W. R. Greg, _Enigmas of Life_, ed. 1892, pp. 256, 257, 259. J. S.\nMill, _Three Essays on Religion_, ed. 1874, p. 211.\n\n[251] Sess. XXV, Decret. de Purgatorio, med.\n\n[252] N. Paulus, _Johann Tetzel_ 1899. Brieger\u2019s review, _Theologische\nLiteratur-Zeitung_, 1900, coll. 117, 118.\n\n[253] 1 Cor. xv, 29.\n\n[254] _De Corona_, III, IV. See M. Salomon Reinach\u2019s interesting\npaper, \u201cl\u2019Origine des Pri\u00e8res pour les Morts,\u201d in _Cultes, Mythes, et\nReligions_, 1905, pp. 316-331.\n\n[255] W. Bacher, _Die Agada der pal\u00e4stinensischen Amor\u00e4er_, Vol. I,\n1892, p. 331.\n\n[256] _Strom._, VII, 26 (Migne, _Ser. Graec_, Vol. IX, col. 541); I, 26\n(_ibid._ Vol. VIII, col. 916); VII, 26 (_ibid._ Vol. IX, col. 540).\n\n[257] _De Princ._, II, 10, 6. _De Orat._, XXIX, p. 263.\n\n[258] _Paedag._, I, 8, p. 51; and Plato, _Gorgias_, p. 477_a_.\n\n[259] I owe here almost everything to the truly classical account in\nRhode\u2019s _Psyche_, ed. 1898, Vol. II, pp. 1-136.\n\n[260] _Republic_ II, p. 364_b_, _c_, _e_.\n\n[261] I take these passages from Anrich\u2019s _Clemens und Origenes, op.\ncit._ p. 102, n. 5.\n\n[262] Clemens, _Strom._, V, 3, p. 236. Origen, _Contra Cels._, VII, 13.\nClemens, _Strom._, IV, 24. Origen, _Contra Cels._, IV, 13.\n\n[263] Dionysius, _Divine Names_, ch. iv, sec. 24: Parker, p. 64. St.\nThomas, _Summa Theol._ I, ii, qu. 86, art. 1 ad 3 et concl.\n\n[264] _Treatise on Purgatory_, by St. Catherine of Genoa, ed. 1880, p.\n31.\n\n[265] Plato, _Cratylus_, p. 400_c_. _Republic_, II, p. 364_e_.\nEuripides, _Orestes_ XXX, _seq._, with Schol. Rhode, _op. cit._ Vol.\nII, p. 101, n. 2.\n\n[266] _Natur. quaest._ III, 28, 7; 30, 7, 8.\n\n[267] Disp. XI, Sec. iv, art. 2, \u00a7\u00a7 13, 10; Disp. XLVII, Sec. i, art 6.\n\n[268] Scheeben\u2019s _Dogmatik_ Vol. IV, 1903, pp. 856 (No. 93), 723.\n\n[269] See Abb\u00e9 Boudhinon\u2019s careful article, \u201cSur l\u2019Histoire des\nIndulgences,\u201d _Revue d\u2019Histoire et de Litt\u00e9rature Religieuses_, 1898,\npp. 435-455, for a vivid illustration of the necessity of explaining\nthe details of this doctrine and practice by history of the most\npatient kind.\n\n[270] Denzinger, _Enchiridion_, ed. 1888, Nos. 387, 588, 859.\n\n[271] Denzinger, _ibid._, Hurter, _op. cit._ ed. 1893, Vol. III, p. 591.\n\n[272] Denzinger, Nos. 778, 951.\n\n[273] Cardinal Manning in _Treatise_, ed. cit. p. 31.\n\n[274] _Op. cit._ pp. 119, 120: \u201cThe Purgatory of the Catholic Church,\nin strictness, bears its name without warrant.\u201d\n\n[275] _Cat._, cc. viii, 35.\n\n[276] _De octo Dulcitii quaest._ 12, 13.\n\n[277] _Summa Theol._, app., qu. 2, art. 4, in corp. et ad 4.\n\n[278] _Divina Commedia_, Purg. II, 40-42. See Faber, _All for Jesus_,\ned. 1889, p. 361.\n\n[279] _De Purgatorio_, Lib. I, c. iv, 6; c. xiv, 22.\n\n[280] _Les Controverses_, Pt. III, ch. ii, art. 1 (end); _\u0152uvres_,\nAnnecy, 1892 _seq._, Vol. I, p. 365.\n\n[281] Faber\u2019s _All for Jesus_, 1853, ch. ix, sec. 4; Cardinal Manning\u2019s\nAppendix (B) to Engl. tr. of St. Catherine\u2019s _Treatise on Purgatory_,\n1858; Cardinal Newman\u2019s _Dream of Gerontius_, 1865.\n\n[282] _In Rom._, Tom. II, i, p. 477.\n\n[283] _Richard Rothe\u2019s Spekulatives System_, 1899, pp. 123, 124.\n\n[284] _Richard Rothe\u2019s Spekulatives System_, 1899, pp. 69; 74, 75.\n\n[285] St. Augustine, _Confessions_, Lib. XI, ch. xxvii, 3; ch. xx; ch.\nxi. _De Trinit._, Lib. XV, ch. 16, ed. Ben., col. 1492 D.--St. Thomas,\n_Summa Theol._, I, qu. 12, art. 10, in corp.\n\n[286] I am here but giving an abstract of Mr. F. C. S. Schiller\u2019s\nadmirable essay, \u201cActivity and Substance,\u201d pp. 204-227 of his\n_Humanism_, 1903, where all the Aristotelian passages are carefully\nquoted and discussed. He is surely right in translating \u1f20\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 by\n\u201cconstancy,\u201d not by \u201crest.\u201d\n\n[287] _Summa Theol._, I, qu. 4, art. 1, concl. qu. 25, art. 1 ad 2 et\nconcl.\n\n[288] Matt. xxii, 32.\n\n[289] _Metaphysic_, xii, 1072_b_, 1074_b_.\n\n[290] E. Caird, _Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers_, 1904\nVol. II, pp. 12, 16. See here, too, the fine discussion of the other,\nrightly immanental as well as transcendental, teaching of Aristotle,\npp. 15, 21.\n\n[291] _Summa Theol._, I, ii, qu. 3, art. 2 ad 4; art. 4, concl.\n\n[292] _Ibid._ I, qu. 14, art. 4, in corp.; qu. 19, art. I, concl.; qu.\n20, art. I, concl.\n\n[293] _Summa Theol._, I, qu. 14, art. 11, 3; qu. 14, art. 2, ad 2; I,\nii, qu. 3, art. 2 ad 4.\n\n[294] _Ibid._ I, qu. 12, art. 8 ad 4; I, ii, qu. 4, art. 8 ad 3.\n\n[295] _Ibid._ I, qu. 14, art. 8, in corp.; art. 11, contra et concl.;\nart. 8, concl.; art. 11, concl.--_Contra Gent._, Lib. III, c. xxi, in\nfine.\n\n[296] _Summa Theol._, II, ii, qu. 3, art. 4, 4; I, qu. 19, art. 2, in\ncorp.; qu. 20, art. 1 ad 1; ad 3; art. 2 ad 1.\n\n[297] Mark xii, 28-34 and parallels; Matt, x, 29; Luke xii, 6; Matt,\nxxv, 10; Mark xiv, 25 and parallels, and elsewhere; Apoc. vii, 9.\n\n[298] Matt. xviii, 12-14; Luke xv, 1-10; John x, 11-16 (Ezekiel xxxiv,\n12-19).\n\n[299] _Summa Theol._, I, qu. 47, art. 1, in corp.\n\n[300] _Summa Theol._, I, qu. 29, art. 3 ad 4; ad 2; in corp. _Contra\nGent._, Lib. II, c. xciv, init.; c. xciii.\n\n[301] _Excitationum_, Lib. VIII, 604.\n\n[302] _The World and the Individual_, Vol. II, p. 430.\n\n[303] G. E. Lessing: _Leibniz von den Ewigen Strafen, Werke_, ed.\nLachmann-Muncker, Vol. XI, 1895, p. 482. E. Troeltsch, _Theologische\nRundschau_, 1893, p. 72.\n\n[304] _Summa Theol._, I, qu. 12, art. 1, in corp.; art. 7, in corp.;\nart. 6 ad 1.\n\n[305] \u201cA Spiritual Canticle,\u201d stanza vii, 10, in _Works_, transl. by D.\nLewis, ed. 1891, pp. 206, 207.\n\n[306] _Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft_, Werke, ed.\nHartenstein, 1868, Vol. VI, pp. 252, 274.\n\n[307] _Kant_, 1904, pp. 129-132.\n\n[308] _Das Historische in Kant\u2019s Religions-philosophie, Kant-Studien_,\n1904, pp. 43, 44.\n\n[309] \u201cDas Heilige,\u201d in _Pr\u00e4ludien_, 1903, pp. 356, 357.\n\n[310] _Elements of the Science of Religion_, 1897, Vol. I, pp. 274,\n275; Vol. II, p. 23.\n\n[311] _Der Verkehr des Christen mit Gott_, ed. 1892, p. 281.\n\n[312] _Der Verkehr des Christen mit Gott_, ed. 1892, pp. 27, 28; 230,\n231; 262; 23.\n\n[313] E. Caird, _Development of Theology in the Greek Philosophers_,\nVol. I, pp, 367, 362. The whole chapter, \u201cDoes the Primacy belong to\nReason or to Will?\u201d pp. 350-382, is admirable in its richness and\nbalance.\n\n[314] _Verkehr des Christen_, pp. 15, 16.\n\n[315] I. Kant, \u201cAnthropologie,\u201d in _Werke_, ed. Berlin Academy,\nVol. VII, 1907, pp. 135, 136. G. W. Leibniz, \u201cNouveaux Essais sur\nl\u2019Entendement,\u201d in _Die philosophischen Schriften von G. W. L._,\u201d ed.\nGerhardt, Vol. V, 1882, pp. 8, 10; 45, 69, 100, 121, 122.\n\n[316] All this first clearly formulated by Leibniz, _op. cit._ pp. 121,\n122.\n\n[317] See his _Varieties of Religious Experience_, 1902, pp. 209-211;\n242, 243; and elsewhere.\n\n[318] _The Prophets of Israel_, 1882, pp. 11, 12; 10, 11.\n\n[319] _Lex Orandi_, 1903, pp. xxix, xxxi.\n\n[320] M. Jastrow, _The Study of Religion_, 1901, pp. 279-286. C. P.\nTiele, _Elements of the Science of Religion_, 1897, Vol. II, pp.\n227-234; L. W. E. Rauwenhoff, _Religions-philosophie_, Germ. tr., ed.\n1894, pp. 109-124. R. Eucken, _Der Wahrheitsgehalt der Religion_, 1901,\npp. 59-238; 303-399. There are important points in pp. 425-438, which I\ndo not accept.\n\n[321] _Rothe\u2019s Spekulatives System_, 1899, pp. 25, 26.\n\n[322] _Elements of the Science of Religion_, 1897, Vol. II, pp. 61, 62.\n\n[323] _Der Kampf um einen geistigen Lebensinhalt_, 1896, p. 309.\n\n[324] _The Evolution of Religion_, 1893, Vol. II, p. 313.\n\n[325] \u201cGrundprobleme der Ethik,\u201d in _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Theologie und\nKirche_, 1902, pp. 164; 166, 167; 172.\n\n[326] _Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung_, I, Anhang, p. 653.\n\n[327] A. E. Taylor\u2019s _The Problem of Conduct_, 1901, contains, pp.\n469-487, a very vigorous and suggestive study of the similarities and\ndifferences between Morality and Religion, marred though it is by\nparadox and impatience.\n\n[328] J. Volkelt, _Immanuel Kant\u2019s Erkenntnisstheorie_, 1879, pp. 258,\n259.\n\n[329] _Ibid._ pp. 206, 208, 209.\n\n[330] J. Volkelt, _Immanuel Kant\u2019s Erkenntnisstheorie_, 1879, p. 244.\n\n[331] James Ward, \u201cPresent Problems of Psychology,\u201d in (American)\n_Philosophical Review_, 1904, p. 607. J. Volkelt, _Kant\u2019s\nErkenntnisstheorie_, p. 241.\n\n[332] In a Letter of 1772, _Briefe_, ed. Berlin Academy, Vol. I, 1900,\np. 126.\n\n[333] H. Jones, _A Critical Account of the Philosophy of Lotze_, 1895,\npp. 102-104; 106, 107; 108, 111.\n\n[334] _The Present Problems_, pp. 606, 607.\n\n[335] J. Volkelt, _Erfahrung und Denken_, 1886, p. 485.\n\n[336] James Ward, \u201cOn the Definition of Psychology,\u201d in _Journal of\nPsychology_, Vol. I, 1904, p. 25.\n\n[337] There is a good description of this doctrine in H. H\u00f6ffding\u2019s\n_S\u00f6ren Kierkegaard_, Stuttgart, 1896, pp. 100-104.\n\n[338] H\u00f6ffding\u2019s _Kierkegaard_, pp. 119, 120.\n\n[339] _Ibid._ p. 123.\n\n[340] See _Works_, ed. London, 1898, Vol. II, pp. 299-306.\n\n[341] _Quaestio Mystica_, at the end of the notes to Chapter V of\nDionysius\u2019s _Mystical Theology_, ed. Migne, 1889, Vol. I, pp. 1050-1058.\n\n[342] _In Librum Boetii de Trinitate_, in D. Thomae Aquinatis _Opera_,\ned. altera Veneta, Vol. VIII, 1776, pp. 341_b_, 342_a_; 291_a_.\n\n[343] _Mystical Theology_, Dr. Parker, pp. 135, 136. I have somewhat\nmodified Parker\u2019s rendering.\n\n[344] _Religions-philosophie_, German tr. ed. 1894, p. 116. His scheme\nfinds three psychological forms and constituents in all religion,\nIntellectualism, Mysticism, Moralism, each with its own advantages and\ndangers.\n\n[345] _Confessions_: \u201cEvil, Negative,\u201d VII, 12, etc. \u201cEvil, Positive,\u201d\nVI, 15; VIII, 5, 11, etc.\n\n[346] _Opus Imperfectum_, III, 56, ed. Ben., Vol. X, col. 1750_b_.\n_De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia_, I, 23, _ibid._ col. 625_a_.--M. L.\nGrandgeorge, in his memoir _St. Augustin et le Neo-Platonisme_,\n1896, gives an interesting collection of such Negative and Positive\ndeclarations, and traces the former to their precise sources in\nPlotinus, pp. 126, 127; 130, 131.\n\n[347] _Divine Names_, ch. iv, sec. xxiv.\n\n[348] _Summa Theol._, I, ii, qu. 86, art. 1 ad 3.\n\n[349] _Vita_, pp. 39_b_, 116_b_.\n\n[350] _Sixteen Revelations_, ed. 1902, pp. 69, 70.\n\n[351] Meister Ekhart\u2019s \u201cLateinische Schriften,\u201d published by Denifle,\n_Archiv f. Litteratur u. Kirchengeschichte des M. A._, 1886, p. 662.\n\n[352] _Ethica_, II, def. vi; IV, prop. lxiv et coroll.; ed. Van Vloten\net Land, 1895, Vol. I, pp. 73, 225.\n\n[353] _Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten_, 1785, _Werke_, ed.\nBerlin Academy, Vol. IV, 1903, p. 393. _Religion innerhalb der Grenzen\nder reinen Vernunft_, 1793, _Werke_, ed. Hartenstein, Vol. VI, 1868,\npp. 127, 128.\n\n[354] _The Origin and Propagation of Sin_, 1902, p. 125.\n\n[355] _Wahrheitsgehalt der Religion_, 1901, pp. 271, 272.\n\n[356] Prof. H\u00f6ffding, in his _S\u00f6ren Kierkegaard_, pp. 130, 131.\n\n[357] \u201cLe Dogme du P\u00each\u00e9 Originel dans S. Augustin,\u201d _Revue d\u2019Histoire\net de Litt\u00e9rature Religieuses_, 1901, 1902. See too F. R. Tennant, _The\nSources of the Doctrine of the Fall and Original Sin_, 1903, which,\nhowever, descends only to St. Ambrose inclusively.\n\n[358] So F. R. Tennant, _The Origin and Propagation of Sin_, 1902, pp.\n131, 110.\n\n[359] F. R. Tennant, _The Origin and Propagation of Sin_, 1902, pp. 82,\n95; 107, 108; 115.\n\n[360] _Ibid._ p. 83.\n\n[361] _Ibid._ p. 153.\n\n[362] _Summa Theol._, II, ii, qu. 24, art. 7, in corp.\n\n[363] _Psychology and Life_, 1899, pp. 267, 268. _Grundz\u00fcge der\nPsychologie_, Vol. I, 1900, pp. 170, 171.\n\n[364] Mr. W. R. Inge, in his useful _Christian Mysticism_, 1899, has\nsome sharp expressions of disgust against these long-lived survivals\nwithin the Catholic Church. And though his own tone towards Rome in\ngeneral belongs also, surely, to a more or less barbaric past, he has\ndone good service in drawing forcible attention to the matter.\n\n[365] _Sixteen Revelations_, ed. 1902, pp. 23, 84, 101.\n\n[366] _Ascent of Mount Carmel_, tr. Lewis, 1891, pp. 159; 26, 27; 195,\n265.\n\n[367] _Confessions_, Bk. XI, ch. xxiii, 1. Tract in Joann. Ev., VIII,\n1; XXIV, 1: ed. Ben., Vol. III, 2, coll. 1770 _b_, 1958 _d_.\n\n[368] _Sixteen Revelations_, ed. cit. p. 210.\n\n[369] J. N. Grou, _M\u00e9ditations sur l\u2019Amour de Dieu_, Nouvelle ed.\nPerisse, pp. 268, 271.\n\n[370] L. Laberthonni\u00e8re, _Annales de Philosophie Chr\u00e9tienne_, 1905,\n1906. G. Tyrrell, _Hard Sayings_, 1898; _External Religion_, 1902. A.\nSandreau, _La Vie d\u2019Union \u00e0 Dieu_, 1900; _L\u2019Etat Mystique_, 1903.\n\n[371] M. D. Petre, _The Soul\u2019s Orbit_, 1904, p. 113.\n\n[372] _G\u00f6ttinger Gelehrte Anzeigen_, 1901, p. 757.\n\n[373] Zeller, _Philosophie der Griechen_, II, 2, ed. 1879, pp. 309, 312.\n\n[374] _Ibid._ p. 348.\n\n[375] Republic, VI, 508_e_; VII, 517_b_; and Zeller, _ibid._ II, 1, ed.\n1889, pp. 707-710.\n\n[376] _Philebus_, 22_c_; _Timaeus_, 28_a_, _c_; 29_e_, 92_c_ (with the\nreading \u1f45\u03b4\u03b5 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u2026 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6).\n\n[377] _Timaeus_, 29_e_.\n\n[378] _Enneads_, I, vii, 1, 61_d_; I, viii, 2, 72_e_; VI, viii, 16,\nend. See, for all this, Zeller, _Philosophie der Griechen_, III, ii,\ned. 1881, pp. 476-480; 483; 510-414.\n\n[379] _Enneads_, VIII. ix, 350_b_; VI, 2317, 610_d_; III, ix, 3, 358_a,\nb_.\n\n[380] Zeller, _op. cit._ III, ii, pp. 787-789.\n\n[381] _Divine Names_, ch. v, sec. 1: tr. Parker, pp. 73-75.\n\n[382] _Mystical Theology_, ch. iii: Parker, pp. 135, 136.\n\n[383] _Mystical Theology_, ch. iv, sec. 2: Parker, pp. 136, 137.\n\n[384] _De Divisione Naturae_, III, 17; I, 78. Ueberweg-Heinze,\n_Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie_, Vol. II, ed. 1898, p. 159.\n\n[385] Secs. 2, 4, ed. Bardenhewer, 1882, pp. 163-166.\n\n[386] Commentarius, in _Aristotelis Metaphysica_, Tract. VIII, cap. 6,\nquoted by Denifle, _Archiv f. Litteratur-u-Kirchengeschichte_, 1886, p.\n520.\n\n[387] Ibn Gebirol, _Fons Vitae_, ed. B\u00e4umker, 1895: IV, 6, pp. 225,\n224; V, 22, p. 298; II, 20, pp. 60-61; V, 24, p. 301.\n\n[388] _De Ente et Essentia_, c. vi. _Summa Theol._, I, qu. 3, art. 4 ad\n1; and elsewhere.\n\n[389] _De Ente et Essentia_, c. ii.\n\n[390] See Ueberweg-Heinze, _op. cit._ pp. 280, 281.\n\n[391] _De rerum Principio_, qu. viii. Ueberweg-Heinze, _op. cit._ pp.\n295, 296.\n\n[392] H. S. Denifle, _Meister Eckhart\u2019s Lateinische Schriften_, _loc.\ncit._ pp. 489, 490; 540, n. 6.\n\n[393] _Ibid._ p. 519.\n\n[394] _Meister Eckhart_, ed. Pfeiffer, 1857, pp. 158, 1; 99, 8; 180,\n15; 532, 30; 320, 27; 288, 26; 207, 27.\n\n[395] Denzinger, _Enchiridion Symbolorum_, ed. 1888, Nos. 437, 455.\n\n[396] _Hegelianism and Personality_, ed. 1893, pp. 230, 231, and note.\n\n[397] _Phaedrus_, 245 d; Zeller, _op. cit._ II, 1, ed. 1889, p. 830.\n\n[398] _Ibid._ pp. 843, 844; 849, 850.\n\n[399] Pre-existence of the No\u00fbs: _Gen. Anim._, II, 3, 736_b_; _de\nAnima_, III, 5, 430_a_; Zeller, _op. cit._ II, 2, ed. 1879, pp. 593,\n595. The Supreme No\u00fbs, purely transcendent: _Metaph._, XII, 7-10. But\nsee Dr. Edward Caird\u2019s admirable pp. 1-30, Vol. II, of his _Evolution\nof Theology in the Greek Philosophers_, 1904.\n\n[400] Rom. viii, 11. See too Rom. viii, 9, 14; 1 Cor. iii, 16; vi, 11;\nvii, 40; xii, 3.\n\n[401] H. J. Holtzmann, _Lehrbuch der N. T. Theology_, 1897, Vol. II,\npp. 9-12; 15-18.\n\n[402] H. J. Holtzmann, _op. cit._ Vol. II, pp. 79, 80. Johannes Weiss,\n_Dic Nachfolge Christi_, 1895, p. 95.\n\n[403] Col. iii, 4; Phil. i, 21; Gal. ii, 20.\n\n[404] _Enneads_, V, book 1, cc. 3 and 6.\n\n[405] _Ibid._ VI, book 9, 9 and 11.\n\n[406] _Eckhart_, ed. Pfeiffer, pp. 113, 33; 469, 40, 36.\n\n[407] Denzinger, _op. cit._ No. 454.\n\n[408] _Vier Schriften von Johannes Ruysbroek_, ed. Ullmann, 1848, pp.\n106, 107.\n\n[409] _Life, written by Herself_, tr. D. Lewis, ed. 1888, pp. 124, 421,\n146.\n\n[410] _Life, written by Herself_, tr. D. Lewis, ed. 1888, pp. 355, 130,\n430; 174.\n\n[411] J. B. Schwab, _Johannes Gerson_, 1858, pp. 361, 362.\n\n[412] I can find but one, secondary Ecclesiastical Censure of the\ndoctrine of God\u2019s substantial presence in the soul,--the censure passed\nby the Paris Sorbonne on Peter Lombard. The same Sorbonne repeatedly\ncensured St. Thomas on other points.\n\n[413] Vol. II, pp. 210, 211.\n\n[414] _Ibid._ pp. 230, 231.\n\n[415] _Ibid._ p. 231.\n\n[416] _Ibid._ pp. 253-257. _Enneads_, V, book ii, i.\n\n[417] Vol. II, pp. 232, 233.\n\n[418] \u201cReligions-philosophie,\u201d in _Die Philosophie im Beginn des\nzwanzigsten Jahrhunderts_, 1904, Vol. I, pp. 115, 117.\n\n[419] _Religions-philosophie_, Germ. tr., ed. 1894, p. 140.\n\n[420] \u201cMartineau\u2019s Philosophy,\u201d _Hibbert Journal_, Vol. I, 1902, pp.\n458, 457.\n\n[421] _Der Verkehr des Christen mit Gott_, ed. 1892, pp. 27, 15, 28,\n231.\n\n[422] _Der Verkehr des Christen mit Gott_, ed. 1892, pp. 20; 19-25.\n\n[423] _Timaeus_, 29_e_, _seq._\n\n[424] _Metaph._, VII, 1072_b_; IX, 1074_b_.\n\n[425] See Caird, _op. cit._ II, p. 337.\n\n[426] _Summa Theol._, I, qu. 13, art. 5, concl. et in corp. (See the\ninteresting note, \u201cThe Meaning of Analogy,\u201d in Fr. Tyrrell\u2019s _Lex\nOrandi_, 1903, pp. 80-83.) _In Librum Boetii de Trinitate_: D. Thomae\nAquinatis _Opera_, ed. Veneta Altera, 1776, p. 341_b_, 342_a_.\n\n[427] _Summa Theol._, I, qu. 8, art. 2; qu. 12, art. 1, in corp.\n\n[428] For Leibniz, see especially his _Nouveaux Essais_, written in\n1701-1709, but not published till 1765: _Die Philosophischen Schriften\nvan G. W. Leibniz_, ed. Gebhardt, Vol. V, 1882, especially pp. 45; 67;\n69; 121, 122. For the date 1888, see W. James\u2019s _Varieties of Religious\nExperience_, 1902, p. 233.\n\n[429] _Autobiography_, ed. 1875, pp. 133, 134.\n\n[430] \u201cDie Selbst\u00e4ndigkeit der Religion\u201d: _Zeitschrift f. Theologie u.\nKirche_, 1895, pp. 404, 405.\n\n[431] _Elements of the Science of Religion_, 1897, Vol. II, pp. 227-231.\n\n[432] _Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung_, ed. Griesbach, Vol. II, pp.\n725, 734, 736.\n\n[433] _The Varieties of Religious Experience_, 1902, pp. 362, 364.\n\n[434] _Ascent of Mount Carmel_, tr. David Lewis, ed. 1889, pp. 94, 95,\n97.\n\n[435] _Ascent_, pp. 94; 350.\n\n[436] _Ascent_, p. 353.\n\n[437] _S\u00f6ren Kierkegaard_, von Harald H\u00f6ffding, Germ. tr. 1896, pp.\n116, 118, 120.\n\n[438] _Ibid._ pp. 122; 130, 131.\n\n[439] _Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte_, ed. 1888, Vol. II, pp. 413, 414;\n417.\n\n[440] _Das Wesen des Christenthums_, ed. 1902, pp. 180, 181.\n\n[441] H\u00f6ffding\u2019s _Kierkegaard_, p. 119.\n\n[442] _The Faith of the Million_, 1901, Vol. II, pp. 49, 50; 52, 53.\n\n[443] _Works_, tr. David Lewis, ed. 1889, 1891, Vol. I, p. 308; Vol.\nII, p. 541.\n\n[444] _Op. cit._ p. 53.\n\n[445] _Ibid._ pp. 55, 56.\n\n[446] _Psyche_, ed. 1898, Vol. II, pp. 292, 293.\n\n[447] \u201cGrundprobleme der Ethik\u201d: _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Theologie und\nKirche_, 1902, pp. 164, 167.\n\n[448] \u201cWas heisst Wesen des Christenthums?\u201d _Christliche Welt_,\n1903, I, coll. 583, 584. The Abb\u00e9 Loisy has also dwelt, with rare\nimpressiveness, upon the intensely Other-Worldly character of the first\nChristian teaching.\n\n[449] _Deutsche Mystiker des Mittelalters_, ed. Pfeiffer, Vol. I,\n1845, pp. xli, xlii. Any Life of St. Jane F. de Chantal. A. Cadr\u00e8s,\n_Le P. Jean N. Grou_, 1866, pp. 13, 14. St. Teresa\u2019s _Life, written by\nHerself_, tr. David Lewis, ed. 1888, pp. 176, 177; 186. _Revelations of\nDivine Love, showed to Mother Juliana of Norwich_, ed. 1902, p. 4.\n\n[450] A. Gardner, \u201cConfession and Direction,\u201d in _The Conflict of\nDuties_, 1903, pp. 223-229. P. Gardner, in _The Liberal Churchman_,\n1905, p. 266.\n\n[451] _Psyche_, ed. 1898, Vol. II, p. 289.\n\n[452] \u201cChristianity and Physical Science\u201d (1855), in _Idea of a\nUniversity_, ed. 1873, pp. 432, 433. \u201cUniversity Teaching\u201d (1852),\n_ibid._ p. 222. See Mr. R. E. Froude\u2019s interesting paper, \u201cScientific\nSpeculation and the Unity of Truth,\u201d _Dublin Review_, Oct. 1900, pp.\n353-368.\n\n[453] W. Windelband, _Geschichte und Naturwissenschaft_, 1894. H.\nRickert, _Kulturwissenschaft und Naturwissenschaft_, 1899. And,\nabove all, H. Rickert, _Die Grenzen der Naturwissenschaftlichen\nBegriffsbildung_, 1902.\n\n[454] _Schopenhauer_, 1900, pp. 344, 345.\n\n[455] _Wie ist der Kampf um die Bedeutung \u2026 Jesu zu beendigen?_ 1901,\np. 9.\n\n[456] _Wie ist der Kampf um die Bedeutung \u2026 Jesu zu beendigen?_ 1901,\np. 10.\n\n[457] _Ibid._ pp. 10, 11.\n\n[458] _Ibid._ pp. 26, 27.\n\n[459] \u201cUeber den letzten Unterschied der philosophischen Systeme,\u201d\n1847, in _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Philosophie_, 1855, Vol. II, p. 10.\n\n[460] See the admirably lucid analysis in Prof. Troeltsch\u2019s\n\u201cReligions-philosophie,\u201d in _Die Philosophie im Beginn des zwanzigsten\nJahrhunderts_, 1904, Vol. I, p. 116, already referred to further back.\n\n[461] _Richard Rothe\u2019s Spekulatives System_, 1899, pp. 205, 206.\n\n\n_Richard Clay & Sons, Limited, London and Bungay._","title":"The Mystical Element of Religion, as studied in Saint Catherine of Genoa and her friends, Volume 2 (of 2)","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":179278}