Mysticism:

Its True Nature and Value

With a Translation of the "Mystical Theology"
of Dionysius, and of the Letters to Caius and
Dorotheus (, ! and "#
$y
%& '& (har)e, M&%&
"* Theios gno)hos esti to a)rositon )h+s en a
,atoi,ein ho Teos legetai&"
-- Dionysius, .)& / ad Dorotheum&
"%liis lo0uor communia, aliis s)ecialia1 ali0ui$us in
signis et 2guris dulciter a))areo1 0ui$usdam 3ero in
multo lumine re3elo mysteria&"
-- De Imitation Christi, "& 4"&
London(ands 5 Com)any/ 6ing (treet, Co3ent
7arden,and .din$urgh
(t& Louis Mo&'& 8erder
Im)rime 9otest&:aco$us %ugustinus,%rchie)& (& %ndr&
et .dim$urgen&.dim$urgi, die ; :ulii <=&
C*NT.NT(
C8%9T.> I : TW* ID.%( *? M@(TICI(M
6noAledge is either eB)erimental or theoretical, $ut is
limited $y sense-eB)erience -- Natural ,noAledge of
7od, through reason or re3elation, is theoretical1 It
cannot $e eB)erimental -- .B)erimental ,noAledge of
7od alAays desired -- Mystical theology -- TAo )oints of
3ieA, the natural and the su)ernatural -- They are not
naturally o))osed, $ut com)lementary -- Natural
mysticism is the attem)t either to transcend the
limitations of sense or to 2nd Transcendental
,noAledge Aithin them -- ?undamental diCerence
$etAeen these tAo methods -- Neither is more than a
mental attitude -- (u)ernatural mysticism im)lies the
transcendence of 7od, on the one hand1 and on the
other hand, the Ina$ility of the natural )oAers alone to
attain to Immediate ,noAledge of 8im -- Catholic idea
of mysticism -- True mysticism rightly said to $e
em)irical -- Com)ared Aith sensation -- The intellectual
)rinci)les of mystical ,noAledge not essentially
diCerent from those of ordinary ,noAledge -- What is to
$e understood $y the (u)ernatural -- The Via
>emotionis -- (u)ernatural illumination not contrary to
nature -- Its method -- Natural theories to account for
su)ernatural mysticism -- >easons for reDecting them --
Theological and e3idential 3alue of the su$Dect
C8%9T.> II : (E9.>N%TE>%L M@(TICI(M
*rigin of the term -- Mysticism in the Church -- In 7ree,
)hiloso)hy -- Dionysius -- (ocial conditions Ahich $ring
mysticism into )rominence -- ()urious mysticism
C8%9T.> III : T8. N%TE>. *? M@(TIC%L .F9.>I.NC.
Mystical eB)erience essentially su)ernatural -- Three
modes of relation of creatures to the Creator --
"Natural" contem)lation -- 9assi3ity -- Mystical
cognition and sensation -- Mystical and ordinary
religious eB)erience -- Mystical certitude -- Mystical
eB)erience indescri$a$le -- Necessity of )re)aration --
7erson -- .c,hart, Tauler -- Three stages -- (t Teresa --
Visions and locutions -- (elf-delusion
C8%9T.> IV : T8. *':.CT *? M@(TIC%L 6N*WL.D7.
Mystical "3ision," hoA to $e understood -- 8oA the soul
can see 7od -- The 'eati2c Vision -- Doctrine of (t
Thomas -- (t 9aulGs 3isions -- Transiency of mystical
state -- ()iritual marriage -- The lumen gloriae -- (t
%ugustineGs classi2cation -- Encertainty of sensi$le and
imaginary im)ressions as com)ared Aith intellectual
3ision -- %ll three truly su)ernatural
C8%9T.> V : T8. 9(@C8*L*7@ *? M@(TICI(M
The o$Dect of mystical contem)lation )ercei3ed $y a
natural )rocess, and therefore ca)a$le of analysis -- No
theory on the su$Dect formulated $y mystical Ariters --
Three diCerent 3ieAs& (# .Bistence of a s)ecial
mystical faculty& This theory is su)erHuous& (!# That all
a))arently mystical states are merely automatic, and
generally of )athological origin& This im)lies the
)resu))osition that genuine mysticism is im)ossi$le&
("# That mystical communications really ta,e )lace, $ut
are a))rehended $y the same )sychical )rocess Ahich
transmits automatic suggestion& This )ractically
coincides Aith the 3ieA of ecclesiastical authority --
DiIculty of distinguishing, hoA caused
C8%9T.> VI : .VIL
%Inity of the )ro$lem Aith mysticism -- The solution of
mystics often a))ears unsatisfactory to others -- .3il
due to created freeAill -- Inde)endence of the Di3ine
Aill -- .3il negati3e -- 9ractical character of mystical
solution com)ared Aith the )hiloso)hical or theoretical
-- (cho)enhauer, 8artmann and ".thical" religions --
'ene2ts of mysticism in this res)ect not restricted to
mystics
C8%9T.> VII : IMM%N.NC. %ND T>%N(C.ND.NC.
Terms eB)lained -- ()inoJa, 8egel and Mysticism -- The
"ground" -- Immanence and transcendence not
ontologically distinct
C8%9T.> VIII : 9L*TINE(
9hiloso)hy and mysticism of 9lotinus -- TAo )ossi$le
3ieAs of his relation to Christian mysticism
C8%9T.> IF : 8.>.TIC%L M@(TIC(
Distinction clear $etAeen true and s)urious mysticism
-- "9ragmatic" test, tAofold a))lication -- Mysticism,
theoso)hy and theology -- Intrinsic distinction $etAeen
mystical eB)erience and deductions from it -- Doctrines
not to $e guaranteed $y mystical origin -- Necessary
features of genuine mysticism -- The 'eghards --
'oehme -- (Aeden$org -- Kuietism -- Distinction
$etAeen doctrines and mystical eB)eriences e0ually
a))lied to orthodoB mystics -- (t Teresa -- (t :ohn of the
Cross -- Margaret Mary %laco0ue
C8%9T.> F : M@(TICI(M, 98IL*(*98@ %ND >.LI7l*N
*$stacles to )hiloso)hical treatment of mysticism in its
transcendental as)ect -- .B)erimental e3idence of
mysticism in su))ort of natural theology -- The o$Dect
of mysticism $eyond the reach of eB)lanation )er
causas -- Mysticism a form of religious eB)erience, $ut
not one guaranteed to Christians -- Its relation to
"institutional" religion, and to ordinary religious
eB)erience as continuous Aith and inter)enetrated $y it
-- The Imitation of Christ -- Mystical eB)erience )erha)s
occasion ally granted to non-mystics
C8%9T.> FI : DI*N@(IE(
8istory of the Dionysian Aritings -- %uthorshi) and
character -- Can they $e considered forgeries -- Modern
theories, etc&
C8%9T.> FII : T8. "M@(TIC%L T8.*L*7@" *?
DI*N@(IE( T8. %>.*9%7IT.
I& -- What the Di3ine Dar,ness is&
II& -- 8oA to $e united Aith, and to gi3e )raise to 8im
Aho is the cause of all things and a$o3e all&
III& -- What is aIrmed of 7od, and Ahat is denied of
8im&
IV& -- That 8e Aho is the su)reme cause of all sensi$le
things is 8imself no )art of those things&
V& -- That 8e Aho is the su)reme cause of all intelligi$le
things is 8imself no )art of those things&
L.TT.>
& -- To Caius the Mon, -- The ignorance $y means of
Ahich 7od is ,noAn is a$o3e sense-,noAledge, not
$eloA it&
II& -- To the (ame -- In Ahat sense 7od is a$o3e the
)rinci)le of di3inity&
V& -- To Dorotheus the Deacon -- The di3ine dar,ness
further eB)lained&
IND.F *? 9>*9.> N%M.(
M@(TICI(M: IT( T>E. N%TE>. %ND V%LE.
C8%9T.> I
TW* ID.%( *? M@(TICI(M
M@(TICI(M, in the Aide and someAhat loose sense in
Ahich the term is commonly used, may $e considered
as the 2nal outcome of a congenital desire for
,noAledge Ahich a))ears in all animate creatures& In
children and sa3ages, as also in the loAer animals, it
ta,es the rudimentary form of sensiti3e curiosity1 in
more fully de3elo)ed rational natures it $ecomes the
desire to understand the inner nature of things and
2nally eBtends itself to that o$scure region, dimly
recognised $y all men, Ahich lies $eyond the s)here of
things, and of the senses $y Ahich things are
)ercei3ed& 'ut ,noAledge is of tAo ,inds -- a$stract and
concrete, or eB)erimental and theoretical& We ,noA for
certain in one Aay that there are coins in the 'an, of
.ngland, $ut Ae ,noA that there are similar coins in our
oAn )oc,ets in 0uite another Aay: in the one Ae ha3e
the direct e3idence of our senses, and in the other the
senses indeed ha3e their necessary )art, $ut not $y
Aay of direct contact Aith the o$Dect of our ,noAledge&
It is scarcely necessary to remar, that these tAo ,inds
of ,noAledge go hand in hand: the theoretical in the
last resort de)ends on the eB)erimental and certain as
Ae may $e of the correctness of our theoretical
,noAledge, Ae are seldom content Aithout )utting it in
)ractice, Ahen it is in our )oAer to do so, and thus
)ro3ing it $y eB)eriment& There is, hoAe3er a )oint at
Ahich the eB)erimental test ceases to $e )ossi$le, and
that )oint is 2Bed $y the limits of our senses: Ae cannot
,noA anything eB)erimentally Ahich is not sensi$le, or
ca)a$le of $eing em$odied in sensi$le things, as a
mechanical or chemical )rinci)le is em$odied in the
su$stances Aith Ahich eB)eriments are made, 'ut our
senses ta,e us only a 3ery short distance into the
nature of things -- Ahat things are "in themsel3es" -- on
Ahat )rinci)le they are Ahat they are -- Ahat is the
inAard nature of the )er)etual changes they undergo1
on such 0uestions as these Ae can theorise freely, and
can no dou$t reach some conclusions Ahich Ae are
a$le to regard as a$solutely certain& 'ut Ae must $e
content Aith theoretical certainty at most, since
eB)eriment in these matters is out of our )oAer& 'ut
theory itself -- founded as it necessarily is on
eB)erimental ,noAledge -- must also ha3e a limit,
Ahich it reaches Ahen it has eBhausted the im)lications
of sense eB)erience -- Ahen it has, so to s)ea,, used u)
the raA material of thought su))lied $y sensation& We
can ma,e no theory a$out a thing Ae ha3e ne3er seen
or Aith Ahich Ae ha3e ne3er $een $rought into contact
$y any of the organs of sense& (uch a thing is merely B1
Ae must ,noA Ahat B stands for, $efore Ae can say
anything at all a$out it& *ur imagination may ma,e it
stand or anything Ae )lease, $ut Ahat Ae ma,e it
re)resent can only $e some sense im)ression that Ae
recall from the )ast, or some ides that Ae ha3e at some
time a$stracted from our sense ,noAledge&
NoA Ae o$3iously reach the limit of theoretical
,noAledge Ahen Ae come to the end (Ahich from
another )oint of 3ieA is the $eginning# of e3erything&
8ere Ae are indeed far $eyond the $ounds of sense $ut
Ae can go no farther& There may $e a great deal
$eyond the end, or $efore the $eginning, of Ahat Ae
understand $y e3erything $ut Ae ran 2nd out nothing
a$out it -- for Ae ha3e no means of doing so& We
cannot, )ro)erly s)ea,ing, e3en imagine anything
a$out it1 for imagination can only re)eat for us Ahat Ae
already ,noA1 and that can ha3e no )lace $eyond the
$eginning of all ,noAa$le things& When Ae see a
stream of Aater, Ae can $e 0uite certain that it has a
source, and Ae may $e a$le to )ercei3e indications of
the sourceGs nature and immediate surroundings: $ut
the stream can tell us nothing of Ahat lies $eyond its
source -- of the geogra)hy of the country& the character
of the inha$itants, their )olitical organisation and the
li,e& %ll these are $eyond the $eginning of the stream1
Ae can 2nd out Ahat they are only $y going there and
seeing for oursel3es, or $y getting some one Aho has
$een there to tell us a$out them&
NoA the limit of our theoreticaL ,noAledge in this Aorld
is reached Ahen Ae attain to the conce)t of a ?irst
Cause, or the necessary $eing Ahich )roduces,
underlies and u)holds the contingent and changea$le
uni3erse1 and that cause and necessary $eing, needless
to say, is 7od& We ha3e an a$solute theoretical
certainty of the eBistence of 7od, de)ending ultimately
on facts of eB)erience1 and Ae ha3e, or may ha3e,
many )ractical e3idences of 8is )oAer, Aisdom and
goodness& Moreo3er, 8e has $y 3arious means told us
things a$out 8imself Ahich Ae could not otherAise
ha3e ,noAn& 'ut direct eB)erimental ,noAledge of 8im
Ae ha3e and can ha3e none, in the ordinary course of
things& We cannot see 8im or touch 8im, or hear 8im&
@et the more certain men are of 8is eBistence, the more
conscious they are of 8is lo3e and goodness and the
more dee)ly their minds are )enetrated $y the idea of
8is )erfection, the more they ine3ita$ly long for some
such eB)erimental ,noAledge of 8im as, Aithin our
earthly eB)erience, the senses alone can o$tain for us&
'ut this, from the nature of the case, is im)ossi$le1 7od
is no more to $e directly a))rehended $y our senses
than an idea, a thought or an emotion&
Is there then no third Aay $y Ahich Ae may not only
,noA $ut feel the )resence of 7od -- $y Ahich all that
8e is to us may $ecome not merely theoretical
certainty, $ut a fact of direct eB)erienceM Is there, that
is to say, any means $y Ahich, though Ae cannot $ring
8im doAn to the Aorld of sense, Ae may oursel3es, in
3irtue of our )artially s)iritual nature, ascend to the
s)iritual Aorld and there $ehold 8imM
It is the desire and the search for such a means of
a))roach to 7od that has )roduced Mysticism or
"Mystical Theology," Ahich in its general as)ect is the
eB)erience, real or su))osed, of actual 0uasi-)hysical
contact Aith 7od -- an eB)erience undou$tedly ,noAn
in reality $y many, though $y many more it has $eyond
0uestion $een merely imagined& ()eculati3e" or
Dogmatic Theology is li,e the theory of o)tics, Ahich
tells us Ahat the eye is, and hoA it sees1 mystical
theology is the sight itself, Aith all that it in3ol3es of
eBercise and training& ()eculati3e theology is a science1
mystical theology is an art&
There are tAo )oints of 3ieA from Ahich this art may $e
regarded, the natural and the su)ernatural& They do not
$y any means necessarily eBclude one another1 each,
indeed, in )oint of fact, im)lies the other& 'ut neglect of
the su)ernatural side of mysticism has led to an
altogether mista,en notion of Ahat mysticism has
alAays, until 3ery recently, $een held to mean1 and it
must $e admitted that forgetfulness of the natural side,
consisting of the limitations, necessities and o$ligations
of humanity, has too often $een the cause of
degenerate and eBtra3agant su)erstition, Aith its many
attendant e3ils&
VieAed sim)ly on its natural side, mysticism a))ears as
an attem)t, more or less successful, to )ass through or
o3erlea) the $arrier of material things, and so to enter
the )resence from the sight of Ahich Ae are ordinarily
eBcluded $y our su$Dection to the senses& There are tAo
Aays in Ahich this attem)t may $e and has $een made&
*ne is $y an endea3our to )ass $eyond the 2nite and
sensi$le Aorld $y the concentration u)on one )oint of
those mental or s)iritual forces Ahich in e3ery
indi3idual man a))ear to $elong more to the Aorld of
)ermanent reality than to that of transient a))earance
in Ahich our $odily life is s)ent& The mind resolutely
casts out all 2gures and ideas of sensi$le things1 it
em)ties itself, $y a )oAerful eCort, of all its ac0uired
furniture, and stri3es in its oAn original na,edness to
$ehold the na,ed reality that eBists $ehind the many-
coloured 3esture of sense& 9lotinus, 9roclus and their
disci)les, tra3elling $y this diIcult road, found, or
seemed to 2nd, the s)rings of $eing in the a$stract and
a$solute unity Ahich lies $ehind the e3er-eB)anding
3ariety of the created Aorld& 'ut Ahether in that
remote and desolate region to Ahich they )enetrated
they found anything Ahich they had not $rought Aith
them from the Aorld of light, colour and Aarmth Ahich
they sought to a$andon, may $e considered dou$tful&
That they did not is at any rate the 3ieA of those Ahose
o$Dect is the same, $ut Aho ado)t a method the
re3erse of theirs& That method, $y some considered the
only true one, is to loo, for mystical ,noAledge not
$eyond, $ut in the material, intellectual and emotional
life in Ahich our lot is cast& It regards this Aorld as $ut a
small fragment of a much larger Ahole, and as made u)
of many elements, all of Ahich are not disco3era$le, so
at least as to $e clearly distinguished $y either our
$odily or our intellectual faculties, 'ut e3ery )art of it
is, in this 3ieA, connected Aith and sym$olic of
something in2nitely greater than itself& It em$odies and
illustrates the o)eration of 3ast cosmic laAs1 it gi3es
e3idence of a di3ine $ene3olence Ahich reaches further
than our utmost 3ision can folloA1 it is lit $y a ray from
the sun of )erfect $eauty that lies $eloA the horiJon of
earthly eBistence& Thus "a manGs reach must eBceed his
gras)" as he goes through life1 his mind constructs from
the "$ro,en arc" of natural eB)erience the ")erfect
round" of hea3enly $eatitude in the discords of earth
his ear catches echoes of celestial harmonies, and the
dar,est )laces of this Aorld are in3ested Aith "clouds of
glory" for those Aho thus "see into the life of things&"
Thus mysticism has $een called "the attem)t to realise
the )resence of the li3ing 7od in the soul and in nature,
or, more generally, the attem)t to realise in thought
and feeling the immanence of the tem)oral in the
eternal, and of the eternal in the tem)oral&"NO
No one can dis)ute the uni3ersal right of de2ning terms
according to taste and fancy1 and those Aho de2ne or
descri$e mysticism in this Aay ha3e a )erfect right to
do so& 'ut if this is mysticism, then surely Ae ought to
ha3e another name for the other method -- the
"tremendous Dourney toAards the mysterious Isles of
?ire, the Icelands of a$straction and of lo3e" underta,en
$y 9hilo, 9lotinus or 9roclus&N!O
There Aould seem to $e little in common $etAeen the
suggesti3e and sym$olic as)ect of things in Ahich the
Aorld a))ears as the true manifestation of 7od, and
that in Ahich the same Aorld is felt to $e the one great
o$stacle Ahich conceals the eternal reality from the
sight&
'ut Ahiche3er method may $e considered the right
one, mysticism, considered as a )urely natural
)henomenon (i&e& as consisting in a )eculiar eBercise of
the natural )oAers#, is necessarily limited to the
interaction of human reason and emotion and those
natural o$Dects Aith Ahich reason and emotion are
concerned and in Ahich suggestions of something
su)ernatural may $e more or less clearly )ercei3ed&
Mysticism so understood is merely a certain attitude of
the mind toAards its surroundings and Ahat it
)ercei3es is )ro3ed, it is thought, to $e there$y really
there& Its outloo, may $e )artial, and its ideas
conse0uently one-sided, and the eB)ression of them
may need correction& 'ut it is all true, Ahether as fact
or as sym$ol -- Ahich may, though itself literally untrue,
yet $e more true than the literal truth& "The true is, for
us, the good&"N"O %ll that can $e discerned in the nature
Ahich half conceals and half re3eals the Deity, so far as
it is $eautiful, attracti3e and enno$ling, is in some
sense true, and in some degree a 3ision of 7od& (uch
3isions, therefore, as seen $y diCerent minds and $y
Ahate3er method, need only to $e com)ared correlated
and mutually adDusted, in order to form all that from
this )oint of 3ieA can $e rightly called a $ody of
Mystical Theology&
The second 3ieA Ahich may he ta,en of the su$Dect as
a Ahole is that of Dionysius, and of the long succession
of mystics Aho ha3e consciously or unconsciously
ado)ted the )rinci)les laid doAn in his Mystical
Theology& Its $asis is a )rofound con3iction of the
uni0ueness and incommunica$ility of the Di3ine nature&
8oAe3er eBalted creatures may $e in nature, and
hoAe3er )erfect in relation to their )lace and function,
there is a chasm $etAeen them and their Di3ine
Creator Ahich cannot $e closed or $ridged e3en in
thought& 8oAe3er shar)ly any one form of eBistence
may $e distinguished from all others, this distinction
cannot e3en a))roach the fundamental character of the
distinction $etAeen all creatures on the one side and
their Creator on the other& There cannot e3en, )ro)erly
s)ea,ing, $e so near a ra))rochment of the tAo as to
ma,e a real distinction )ossi$le -- 7od can $e related,
in 8is essence, to creatures only $y a 2ction of the
mind: they are to his a$solute inde)endence and self-
suIciency as nothing& 'ut on the other hand, 7od is
not se)arated from Creation $y time or s)ace -- $y
Ahich 8is $eing is, indeed, not aCected in any Aay&
%ll creatures are in a state of immediate de)endence
u)on 8im, and it is only in 3irtue of this de)endence
that they eBist& In a certain sense, therefore& 7od is
immediately )resent among and in creatures they are
the continual oCs)ring of 8is )oAer and Aisdom1 and
Ahere these are at Aor,, there 7od in 8is uncreated
essence must also $e& Conse0uently, 7od is in a true
sense immanent in creation1 8e is not indeed miBed
Aith it, and it is and must $e the one thing that in 8is
uncreated $eing 8e cannot resem$le1 yet all creation
has the distant li,eness to 8im Ahich mere $eing
im)arts and in all its )arts reHects hoAe3er dimly, 8is
Aisdom and $eauty& Therefore that 7od is may $e
clearly ,noAn from the "3isi$le things" of creation& 'ut
Ahat 7od is in 8imself, no man can ,noA, unless 7od
8imself re3eals it to him& To see the reHection of Di3ine
$eauty is one thing: to see 7od is another& ?or all manGs
natural ,noAledge comes from creatures and $y Aay of
sensation: and 7od is the one $eing that is not a
creature and of Ahom sensation can directly tell us
nothing&
This $eing so, the only direct, immediate or
eB)erimental ,noAledge of 7od that man can attain to
must $e su)ernaturally $estoAed u)on him& Naturally,
man is enclosed Aithin the iron Aalls of sense and
sensi$le things, through Ahich no sound or ray of light
can )enetrate1 their solid metal 3i$rates, so to s)ea,&
and the Aarmth from Aithout is felt in the air they
enclose& 'ut all is silence and dar,ness, unless the solid
$arrier is remo3ed $y some )oAer greater than manGs&
To su)ernatural mysticism it seems that such )oAer is
from time to time eBerted for manGs $ene2t1 the Aalls
of his )rison, are )arted for a moment at least, and he
sees something of Ahat lies outside& %nd if any true
3ision of 7od has e3er $een o$tained $y those Aho
ha3e sought it through the eBertion of their natural
)oAers -- Ahether negati3ely, as the Neo)latonist
ascetics, or )ositi3ely as the nature mystics and
sym$olists -- it has come directly, not from the eBertion
of those )oAers $ut from 8is s)ontaneous $ounty
alone&
(uch is the theory of mysticism Ahich o$tains in the
Catholic Church& It does not dis)ute the genuineness or
the attracti3eness of the sym$olical 3ieA of life, nor
does it deny the necessity of )ersonal eCort as a
condition (though not the cause# of the su)enatural
3ision1 $ut it holds that merely natural contem)lation is
$ased on association and feeling, and is inca)a$le of
leading the soul $eyond the con2nes of the material
Aorld& Natural sym$olism Aill ma,e ,noAn much of
7odGs action and of 8is nature $ut it cannot $ring man
face to face Aith 8im& The su)ernatural conce)tion of
mysticism, moreo3er, admits fully the eBistence of a
constant need and desire a man,ind for 7od, e3en far
$eyond the Christian )ale it is also ready to admit,
Ahere suIcient e3idence can $e shoAn, that this
desire has in any gi3en case recei3ed some degree of
satisfaction in the only Aay in Ahich such satisfaction is
)ossi$le& 7odGs condescension Is not to $e con2ned
Aithin any narroAer limits than those 8e has 8imself
im)osed1 and there is nothing contrary to )ossi$ility in
the %leBandrian o)inion that such a mystical ,noAledge
of 7od had $een attained $y some Neo)latonists as
many Christians had failed to reach& The one )oint
insisted on is that such ,noAledge is and must $e
essentially su)ernatural1 that is, that it cannot $e
o$tained $y means of any created thing, or $y any
eCort of the human )oAers, since the thing ,noAn is
itself, in DionysiusG Aords, e)e,eina )ant+n -- $eyond
all that man can of himself see or ,noA,
The 2rst thing that stri,es one a$out these tAo general
3ieAs of the su$Dect Aould seem to $e their 0uite
o$3ious incom)ati$ility& More than one )raiseAorthy
attem)t has $een made to treat them together, as tAo
3arieties of the same thing& 'ut the only Aay in Ahich
this can )ossi$ly $e done is $y ta,ing one as the
genuine theory of Mysticism, and the other as s)urious&
Mysticism might concei3a$ly $e either natural or
su)ernatural1 it cannot )ossi$ly $e $oth& If 7od can $e
seen or ,noAn in and $y nature, then the su)ernatural
contem)lation of 8im as essentially a)art from and
a$o3e all creatures can only $e a delusion& ?or the tAo
methods are directly o))osed to one another and tAo
o))osite )rocesses cannot )ossi$ly ha3e an identical
result& If, on the other hand, the Dionysian method of
a$straction can, $y the aid of Di3ine 7race, ena$le man
to transcend created nature and to $ehold the a$solute
uncreated eBistence, then the method Ahich loo,s for
an intuition of 7od in nature may indeed ha3e a high
3alue as )oetry or romance, or as a Aay of a))reciating
the e3idence for 7odGs eBistence, $ut it cannot, in that
case, $e mysticism& 8oAe3er strongly $ased on
eB)erience, or hoAe3er dee)ly emotional in its mental
reactions, It is in the last analysis merely a )rocess of
inference1 and any a))earance it may gi3e rise to of
intuiti3e ,noAledge must $e ca)a$le of analysis into
the com)onent )arts of an inducti3e syllogism& "The
mystic," it has $een said, "is the only thorough-going
em)iricist1"N4O and indeed, in regard to his
transcendental intuitions he can $e nothing else& In the
3ision claimed $y su)ernatural mysticism -- and there
alone -- the "that" and the "Ahat" are identical1 essence
and eBistence are one in 7od, and eB)erimental
,noAledge of 8is eBistence must necessarily )reclude
all discursi3e reasoning as to 8is essence& 8ence $oth
the certitude of mystics as to the reality of their
,noAledge, and their total inca)acity to eB)lain it&
Thorough em)iricism is really )ossi$le only at the tAo
ends of the scale of human eB)erience -- in mystical
contem)lation and in sensation& In sensation, as in
mysticism, em)iricism is the only )ossi$le attitude1
sensations in themsel3es, and as they a))ear grou)ed
in consciousness, are com)lete and immediate1 they
cannot $e eB)lained, idealised or analysed& 'ut the
moment sensations $ecome the su$Dect of thought,
)ure em)iricism is no longer )ossi$le1 sense-eB)erience
must de)end for its continuity u)on some ,ind of ideal
constructions1 and the )oetry and romance of life and
nature, and e3en the "%scensio mentis in Deum )er
scalam rerum creatarum," are no more than modes of
the mindGs )er)etual Arestling Aith its en3ironment& It
is only Ahen "the Aheel has come full circle" in the
intuition of mysticism that the un0uestiona$le
immediacy, 2nality and certainty of sensation are
$rought $ac, in the higher s)here of the intelligence&
(uch, at least, is the contention on $ehalf of
su)ernatural mysticism and the only real alternati3e to
it is com)lete surrender of all that mysticism has $een
held to connote& ?or a confused consciousness of the
di3ine or the su)ernatural, as sym$olised or suggested
$y certain fragmentary as)ects of nature, or art, or
social eBistence, is at $ottom a )erfectly diCerent thing
from the direct 3ision of and intercourse Aith a di3ine
)erson& "I tal, not Aith thy dreams," su)ernatural
mysticism re)lies to the imaginati3e out)ourings of the
nature mystic, the )hilanthro)ist or the lo3er&N/O
'eautiful or )athetic or true as those dreams may $e,
they ha3e no other origin than that of dreams Ahich are
none of those things1 and if su)ernatural mysticism is
only another ,ind of dream -- if its origin can $e traced
to the same tur$id stream of mingled eB)erience and
thought -- Aell then, there is no such thing as true
mysticism1 Ae must re3ert to the o)inion of those to
Ahom mysticism Aas only a name for an igno$le ,ind of
self-delusion, and relegate $oth name and thing to the
secular lum$er-room Ahich has already recei3ed such
outAorn mental furniture as astrology, alchemy and
necromancy& >omanticism Aill dou$tless alAays hold a
certain )lace in human thought and feeling1 for
thate3er neA as)ects nature and life may ha3e in store,
there can hardly fail at any time to $e num$ers of men
and Aomen Ahose sensi$ility is more readily aAa,ened
$y the contact of their surroundings than $y interior
reHection& 'ut mysticism is, as Ae ha3e seen, either
su)ernatural or nothing& *ur en0uiry must therefore he
directed to the conditions Ahich su)ernatural mysticism
claims for itself, Ahh the 3ieA of determining Ahether
or not its )retensions ha3e a suIcient $asis in
o$ser3a$le facts to entitle to credence those
transcendental eB)eriences for Ahich Ae can ha3e no
e3idence $eyond the $are Aord of the mystic himself&
We shall ha3e therefore to consider Ahether and hoA
far the Dionysian )rinci)les are identical Aith those
Ahich are discerni$le in the ordinary course of nature
Ahether mystical states, as descri$ed $y those Aho
ha3e eB)erienced them, are com)ati$le Aith the nature
and normal action of the human faculties1 and Ahether
those states -- if Ae 2nd them to rest on a solid theory,
and to $e in harmony Aith the 3eri2ed results of
)sychological in3estigatlon -- may or may not $e
ade0uately accounted for $y merely natural agency&
%s to these three 0uestions, Ahich Aill $e discussed in
some detail further on, it Aill $e suIcient to note here
2rst, that ordinary cognition and reHection re0uire as
their starting-)oint some contact Aith eBternal matter
(Ahat such contant, eBternality and matter may $e in
themsel3es Ae need not, for our )resent )ur)ose&
en0uire# $y means of Ahich the mind may form ideas,
to $e su$se0uently dealt Aith $y Aay of reHection&
Conse0uently ideas or thoughts Ahich are not related in
this manner and degree to eBternal material things are
sim)ly inconcei3a$le in the natural order: and if it is
granted that the mind may $y any means so a$stract
itself from the eBternal Aorld that it has no image of
any eBternal thing $efore it, either directly as a
")hantasm," or indirectly as an a$stract idea formed on
a $asis of sense-eB)erience, then, naturally s)ea,ing, it
has nothing $efore it $ut an a$solute $lan,& 'ut this is
)recisely the condition in Ahich the mind is concei3ed
$y su)ernatural mystics to $e during the time --
generally a 3ery $rief one -- of contem)lation& (o far as
the natural Aorld and all images deri3ed from it are
concerned, there is nothing $ut a $lan,& 'ut the 3oid is
2lled $y the di3ine )resence, and $y su)ernatural
agency& We are not, hoAe3er, led to su))ose $y
anything mystical Ariters tell us that the state of mere
negati3e a$straction e3er actually eBists&NPO *ne may
Aell dou$t Ahether it is )ossi$le that it should and
certainly the mystic does not su))ose himself to create
a mental $lan, Ahich, after $eing so created, is
su)ernaturally 2lled& *n the contrary, the fundamental
notion of the mystical state is ">a)ture" -- the mind
does not eBtricate itself $ut is ta,en out of its normal
relations Aith the eBternal Aorld $y that 3ery )resence
and inHuence Ahich su))lies their )lace& The mystical
,noAledge of 7od is in regard to all natural ,noAledge
and light, merely "Ignorance" and "Dar,ness"1 and this
is the only condition under Ahich such ,noAledge could
concei3a$ly $e im)arted& The soul, as it Aere, loo,s
o3er the eBtreme edge of the )henomenal Aorld, and
has no use Ahate3er for anything $elonging to that
Aorld1 if it had any, it could not really $e at the edge,
$ut Aould $e the su$Dect of a delusion& Mystical
,noAledge, therefore in no Aay contradicts the
)rinci)les Ahich a))ear necessarily to go3ern the
ordinary cognition of human $eings1 it does not e3en
im)ly emanci)ation from them, it merely transfers
them to another s)here&
'ut a Aord must $e said as to the nature of this s)here&
It is, of course, Ahat is commonly called the
su)ernatural: and the su)ernatural s)here is concei3ed
un0uestiona$ly $y the mystic as distinct from and
eBcluding the natural& The su)ernatural $egins Ahere
the natural ends& If this is denied, then of course there
is an end of su)ernatural mysticism as a genuine thing
-- and, $y conse0uence& as Ae ha3e seen, of anything
Ahate3er that can $e clearly connoted $y the term& Mr
Inge, indeed, in his otherAise admira$le 'am)ton
Lectures, strongly o))oses this theory on Ahat grounds
it is not easy to see& 8e, Aith other modern u)holders
of mysticism in the sense in Ahich it is understood $y
them, regards the )henomenal Aorld inter)reted $y
reason as a true manifestation of the di3ine ideas and
nature1 it is the im)erfection of human reason, caused
$y sin and ignorance, that )re3ents men in general
from "seeing the Aorld as 7od sees it" -- as, in fact, it
really eBists in the mind of 7od -- and as $eing s)iritual
in its nature, $y reason of its creation $y 8is thought
and Aill& We may )ass o3er the latent ()inoJism of
these and similar )hrases, Ahich, ta,en literally, Aould
seem to identify s)irit and matter, the created uni3erse
and 7od& The )oint Ahere this theory manifestly falls
short of true mysticism is that it ta,es something
created, no matter Ahat, for its 2nal o$Dect&
(u)ernatural mysticism, as Ae ha3e said already, has
no o$Dection to oCer to the notion that something of the
nature and Aill of 7od can $e discerned in all created
things, that 8e is truly reHected in them, and that this
reHection can he distinguished Aith increasing
clearness as Ae draA near to the )erfect human state&
NQO %ll this is as true from the )oint of 3ieA of
su)ernatural myticism as from that of its ri3al&
'ut "realisation in thought and feeling" is not
eB)erimental ,noAledge of 7od: thought and feeling
may )ercei3e 0uod est -- that 8e eBists, in the
)lenitude of the di3ine attri$utes1 $ut they cannot see
0uid est -- Ahat 8e is in 8is oAn a$solute $eing& %t
most, natural mysticism is a true 3ision of creation:
Ahat su)ernatural mysticism claims to $e is the 3ision
of the Creator& The tAo 3ieAs so far from $eing
mutually eBclusi3e, are mutually com)lementary1 the
error lies in denial of the )ossi$ility of the su)ernat3ral
,noAledge, not in assertion of the natural& Moreo3er,
there is really no diCerence of )rinci)le or method
$etAeen the tAo1 the diCerence is in the o$Dect at
Ahich each, in )oint of fact, aims& ?or there is, after all,
only one Aay in Ahich the $eing of 7od can $e inferred
from 3isi$le things and that is the Via >emotionis -- the
negati3e road Ahich "nature mystics" de)reciate as at
most insuIcient for its assumed )ur)ose& Whate3er is
,noAn $y the senses can, indeed, or )erha)s e3en
must suggest a train of reasoning, conscious or
su$conscious, Ahich ends in the conce)t of a s)iritual
and )ersonal reality underlying the manifestations of
nature& 'ut this can only $e attained $y a$stracting
from the im)ressions Ahich furnish the suggestion1 the
conce)t itself is formed $y the reason, though it is more
or less confused, and reaches u) to a s)here Ahich
neither reason nor sense can enter& 'ut it is not
intuiti3e or em)irical1 it is an idea e3ol3ed or
constructed $y a rational )rocess Ahich in no Aay
diCers from other rational )rocesses: it is not an
illumination from Aithout& In other Aords, it is no more
mystical than our thoughts a$out any matter of
ordinary $usiness or domestic economy, from Ahich it
diCers only in its su$Dect-matter&
Ta,e, for eBam)le, the ele3ated emotions )roduced $y
to contem)lation of the magni2cent )anorama of
sunset& What Ae see is a shifting arrangement of
colours -- $lue red, )ur)le and green& What Ae eBtract
from it Is a )articular sense of $eauty and thence, $y&
associatton of ideas a confused conce)t of all the
$eautiful things in the Aorld&
?rom this it is easy and natural to )ass to thoughts of
the mysteriousty elusi3e )rinci)le of $eauty, of the
source of that )rinci)te and of the creation in Ahich it is
em$odied, and, lastly, of the natnre of that source, and
of the a$solute moral and s)iritual $eauty to Ahich its
Aor,s testify& 'ut this train of thought is in reality a
train of negations& We )ractically constder that $eauty
is not essentially of any colour -- it is a )rinci)le not
em$odied in any one form -- it cannot $e self-caused
$ut must ha3e a source outside itself& This source
indeed is 7od $ut 8e is not $eautiful in the same Aay
as the sunset -- 8e is not $lue or red or green, nor is 8is
$eauty de)endent on any material constitution& 'ut 8e
is that incom)rehensi$le reality Ahich gi3es $eauty to
the colours of the sunset and to all the good and
$eautiful things, of Ahate3er ,ind, in the uni3erse: 8e is
not any one of those things, nor yet all of them
together, $ut 8e contains in 8imself the )rinci)le of
them all: they are all, as scholastics say, eminenter in
8im&
When Ae ha3e reached this )oint Ae ha3e got rid of
e3erything that our senses tell us of and ha3e erected
for our contem)lation a )urely a$stract conce)tion,
u)on Ahich the lights of sunset still seem to )lay and
Ahich therefore retains something of their charm so
long as the im)ression lasts, $ut in itself is stri))ed of
e3ery image that in this Aorld Ae ,noA as $eautiful&N;O
The solemn and )ious or romantic feelings Ahich a
$rilliant (unset calls into $eing are $ased on an
inference of a nature in no res)ect diCering from that of
9aleyGs inference of a Aatchma,er from a Aatch&
Natural mysticism is concerned Aith ideas and theories,
not Aith actual eB)eriences& Its method is identical Aith
the Via >emotionis of s)eculati3e theology, of Ahich the
mystical or )ractical )arallel is the AithdraAal of the
intelligence, under di3ine guidance, from the
contem)lation of any sensi$le image Ahate3er, and its
illumination, not $y an a$stract idea, $ut $y an actual
)resence&
(econdly, it should $e o$ser3ed that the mode in Ahich
this illumination ta,es )lace is not to $e considered
a$normal in itself, though it o$3iously de)ends on
a$normal conditions&
The mental faculties act, or may act, in the ordinary
Aay& The diCerence $etAeen the mystical and the
merely natural states lies, as Ae ha3e seen, in the
o$Dect of the faculties& not, so far as can he Dudged, in
their mode of action&& The reason and intelligence
under ordinary circumstances Aor, u)on a $asis of
sensation the reactions of the mind de)end ultimately
u)on the cumulati3e reactions of the $ody1 or, in other
Aords, the mind can only act u)on material furnished
originally $y the senses, In mystical states this material
groundAor, is, of course, a$sent, and in that fact lies
their su)ernatural character& The )lace of the material
is su))lied $y the )resence and action of su)ernatural
di3ine agency, $ut the mental and $odily reactions
certainly need not diCer essentially in character from
those ordinarily set u) $y sensation& It Aould $e
)erfectly true to say that the mind, or soul, can only act
in one Aay and that conse0uently any theory Ahich
re0uires that it should act in a diCerent Aay is there$y
made a$solutely incredi$le& ?or such a theory Aould
im)ly a self-contradiction Ahich is the one a$solutely
incredi$le thing& It Aould $e li,e saying that one sees a
sound, or hears an odour& If the soul Aere to act as a
mere )assi3e rece)tacle, and yet $e conscious of that
Ahich it recei3ed, it Aould $e an unmeaning
contradiction of itself, such as could not )ossi$ly eBist
or $e concei3ed& Consciousness is acti3e1 the mind can
no more $e a mere unres)onsi3e rece)tacle than the
$ody can eB)erience sensation Aithout $eing itself
ali3e and acti3e& The fact of consciousness necessarily
im)lies the normal mental acti3ity of the su$Dect, Aith
all the )hysical concomitants necessary to it& 'ut the
connection $etAeen consciousness and sensation -- the
mode in Ahich one is transferred to the other -- is still
3ery o$scure and the su$Dect of many di3ergent
theories: at any rate, there a))ears to $e nothing
im)ossi$le, or e3en irregular, in the idea that
consciousness and intelligence may folloA their normal
course on a $asis of su)ersensi$le ideas, )resented to
them, not $y means of sense, $ut $y su)ernatural and
di3ine inter)osition&
If Ae can $e conscious of the )resence of a s)iritual
$eing $y means of an inference from the sensations
eBcited $y his $odily )resence, as Ae are conscious in
our friendGs )resence of a s)iritual )ersonality inferred
from sensi$le e3idences, then it is at least 0uite
concei3a$le that 7od may cause 8imself to $e
a))rehended as immediately )resent merely $y
stimulating the consciousness in the same Aay in Ahich
it is ordinarily stimulated $y the idea (the s)ecies
intelligi$ilis# a$stracted from sense-im)ressions, Ahich
in this case may $e gi3en ready made instead of $eing
constructed $y the intellect&N<O There is e0ually, of
course, no a )riori im)ossi$ility in such communications
$eing made $y agencies other than di3ine, and it is
diIcult to see Ahy any one Aho $elie3es in the
eBistence of created s)iritual )ersonalities other than
human should regard them as $eing inca)a$le under
any circumstances of eBercising direct inHuence u)on
man,ind& %ll stories of angelic 3isitations, or of
dia$olical )ossession, may not $e true and Ariters such
as 7Rrres, (chram and >i$et may $e o3er-systematic
and o3er-minute in dealing Aith this su$Dect& 'ut there
can he no a )riori reason for dismissing it as merely
su)erstitious&
*f the 3isions and locutions, "imaginary" or
"intellectual," $y means of Ahich mystical
communications ha3e not infre0uently $een con3eyed,
there is no need to s)ea, here& They are not essential
to mystical eB)erience, and are held $y mystical
authorities to $e of 0uite secondary im)ortance at $est&
It is )lain that the mode of communication Ae ha3e
$een considering is 0uite ca)a$le of strongly aCecting
the imagination, and may do so either $y creating fresh
imaginary 2gures, or $y recalling )ast im)ressions
deri3ed from such things as )ictures and statues& (ome
of the 3isions of (t Teresa, :ulian of NorAich, %nne
Catherine .mmerich and many others are fran,ly
admitted to $e of the latter ,ind&
Thirdly, the )henomena of mystical contem)lation
cannot $e considered ca)a$le of eB)lanation $y any
theory Ahich eBcludes the su)ernatural& TAo such
theories ha3e $een suggested& The a))arently infused
su)ernatural o$Dect of contem)lation has $een thought
to $e merely an image draAn $y the normal )rocess of
the understanding from )ast conscious eB)erience1 the
su))osed di3ine illumination is held to $e, in fact, the
result of self-delusion& %gain, there are certain
resem$lances $etAeen mystical states and those
induced $y diseased conditions or drugs& Ahich ha3e
suggested the theory that mystical states are really
)athological, and are only a$normal in that sense& 'ut
in s)ite of such o$3ious resem$lances as might
naturally $e eB)ected to occur in all a$normal
conditions of indi3idual organisms of the same s)ecies,
there are mar,ed diCerences Ahich a$solutely )reclude
the )ossi$ility of eB)laining mystical conditions in any
of these Aays&
?irst, there is in these states (a)art from the occurrence
of 3isions# no 2gure or image Ahate3er, such as
necessarily occurs in any natural )rocess of reasoning
or imagination& >ecorded mystical eB)eriences, 3arious
as they are in ty)e, uniformly fail to connect
themsel3es Aith any )receding thought or eB)erience
of a natural ,ind& The assertion, fre0uently made, that
they must $e so connected is nothing $ut an ar$itrary
assum)tion1 the e3idence is all the other Aay& Then the
3isions or hallucinations )roceeding from a drugged or
otherAise )athological condition are characterised, as it
seems, in3aria$ly, $y monstrous or grotes0ue 3isual
a))earances, or $y strange )hysical sensations Ahich,
though in some )ersons they ha3e a))arently eBercised
some )oAer of s)iritual suggestion, $elong distinctly to
the order of natural dreams their )hysical origin is
manifest, though its )recise locality is, naturally, not
alAays ascertaina$le&N=O Moreo3er, mystics ha3e
alAays $een remar,a$le for sanity and )lacidity e3en
Ahen in3alids1 the neurotic tem)erament Ahich
$elongs to )athological states of consciousness is
cons)icuously rare, e3en if not entirely a$sent among
them& (uch a tem)erament can hardly $e thought
com)ati$le Aith the "straightforAardness, sim)licity
and dauntless courage" of (t Teresa, or the
"tremendous moral force" of (t :ohn of the Cross,NO or
Aith the energetic acti3ity and the tender human
sym)athy of (t Catherine of (iena& Moreo3er, it is Aorth
noticing in this connection that for the )ractical
)ur)oses of canonisation and $eati2cation a clearly
recognisa$le distinction is and has alAays $een
)ercei3ed $y ecclesiastical authority -- de)ending more
on common sense than on any )sychological theory --
$etAeen eB)eriences Ahich may $e classed as
)athological, and those Ahich must $e considered
su)ernaturalMN!O
*n the Ahole, therefore, it seems hardly too much to
say that none of the )ro)osed eB)lanations Aould ha3e
any Aeight Ahate3er, a)art from the reluctance to
admit the eBistence and )ossi$ility of su)ernatural
eB)erience Ahich, $y a natural sAing of the )endulum,
has su)erseded in our day the former too great
readiness to see, a su)ernatural cause far any
uncommon e3ent&
'ut, it may $e said, Ahat does all this matterM The
su$Dect can $e of direct interest only to those Aho
ha3e, or $elie3e themsel3es to ha3e, mystical
eB)erience of the su)ernatural ,ind and they are 3ery
feA in num$er e3en if any of them are still eBtant&
Moreo3er, mysticism, in that sense, is not )art of the
Christian religion1 it is 0uite )ossi$le to $e not merely a
good Christian, $ut e3en a saint, Aithout so much as
,noAing anything a$out the matter, Why not lea3e it to
those, if any there are, Aho are the su$Dects of these
a$normal eB)eriences, and Ahose con3iction as to the
nature of them, is already unsha,ea$le, and to those
eB)erts Aho from time to time may ha3e to form a
Dudgment a$out themM ?or the ordinary run of )eo)le
there can $e no use in considering a su$Dect Ahich in
no Aay concerns either their faith or their duty& NoA it
is 0uite true that com)arati3ely feA are called to
su)ernatural contem)lation it is e0ually true that
neither the faith nor the )ractical duty of Christians in
general can in any Aay de)end on ")ri3ate re3elations"
or on mystical ,noAledge of any ,ind& Ne3ertheless, the
su$Dect has a distinct interest and im)ortance of its oAn
far all Aho desire to form a clear and correct Dudgment
as to the true attitude of the Catholic Church in regard
to human life in general, or Aho Aish to a))reciate fully
the Ahole range of the e3idence to $e adduced in
fa3our of her claims& ?or on the one hand, since
mysticism is a constant feature -- though not e0ually
)rominent at all times -- of Christian life, it cannot
rightly $e neglected $y any Aho Aish to form a Dust
estimate of the character of that life as a Ahole1 and on
the other hand, mysticism has a distinct e3idential
3alue Ahether considered in itself or in its relation to
other factors of the Catholic system, Ahich is $y no
means con2ned to those Aho ha3e eB)erimental
,noAledge of it& I Aill try to esta$lish these tAo )oints&
& Christianity, as fully re)resented and em$odied in
the Catholic Church, a))eals to human nature as a
Ahole, not to any )art or as)ect of it& That is to say, the
Church deals Aith human nature in its com)leteness,
a)art from all indi3idual, national or racial
characteristics& It is therefore necessary that e3ery
factor in that nature should 2nd itself recognised, and a
)lace )ro3ided for it, Aith a))ro)riate guidance and
disci)line, in due relation and harmony Aith all else that
goes to ma,e u) humanity, in the system of the
Church& In this sense the Church has aInities Aith all
forms of religion and )hiloso)hy1 for in each of them
some modicum at least of truth is to $e found, Ahich, if
the Church is truly Ahat she re)resents herself to $e,
Aill $e ac,noAledged and co-ordinated Aith other
truths in the com)lete $ody of her doctrine& .rror, e3en
in its eBtremest forms, is not "a lie that is all a lie" -- it
is truth torn from its natural )lace in the scheme of
things, and so seen in false )ers)ecti3e1 truth is only
true Ahen seen in its due relation to the Ahole& Men are
misled, not $y that Ahich does not eBist -- a thing Ae
may Aell $elie3e to $e im)ossi$le -- $ut $y folloAing
that Ahich is true Aithout regard to its com)lementary
truths& This fact is noAhere so e3ident as in the case of
mysticism, Ahich, li,e li$erty, has gi3en the shelter of
its name to almost e3ery concei3a$le a$erration of
moral conduct& The desire for 7od, )ursued often $y
the most eBtra3agant methods and disguised under the
most unli,ely )reteBts, is the real moti3e-)oAer of all
human acti3ity Ahatsoe3er& Mysticism, on its )urely
human side, is one road $y Ahich men see, for the
heartGs rest Ahich all, e3en in s)ite of themsel3es,
desire& Whether Aithin or Aithout the Church men Aill
stri3e to see 7od, $ecause they must1 the methods
they ado)t may $e determined $y 3arying
tem)eraments or circumstances, $ut among them has
alAays $een and must alAays $e the "inner Aay" -- the
Aay of a$straction and contem)lation, the eCort to
)ass $eyond the many-coloured dome of life into the
"Ahite radiance" of true reality $eyond it&
NoA if the Church had nothing to say to this dee)ly
rooted and constantly manifest human desire, she
Aould surely fall far short of the )lace that she claims,
and has held successfully from the 2rst& (till more, if,
li,e some, she had condemned, as merely
)resum)tuous and delusi3e, the eCorts of man,ind to
realise in some faint degree noA the 3ery life Ahich she
)romises hereafter, she Aould ha3e come )erilously
near to denying her oAn authority and commission& (he
Aould ha3e said in eCect to man,ind, @ou are made for
7od1 you are to loo, forAard to the su)ernatural
enDoyment of 8im in .ternity, and there is no limit to
the fa3ours Ahich 8e can and may $estoA on you here
and noA, 'ut one thing you may not ha3e, one thing 8e
shall not do for you -- and that the one Ahich you most
desire -- you shall not ha3e the $riefest or slightest
foretaste here of the $lessedness that is to $e yours
hereafter1 7od 8imself, though 8e may do miracles of
all sorts $ut this, shall not )ierce the crust of material
things Ahich hides 8im from you, or shoA you the
faintest s)ar, of the radiance that lies $eyond it --
"dGefense S Dieu de faire miracles en ce lieu&" 'ut the
Church has ne3er done anything of the ,ind& Mystical
,noAledge has alAays $een fully recognised $y her as
)ossi$le, and as eBisting -- Ahether in the 8e$reA
)ro)hets, the %)ostles of Christ, or the contem)lati3es
of successi3e ages since their day& .3en for mystics, as
such, Aithout her )ale she has had no condemnation1
she has condemned their mis$elief, $ut has ,e)t
silence a$out their mysticism1 and in her theology and
)hiloso)hy the )henomena of mysticism ha3e $een
dealt Aith and eB)lained in accordance Aith the
methods Ahich Aere a))lied to all other )hases of
human eB)erience& Not only a )rofessed mystic li,e
Dionysius, $ut a Clement, an %ugustine, a Thomas
%0uinas, has each had his Aord to say and his ray,
more or less $rilliant, of light to contri$ute to the sum
total of the ChurchGs Aisdom, e3er groAing Aith the
increasing eB)erience of the human race& The
as)irations of man toAards immediate ,noAledge of
7od and union Aith 8im are therefore recognised and
ado)ted $y the Church as a true )art of that
multifarious human energy Ahich it is her function $o
direct, regulate and enlighten& (uch as)irations are to
2nd full satisfaction hereafter for those Aho are Ailling
to $e guided in their eBercise1 they are )artially to he
satis2ed here, in a certain degree $y the "natural"
contem)lation Ahich is the common right of all
Christians, and in a fuller measure, and after a higher
and more )erfect manner, in the su)ernatural
contem)lation Ahich is the )ri3ilege of com)arati3ely
feA& Thus the truth that underlies in diCerent Aays and
degrees the mystical theories and ascetic )ractices of
Neo)latonist, 7nostic or 'uddhist, 9arsee or
Mohammedan, is cleared from its surroundings of
mythological or theoso)hical imagination and set in its
)lace in the harmony of truths Ahich are made ,noAn
$y nature and $y re3elation, and )reser3ed in the
dogmatic structure of the ChurchGs faith&
What scholastic )hiloso)hy has done for mysticism is to
ma,e clear the distinction $etAeen its natural and
su)ernatural )arts& (t %ugustine, no less than
Dionysius, did indeed call attention to the necessarily
su)ernatural character of any direct contem)lation of
the di3ine nature, $ut it Aas (t Thomas Ahose analysis
of the nature of the intellectual faculties in man made
clear the reason Ahy this must he so& ManGs Aay of
,noAledge is ineBtrica$ly in3ol3ed Aith his $odily
organism, since $ody and soul are not tAo su$stances
$ut one& Conse0uently, immediate ,noAledge of that
Ahich is )urely s)iritual or immaterial cannot come to
him $y any eBercise of his natural )oAers, $ut only $y a
"ra)ture" or "ecstasy" in Ahich he is made to transcend
his oAn )resent nature, and for a moment to enDoy the
$eatitude ha$itual to those Aho ha3e attained the goal
of their desires in the eternal 3ision of 7od& No instance
of the Aay in Ahich the magisterium of the Church has
dealt Aith the im)ulses and feelings of humanity is
clearer or more illuminating than this or more )lainly
illustrates the co-ordination and mutual su))ort of the
truths of nature and grace in that com)rehensi3e 3ieA
of man nature Ahich is )ossi$le only to an organisation
Ahich, as $eing $oth fully human and at the same time
truly di3ine, is a$le to maintain a )erfect $alance
$etAeen the natural and the su)ernatural&
It is therefore )lain that mystical theology is not the
least )recious of the ChurchGs treasures& It resem$les
the Aay of life technically called religious in its relation
to the general life of the faithful: it $elongs not indeed
to the esse, $ut to the $ene esse of the Church -- it is
necessary not to its eBistence, $ut to its integrity& The
mere eBistence of the religious life, in its 3arious forms,
is undou$tedly a source of Doy and consolation and a
moral su))ort to countless )ersons Atn are far from
ha3ing a "3ocation" themsel3es& In the same Aay, the
recognition of the life of mystical contem)lation is an
encouragement and ha))iness to many Aho (li,e the
)resent Ariter# ,noA nothing of it $y )ersonal
eB)erience and it can hardly $e dou$ted that its 3alue
in this res)ect Aould $e more Aidely and dee)ly
a))reciated if its nature Aere $etter understood than it
is& It com)letes the circle of the ChurchGs ada)tation to
human needs, and $rings together in the unity of a
di3inely human institution e3ery tem)erament, as Aell
as e3ery class, occu)ation and moral character and is
in this as)ect an im)ortant factor in that ,ind of moral
e3idence of the Dustice of the ChurchGs claims Ahich is
su))lied $y the )ractical ser3ices she has rendered,
and is daily rendedng, to humanity in general&
!& The direct e3idential 3alue, as distinct from this
indirect testimony of the ChurchGs mystical theology,
arises from its eB)erimental character, as contrasted
Aith the theoretical nature of "s)eculati3e" theology&
The symmetry and com)leteness of the $ody of
Catholic doctrine is admitted on all hands it is e3en said
$y some to he too com)lete and )erfect to ha3e any
real $earing on a state of things so fragmentary and
unsystematic as that of the Aorld in Ahich Ae ha3e to
li3e&
The 0uestion is, Is it really trueM %nd to this 0uestion
the ansAer is often gi3en that no$ody ,noAs, $ecause
it cannot $e su$mitted to any )ractical test& The
com)laint is, indeed, an unDust one, e3en on its oAn
grounds& ?or the consistency of Catholic doctrine not
merely Aith itself (though e3en that is something#, $ut
Aith other de)artments of ,noAledge, in Ahich fresh
forms of truth are continually emerging, really
constitutes a )ractical test of the most stringent ,ind,
and one Ahich has $een constantly re)eated under
e3er-3arying conditions from the 2rst& 'ut this is not a
test of the ,ind Ahich lea)s to the eyes1 it does not
im)ress $y any eBternal signs, or arrest the attention of
the careless and uninterested& It needs to $e )ondered
and considered in the light of a degree of ,noAledge
Ahich is not uni3ersally )ossessed $efore its full
signi2cance can $e a))reciated& 'ut the eB)erience of
the mystic is of 0uite a diCerent character1 though its
testimony is )erha)s less Aeighty in reality than that of
the failure of tAenty centuries of disco3ery to sha,e the
credi$ility of re3elation, it is more easily recognised and
a))eals to a diCerent and iess )urely rational order of
intelligence& Mystics are, in fact, to the religion of the
multitude 3ery much Ahat the )ioneers of natural
science are to the )o)ular interest in that su$Dect& The
mystics are the eB)erimentalists of religion& We cannot
all $e NeAtons or ?aradays or 8uBleys1 $ut our outloo,
on life is Aider, and our a))reciation of the Aonders of
nature is dee)er for researches, of the nature and truth
of Ahich our ,noAledge may $e someAhat 3ague and
im)erfect& (o, though feA indeed may ha3e the gift or
the merits of the great mystics, Ahat they ha3e seen is
an assurance for all of the reality of the in3isi$le
uni3erse, and of the truth of those eB)eriences $y
Ahich all, Ahether mystics or not, are ena$led in some
degree to share Aith their the ,noAledge and the
enDoyment of di3ine things& ?or this )ur)ose it is
necessary indeed that the accounts gi3en $y mystics of
their eB)eriences should $e as credi$le, at least, as
those Ahich scienti2c eB)erts gi3e of their researches&
'ut that this is really the case no one Aho Aill gi3e
un)reDudiced consideration to the 0uestion can
seriously dou$t& It is most unfortunate that the only tAo
.nglish authors Aho ha3e dealt s)eci2cally Aith this
as)ect of the su$Dect should ha3e Aritten under the
inHuence of a )arti )ris Ahich, notAithstanding the
erudition and acumen dis)layed $y them, has de)ri3ed
their Dudgment of all 3alue&
NO W& >& Inge, "Christian Mysticism," 'am)ton
Lectures, Lect& &
N!O Maeterlin,, >uys$roec, and the Mystics& Introd&
N"O Inge, o)& cit&, Lect& VII&
N4O >oyce, The World and the Indi3idual, 3ol& i&, ch i&
N/O (t :ohn of the Cross $rings the tAo methods into
shar) contrast& "While created things furnish to the soul
traces of the $elo3ed, and eBhi$it the im)ress of 8is
$eauty and magni2cence, the lo3e of the soul
increases, and conse0uently the )ain of 8is a$sence1
for the greater the soulGs ,noAledge of 7od, thy greater
is the desire to see 8im, and its )ain Ahen it cannot1
and Ahile there is no remedy for this )ain eBce)t in the
)resence of the 'elo3ed, the soul, distrustful of e3ery
other remedy, )rays for the fruition of 8is )resence&" It
says& in eCect, ".ntertain me no more Aith any
,noAledge of Thee or Aith Thy communications or
im)ressions of Thy grandeur, for these do $ut increase
my longing and the )ain of Thy a$sence1 for Thy
)resence alone can satisfy my Aill and desire&" The Aill
cannot $e satis2ed Aith anything less than the 3ision of
7od, and therefore the soul )rays that 8e may $e
)leased to gi3e 8imself to it )erfectly in truth, in the
consolation of lo3e&" -- ()iritual Canticle& .B)lanation of
(tanJa VI&
NPO Cf& (cho)enhauer& "If something is none of all the
things Ae ,noA, it is certainly for us, s)ea,ing
generally, nothing& 'ut it does not folloA from this that
it is a$solutely nothing, that from e3ery )ossi$le )oint
of 3ieA and in e3ery )ossi$le sense it must he nothing,
$ut only that Ae are limited to a com)letely negati3e
,noAledge of it, Ahich may 3ery Aell lie in the
limitations of our )oint of 3ieA& NoA it is Dust here that
mysticism )roceeds )ositi3ely, and therefore it is Dust
from this )oint that nothing $ut mysticism remains&" --
World as Will and Idea, i3& 4;&
NQO Cf& (umma, I& !& & i& and !& c&: also !& P& c&
N;O Cf& IllingAorth, Di3ine Immanence, cha)& iii&
N<O Cf& 'ergson, MatiTre et MUmoire, ) "": "Kue le
matiTre )uisse etre )erVu sans le concours dGun
systeme ner3euB, sans organes de sens, cela nGest )as
thUori0uement inconce3a$le&" If this a$stract direct
)erce)ta$ility of matter $y the soul $e conceded, it
Aould seem to folloA, a fortiori that the soul may
)ercei3e that Ahich is immaterial, li,e the soul itself,
Aithout any intermediate sensation&
N=O (ee the instances gi3en $y :ames, Varieties of
>eligious .B)erience (Mysticism#&
NO Inge, "Christian Mysticism," Lect& VI&
N!O (ee 'enedict FIV& De Canonis&
C8%9T.> II
(E9.>N%TE>%L M@(TICI(M
M@(TICI(M has often $een descri$ed, $ut seldom
de2ned1 and the de2nitions ha3e not alAays $een
satisfactory& @et in order to ha3e any clear
understanding of Ahat is meant $y a Aord used in so
many diCerent senses, it is 3ery necessary to $egin
Aith a de2nitioin of the )recise idea Ahich it originally
connoted, and Ahich underlies and forms the
connecting lin, among its 3arious a))lications&
.tymologically, mystics are those Aho ha3e $een
initiated into the mysteries or esoteric rites of 7ree,
religion1 the mustai, memuWmenoi, or fully instructed
)ersons Aho Aere )ri3ileged to ta,e )art in the
ceremonies )eriodically )erformed in honour of a god,
from )artici)ation in Ahich the general )u$lic Aas
eBcluded& %ny one or anything $elonging to the
cele$ration of these sacred rites Aas "Mystic" -- e3en to
the "Mystica 3annus Iacchi" of Virgil1 and the tAo
)rominent ideas connected Aith the Aord Aere
conse0uently -- 2rst, s)ecial ,noAledge o$tained $y
instruction (muW#, and secondly, an o$ligation or other
necessity of secrecy in regard to it (mu+#&NO The
mystics are, in fact, the inner circle of the de3otees of
any cult1 they are )ossessed of ,noAledge Ahich
)arta,es of the nature of re3elation rather than of
ac0uired science, and Ahich is im)arted in
consideration of some s)ecial a)titude, natural or
ac0uired, such as is not found in the general run of
man,ind& It is further im)lied that the ,noAledge is of a
transcendental ,ind, such as may $e su))osed to $e
necessary for the de3out Aorshi) of a di3ine $eing1
this, hoAe3er, though o$3iously )art of the original
meaning of the term, is not alAays signi2ed in its later
uses& 'ut the one idea common to all uses is that of a
s)ecial ,noAledge con2ned to a cor)s dGUlite of )ersons
Aith a )eculiar a)titude for its ac0uisition& Thus the
early Christian Church concei3ed itself to hold the
)osition of a $ody of mystics Aith regard to man,ind in
general: its mem$ers Aere the de)ositaries of a
re3elation (%rcanum# not, at least in all )oints,
accessi$le to the outside Aorld1 they Aere initiated $y
the "illuminating" rite of $a)tism, and there$y admitted
to )artici)ation in the other sacraments, or mysteries,
of the Christian religion& Thus (t& 9aul (9hil& i3& !#
s)ea,s of himself as musti,os -- in silence& 8ence, in
later times, any art or handicraft Ahich made use of
traditional methods came to $e ,noAn as a "Mystery&"
Its secrets Aere im)arted to the no3ice at or after his
initiation into the guild or com)any $y Ahich it Aas
carried on, and under Ahich he had ser3ed an
a))renticeshi): such "arts and mysteries" are still
)rofessed, though not alAays )ractised, $y the guilds
Ahich ha3e sur3i3ed to the )resent day&
'ut in the Church there has alAays $een a circle Aithin
a circle1 Aithin the $ody of the initiated a $ody of those
Aho ha3e undergone a further initiation1 among the
instructed some fa3oured ones Aho ha3e recei3ed fuller
instruction&N!O %nd Ahereas initiation into the Christian
community has $een entrusted $y di3ine authority to
the Church itself, the further illumination of the
selected is recei3ed directly from 7od& 8ence has
arisen $y a natural transference the )o)ular a))lication
of the term to any 3ieA or conce)tion of the
transcendental or the unseen, to anything "3ague, 3ast
and sentimental"1 and hence again the note of
condemnation or contem)t Ahich Aas attached in
.ngland to the idea of mysticism, as it Aas to its distant
relation "enthusiasm," during the century ended some
2fty years ago -- a "mystic" during that )eriod $eing
considered much the same thing as a 3isionary or a
sentimentalist& The Aord has since then reco3ered from
its tem)orary degradation1 and though it is still used
someAhat loosely, it no longer carries any $urden of
oCensi3eness& The laBity of use from Ahich it still
suCers consists in the em)hasising of one )art of its full
connotation to the )ractical eBclusion of the other: any
,noAledge or eB)erience, real or imaginary, Ahich is
$eyond the sco)e of ordinary sense-eB)erience, is a)t
to $e called mystical& 'ut such ,noAledge is not
mystical in the )ro)er or strict sense, unless it is held
also to $e im)arted, and not ac0uired $y the
inde)endent eBercise of the natural )oAers& It Aould, of
course, $e a$surd to contend that the con3dentional
meaning of a Aord, in many cases an enrichment rather
than a )er3ersion, has not at least as good a claim to
acce)tance as its etymological one& 'ut Ahere, as in
this case, the con3entional uses of the Aord ha3e
o$scured the nature of the thing for Ahich it originally
stood, it is necessary to determine the sense in Ahich
the Aord is to $e used in the discussion of the thing&
The name Aas 2rst a))lied in the sense in Ahich Ae
ha3e noA de2ned it $y Dionysius -- Ahoe3er the author
,noAn under that name may ha3e $een& The thing,
hoAe3er, Aas undou$tedly ,noAn and recogniJed in
the Church from the $eginning& The a)ostles Aere
certainly mystics in the fullest sense1 and the mystical
tendencies of su$-a)ostolic times are e3idenced and
fairly re)resented $y the "(he)herd" of 8ermas, and
the Aritings and authentic acts of many of the early
martyrs& The self-chosen title of (t& Ignatius,
Theo)horos, the 7od-$earer, im)lies a claim to the
)ossession of mystical eB)erience of the most far-
reaching ,ind& 'ut mysticism -- or at least the
tem)erament Ahich see,s ,noAledge $y means of
illumination rather than discursi3e reasoning -- $elongs
essentially to human nature, and a))ears, under one
form or another, Ahere3er thought is free&
Thus, to lea3e the .astern theoso)hy out of account, a
mystical element a))ears, in greater or less degree, in
all 7ree, )hiloso)hy, if the mere negations of
9yrrhonism may $e eBce)ted& 'efore (ocrates, 7ree,
)hiloso)hers Aere seers rather than reasoners: the
a)o)hthegmatic character of their utterances aCects to
$e the result rather of intuition than of reasoning: and
the dialectic of 9lato, and e3en the logical )recision of
%ristotle, led in the end, theoretically at least, to that
)ure contem)lation in Ahich alone %ristotle concei3ed
that $eatitude consists& In the later 9latonic schools
mysticism tended more and more to re)lace discursi3e
reasoning1 contem)lation rather than reasoned
,noAledge $ecame more and more de2nitely the o$Dect
of )hiloso)hy, and ascetic self-disci)line a))eared in a
surer Aay than argument to attain this end& 9lotinus
(Ahom M& Maeterlinc, calls "the one analytical mystic"#,
and 9roclus after him, )resent the doctrines of later
Neo)latonism in a systematic form, and are free from
the magical and theurgic eBtra3agances into Ahich it
degenerated in other hands&
The tAo streams of Christian and 9latonic mysticism
HoAed together at %leBandria, Ahere 9hilo had already
grafted the HoAer of Neo)latonic mysticism u)on the
stoc, of :udaic theism& together they )roduced a school
of religious )hiloso)hy in Ahich Christian faith sought
Aith more or less success, to ally itself Aith the
dialectic of 9latonism, on the one hand, and on the
other Aith the 0uest for direct illumination that
characterised the later de3elo)ment of the 9latonic
schools& The mystical theology of Dionysius re)resents,
on the Ahole, the )ermanent results of this
com$ination& In this treatise Ae ha3e a ,ind of grammar
of mhysticism in Ahich )rinci)les alone are formulated,
disengaged ali,e from the eB)erience and
argumentation through Ahich they had $een e3ol3ed,
and aAaiting the fuller clothing of concrete )ersonal
eB)erience su$se0uently im)arted to them $y later
mystical Ariters& Though recei3ed at 2rst Aith
sus)icion, the Aritings of Dionysius soon attained a
)osition of authority not less commanding in its day
than that of (t& Thomas in later times& We could
scarcely ha3e had either the (entences or the (umma
Aithout them1 and their echoes may $e heard, e3en
Ahen, as is not often the case, their direct inHuence
may not $e detected, in e3ery mystical Ariter since the
time of their a))earance&
It is )ro$a$ly a mista,e to loo, for any direct 2liation, or
continuity of historical succession, among the mystical
Ariters of successi3e ages and )eriods& 8ere, as
elseAhere, it can scarcely $e dou$ted that the most
im)ortant )art of history is that Ahich has ne3er $een
Aritten& Mystical teachers and Ariters Aere forced into
)rominence $y circumstances1 $ut it is more than
)ro$a$le that circumstances had no inHuence on the
general cra3ing for ,noAledge of the unseen and
a$iding reality Ahich underlies the endless 3icissitudes
of human life, as they could ha3e none u)on the
sources from Ahich that need is su))lied& (uch
circumstances Aere the ceaseless Aars Ahich "made
.uro)e one 3ast cam)" in the fourteenth and 2fteenth
centuries, and the intellectual and moral u)hea3als of
the age of the >enaissance and the >eformation1 and in
our oAn day the $rea,ing u) of old traditions and
institutioins, and the $irth of neA )rinci)les, ideas and
customs -- the forerunners, as it Aould seem, of a neA
order of things the character of Ahich no man can yet
forecast& In such times, Ahen the insta$ility of human
things, or the fee$leness of human reason, is forced
Aith s)ecial insistence u)on menGs notice, the teaching
of themystic has an attracti3e force Ahich in 0uieter
)eriods it seems to lac,1 and it is at such times that a
7erson, a Tauler, a >uys$roec, or a Teresa is mo3ed to
tell of the "inner Aay" in Ahich true )eace of mind may
$e found amind the illusion, insta$ility and restlessness
of outAard life& 'ut it can hardly $e dou$ted that in all
times ali,e there are countless elect souls to Ahom
mystical ,noAledge is as the air they $reathe, $ut Aho
are more than content to $e "mute and inglorious" to
the end of their days&
It Aould ha3e $een strange if such an a$iding demand
of humanity in general had ne3er $een met Aith a
conterfeit su))ly& 9arallel Aith the current of true
mysticism there has $een a nearly continuous
succession of the s)urious ,ind in Ahich, though
conscious im)osture is )erha)s hardly to $e found or
sus)ected, a greater or less degree of illusion is easily
discerni$le& It Aould indeed scarcely $e )ossi$le to say
hoA far the 9ythagorean contem)lati3es or teh
Neo)latonist ecstatics come under this head1N"O the
latter, at least, ha3e nothing in common Aith the
theoso)hic eBtra3agances of 7nostics, Montanists and
later sects, Ahose militant )ro)agandism seems
strangely at 3ariance Aith their )rofessed )rinci)les&
The initial inconsistency of the su))osition that the
de)ositum of re3elation needs to $e su)erseded,
am)li2ed or modi2ed $y mystical communications
im)arted to a single irres)onsi$le )erson -- a 9riscilla, a
Mohammed, a :oachim, a 'oehme or an Ir3ing -- of
itself goes far to discredit the doctrines )rofessedly so
recei3ed& We shall consider later the criteria $y Ahich
the true is to $e distinguished from the false or dou$tful
mysticism1 it is enough for the )resent to remar, that
mysticism forms no eBce)tion to the rule, that the
3alue of )recious things is attested $y the a$undance
of their imitators&
NO "Mysticum inter)eratur a$sconditum," 7erson,
Myst& Theol&, I&
N!O Cf& 8arnac,, Mission and .B)ansion of Christianity,
3ol& I, )& !"Q& Christianity gained s)eciel Aeight from
the fact that, in the 2rst )lace, it had mysterious
secrets of its oAn, Ahich it sought to fathom only to
adore them once again in silence1 and secondly, that it
)reached to the )erfect in another and dee)er sense
than it did to sim)le fol,&
N"O Tauler credits "9roclus and 9lato" Aith a true
mystical ,noAledge of 7od ((ermon on (t :ohn 'a)tist#&
C8%9T.> III
T8. N%TE>. *? M@(TIC%L .F9.>I.NC.
T8. characteristic $y Ahich mystical states or
eB)eriences of e3ery ,ind are distinguished from other
states and eB)eriences Ahich ha3e )oints of
resem$lance to them is that they are directly and
immediately su)ernatural& Mystical contem)lation is
the highest and closest of those human relations Aith
7od of Ahich the o))osite eBreme is re)resented $y the
condition of sim)le de)endence, necessarily in3ol3ed in
mere created eBistence& Immediately a$o3e this comes
the recognition $y self-conscious $eings of this
de)endence1 and after that, as a necessary
conse0uence, the rational deduction of the )ersonal,
in2nite and sim)le nature of 7od& %$o3e this again
comes the sense of indirect )ersonal relatioins Aith
7od, through the medium of our created en3ironment,
and most com)letely and )erfectly through the
o)eration of grace& With this consciousness comes also
ine3ita$ly the desire to culti3ate these relations and
maintain them at their highest )oint of eIcacy1 and
thus $oth reason and free-Aill are draAn into the
uni3ersal accord in Ahich each element, from the
loAest to the highest, 2lls its alloted )lace and
discharges its most congenial function& >ational $eings
Aho, $y failing to recognise these relations, choose to
hold the )osition of the irrational and inanimate )art of
creation are, as rational $eings, out of accord Aith the
general scheme: yet the loss is theirs only1 the scheme
is not aCected $y their failure to occu)y the )lace
Ahich they might hold& They cannot $ut suCer
indi3idually from the conse0uences of their choice --
Ahich is to assimilate the rational to the irrational, the
s)iritual to the material1 $ut the scheme holds good for
them as for the irrational $eings Ahose )lace they ha3e
elected to share&
'ut the croAn and summit of the Ahole system is that
direct intercoiurse of the soul Aith 7od, Ahich,
ordinarily at least, )resu))oses the sacramental life of
grace, $ut is itself something more than that&
It is a state in Ahich the natural and ordinary action of
he sould is modi2ed, and in Ahich e3en the organic
functions of the $ody are to a certain eBtent in
a$eyance&
We may therefore distinuish the three conditions thus&
?irst, the mere su$Dection, unconscious or in3oluntary,
to the di3ine Aill, Ahich no created $eing can esca)e&
NeBt, the conscious realisation of this general
de)endence, Ahich includes all that is meant $y natural
religion, and is enriched and am)li2ed $y the
,noAledge Ahich re3elation im)arts, and the ele3ation
of the natural faculties Ahich is the eCect of di3ine
grace& To this state $elongs the ,ind of contem)lation
,noAn as natural or ac0uired (in the sense that it is
o$tained $y the eBercise of the natural )oAers#& This
state is sometimes called mystical& 'ut it is not truly so1
for it im)lies the eBercise of natural )oAers on natural
o$Dects, though under su)ernatural guidance, $ut not
the su))ression of their natural o$Dects $y s)ecial and
su)ernatural inHuence& The mind in this state,
illuminated $y faith, $ut $y the eBercise of its oAn
reasoning )oAer, concei3es an idea -- say of the Trinity,
the Incarnation, the (acramental )resence of Christ, or
the Aonders of di3ine )ro3idence -- and contem)lates it
Aith satisfaction, and e3en Aith delight and
enthusiasm& The )ractice of ordinary meditation Aill
lead, if not uniformly, at least occasionally to
contem)lation of this ,ind& Its o$Dect is not immediately
su)ernatural, though the action of the mind ta,es )lace
Aith su)ernatural assistance1 and it does not diCer in
,ind, or indeed alAays in degree, from such )leasura$le
contem)lation as is induced $y mastering a scienti2c
)ro$lem, folloAing out a logical argument, or e3en
reading a )oem or a no3el& In all these instances ali,e
there are the same elements -- intellectual study, the
de3elo)ment of a conce)t or idea, and the "aCecti3e"
contem)lation of it&NO (uch meditation and
contem)lation, Ahen their o$Dect is di3ine truth, are
indeed the highest eBercise of the natural )oAers& %nd
the s)ecial su)ernatural im)ulse and su))ort under
Ahich it ta,es )lace must $e clearly distinguished from
the mere di3ine concursus, Ahich is common to all
human acts&
'ut the o$Dect of this contem)lation is not in itself
directly su)ernatural1 it is )roduced according to the
general laAs Ahich can $e o$ser3ed in all human
thought and feeling& That is, such contem)lation is not
in the true sense mystical&
The essentially su)ernatural character of the truly
mystical state is )erha)s $est illustrated $y the
)assi3ity Ahich all Ariters on the su$Dect hold to $e its
most charactertistic feature& 7od is not disco3ered $y
the mystic1 indeed this s)ecial manifestation of 8im
may not, strictly s)ea,ing, $e e3en sought& 8e ma,es
himself ,noAn "eB)erimentally"1 and the )erson so
fa3oured contri$utes nothing, at least directly, to this
result&N!O In all natural cognition -- i&e&, in the ac0uisition
of anything that may rightly $e called ,noAledge,
hoAe3er com)leB, recondite or elementary -- there
must alAays $e a )re)onderating element of mental
acti3ity& There must $e not merely sensation and
intellgent consciousness, $ut "a))erce)tion" -- the
acti3e direction of the mind to the o$Dect $efore it,
together Aith the com)leB )rocess of analysis,
a$straction, distinction and com)arison Ahich underlies
the sim)lest act of cognition& (uch acti3ity is in3ol3ed
in the )erce)tion of a tree, a house or a HoAer, in the
re)roduction $y the hel) of imagination or memory of
an idea1 or in the recognition of an ac0uaintance& 'ut in
all mystical states this )rocess is a$sent& 7od ta,es
)ossession of the mental )oAers and focusses them
u)on 8imself, and those Ahich from their nature cannot
$e so focussed are left idle& Memory, imagination, or
Aill may or may not $e in use, according to the nature
of the eB)erience, $ut the discursi3e reason is
necessarily in a$eyance& In )oint of fact, mystical
cognition is to the soul )recisely Ahat sensation is to
the $ody&
W. do not reason in order to ascertain Ahether Ae feel
heat or cold, )ain or )leasure1 Ae are sim)ly aAare of
the fact& (ensation cannot $e de2ned, or e3en
descri$ed, otherAise than in terms of other sensations1
and its occurrence is not susce)ti$le of )roof, otherAise
than $y 3ery inconclusi3e circumstantial e3idence& *ne
cannot )ro3e directly that one has a toothache, or that
the su$Dect in a hy)notic trance has no sensation of the
)ins thrust into his Hesh $y the o)erator1 Ae ha3e only
his Aord for it& In the same Aay, mystical eB)erience is
a matter of direct contact $etAeen 7od and the soul1 its
conditions may )ossi$ly $e ascertaina$le u) to a
certain )oint, as those of sensation are, $ut it cannot $e
)recisely either de2ned, eB)lained or )ro3ed&N"O It
folloAs that the mystical eB)erience is not to $e
o$tained $y any means Aithin the )oAer of the )erson
Aho desires it& It is, o$3iously, no more )ossi$le to
ensure eB)erience of this ,ind $y any deli$erate course
of actioin than it is to o$tain a )articular ,ind of
Aeather $y the eBercise of oneGs oAn )oAers& 8ere lies,
in fact, the great )ractical diCerence $etAeen mystical
states and those Ahich $elong to the ordinary economy
of di3ine grace, a diCerence Ahich hardly eems to ha3e
$een alAays clearly )resent to the minds of some
Ariters on the su$Dect&
'y the ful2lment of certain conditions the de3out
Christian can attain Aith certainty to the enDoyment of
an a$undant measure of grace, suIcient or more than
suIcient for all his needs& The eCects of )rayer and of
the sacraments are certain, and are Aithin the reach of
all Aho choose to ma,e use of these means of s)iritual
ad3ancement& Moreo3er, the rational a))reciation of
the mysteries of the Christian faith is o)en to all,
inde)endently of natural a$ility or ac0uired s,ill1 they
oCer an a$undantly suIcient 2eld to the reason and
imagination of all men, Ahether lettered or unlettered,
Ahether intellectually acute or dull1 they ada)t
themsel3es, li,e the o$Dects of uni3ersal desire in the
life of the senses, to the ca)acity and character of each
se)arate indi3idual& The Doys and conHicts and anBiety
of the life of grace are e0ually real to the re2ned and
learned and to the rude and ignorant, and,
fundamentally, they are the same for all1 $ut there can
$e no dou$t that they are a))rehended under
someAhat diCerent forms $y )ersons of diCerent
character and education -- as the satisfaction of the
desire for food con3eys an identical )leasure to the
e)icure and the )loughman ali,e, $ut the ,ind of food
)referred (as distinct from its chemical 0ualities# is
diCerent in each case&
'ut there are no conditions $y the ful2lment of Ahich
mystical eB)erience may $re ensured1 and its
character, unli,e that of ordinary religious eB)erience,
in no Aay de)ends on either the eCorts or the natural
endoAments of the )erson Aho undergoes it& The
mystic is the mere reci)ient of the fa3ours $estoAed on
him1 he can do nothing toAards either )rocuring them
or determining their s)ecial character& Mysticism is
therefore to $e concei3ed as the ra)tus or ecstasis of (t
9aul and (t Thomas:N4O it is outside the natural s)here
of human life and in res)ect of all natural eB)erience it
has conse0uently no )lace or function1 for it all natural
o$Dects of )erce)tion are in3ol3ed in "dar,ness" and
"ignorance," and the ordinary functions of sense and
intellect are for the time $eing directed $y the "neA
su)ernatural a)titude" of Ahich (t& :ohn of the Cross
s)ea,s& "*ur Lord," says (t Teresa, "does not re0uire
the faculties or senses to o)en the door of the heart to
8im1 they are all aslee)&" "We can do nothing," she
adds, "on our )art&"
"(im)le unity Aith 7od," says >uys$roec,, "can $e felt
and )ossessed $y none, sa3e $y those Aho stnd $efore
the immense $rightness, Aithout reason and Aithout
restraint&"N/O Thus the consciousness of free rational
$eings returns to that sim)licity of di3ine relations
Ahich, at the other end of the scale of creation, a))ears
as the )erfect mechanical ful2lment $y inanimate and
irrational creatures of their di3inely a))ointed destiny&
The human intellect has, in some sense, arri3ed at the
goal of its desires Ahen it can say "ut Dumentum factus
sum a)ud Te&"
%nother o$3iously necessary conse0uence of the
)assi3e condition of the soul Ahich mar,s all truly
mystical states is the certainty as to the real character
of those states Ahich accom)anies them& 8ere, again,
there is an eBact )arallel in sense-eB)erience&
(ensation is, as Ae ha3e remar,ed, inca)a$le of $eing
de2ned or )ro3ed1 the one thing that Ae ,noA a$out it
is that it occurs& Whate3er the conditions may $e, and
Ahether there is an ad0ueate cause )resent or not, the
one indu$ita$le fact in sensation is the certainty of the
eB)erienced& % )erson may feel cold in circumstances
Ahich cause others to feel hot1 or he may not feel
anything under conditions Ahich cause most )eo)le to
feel a great deal -- or again in some )eculiar aCections
of the ner3es he may $eel intense )ain Aithout any
a))arent cause& @et his sensations are in e3ery case
undenia$ly facts& This is )recisely the case of the
mystic: he is certain of the di3ine communicatioin,
though he cannot )ro3e it1 and his con3iction that it is
di3ine is unsha,ea$le&NPO
It must, hoAe3er, $e clearly understood that this
su$Decti3e certitude is not to $e ta,en for a )roof that
the eB)erience so certi2ed is a genuinely mystical one&
'enedict FIV&, in his treatise De Canonisatione, gi3es a
long list of natural conditions Ahich may gi3e rise to
a))arently mystical eB)eriences -- such as ner3ous
eBcitement, hysteria, memory association and disease&
NQO 9rofessor :ames gi3es a nearly identical list of such
causes& Certainty is a conditio sine 0ua non -- Aithout
it, no mystical eB)erience can $e considered genuine,
N;O $ut it is not therefore inconsistent Aith dece)tion&
9recisely the same thing, of course, may $e said a$out
sensation& % sensation is a fact of eB)erience, and
diCers altogether from the most 3i3id imaginary
)resentment of that same fact1 Ae can ne3er mista,e
one for the other& 'ut Ae may $e Aidely mista,en as to
the cause of our sensations1 and Ae may, on the other
hand, $e deluded $y memory or imagination as to the
actual occurrence of sensations in the )ast& We may so
3i3idly imagine certain sensatioins as to thin, that Ae
must ha3e actually eB)erienced them at some time1 as
some )eo)le are said to ha3e told a 2ctitious story so
often that they ha3e come to $elie3e it& 'ut in such
cases the clear realisation of a de2nite and )articular
sensation is certainly a$sent& In the same Aay
delusions as to )ast su))osed mystical eB)eriences are
$y no means un,noAn& 'ut in such cases there is a
com)lete a$sence of the circumstantiality Ahich is
characteristic of all accounts of genuine eB)eriences1
and on the other hand, there is generally a de2niteness
and descri)ti3e )lausi$ility in accounts of the menory-
created eB)eriences themsel3es Ahich is in3aria$ly
a$sent from the genuine ones& The reason of this is to
$e found in another Ceature of genuine mysticism,
namely, the im)ossi$ility of descri$ing the eB)eriences
of mystical states in anything li,e detail& In the case of
3isions it is true that certain salient features of the
a))earances are distinctly remem$ered and descri$ed1
and in "locutions" the )hrases heard or understood can
$e re)eated from memory& 'ut these, as Aill $e more
fully eB)lained later, are the "accidents" of mysticism&
N<O Its essence is direct contact Aith a transcendental
reality1 and this, from its nature, is inca)a$le of $eing
descri$ed in the terms of ordinary sense-eB)erience to
Ahich human language is necessarily limited&N=O
Mysticism can ma,e no use of the terms of sense-
eB)erience to descri$e Ahat is su)ersensi$le1 and its
o))ortunities are far too limited to ena$le it to
construct a descri)ti3e terminology of its oAn& The
conscioiusness of the actual di3ine )resence admits of
no descri)tion1 only the $are fact can $e stated, a)art
from its eCect on the )erson Aho eB)eriences it&
'ut though the mystical 3ision of 7od is a thing Ahich
cannot $e o$tained $y natural means, $eing 7odGs free
gift, and altogether $eyond the s)here of nature, it is
ne3ertheless not only )ossi$le $ut, ordinarily s)ea,ing,
necessary to )re)are for it -- to ma,e the soul 2t, so far
as that is )ossi$le, for the guest Ahom it ho)es to
recei3e&NO Though no amount of )re)aration can
ensure 8is coming, it is ne3ertheless not to $e ho)ed
for unless the soul has $een made ready for 8im& This
)re)aration is merely negati3e in regard to the
su)ernatural state to Ahich it is )reliminary, consisting
as it does in the )uri2cation of the soul from actual sin,
from Aorldly desires and negligent ha$its& 'ut in itself it
is, of course, )ositi3e enough, and its $ene2ts are
de2nite and su$stantial& It is, indeed, nothing less than
the fullest Christian life, the ful2lment of all the
conditions of sal3ation, and e3en of eminent sanctity&
Mystical states, as Ae may see more clearly later on,
are not $y any means necessary to holiness, and it is at
least ideally )ossi$le to attain the highest sanctity
Aithout any mystical eB)erience Ahate3er, in the true
or Dionysian sense&N!O The 2rst four of (t TeresaGs
"mansions" are mainly occu)ied $y this )re)aration for
the fa3ours to $e recei3ed in the last three& The "?ourth
Mansion" consists of a $lending of the natural and
su)ernatural in the ")rayer of recollection" and the
")rayer of 0uiet"1 the su$se0uent ")rayer of union" and
"s)iritual marriage" are Aholly su)ernatural&
The )recise nature of mystical contem)lation as
distinguished from other s)iritual or intellectual
functions more or less connected Aith and resem$ling it
is de2ned in )ractically the same Aay, though Aith a
3arying amount of detail, $y all mystical Ariters& It is
)erha)s most clearly and $rieHy eB)ressed $y 7erson,
Aho folloAs su$stantially 8ugo of (t Victor, and the
more ela$orately su$di3ided $ut essentially identical
method of >ichard, his successor& The )oAers of the
soul, 7erson says, are di3isi$le into cogniti3e and
aCecti3e1 mystical theology is the o$Dect of the latter,
as s)eculati3e theology is of the former& The cogniti3e
)oAers are those of intelligence, reason and sense-
)erce)tion1 the aCecti3e a))etite, Aill and synderesis,
or the natural )erce)tion and conse0uent desire of
good& (t Thomas considered this last to $e not a )oAer,
$ut a natural intellectual ha$it1 and though 7erson, li,e
other mystical Ariters, s)ea,s of it as a )otentia
animae, he eB)ressly guards himself against the
su))osition that he is constructing a system of real
)sychological distinctions& The )oAers are distinct, he
says, not in reality $ut in name1 for his immediate
)ur)ose, hoAe3er, he 2nds it con3enient to treat them
as if they Aere really distinct in nature&N"O
The tAo sets of faculties Aor, together& Their 2rst or
last function is mere cogitation -- the discursi3e
consideration of the o$Dects of sense: then comes
meditation, or the concentrated a))lication of the
reason to these o$Dects, and the )roduction $y it of
a$stract ideas1 these, again, can $e contem)lated $y
the sim)le intelligence a)art from sense-)erce)tion& (o
far all is natural1 the cogniti3e and aCecti3e faculties
act mutually on one another, and on the o$Dects
)resented to them& 'ut a$o3e all natural o$Dects in the
di3ine )resence, Ahich is ,noAn -- $y s)ecial di3ine
fa3our -- not as an a$stract idea resulting from
meditation,N4O $ut as the immediate o$Dect of lo3e, in
the ra)ture or eBaltation of the soul a$o3e itself Ahich
is the eCect of lo3e Ahether natural or su)ernatural&
Thus "he that is Doined to the Lord is one s)irit&"
It is )lain that according to this analysis the
eB)erimental ,noAledge, 3ision, or contem)lation of
7od ta,es )lace through the agency of the natural
)oAers of the soul1 the su)ernatural factor is the
gratuitous di3ine communication Ahich the soul
recei3es& (ome o$scurity, hoAe3er, has $een caused $y
the language of some of the more s)eculati3e mystics
on this )oint& .c,hart, and after him Tauler, s)ea, of
the "ground" of the soul -- its core or essence, to Ahich
the corres)onding "ground" or nature of the 7odhead
communicates itself in 3irtue of a certain natural
aInity Ahich eBists $etAeen the tAo& This "ground" of
the soul is also called the "s)ar," (scintilla, fXn,elein# or
"a)eB" -- as the )urest or highest )art and the 2ttest
therefore to $e the medium of the di3ine self-
communication& .c,hartGs )antheistic tendencies seem
to ha3e led him to assimilate the "s)ar," to the di3ine
nature, as homogeneous if not in some sense identical
Aith it& Tauler ,ee)s clear of this mista,e1 and Aith
7erson the scintilla or a)eB mentis is merely a name for
the intellect, Ahich is the contem)lati3e faculty&N/O
With >uys$roec, the "ground" is the mirror in Ahich the
Di3ine 'eing is reHected1 (t :ohn of the Cross calls it the
"su$stance of the soul" or agin the "eye of the soul,
Ahich is the understanding," and the reci)ient of the
di3ine illumination& 'ut the light may $e so eBcessi3e
as to cause dar,ness1 nd so Ae come $ac, to the
Dionysian )hraseology, in Ahich dar,ness and
ignorance are the means of seeing and ,noAing& 'ut all
this is e3idently the language of )ractical de3otion, and
not (eBce)t )erha)s in the case of .c,hart# of
s)eculati3e theology, still less of analytical )sychology&
What it amounts to is no more than the doctrine that
the soul has a faculty $y means of Ahich it can, Ahen
7od so )leases, contem)late 8im directly and e3en
$ecome united to 8im& We shall consider in the neBt
cha)ter Ahat the nature of the )rocess on its human
side may $e su))osed to $e&
It is someAhat strange that such Ariters as 8ugo and
>ichard of (t Victor, (t 'ona3enture and 7erson should
$e s)o,en of as ha3ing attem)ted to "reconcile"
mysticism Aith scholasticism& They Aere ne3er at
3ariance, and no reconciliation Aas either necessary or
)ossi$le, unless in the sense in Ahich all theory may $e
considered as attem)ting to reconcile fact Aith itself&
(cholasticism set itself to gi3e a rea0soned account of
manGs nature and total en3ironment1 mysticism Aas
one of the great facts Ahich it Aas $ound to ta,e into
consideration1 and the 9latonic elements in the earlier
mysticism came into it in noA other Aay than this& 'ut
mysticism is not itself either 9latonic or %ristotelian1 on
its natural side it is sim)ly human, and falls into its
ine3ita$le )lace in the order of things Ahich all systems
of )hiloso)hy see, to analyse and eB)lain&NPO
Mysticism is alAays recognisa$ly the same ting,
Ahether Ae meet it in a 9latonic or a scholastic dress&
What, then, may $e called the normal course of
mysticism )roceeds 2rst $y Aay of de3out )re)aration
in the discharge of ordinary Christian duties and the
use of ordinary means of grace1 neBt, it leads the soul
into the immediate )resence of 7od, as an eB)erienced
reality, and not merely as a conce)t or imagination1
and the third stage, descri$ed in 3arioius terms $y
3arioius Ariters, consists of a )rogressi3e union Aith
7od -- a union Ahich is not merely a matter of
con3iction, the mere union of Aill Ahich is the )ri3ilege
of all de3out )ersons, $ut a fact of eB)erience
consciously realised& "In it," says (t& :ohn of the Cross,
"the soul seems to $e 7od rather than itself, and
indeed is 7od $y )artici)ation, though in reality
)reser3ing its oAn natural su$stance as distinct from
7od as it did $efore, although transformed in 8im&"
(t TeresaGs Aell-,noAn su$di3ision of this last or
su)ernatural stage is threefold -- the )rayer of 0uiet or
recollection in its higher form, in Ahich the sense of the
di3ine )resence is communicated to the soul and
contem)lated )assi3ely $y it1 the )rayer of union,
Ahich is "a foretaste of hea3en," and in Ahich the soul
"seems to ha3e left its mortal co3ering (though this is
not really the case# to a$ide more entirely in 7od"1 and
lastly, the "s)iritual marriage," in Ahich the soul is no
longer a$sor$ed or lost in 7od, $ut reco3ers the
eBercise of its )oAers, though in an eBalted and
su)ernatural Aay, and "sees and understands
someAhat of the grace recei3ed in a strange and
Aonderful manner $y means of intellectual 3ision&"
Thus "the three )ersons of the most 'lessed Trinity
re3eal themsel3es1 the doctrine Ahich Ae hold $y faith,
the soul noA, so to s)ea,, understands $y sight&" It is
remar,a$le that (t Teresa, li,e all other mystics, in s)ite
of the minuteness and )articularity of her classi2cation,
is a$le to tell us little or nothing of the actual content of
these $lissful eB)eriences& (he eBhausts herself in
)assionate insistence on the delight they im)art to the
soul1 $ut as to the )recise cause and nature of it she
has nothing to say1 and as little can she con3ey Ahat is
to $e understood $y the "intellectual 3ision," Ahich is
neither of the $odily nor of the s)iritual eyes& The
reason is, as Ae ha3e already seen, that these things
are indescri$a$le, for Aant of eBisting Aords in Ahich to
descri$e them or of natural eB)erience Aith Ahich to
com)are them& .ach fragment of mystical ,noAledge is
li,e a ha)aB legomenon in the language of human
understanding&
Visions and locutions, or 3oices, may or may not occur
in the states o funion1 they do not occur in any other&
Visions are imaginary -- i&e&, 0uasi-sensi$le 2ures
)ictured to the imagination Aithout causing actual
sensation -- or s)iritual1 the latter are of tAo ,inds, one
of cor)oreal su$stances )ercei3ed, according to (t :ohn
of the Cross, "in a certain light emanating from 7od," in
Ahich the distant things of hea3en and earth may $e
seen1 and the other ,ind consists of incor)oreal
eBistences, )ercei3ed after the same su)ernatural
manner&
Locutions in li,e manner may $e either mentally formed
)hrases re)resenting thoughts or im)ressions )roduced
$y di3ine grace in the soul Ahile in a state of
recollection, or they may $e formed in the mind $y
direct su)ernatural agency&
'ut 3isions and locutions are, it must $e re)eated, not
necessarily a )art of mystical eB)erience1 and all
mystical Ariters agree in asserting that they are, in any
case, the least im)ortant )art& In )ractice all authorities
teach that they are to $e entirely disregarded& It is true
that the eB)erience of such mystics as '& Margaret
Mary %laco0ue, 'lessed :ulian of NorAich or %nne
Catherine .mmerich a))ears to consist entirely of
3isions and 3oices& 'ut in these three cases, and in
countless others, it Aill $e found that the mode in Ahich
thoughts Aere con3eyed to, and emotions eBcited in
the )erson is of 0uite secondary im)ortance& In these
cases, the communications come through 3isions of our
Lord seen under 3arious as)ects, and declaring 8is Aill
and desires in formally understood Aords& 'ut it Aas
not the mere 3ision or 0uasi-3ocal communication in
itself that ga3e 3alue to the eB)erience, or constituted
its title to acce)tance as genuine, either in the mind of
the actual reci)ient or in the o)inion of those Aho
afterAards had to )ronounce Dudgment on the nature of
the case& It Aas alAays the manifestation of the lo3e
and )atience of the di3ine humanity that Aas $oth the
source of consolaton and the guarantee of reality&
The )ossi$ility of self-delusion in such a matter (Aithout
considering the )ossi$ility of dia$olical dece)tion# is, of
course, almost ineBhausti$le, and no mystical Ariter
fails to Aarn his readers against this danger1 Ahich, it
may $e Aell to remar,, in the )rocesses of $eati2cation
and canonisation is ,e)t constantly in 3ieA, and, as has
$een already noticed, is strongly insisted on $y
'enedict FIV, in his treatise on the su$Dect&
NO (t& Teresa, Castle, 4& & 4& "(Aeetness in
de3otion & & & is natural, although ultimately it comes
from the grace of 7od& We shall 2nd that many
tem)oral matters gi3e us the same )leasure, such as
uneB)ectedly coming into a large fortune, meeting Aith
a friend, or succeeding in any im)orant aCair&"
N!O (uch criticism as that of Mr& Inge ("Christian
Mysticism," ))& , !# Aould $e )erfectly Dust if
mystical contem)lation Aere held to $e a merely
natural )rocess& %ll the human mind can do toAards
attaining it is merely negati3e, and in the natural order
the result of such mere negation or a$straction is Jero&
'ut it is Dust $ecause of this that true mysticism is
)ercei3ed to $e su)ernatural& The $lan, can really $e
2lled only $y di3ine agency, not $y human
"hy)ostatisation&"
N"O "Ene Yme recueillie sous le regard de Dieu )eut, S
lGaide de lGimagination, se re)resenter Dieu )rUsent en
elle& & & & Mais cette image de Dieu, dont nous sommes
les auteurs, ne resem$le en rien S la rUalitU 0ue la
contem)lation mysti0ue nous fait sentir& CGest Dieu lui-
mWme, et non )lus son image 0ue nous a)erVe3ons&" --
LeDeune, Vie Mysti0ue, )& =&
N4O ! Cor& 3ii& 1 (umma, !& !& Q/ & c& and cf& (t
'ernard (De Inter& Domo#& "Necesse est ad cor altum
ascendere et mentis eBcessu )er di3inam re3elationam
addiscere, 0uid sit illud at 0uod ads)irare 3el studere
o)orteat, et ad 0ualem su$limitatis ha$itum animum
suum com)onere et assuescere de$eat&"
N/O >uys$roec,, De Calculo&
NPO :ames, Varieties, loc& cit&
NQO 8eroic Virtue (*ratorian translation#, 3ol& iii, ch& B&
N;O (t Teresa, Castle, /& & <: "% soul Ahich does not
feel this assurance has not $een united to 7od entirely&"
N<O "These (cor)oreal# 3isions, inasmuch as they are
3isions of created things, $etAeen Ahich and god there
is no congruity or )ro)ortion, cannot su$ser3e the
understanding as )roBimate means of di3ine union&" --
%sc& of Carmel, ii& BBi3& "These su)ernatural 3isitations
are nothing else $ut the motes of the ()irit&" -- I$& ii&
BiB&
(t Teresa only ,noAs such 3isions from hearsay& "*f
$odily a))aritions I can say nothing1 for the )erson I
mentioned (herself# ne3er eB)erienced anything of this
,ind herself, and therefore could not s)ea, a$out it
Aith certainty&" -- Castle, P& <& "&
N=O Cf& 'ossuetGs Instr& sur les Ztats dG*raison& ".le3Us
S une oraison dont ils ne )ou3aient eB)li0uer les
su$limitUs )ar le langage commun, ils ont UtU o$ligUs
eGenHer leur style )our nous donner 0uel0ue idUe de
leurs trans)orts&" %nd (t Teresa (Castle, Q& & <#: "'y
some mysterioius manifestation of the truth, the three
9ersons of the most 'lessed Trinity re3eal themsel3es,
etc& Thus that Ahich Ae hold as a doctrine of faith the
soul noA, so to s)ea,, understands $y sight, although it
$eholds the 'lessed Trinity $y neither $odily nor
s)iritual eyes&" %nd again (Castle, P& /& <#: "These
3isions, and many other things im)ossi$le to descri$e,
are re3ealed $y some Aonderful intuition that I cannot
eB)lain&" "*n returning to itself, the mind can recall
Ahat has $een seen, $ut is una$le to descri$e it&" '&
%ngela of ?oligno: "Di3ine o)erations Aent on in my
soul Ahich Aere so ineCa$le that neither angel nor
saint could relate or eB)lain them&"
(t :ohn of the Cross (%sc& ii& !;#: "Moses Aas una$le to
descri$e Ahat he learned of 7od in that )articular
,noAledge and so ga3e utterance to ordinary Aords&
Though, at times, Ahen this,noAledge is 3ouchsafed to
the soul, Aords are uttered, yet the soul ,noAs full Aell
that it has in no Aise eB)resed Ahat it felt $ecause it is
conscious that there are no Aords of ade0uate
signi2cation&"
NO 7erson, Myst Theol&, Cons& BBB& "Mystica
theologia ac0uiritur )er scholam aCectus et )er
eBercitium 3ehemens moralium 3irtutum, dis)onentium
animam ad )urgationem&"
N!O (ee 9oulain, Des 7races dG*raison, and %sc& ii& 3&
;&
N"O Myst& Theol&, Cons& iB& 1 cf& (umma Theol&, I& Q<&
!
N4O Myst& Theol&, Cons& Bliii& "In anima contem)lati3a
amor, et mystica theologia et oratio )erfecta aut idem
sunt, aut se in3icem )raesu))onunt& Nam, ut )atet eB
)raedictis, mystica theologia est cognitio
eB)erimentalis ha$ita de Deo )er conDunctionem
aCectus s)iritualis cum eodem -- 0uae nimirum
adhaesio 2t )er eBtaticum amorem, teste $eato
Dionysio&"
N/O (ee Inge, "Christian Mysticism," %))endiB C&
NPO .c,hart is said to ha3e draAn his )hiloso)hy
mainly from (t Thomas& *f Dionysius, Aho is too often
treated as a mere 9latonist, Corderius says: "*$ser3atu
dignissimum, 0uomodo (& Dionysius )rimus
(cholasticae Theologiae Decerit fundamenta, 0ui$us
ceteri deince)s theologi eam 0uae de Deo re$us0ue
di3ina in (cholis traditur doctrinam omnem
inaedi2carunt&" -- *$ser3ationes 7enerales in Dion&, !&
C8%9T.> V
T8. 9(@C8*L*7@ *? M@(TICI(M
N.FT in order after the o$Dect of mystical
contem)lation Ae ha3e to consider the mode in Ahich
that contem)lation ta,es )lace& We ha3e seen that the
)resence of 7od may $e made ,noAn to the mystical
consciousness in three Aays -- $y formal union, $y an
intellectual im)ression, or s)ecies, Aith or Aithout an
imaginati3e re)resentation or 2gure, and thirdly, $y
means of a re)resentation of a sensi$le ,ind& The o$Dect
of contem)lation is un0uestiona$ly su)ernatural1 $ut of
Ahat sort is the )rocess, Ahether intellectual or
)hysiological, $y Ahich the o$Dect is )ercei3edM Is it
also su)ernatural -- i&e&, do the faculties of mind or
$ody act in any other Aay or $y any other )rinci)le
than that in Ahich or $y Ahich they are accustomed to
actM
The su$Dect is necessarily a someAhat o$scure one,
com)arati3ely little $eing certainly ,noAn as to the
nature of the mindGs action, and of its relation to that of
the senses& 'ut some 0uite o3erAhelming e3idence,
such as does not seem to $e either forthcoming or e3en
concei3a$le, Aould $e necessary to )ro3e that either
the mind or the $ody or $oth together can, under any
circumstances in this Aorld, act otherAise than
according to the accustomed methods and )rinci)les,
Ahich in their general )lan at least are Aell enough
ascertained& We ha3e already seen strong reason for
considering the su)ernatural element of mysticism to
consist mainly in its o$Dect1 that element in the
)ercei3ing su$Dect $eing no more than the illumination
and assistance of the natural faculties $y di3ine grace,
and not their su)ersession $y any neA )oAer or faculty,
or $y the addition of any otherAise un,noAn function to
those already )ossessed $y them& %s in the ordinary
o)eration of di3ine grace so in its eBce)tional
o)eration, the natural faculties are indeed assisted and
guided1 $ut they continue to act according to the laAs
Ahich they folloA in the a$sence of any su)ernatural
aid& The actions, $oth )hysical and intellectual, of a
)erson under the inHuence of grace do not diCer in ,ind
from those of one Aho is outside that inHuence, and are
o)en to )recisely the same ,ind of in3estigation& ?aith,
for eBam)le, is not a siBth sense, or an eBtra
intellectual faculty 1 it is merely the action of the
intellect and Aill directed toAards a )articular su$Dect,
and dealing Aith a )articular set of e3idences, and is in
itself no more mysterious than other modes of
3oluntary and intellectual acti3ity& *n Christian
)rinci)les, indeed, faith is held to $e due to
su)ernatural assistance $y means of a di3inely infused
3irtue1 $ut the modus o)erandi is o$3iously $y no
means changed $y that infusion1 the force of moti3a
credi$ilitatis and the Aeight of di3ine authority are
estimated $y faith in the same Aay as similar e3idence
is estimated in )urely secular matters&
The su)ernatural character of mysticism is, therefore,
at least no $ar to the in3estigation in a )urely natural
sense of the mental )rocesses it may in3ol3e& (uch
en0uiries as that of M& DelacroiB, or of 9rofessor W&
:ames, Ahate3er may $e thought of their conclusions,
are in no Aay eBcluded or discountenanced $y
acce)tance of the su)ernatural eB)lanation&
Dionysius, and later mystical Ariters, ha3e not trou$led
themsel3es Aith any )sychological theory in
eB)lanation of their eB)eriences1 they Aere, indeed,
hardly in a )osition to do so& %ll that they Aere
concerned Aith Aas to relate facts1 though, naturally,
they tended to relate them Aith so much attention to
se0uence and classi2cation as to )roduce Ahat is in
eCect a ,ind of theory, or systTme )sychologi0ue
)ri3ilegiU& 'ut their accounts, though in some cases (of
Ahich (t Teresa and (t :ohn of the Cross are the chief
eBam)les# they are )erfectly systematic so far as they
go,NO do not address themsel3es to any consideration
of the mode, Ahether )artially natural or Aholly
su)ernatural, in Ahich the su)ernatural eCects are
)roduced& (o far as they are concerned, the di3ine
modus o)erandi may $e considered an o)en 0uestion&
Three diCerent 3ieAs ha3e $een held on this )oint&
& It has $een su))osed that man is endoAed Aith
some ,ind of s)ecial faculty $y Ahich he is ena$led
$oth to ,noA 7od as eBisting, and in the higher stages
of s)irituality to enter into direct )ersonal relation Aith
8im& This faculty has often $een su))osed to $e a
distinct element in human nature& The nous or s)iritual
)art, Ahich is designed eBclusi3ely for intercourse Aith
the di3ine, is distinct from the )suche or intellect, Ahich
is concerned Aith created things -- $oth $eing distinct
again from the animal nature in man,ind&N!O This 3ieA,
sometimes called trichotomy, has $een condemned $y
the Church as )ut forAard $y the %)ollinarian heretics,
and again in recent times as held $y 7unther1 it Aas
held in a )rofessedly modi2ed form $y *ccam, Aithout
eB)licit and authoritati3e condemnation, though Aith
much o))osition& %gain, the su))osed faculty is held to
$e an endoAment or )oAer of the one soul, co-ordinate
Aith $ut distinguisha$le from its faculties of reason and
Aill&
In $oth forms, hoAe3er, this theory seems to $e
gratuitous1 since on the one hand no )oAers are
attri$uted to the su))osed s)ecial faculty Ahich are not
in one Aay or another eBercised $y the intellect under
ordinary circumstances1 and on the other hand, there
can $e no reason for su))osing that 7od is una$le, if
8e so desires, to communicate directly Aith man
through his natural intellect, Aithout ha3ing to create a
s)ecial faculty for the rece)tion of di3ine
communications&
!& Directly o))osed to this 3ieA is another, Ahich holds
the su))osed mystical communications to ha3e no
eBternal source, $ut to $e Aholly su$Decti3e
eB)eriences, due to the automatic Aor,ing of the
su$conscious or "su$liminal" self&N"O Much a))arently
uncontro3erti$le e3idence has $een adduced to shoA
that the 2eld of )sychical eB)erience eBtends far
$eyond that of actual consciousness1 and that from
time to time an automatic transference ta,es )lace
from one to the other& Ideas a))ear to arise in the
conscious intelligence Aithout gi3ing any indication of
their origin, in sense or reason1 they are e3idently not
consciously made $y the intelligence, nor are they
attri$uta$le to any eBternal source Ahich can $e
recognised $y means of sense-)erce)tion& Thus they
ha3e all the a))earance of )urely s)iritual
communications )roceeding from an eBternal and
transcendental region& The theory Ae are noA
considering holds that, on the )rinci)le that entia non
sunt multi)licanda )raeter necessitatem, Ae are not
Dusti2ed in in3esting these eB)eriences Aith any
transcendental character, if, as is thought to $e the
case, they can $e suIciently accounted for $y other
means&
The 0uestion is, therefore, Ahether the theory of
automatism does really )ro3ide a suIcient eB)lanation
of the facts&
It seems hardly )ossi$le to deny that most of the
characteristic features of the states recorded $y
Catholic mystical Ariters as eB)erienced $y
themsel3es, ha3e $een at 3arious times )roduced in
the eB)erience of others Aho are neither Catholics nor
mystics& The essential features of )assi3ity, of
incommunica$leness, and of manifest reality are
e3ident in many of the cases cited $y :ames, some of
Ahich are the result of alcoholic stimulation, others of
the inHuence of anaesthetics, and others again of
)athological states1 Ahile some are a))arently
s)ontaneous&N4O Moreo3er, num$ers of heretical and
e3en immoral systems of religion or theoso)hy ha3e
de)ended for their authority on eB)eriences Ahich
seem to eBhi$it characteristically mystical 0ualities, $ut
Ahich cannot, from the )oint of 3ieA of Catholic
orthodoBy, $e held to $e genuine, and either must $e
considered )urely natural, or else must $e attri$uted to
dia$olical inHuence& This latter Aas the o)inion of
7Rrres, Aho made out a com)lete system of dia$olical
mysticism )arallel in some sort Aith the di3ine&
'ut in the case of Catholic mystics -- and it may
)ro$a$ly $e admitted, in other cases eBhi$iting nearly
similar features -- there is no 0uestion of any such
stimulus as that gi3en $y alcohol or drugs& Nor can their
state $e )ro)erly called )athological, unless in the 3ery
Aide and someAhat fanciful sense in Ahich the so-
called ins)irations of genius ha3e $een su))osed to $e
so& %$normal it certainly is1 and there is no direct
e3idence to shoA that this a$normal state is not, as in
some of the cases 0uoted $y :ames, the s)ontaneous
result of some o$scure and )ossi$ly congenital
a$normality of ner3ous constitution&N/O %t the same
time it must $e noted that, as has already $een )ointed
out, the great mystics shoA no signs of such
a$normality, $ut are, on the contrary, rather
remar,a$le for their mental and )hysical sanity in the
ordinary aCairs of life& (uch mystics as (t 'ernard, (t
Catherine of (iena, (t Teresa and (t :ohn of the Cross
seem to $e distinguished from the ordinary run of
)eo)le in $usiness matters, only $y their su)erior
acumen& If indeed it is to $e assumed that no )ersonal
7od eBists1 or that 7od cannot communicate directly
Aith the soul1 or that man has no soul Ahich can
recei3e such communications -- then, no dou$t, the
hy)othesis, at )resent certainly un3eri2a$le, of
automatism may fairly $e held to $e the most )ro$a$le
eB)lanation of the )ro$lem& 'ut if no such
)resu))osition is entertained1 and still more if it is held,
on inde)endent grounds, that a 7od eBists Aho is a$le,
if 8e so chooses, to inHuence the soul of man directly
and immediately, there seems to $e no reason to deny
that those cases of transcendental illumination, for
Ahich no )hysical cause can $e assigned, may, Aith a
degree of )ro$a$ility Ahich a))roaches certainty, $e
attri$uted to di3ine agency& ?or here the 0uestion
ceases to $e a matter merely of )sychological
in3estigation: the moral )ro$a$ility of dece)tion has
also to $e considered -- that is to say, the )ro$a$ility
that 7od Aould )ermit those Aho must $e considered
most deser3ing of 8is consideration to $e the 3ictims of
a delusion as humiliating as the reality simulated $y it
Aould $e enno$ling&
If Ae start Aith the Christian )resu))osition of the
nature of 7od it is im)ossi$le to $elie3e the con3iction
uni3ersally entertained $y the mystics of their
immediate intercourse Aith 7od to $e ill-founded: at
the same time the theory of automatism seems to
furnish at least a highly )ro$a$le eB)lanation of many
0uasi-mystical states to Ahich this moral argument
does not a))ear to $e a))lica$le& Those, on the other
hand, Aho start Aith a contrary )resu))osition, or Aith
none, are o$3iously free to a))ly the theory im)artially
to all cases ali,e&
"& The third 3ieA is a conciliation of the su$Decti3e and
o$Decti3e theories, 2rst )ut forAard de2nitely $y Maine
de 'iran,NPO and ado)ted in a general Aay $y 7Rrres& In
this 3ieA the eB)erience of the mystic is real, and
consists, as he rightly $elie3es, in immediate intuition
of and communication Aith the di3ine $eing& 'ut the
manner in Ahich the soul $ecomes conscious of the
su)ernatural eB)erience is natural, and from a certain
)oint is the same as that in Ahich it $ecomes conscious
of the im)ressions automatically deri3ed from the
"transmarginal" s)here& That is to say, the soul
undergoes a certain unconscious modi2cationNQO (in the
one case $y means of a sense-im)ression, in the other
$y means of a )urely s)iritual communication#, of Ahich
it su$se0uently $ecomes conscious $y the 3ery o$scure
)rocess to Ahich the title of automatism has $een gi3en
in order to eB)ress its essentially non-3olitional
character& The Aay, Ahate3er it may $e, in Ahich Ae
$ecome conscious of ideas deri3ed from unnoticed
sense-im)ressions may $e identical Aith that in Ahich
the mystic $ecomes conscious of the immediate di3ine
)resence& 8e can gi3e no account of the coming of this
)resence1 suddenly he ,noAs that it is there and he can
say no more& In the same Aay the mind $ecomes
suddenly conscious of the solution of a diIcult
)ro$lem, of an artistic eCect and the manner of its
)roduction, or of an o3ermastering moral im)ulse,
Aithout $eing a$le to eB)lain or account for its origin&
There is certainly a strong a))arent similarity $etAeen
the Hashes of ins)iration Ahich are held to constitute or
indicate genius and the mystical intuition of an
o$Decti3e di3ine )resence and of communications
)roceeding from a di3ine )erson1 and the 3ieA Ahich
regards the rise of the ideas into consciousness as
identical in method in e3ery case seems to ha3e much
in its fa3our& The a$sence of any genuine (as distinct
from imaginary# sensi$le im)ressions in the one case as
com)ared Aith the fundamental im)ortance of sense-
im)ressions in the other need )resent no diIculty, so
long as Ae admit the su$stantial reality of the soul, and
refrain from identifying )hysiological Aith )sychological
conditions& It is not more diIcult -- and it may e3en
a))ear less so -- to concei3e of a )sychical state
)roduced, Ahether consciously or unconsciously, $y
direct s)iritual agency, than to concei3e of a )sychical
state resulting from a sense-im)ression& In the 3ieA
noA $efore us, the only diCerence $etAeen the tAo
classes of eB)erience is that a true mystical state is
originated in the )sychical s)here1 )seudo-mystical or
merely natural states ha3e their origin in sense-
im)ression, li,e all merely natural )sychical states1 $ut
the )sychical machinery $y Ahich a conscious state is
)roduced Ae may consider to $e the same in $oth
cases&
It may $e added that this distinction coincides
)ractically Aith that Ahich has $een constantly made
$y ecclesiastical authority in dealing Aith the 3arious
ty)es of a))arently a$normal s)iritual eB)erience on
Ahich it has had to )ronounce an o)inion from time to
time&N;O The )ossi$ility, or rather the strong )ro$a$ility,
of dece)tion of one ,ind or another has alAays $een
,e)t )rominently in 3ieA1 and it is only after much
hesitation that any such case has $een )ronounced
genuine& .ach has $een, as a rule, the su$Dect of
)rolonged in3estigation and consideration1 cases
e3entually found to $e s)urious ha3e had their
orthodoB defenders, and genuine ones their e0ually
orthodoB antagonists& (t Catherine of (iena, (t :ohn of
the Cross, (t Teresa, '& Margaret Mary %laco0ue, and a
host of others ha3e had to undergo a more or less
)rolonged )eriod of dou$t, sus)icion and e3en
re)ro$ation, $efore their eB)eriences Aere acce)ted as
genuine1 and on the other hand, neither Molinos nor
Madame 7uyon lac,ed )atronage in high )laces& It is
enough, hoAe3er, for )ractical )ur)oses (and no other
)ur)ose can here $e entertained# to distinguish
genuine eB)eriences from delusions& It is of little
im)ortance to ,noA the nature of the delusion, Ahich it
is admitted might $e either natural or directly dia$olical
in origin& 9sychological considerations need not enter
into the in3estigation1 until 3ery recently, indeed, it Aas
scarcely )ossi$le that they should1 $ut the fact of self-
dece)tion has alAays $een familiar enough, hoAe3er
little may ha3e $een ,noAn a$out its nature&
%$normal eB)eriences may, therefore, $e either
genuine or cases of delusion, Ahether natural or
su)ernatural, and the theory last mentioned su))lies a
rational $asis for this classi2cation to Ahich it seems
diIcult to ta,e eBce)tion& %t the same time, it must $e
remem$ered that the criterion Ahich has mainly $een
made use of $y .cclesiastical authority is, and )ro$a$ly
Aill alAays $e, the eBternal or ")ragmatic" one of
orthodoBy and morality& 'ut mysticism Ahich is
orthodoB and moral need not necessarily $e genuine,
though that Ahich is heretical and immoral must
necessarily $e s)urious1 and in the large num$er of
cases of the former ,ind no authoritati3e
)ronouncement has $een made or a))ears to $e
)ossi$le& 'ut in such cases there is little )ractical need
for authority1 a dou$tfully genuine mystic may $e
acce)ted or reDected $y indi3idual o)inion, and so long
as his faith and morals are $eyond 0uestion, neither
acce)tance nor reDection can do any harm& It may also
$e suggested that the diIculty of a decision may $e
considera$ly Increased $y the occurrence of a$normal
states of diCerent ,inds in the eB)erience of the same
indi3idual& The )assage from real mystical eB)eriences
to s)urious ones seems to $e far from an im)ro$a$le
occurrence -- and the con3erse )rocess, though
dou$tless less )ro$a$le, can hardly $e considered
im)ossi$le, though nothing could Aell $e more diIcult
than to trace such a transition& 'ut the o)inion
eB)ressed of the Methodists $y William LaA is
a))lica$le to a large class of mystical )retensions -- "I
thin, that they ha3e the ()irit of 7od, $ut they ha3e
greatly mingled their oAn s)irit Aith it&"N<O
NO Mr Inge remar,s the general tendency among
mystical Ariters of the su)ernatural ,ind to
schematism& It may )erha)s $e eB)lained as a natural
attem)t to minimise the insu)era$le diIculty of
descri$ing such eB)eriences as theirs&
N!O The 9auline di3ision into $ody, soul and s)irit (
Thess& 3&# must he understood to refer to the tAofold
function of the rational soul, not to tAo distinct
su$stances&
N"O W& :ames, Varieties of >eligious .B)erience1
DelacroiB, Mysticisme& Cf& Vaughan, 8ours Aith the
Mystics, i& /;&
N4O :ames, o)& cit&, Lectures FVI& and FVII&
N/O (ee 'enedict FIV&, 8eroic (anctity, and see ch& &
))& "/, "P&
NPO Vie de lG.s)rit: su$ 2n& Cf& DelacroiB, )& 4=P&
"Comme il est diIcile de mUconnaitre lGidentitU
)sychologi0ue des )hUnomTnes de su$conscience,
0uGils se )rUsentent dans le christianisme ou dans
dGautres religions1 ou $ien sans dGautres formes 0ue la
forme religieuse, $eaucou) dGes)rits dUsireuB de
concilier le fait et la doctrine tendent S faire droit auB
eBigences de la )sychologie, en eB)li0uant
)sychologi0uement la )assi3itU religieuse, et S celles
de la thUologie, en maintenant 0ue ce Deu de lois
)sychologi0ues re)rUsente le )lan dGaction di3ine sur
les ames1 de sorte 0ue le su$conscient serait le
3Uhicule de la grace di3ine&"
NQO Cf Maher, 9sychology, )& "/Q&
N;O (ee 'enedict FIV&, De Canon& )assim&
N<O The )ro$a$le function of the "su$liminal"
consciousness and the nature of the union in3ol3ed in
the lumen gloriae are Aell though $rieHy descri$ed $y
Dr Chandler (%nglican 'isho) of 'loemfontein#1 though
it is, of course, incorrect to s)ea,, as he does, of the
"s)ar, of the di3ine nature Ahich is )resent in us from
the $eginning, and Ahich ma,es us s)iritual creatures
Aith an organ of s)iritual intuition" -- %ra Coeli ))& /-
<&
C8%9T.> VI
.VIL
T8. 0uestion, often felt to $e a 3ery distressing one, of
the cause and inner nature of e3il and of its )lace in the
uni3ersal scheme of things, has a s)ecial aInity Aith
the )rinci)le of mysticism& It Aould seem only natural
to su))ose that those Aho are admitted to the s)ecial
di3ine intimacy Ahich is the )ri3ilege of mystics should
ha3e something to say a$out the Aay in Ahich the
unsatisfactory condition of this Aorld is to $e reconciled
Aith the eBistence of an omni)otent and $ene3olent
Creator, of Ahose nature they ha3e a dee)er
,noAledge than others, and of Ahose relation to a
suCering creation they may therefore $e eB)ected to
ha3e a fuller com)rehension than the rest of man,ind&
This eB)ectation is one that is often considered to $e
unful2lled1 though mystical Ariters do as a rule deal
more or less fully Aith the su$Dect, their account is
often thought to $e inade0uate, and e3en unmeaning&
They are agreed that e3il -- Ahether considered as sin
or as the suCering conse0uent u)on it -- has no
su$stanti3e eBistence1 it is the negation of good and no
more& There can $e no (ummum Malum, (t Thomas
declares, for this reason& %s to hoA e3il comes into
$eing, and Ahat is its )lace and meaning in a uni3erse
that must $e considered Aholly good, they are $y no
means eB)licit& They ,noA -- $ut they cannot eB)lain
hoA they ,noA -- that e3il has no )ermanence and no
su$stantial reality: that it neither mars the )erfect
goodness and omni)otence of 7od, nor trou$les the
)eace of those Aho are united Aith 8im -- that in the
end all Aill somehoA $e )erfectly Aell&NO This no dou$t
is 0uite satisfactory to the mystic Aho recei3es the
su)ernatural assurance1 $ut it is hardly a))lica$le $y
Aay of argument or eB)lanation to the )er)leBities of
others in this matter&
Ne3ertheless, it is 0uite )ossi$le to construct a
theodicy, or 3indication of the di3ine Dustice, u)on the
$asis of the )rinci)le Ahich lies at the root of
su)ernatural mysticism& Indeed it is scarcely )ossi$le to
do so in any other Aay& That )rinci)le, as Ae ha3e seen,
is the a$soluteness, or the in2nite )erfection and
inde)endence, of the di3ine nature& %ll de)ends on
7od, $ut 8e 8imself on nothing $ut 8imself&
Conse0uently, 8is moti3e in creating is in 8imself -- 8is
oAn "glory" or ")leasure"1 and this is the only
a$solutely good moti3e Ahich can $e concei3ed for any
action on the )art of either the Creator or the creature&
'ut if 7od is "glori2ed" $y the creation of this Aorld1 if
8is )oAer and Dustice are manifested in the reAard of
the good and the )unishment of the Aic,ed1 then
certainly the act of creation is good, its moti3e is
ful2lled& .3il is the Aor, of the creature, not of the
Creator, Ahose Dustice and mercy ali,e it is the means
of eBhi$iting& ?urther, the goodness of the act of
creation is not 3itiated $y the fact that it in3ol3es the
self-caused misery, tem)oral or eternal, of the human
race& %t 2rst sight this does a))ear to $e a gra3e
diIculty, in the Aay of reconciling omni)otence Aith
)erfect goodness1 for, it is as,ed, if 7od could create a
Aorld in Ahich no e3il could eBist, or could e3en a$stain
from creating this one, Ahy did 8e not do soM *r if 8e
could not do either, hoA can 8e $e omni)otentM 'ut
e3il is the Aor, of created free-Aill, not of 7od: if,
therefore, 7od had a$stained from the creation of this
Aorld (or Ahat is the same thing, had made it diCerent#
$ecause of manGs actions foreseen either as )ossi$le or
as certain, then 7od Aould not ha3e acted as 7od, $ut
in contra3ention of 8is 3ery nature& There Aould ha3e
$een a corner of the )ossi$le uni3erse from Ahich 8e
Aould ha3e $een eBcluded, a good act Ahich 8e might
not do: 8e Aould ha3e $een limited $y and de)endent
on the free actions of 8is )ossi$le creatures& 'ut such
an idea is a$solutely inconcei3a$le: 7od cannot at the
same time $e )erfect and limited, or de)endent and
inde)endent, or su)reme and su$Dect to the Aill of 8is
creatures1 and if 8e could act in su$ordination to
anything eBternal to 8imself, 8e Aould no longer eBist
-- 8e Aould ha3e destroyed 8imself& To remo3e the
centre of a circle is to destroy $oth centre and circle,
and if 7od Aere not the centre of the circle of the
uni3erse, neither 8e nor it could eBist& Thus the
diIculty of reconciling the eBistence of e3il Aith the
omni)otence and goodness of a di3ine creator
disa))ears as soon as the essential nature of 7od is
realised in res)ect of its inde)endence and su)remacy&
8ence also a))ears the negati3e character of e3il,
Ahich is recognised $y all systems of thought that
admit a su)reme $eing -- $y the (toic Cleanthes and
the Neo)latonist 9lotinus no less than $y (t %ugustine
and (t Thomas& .3il is the a$sence of certain )ossi$le
or ideal elements in certain )arts of creation, not the
eBistence in them of something hostile or eBtraneous&
(in is the )er3ersion of the free-Aill, not its inhi$ition1
)ain is the disorder of the organism or the faculties, not
a fresh element in their constitution1 suCering, Ahether
mental or $odily, is a mode of natural self-
consciousness, not consciousness of a diCerent ,ind
from that Ahich eB)eriences )leasure& Moreo3er, if e3il
in the ordinary (not the "meta)hysical"# sense is held to
$e identical Aith sin and its conse0uences -- as it must
$e on Christian )rinci)les -- then sin and suCering are
tAo mutually counter$alancing factors in the
harmonious interaction of all the elements of the
uni3erse1 e3il is an accident of that Ahich is s)eci2cally
good1 it is )ro3ided for in the uni3ersal scheme of
things, as the eB)ansion and contraction of the main-
s)ring is )ro3ided for in the mechanism of a Aatch -- it
is an irregularity of detail Ahich su$ser3es the
regularity of the Ahole&
The only alternati3es to this 3ieA are either an
im)ossi$le Manichean dualism, or some form of
)hiloso)hical )essimism, such as the original
underlying )rinci)le of 'uddhism, or those Ahich are
ado)ted res)ecti3ely $y (cho)enhauer and 8artmann,
or such as is really latent, though not ac,noAledged, in
the "su$stance" of ()inoJism or the idealistic a$solute
of 'radley& The su$ordinate dualism of Christianity
relie3es the Creator of Ahat may $e called
res)onsi$ility for e3il, Ahile its fundamental monism
)ro3ides a )lace for e3il in the scheme of things no less
secure than that Ahich it 2nds in the su))osed
uni3ersal su$stance or the a$solute& %s a )hiloso)hical
statement of the Christian 3ieA of e3il this can hardly
$e unacce)ta$le to any one& 'ut it must $e admitted
that it fails to go to the root of the matter, e3en Ahen
com$ined, as it should $e, Aith the doctrines of the
Incarnation and the %tonement as constituting a
manifestation of di3ine mercy su)erim)osed u)on that
of the di3ine Dustice Ahich a))ears in the natural
uni3erse& No merely s)eculati3e account of e3il can $e
entirely satisfactory, e3en a)art from the necessary
incom)leteness of any s)eculation on so )urely
transcendental a su$Dect, so long as e3il is not merely
,noAn, $ut felt& What gi3es this )ro$lem its )eculiar
)oignancy is the fact that e3il is )rimarily a matter of
eB)erience1 it is $ut cold comfort for those Aho suCer
to ,noA that their )ains do not distur$ the harmony of
the uni3erse or dis)ro3e the goodness of its Creator&
"There ne3er yet Aas a )hiloso)her that could endure
the toothache )atiently," and it seems im)ro$a$le that
any rational eB)lanation of the origin and nature of e3il,
hoAe3er uneBce)tiona$le on )hiloso)hical or
theological grounds, Aill e3er su$due the human
instinct of re$ellion against the )re3ailing laA of
suCering&
'ut mysticism stands on a diCerent )lane from that of
)hiloso)hy or s)eculati3e theology1 it is an eB)erience
as direct and as real as e3en the most entirely cor)oral
forms of suCering, and it is conse0uently a$le to
)ro3ide a real counter)oise to all )ains of mind or $ody
far diCerent from the someAhat em)ty consolations of
)hiloso)hy, or e3en from those of the dee)est human
sym)athy1 Aith Ahich latter it has ne3ertheless
something in common& It is )ro$a$ly, indeed, in
genuine human sym)athy that the only real consolation
-- inade0uate enough -- for una3oida$le suCering is to
$e found $y natural means1 it does not indeed diminish
or shorten the )ain, $ut a ,ind of set-oC is )ro3ided $y
the regard and aCection Ahich the sym)athy im)lies&
There is no consolation, $ut rather the re3erse, in an
enemyGs sym)athy1 $ut the Doy of friendshi) manifested
in sym)athy is felt to $e a distinct gain due to the
suCering Ahich has gi3en it occasion& In someAhat the
same Aay, though in an in2nitely higher degree, the Doy
of union Aith 7od is a consolation Ahich mystics
consider to $e chea)ly $ought at the )rice of any )ain&
%rgument and eB)lanation $ecome, as com)ared Aith
such delights as the mystic ,noAs, of 3ery minor
im)ortance1 the "familiar friendshi)" of 7od is a
)ractical argument, more )ersuasi3e than any other
could )ossi$ly $e, for 8is a$solute goodness and
in2nite )oAer, no matter Ahat diIculties may $e found
in the Aay of reconciling them Aith earthly
a))earances Aithin the narroA range of human thought
and ,noAledge&
This eminently )ractical solution of the )ro$lem of e3il
is im)licitly contained in Ahat has $een called the
"mystical )aradoB&" Mystics constantly assert that it
Aould $e $etter to $e united to 7od in hell, than to $e
se)arated from 8im in hea3en&N!O .ither is, of course,
actually sim)ly inconcei3a$le1 the )aradoB is merely a
strong assertion of the a$solute de)endence of the
creature u)on the Aill of the Creator, and the entire
contentment Ahich a soul that has once realised that
de)endence must feel in occu)ying its di3inely
ordained )lace in the uni3erse, Ahate3er it may $e&
The )oint of 3ieA is shifted: the uni3erse is en3isaged
from its true centre, Ahich is 7od, not from the: false
and imaginary centre of self& % faint li,eness to this
conce)tion may $e )ercei3ed in the "contem)lation of
the ,ernel of things" eBtolled $y (cho)enhauer1 in
8artmannGs doctrine that the "ends of the unconscious"
should $e made our oAn, and in the notion ad3ocated
$y Comte and $y the "ethical religions" of the )resent
day, that life is to $e 3ieAed and transacted from the
stand)oint of humanity, or of )osterity& The idea, thus
stri))ed of its )ersonal as)ect, $ecomes utterly unreal
and ineCecti3e1 $ut in the mystical consciousness it
furnishes the only antidote e3er yet disco3ered (and
that, it Aould seem, a com)lete one# to the $itter sense
of Arong and inDustice Ahich the e3ils of life are a)t to
engender& To regard the Aorld and oneself from the
)oint of 3ieA of the Ahole human race, so as to act
altruistically for the $ene2t of others, or to eB)end
de3otion on the idea of duty is one thing1 to $e so
united Aith 7od that the thought of self is lost and
forgotten is 0uite another& *ne is an arti2cial )ose in
regard to $loodless a$stractions Ahich ha3e no 3itality1
the other is the actual gras) of the 3ery root and 3ital
)rinci)le of things&
Thus the mystic translates into real and li3ing
eB)erience the theoretical )rinci)le adduced $y
Christian )hiloso)hy as the eB)lanation of the eBistence
and nature of e3il, and furnishes Ahat for )ractical
)ur)oses may fairly $e called an eB)erimental test of
its 3alidity& *n the other hand, the mystical attitude
toAards e3il is strongly corro$orated $y its eBact and
o$3iously un)remeditated agreement Aith the only
meta)hysical theory Ahich )ro3ides anything li,e an
ade0uate account of the origin and nature of e3il&
It may $e noted 2nally, that the consolations of
mysticism in this matter are $y no means to $e
con2ned strictly to mystics& In the 2rst )lace, the $lind
trust in the di3ine goodness, Ahich is )ro$a$ly for many
the only )ractical resource in the )ains and anBieties of
life, loses altogether its )rima facie a))earance of
unreasona$leness Ahen it is founded on real, e3en
though 3icarious eB)erience& The logical )osition of the
Christian Aho $elie3es in the goodness and
omni)otence of 7od, in s)ite of a))earances to the
contrary, merely $ecause he Aould otherAise $e una$le
to $elie3e in 7od at all, certainly lea3es much to $e
desired& 'ut if it is reinforced $y the consideration that
those Aho ,noA 8im $est ha3e found, $y direct
eB)erience Ahich cannot $e gainsaid, that 8e is $oth
omni)otent and good, the )osition is really no less
reasona$le than that of those Aho are con3inced of the
insularity of 7reat 'ritain Aithout ha3ing )ersonally
circumna3igated it&
(econdly, the mystical attitude toAards the )ro$lem is
0uite consistent Aith the a$sence in any )articular
indi3idual of mystical eB)erience )ro)erly so called&
There are dou$tless innumera$le Christians Ahose
con3iction of the )oAer and goodness of 7od is not less
in degree than that of the mystic, though their
con3iction is founded on theoretical rather than directly
eB)erimental grounds& The certainty of faith, su))orted
as it nearly alAays is $y a strong sense of the care and
)rotection of di3ine 9ro3idence, and $y the eB)erience
of fa3ours granted in ansAer to )rayer, is in no Aay less
strong -- in some res)ects it is e3en stronger, than that
Ahich is $ased directly on mystical ,noAledge&
'ut e3en in this case the mystical eB)erience of others,
Ahether recorded in 8oly (cri)ture or in the li3es of the
(aints, or $y li3ing contem)oraries, )ro3ides an aid to
faith, or "moti3e of credi$ility" Ahich cannot rightly $e
o3erloo,ed&
NO Cf& 'lessed %ngela of ?oligno& "I felt myself in such
fulness of charity, and I understood Aith such Doy in
that )oAer and Aill and Dustice of 7od, that I
understood not only those things a$out Ahich I had
as,ed, $ut I Aas satis2ed as to the sal3ation oCered to
e3ery creature, and a$out the de3il and the damned
and all things& 'ut all this I cannot eB)lain in Aords&" (In
Catholic Mysticism, $y %& Thorold&#
Cf& also :ulian of NorAich, ch& BBBii& "*ne )oint of our
?aith is, that many creatures shall $e damned as the
angels Ahich $e noA 2ends, and many in earth that
died out of the faith of 8oly Church, and also many that
hath recei3ed Christendom, and li3eth unchristian li3es,
and so die out of charity& %ll these shall $e damned to
8ell Aithout end, as 8oly Church teacheth me to
$elie3e1 and standing all this, methought it Aas
im)ossi$le that all manner of thing should $e Aell, as
our Lord sheAed in this time& %nd as to this, I had no
other ansAer $ut this: GThat, that is im)ossi$le to thee,
is not im)ossi$le to me1 I shall sa3e my Aord in all
things and I shall ma,e all things Aell -- for this is the
great deed that our Lord 7od shall do1 in Ahich deed 8e
shall sa3e 8is Aord in all things, and 8e shall ma,e Aell
all that is not Aell& 'ut Ahat the deed shall $e and hoA
it shall $e done, there is no creature $eneath Christ
that ,noAeth it, nor shall ,noA it till it $e done&G"
N!O .&g&, (t Teresa: "% soul is suCering sorroA and
dis0uiet, the mind is dar,ened and dry, $ut is set at
)eace, freed from all trou$le and 2lled Aith light,
merely $y hearing the Aords, G'e not trou$led&G These
deli3er it from all )ain, although $efore, if the Ahole
Aorld and all its learned men had united to )ersuade it
there Aas no cause for grief, it could not, in s)ite of
their eCorts, ha3e got rid of its sadness&" (Castle, 3i& "&#
"(ouls that ha3e reached the state I s)ea, of & & & care
nothing for their oAn )ain or glory1 if they are anBious
not to stay long in )urgatory, it is more on account of
its ,ee)ing them from the )resence of 7od than
$ecause of its torments&" (I$& 3i& Q&#
'& %ngela of ?oligno (loc& cit&#: "If I ,neA for certain that
I Aas damned, I could not )ossi$ly grie3e nor la$our
less, nor $e less Jealous in )rayer for the honour of
7od, so )erfectly did I understand 8is Dustice&"
>uys$roec,: "Lord, I am Thine, I should $e Thine as
gladly in 8ell as in 8ea3en, if in that Aay I could
ad3ance Thy glory&" -- %dornment of the ()iritual
Marriage&
'& Margaret Mary %laco0ue: ":e ne sais si De me trom)e,
mais il me sem$le 0ue De 3oudrais aimer mon amour
cruci2U dGun amour aussi ardent 0ue celui des
(Ura)hins, mais De ne serais )as fYchUe 0ue ce f[t dans
lGenfer 0ue De lGaimasse de la sorte&" -- Vie )ar ses
Contem)oraines&
C8%9T.> VII
IMM%N.NC. %ND T>%N(C.ND.NC.
T8. su)ernatural character of mysticism de)ends u)on
the dou$le as)ect in Ahich 7odGs )resence in creation
may $e considered& In one )oint of 3ieA 7od is
e3eryAhere )resent in creation, and thus may $e
a))roached $y all men, e3en Ahile they are con2ned
)hysically to the material s)here of the senses& There is
$etAeen 7od and 8is creatures no local inter3al, and no
intelligi$le intermediation such as the 7nostics
concei3ed to eBist& The Aorld is not re3ol3ing a)art
from 7od, forgotten and neglected1 nor is it $rought
into relation Aith 8im only through a hierarchy or chain
of su$ordinate s)iritual eBistences or emanations& 7od
is rightly, in this sense, said to $e "immanent" in the
Aorld as the constant eIcient cause from Ahich
e3erything in e3ery moment of eBistence deri3es its
$eing1 as the su)reme ruler of all that is1 and as the
intelligent designer of all forms of $eing, together Aith
all their )ermutations and com$inations& 8e is
e3eryAhere )er essentiam )resentiam et )otentiam&NO
*n the other hand, 7od is $y nature a$solutely distinct
and se)arate from all created eBistence, not merely in
the Aay in Ahich one created $eing may diCer in ,ind
from another, $ut $y the uni0ue nature of 8is $eing,
Ahich is a$solute and self-de)endent, and thus
altogether incommensura$le Aith created things, Ahich
are necessarily de)endent and deri3ed& Though all
creatures are in the similitude of 7od $y 3irtue of the
$eing Ahich is communicated to them $y 8im, they are
all a$solutely unli,e 8im in 8is inde)endence1 no
imagina$le greatness or )erfection in any creature can
gi3e it any sort of resem$lance to this essential and
fundamental attri$ute of the di3ine nature& Therefore
7od can only $e ,noAn $y intellectual se)aration from
all creatures: 8e cannot $e eB)ressed in terms of
anything $ut 8imself, or $rought under any category
Ahich has any other content -- there is no "formula" for
7od, no class to Ahich 8e may $e said to $elong&
If 7od is considered as intelligent, Aise, $eautiful or
)oAerful, 8e is still none of those things in the same
sense in Ahich they can $e )redicated of creatures,
Aho can only $e intelligent, Aise or $eautiful $y
)artici)ation, as their 3ery eBistence is only
)artici)ation in the $eing of 7od& The s)eculati3e
,noAledge that 7od eBists is the recognition,
theoretically, of a uni0ue ,ind of $eing1 $ut the
eB)erimental ,noAledge, Ahich is mysticism, is
immediate eB)erience or a))rehension of that Ahich is
essentially diCerent from all else, and must therefore
$e a))rehended or eB)erienced after a Aholly diCerent
manner from that in Ahich Ae eB)erience created
eBistence& That is to say that 7od is transcendent1 and
it is only in a sense consistent Aith 8is transcendence
that 8e can truly $e said to $e immanent in creation&
There are tAo other senses in Ahich 7od has $een held
to $e immanent: one of them the conce)tion of
()inoJa, the other of .c,hart and 8egel& The former
holds that 7od and nature, or s)irit and matter, are
identical -- the same thing, namely "su$stance," in tAo
diCerent as)ects& This notion is immanence in its
strictly etymological sense1 7od is in nature and
remains in it1 8e cannot $e outside it, for there is no
outside1 and 8e cannot $e distinct from it, for 8e is
constituted $y the sum total of its )arts and their
relations, of Ahich 8e is in fact the underlying unity and
reality& Much the same relation to the Aorld of
)henomena is attri$uted $y 'radley to the a$solute&
The other 3ieA regards nature as a mode of 7odGs
$eing, a necessary )hase or moment in 8is self-
realisation& Nature is identical Aith 7od, $ut 7od is
more than nature (not 0uantitati3ely $ut intensi3ely#,
inasmuch 8e is $oth )rior and )osterior to nature, in
the order of thought, though not necessarily in the
order of time& This, hoAe3er, is not really
transcendence1 for 7od in this 3ieA is ontologically one
Aith nature, so far as it goes1 creation is a necessary
)art of 7od, and 8e transcends nature only in the sense
of $eing more than, not diCerent from nature&
Ender either of these tAo conce)tions 7od is "gi3en" in
nature, and eB)erience of nature is eB)erience of 7od&
There is no )lace therefore for 3ision, "ra)ture" or
"ecstasy," the o$Dect of Ahich Aould $e merely the non-
eBistent& %ll the mystic could do Aould $e to reHect
u)on his sensi$le eB)erience, and com)ound a
syncretised Deity of the "threads and )atches" of
indi3idual sensation, thought and feeling&
It is a 3ery diCerent )rocess that the su)ernatural
mystic eB)ounds, so far as the limitations of human
language Aill alloA him& 7od is su$stantially or
essentially )resent in the soul, as 8e is in all created
things1 $ut the mystic does far more than merely reHect
on this truth& What he see,s is the su)ernatural union
of li,eness, $egotten $y lo3e, Ahich is the union of the
human Aill Aith the di3ine& 8e see,s to realise the
unfelt natural )resence of 7od in creation, not $y
resting in any as)ect of nature, e3en its most a$stract
one, as mere $eing, $ut $y entering into a )ersonal
relationshi) Aith the concealed )resence Ahich is the
source of $eing& Whereas ()inoJa saA natura naturans
in natura naturata, and 8egel )ure $eing e3ol3ing itself
through the maJe of the $ecoming, the su)ernatural
mystic cuts himself loose at one $loA from all
)henomenal entanglements, and ")asses free and
untrammelled $y all that is seen and all that sees" into
the "intangi$le and in3isi$le" )resence of 8im Aho is
"$eyond all things&"N!O This a))ears to $e the true
inter)retation of the doctrine of the "ground" (7rund# of
the soul, Ahich is )rominent in the 7erman mysticism
of the fourteenth century, and to Ahich reference has
already $een made& This doctrine, as it a))ears in
.c,hart, Tauler and >uys$roec,, and the 7erman
Theology, is someAhat confused, and has led to some
a))arent misunderstanding&N"O There are tAo grounds,"
s)o,en of res)ecti3ely as "created" and "uncreated,"
and the tAo seem to $e treated as almost
interchangea$le -- Ahence these Ariters seem
occasionally to s)ea, of the essence or su$stance of
the soul as if it Aere uncreated, and a )art of the di3ine
essence& 'ut the general )rinci)les of at least Tauler
and >uys$roec, certainly re0uire us to understand the
created ground to $e the su$stance of the human soul,
as distinguished from its faculties -- the )rinci)le in
3irtue of Ahich it not merely acts, $ut is1 and the
uncreated ground is then to $e understood as that
su$stantial or "immanent" )resence of 7od Ahich is to
$e found in all created things ali,e, as the $ac,ground
and su))ort Aithout Ahich they could ha3e no
eBistence at all& The close contact (as for Aant of a
$etter Aord it must $e called# $etAeen the tAo is
o$3ious& The created ground is the essence of the soul,
a thing Ahich cannot $e directly ,noAn, $ut only
inferred from its o)erations, a )urely s)iritual and
intelligi$le entity, remo3ed from all direct eB)erience1
and the uncreated ground is another )urely s)iritual
entity, also inca)a$le of $eing naturally eB)erienced,
Ahich is the $asis of the created groundGs eBistence --
the ground of the ground, in fact& 'ut Ahen the mystical
union of the soul Aith 7od ta,es )lace, the tAo grounds
$ecome in a certain sense one& 7od is realised as the
foundation of the soulGs $eing, and the soulGs
)erce)tion of its oAn essence is, in fact, the )erce)tion
of its unity Aith the essential di3ine nature& .c,hart
seems, at times, to ha3e identi2ed the tAo grounds in
an ontological and not merely mystical unity1 and the
others, in the fer3our of de3otional eB)erience, as Aas
)erha)s natural, ha3e not alAays ,e)t the distinction
)erfectly clear& 'ut their 3ieA is, on the Ahole,
intelligi$le enough, and far remo3ed from any aInity
Aith )antheism& 'ut the struggle Aith the sense-
im)lications of language )er)etually $esets mystical
Ariters, and ne3er ceases to in3ol3e their meaning in
o$scurity& The ordinary )rocesses of the mind can $e
eB)ressed in Aords only $y Aay of meta)hor, and the
meaning of the language of )sychology is not alAays to
$e easily a))rehended& Much more must the
a))lication of language to that Ahich is $eyond
thought, and in some sense its negation, $e diIcult
and lia$le to misunderstanding&
It Aill $e clear enough, hoAe3er, from Ahat has $een
said that the terms "immanent" and "transcendent," as
a))lied to the di3ine nature, are not mutually eBclusi3e,
$ut indicate merely tAo as)ects of the same thing& The
transcendence of 7od is immanent, and 8is immanence
is transcendent& 'y immanence is to $e understood the
di3ine accessi$ility to the human soul, and $y
transcendence the essential inde)endence of the di3ine
nature of all created things and )ersons& The Aords, if
used rightly, must $e used in the 6antian or su$Decti3e
sense of tAo Aays in Ahich 7od may $e a))rehended
$y us, not as indicating tAo modes of 8is eBistence&
7od may $e ,noAn to eBist, and 8is nature )artially
understood, $y the 'aconian "interrogation" of 8is
handiAor,1 thus our ,noAledge of 7od through nature
is an immanent ,noAledge& 'ut the conce)tion of 7od
so arri3ed at is of a $eing Aho Aholly transcends
nature, and Ahose essential distinctness from all that is
not eternally 8imself is a fundamental attri$ute of 8is
$eing& Thus our ,noAledge of 7od is transcendent as
Aell as immanent, (ince Ahile Ae concei3e 8im as
manifested $y nature, Ae concei3e 8im also, and in the
same act, as essentially distinct and se)arate from
nature& This, hoAe3er, is not the same thing as saying
that 7od is in nature and also $eyond it, $ut the eBact
contrary1 7od has neither tAo modes of $eing nor tAo
modes of action1 8e is totum inter omnia, et totum
eBtra -- 8is action, li,e 8is eBistence, is either Aholly
immanent or Aholly transcendent, according to the
)oint of 3ieA ado)ted& To contrast the tAo, in an
ontological sense, is really to ma,e a cross-di3ision -- as
if Ae Aere to contrast 8is omni)otence Aith 8is )oAer
to create a uni3erse& It is not to $e Aondered at that a
fancied distinction $etAeen 7odGs immanental and
transcendental actions should ha3e led to strange
results&
NO (umma, I& 3iii& ", and cf& (t :ohn of the Cross,
%scent, ii& /, and ()iritual Canticle, Bi& !&
N!O (ee Dion&, Myst& Theol&, c& &
N"O .&g&, Tauler ((ermon of (t :ohn 'a)tist#: "There is
no )ast or )resent here1 and no created light can reach
or shine into this di3ine ground1 for here only is the
dAelling-)lace of 7od and 8is sanctuary& This di3ine
a$yss can $e fathomed $y no creatures1 it can $e 2lled
$y none and it satis2es none1 7od only can 2ll it in 8is
in2nity& ?or this a$yss $elongs only to the di3ine a$yss,
of Ahich it is Aritten G%$yssus a$yssum in3ocat&G" %nd
com)are the 7erman Theology, ch& &: "8e is the
su$stance of all things&"
C8%9T.> VIII
9L*TINE(
T8. eB)erimental ,noAledge of 7od $y means of
s)ecial di3ine illumination must, according to the 3ieA
Ae are ad3ocating, $e considered to $e the )rerogati3e
of Christianity& ?or since the fulness of di3ine
,noAledge, so far as it is attaina$le $y human $eings in
this life, is to $e found in the Christian religion alone, it
is e3idently inconcei3a$le that such ,noAledge should
either fail to $e found there in its highest form, Ahich is
mysticism, or that it should eBist elseAhere in e0ual
)erfection& This 3ieA is, for the most )art, fully $orne
out $y a com)arison of Christian mysticism Aith such
feA instances of non-Christian religious eB)erience as
may $y any straining of the e)ithet $e called mystical&
(o also the mystical )retensions of )ersons outside the
)ale of the Catholic Church, and those Ahich, though
made on the $ehalf of Catholics, the Church holds to $e
s)urious, are manifestly untena$le on the )rinci)les
laid doAn $y Catholic authority as to the necessary
character and results of true mysticism&
There is, hoAe3er, one case Ahich it is diIcult not to
regard as an eBce)tion to this rule -- that of 9lotinus&
This remar,a$le 2gure stands out as the sole instance
in Ahich all the conditions of true mysticism (Aith the
necessary eBce)tion of faith# seem to ha3e $een
ful2lled $y one Aho Aas neither a Catholic nor a
Christian, $ut the father of Neo)latonism, in its later
and fully-de3elo)ed form& 9lotinus Aas $orn a$out the
year !=4, and studied at %leBandria under %mmonius
(accas, $ut at the age of forty Aent to >ome, Ahere he
taught until the last year of his life, the .m)eror
7allienus $eing one of his disci)les, and died in
Cam)ania in the year !P<& 8e Aas much sought after in
>ome as a ,ind of s)iritual director1 his ha$its of life
Aere ascetic, as indeed Aould naturally $e the case
Aith one Aho so des)ised material things as to $e "li,e
one Aho Aas ashamed of $eing in the $ody, and
therefore could not $ear to s)ea, of his $irth, or
)arents or country&"NO
8is )hiloso)hy insists strongly on the transcendence of
7od, the su)reme unity and a$solute 7ood, Ahich is
a$o3e all $eing and all thought& 'eneath the *ne are
intelligence (nous#, Aith Ahich the 9latonic ideas are
identi2ed, and the soul ()suche#, Ahich is the )roduct
of intelligence, and in its turn )roduces cor)oreal things
$y im)ressing form u)on indeterminate, un0uali2ed
matter& Thus the $ody is in the soul, rather than the
soul in the $ody1 all things are held together $y the
*ne, Ahich continually draAs the manifold to itself&
ManGs )art is to rise u) from the di3ersity and
degradation of matter, through thought, into union Aith
the one and a$solute 7ood& We are not, hoAe3er, noA
concerned Aith 9lotinusGs )hiloso)hy, $ut Aith its
)ractical conse0uence& It is in the 2nal stage of the
soulGs u)Aard course, its union Aith 7od and rest in
8im, that the system of 9lotinus $ecomes )urely
mystical&
The nature of this union is descri$ed in the siBth
.nnead& Li,e Dionysius after him 9lotinus does not
$ring out 3ery clearly the notion of s)ecial su)ernatural
assistance, or grace, as a necessary condition of
mystical 3ision& 'ut, also li,e Dionysius, he insists
strongly on the distinction $etAeen mystics and the
uninitiated (mW memuWmenoi, com)are Dion&, Myst&
Theol&, #1 and he s)ea,s, as Dionysius does not, of the
"call" and "draAing" of the su)reme 7ood, Ahere$y the
soul is $rought into union Aith it&N!O This union Aith
7od, or 3ision of 8im, ta,es )lace in the "su$stance of
the soul"1 it is rather contact than mere ,noAledge,
though ,noAledge is a necessary )reliminary to it& It is
ecstasy, unity, the )roDection of the soul out of itself,N"O
in 3irtue of the aInity Ahich the soul has to the *ne $y
its oAn unity, as a self-centred monad (to )suchWs oion
,entron#& Li,e Dionysius again, 9lotinus enlarges on the
a$straction from all that is manifold Ahich is needful
$efore union Aith the *ne can $e attained& The soul in
that union des)ises e3en thought, Ahich )re3iously had
$een its delight (dia,eitai tote h+s ,ai ton noein
,ata)hronein, ho ton allon chronon Ws)aJeto# much
more all material things: for there is mo3ement, or
unrest e3en in thought, Ahereas the one is unmo3ed,
so that the soul that a$ides in the one 2nds a$solute
rest, and a$andons all things& It is as if one entered a
s)lendid mansion and admired the $eauty of its
adornment1 $ut Ahen the master of the house a))ears,
one cannot $ut forget all those o$Dects of admiration in
the Doy of seeing 8im, Aho comes under no similitude
of 8imself, $ut as the o$Dect of true 3ision& ?or this
Master of the house is no man, $ut 7od1 and ma,es
8imself ,noAn not $y means of common sight, $ut as
2lling the soul Ahich $eholds 8im& %gain, it is not
$eautiful things that the soul $eholds in this 3ision, nor
$eauty itself, nor the Ahole $and (choron# of 3irtues1 as
if one entered the 3esti$ule of a tem)le, and saA there
the statues and similitudes of the 7od, $ut afterAards
going Aithin the sanctuary, saA no more any statue or
)icture, $ut the di3ine $eing 8imself& This union
$etAeen the soul and 7od resem$les in its clearness
the union of earthly lo3ers (erastai ,ai er+menoi
sug,rinai Thelontes#1 the soul Aill ha3e no other thing,
good or $ad1 $ut itself alone Aill enDoy 8im alone (hina
deBWtai mone monon#&
Thus Ae 2nd in 9lotinus the most ad3anced conce)tions
of the great Christian mystics& There is no 3ision or
locution1 all is a$stract or )urely s)iritual& 'ut 9lotinus
tells us almost in identical )hraseology of the Mansions
of (t Teresa,N4O of the )rayer of 0uiet, of (t :ohnGs dar,
night of faith, and of the s)iritual marriage1 the
"ground" (,entron# of the soul is Aith him as familiar
and as necessary an idea as it is Aith the 7erman
mystics&
Kuotations might $e multi)lied and coincidences noted
to almost any eBtent& 'ut Ahat has $een said Aill $e
enough to shoA the character of 9lotinusGs mysticism
and its mar3ellous agreement Aith the true
su)ernatural ty)e& The 0uestion therefore arises
Ahether Ae are to consider 9lotinus a genuine
su)ernatural mystic or not1 and if he must $e held to $e
so, Ae are immediately confronted Aith the further
0uestion of his true relation to Christian mysticism& ?or
unless all su)ernatural mystics, Christian and
Neo)latonist ali,e, are su$Dect to a common delusion, it
Aould seem diIcult to assign the same origin to the
mystical eB)erience de)icted $y 9lotinus as to the
"mystical theology" of Dionysius, or of (t Teresa and (t
:ohn of the Cross&
It must $e remem$ered that 9lotinus Aas, during the
most im)ortant )art of his career, in close contact Aith
Christianity, and that not in any outlying region of the
faith, Ahere distinctions of creed might $e o$scured in
the minds of an unlettered )eo)le, $ut in >ome itself&
Moreo3er, during his residence at >ome he must ha3e
Aitnessed the )roscri)tion and )ersecution of
Christians under Decius, and the admission of
Christianity to the )ri3ileges of a religio licita $y his
)u)il 7allienus& 8e can, therefore, ha3e $een ignorant
neither of the eBclusi3eness of the Christian religion,
nor of the inHuence it Aas a$le to eBert o3er $oth those
Aithin and those Aithout its )ale& 8e seems, in )oint of
fact, to ha3e disregarded Christianity altogether1 he
Aas neither a con3ert, li,e Victorinus a century after
him, nor an o))onent, li,e his disci)le 9or)hyry& @et he
must ha3e in some fashion deli$erately reDected
Christianity1 it cannot ha3e esca)ed his notice& 'ut the
reason Ahy such an anima naturaliter Christiana should
ha3e resisted the attraction of a faith Ahich had so
much in common Aith his oAn system cannot e3en $e
conDectured&
We can only choose $etAeen tAo theories of the cause
of his aInity to the mystical theologians of the Church&
The 2rst Aould re)resent him as aCected $y the
deli$erate a))roBimation to Christianity Ahich the later
Neo)latonism undou$tedly eBhi$ited, and Ahich Ae can
hardly $e mista,en in regarding as a des)erate eCort
on the )art of 9aganism to 2ght the groAing )oAer of
the Church on its oAn ground Aith its oAn Aea)ons& To
this cause are attri$uted the 0uasi-Trinitarian doctrine
of Neo)latonism, the re3i3al of Mithraism, and the life
of %)ollonius of Tyana $y 9hilostratus&N/O It may Aell
ha3e $een the case that it seemed ad3isa$le to meet
the Aides)read mysticism of the early Church -- nai3e
and sim)le-minded as it often Aas, as, for eBam)le, in
the 3isions of 8ermas -- Aith a theory not less mystical
$ut founded on Ahat )rofessed to $e a higher 7nosis&
9lotinus, indeed, has none of the characteristics of a
merely s)eculati3e theorist1 his Aor, $ears all the signs
of )ersonal eB)erience, and 9or)hyry tells us that four
times during his siB yearsG association Aith 9lotinus his
master attained to the state of mystical union&
It is scarcely )ossi$le to attri$ute conscious insincerity
to a character so stri,ing and maDestic as that of
9lotinus: the s)irit of his Aritings is of itself almost
suIcient to clear him of any sus)icion of mere 3ulgar
charlatanism& 'ut it is not actually im)ossi$le that his
mystical eB)erience may ha3e $een of the natural
order, and due not to any su)ernatural illumination, $ut
$y Aay of automatic suggestion, to the direct tendency
of the )hiloso)hical system in Ahich he Aas a$sor$ed&
It may ha3e $een no more than a strong emotional
realisation of intellectual )rinci)les o$tained $y
remar,a$le )hiloso)hical acumen& Certainly one may
notice -- a)art from the 0uietism suggested $y some
)assages -- an element of mere negati3e a$straction in
his system, Ahich is indeed necessitated $y the highly
a$stract and )ractically im)ersonal nature Ahich he
attri$utes to the *ne, $ut Ahich ma,es a 3ery mar,ed
contrast Aith the Aarmth of )ersonal relationshi) -- the
familiaris amicitia :esu Ahich one 2nds in Christian
mysticism&NPO
%s has $een already remar,ed, the theory noA )o)ular
of automatism furnishes a much needed eB)lanation of
the close resem$lance $orne to su)ernatural mysticism
$y the 3arious ,inds of mysticism Ahich, on Christian
)rinci)les, cannot $e acce)ted as su)ernatural in any
other sense than that of a )ossi$le connection Aith
dia$olical agency&
There is nothing to )re3ent us from holding this theory
a$out the mysticism of 9lotinus1 $ut it must $e
admitted that the direct e3idence for it is of the
scantiest )ossi$le descri)tion&
The alternati3e is to acce)t the eB)erience of 9lotinus
as one of those manifestations of di3ine grace outside
its regular channels, the occurrence of Ahich has from
time to time $een 0uite unmista,a$le& The num$er of
instances has ne3er $een large enough to entitle them
to $e considered anything $ut eBce)tions to the
)re3ailing rule1 and the Church has ne3er felt it her
$usiness to )ronounce Dudgment u)on the s)iritual
state of indi3iduals outside her $oundaries, strictly as
she is com)elled to reDect as false all doctrines contrary
to her oAn& 'ut the )rinci)le that "he that is not against
us is for us" may )erha)s $e a))lied here1 and if so, Ae
may consider 9lotinus as an in3oluntary Aitness to the
truth of the Christian 3ieA of mysticism, and the reality
of the eB)erience of Christian mystics& Why, if this is
the case, 9lotinus (and )ossi$ly 9or)hyry as Aell#
should ha3e $een fa3oured Aith s)ecial di3ine
illumination it is, of course, im)ossi$le to say& We ha3e
no data that could $e of any ser3ice to us in an attem)t
to assign a reason for such an eBce)tional dis)ensation
of di3ine 9ro3idence& 'ut it must $e remem$ered that
mystical eB)erience is not of itself an e3idence of
sanctity, still less of 2nal )erse3erance& It is )ossi$le to
su))ose that an indi3idual may ha3e $een fa3oured
Aith the grace of mystical ,noAledge for the )ur)ose of
his con3ersion, and may ha3e failed to corres)ond Aith
the di3ine intention1 as the Magi might, if they had
chosen, ha3e failed to folloA the guidance of the star&
NQO
Whate3er eB)lanation Ae ado)t, the fact is that the
system of 9lotinus, on its mystical side, is )ractically
identical Aith that of Dionysius and of all Christian
mystics, though it has nothing Ahate3er of all that
gi3es Christianity its )oAer to attract or inHuence or
console&N;O
NO 9or)hyry, Life of 9lotinus&
N!O e,eino dW ho )suchW di+,ei ,ai ho )h+s n+ )arechei
,ai em)eson autou ichnos ,inei, outoi dei thaumaJein
ei toiautWn dunamin echei el,on )ros auto ,ai
ana,aloumenon e, )asWs )lanWs, hina )ros auto
ana)ausaito& -- .nn& 3i& Q&
N"O ou theama alla allos tro)os tou idein, e,stasis ,ai
ha)l+sis ,ai e)idosis autou ,ai e)hesis )ros ha)hWn & & &
mWde ,at e)istWmWn hW sunesis e,einou 5mcirc1de ,ata
noWsis, h+s)er ta alla noWta, alla ,ata )arousian
e)istWmes ,reittona& -- I$& <&
N4O "Ne croirait-on )as entendre encore 9lotin, 0uand
la sainte 2lle ((t Teresa# nous recommande Gde )orter
les yeuB 3ers le centre 0ui est le )alais o\ ha$ite ce
grand roiMG" -- (t 8ilaire, LG.cole dG%leBandrie&
N/O (ee 'igg, Christian 9latonists of %leBandria, Lect&
VII&
NPO The distinction made $y (t 8ilaire (o)& cit&# is only
3er$al, and might Aith e0ual truth $e re3ersed& "Les
mysti0ues chrUtiens diCTrent de 9lotin en ce 0ue
soutenus )ar la foi, )our la )lu)art du moins, us nGont
trou3e dans lGeBtase 0ue lGunion mentale et s)irituale
a3ec Dieu, tandis 0ue 9lotin y a trou3U Dieu mWme&
LGYme de sainte Therese se marie a Dieu, comme celle
de saint ?ranVois de (ales de 7erson et des autres1
lGYme de 9lotin se transforme en Dieu, on )lut+t elle est
Dieu&"
NQO This seems to ha3e $een (t %ugustineGs 3ieA of
Neo)latonism, and es)ecially of 9lotinus, Ahom he calls
"magnus ille 9latonicus&" "(i 9latonici, 3el 0uicun0ue alii
ista senserunt, cognoscentes Deum, sicut Deum
glori2carent, et gratias agerent, nec e3anescerent in
cogitationi$us suis, nec )o)ulorum errori$us )artim
auctores 2erent, )artim resistere non auderent,
)rofecto con2terentur et illis immortali$us ac $eatis, et
no$is mortali$us ac miseris, ut immortales ac $eati
esse )ossimus, unum Deum deorum colendum, 0ui et
noster est et illorum&" -- Ci3& Dei& B& "&
N;O Kuod enim ante omnia tem)ora, et su)er omnia
tem)ora incommunica$iliter manet unigenitus ?ilius
tuus coaeternus ti$i, et 0uia de )lenitudine eDus
acci)iunt animae ut $eatae sint, et 0uia )artici)atione
manentis in se reno3antur ut sa)ientes sint1 est i$i1
0uod autem secundum tem)us )ro im)iis mortuus est
-- non est i$i& (t %ug&, Conf& 3ii& iB&
C8%9T.> IF
8.>.TIC%L M@(TIC(
I? 9lotinus furnishes a solitary, or almost solitary
instance of a system Ahich, starting from false or
inade0uate )rinci)les, arri3es at a method of mystical
contem)lation scarcely to $e distinguished from
genuine mysticism, the historical cases of an
a))arently con3erse )rocess are too numerous to
count& The names of those Aho, $eginning as more or
less orthodoB Christians, ha3e ended as eBtra3agant
3isionaries, or as maintainers of )rinci)les o))osed, not
merely to Catholic orthodoBy, $ut e3en to all sane,
human con3ictions, are freely scattered o3er the )ages
of history& True mysticism has undou$tedly $een
gra3ely )reDudiced $y the eBistence, fre0uently side $y
side Aith it, of eBtra3agances Ahich claimed an e0ual
and a))arently identical authority Aith that of true
mysticism& There are, ne3ertheless, 3ery real and
clearly mar,ed distinctions $etAeen the tAo, and there
is really no reason Ahate3er for the common
condemnation in Ahich sometimes $oth are hastily
included&
The eBternal or ")ragmatic" test is easy of a))lication
to all such cases in tAo Aays& ?irst, it is o$3ious that,
from the Catholic )oint of 3ieA at least, tenets Ahich
directly contradict the rule of faith cannot ha3e a di3ine
origin, or $e in any sense true& (econdly, as has $een
already remar,ed, it is incredi$le that a fresh re3elation
should $e gi3en Aith the di3ine )ur)ose of su)erseding
that Ahich Aas once for all deli3ered to the saints1 or,
e3en if it could $e granted that such a fresh re3elation
Aere concei3a$le, that it should $e gi3en in a less
)u$lic and tangi$le fashion, and $e of less uni3ersal
a))lication, than that Ahich it endea3ours to su))lant&
Theoso)hy is not theology, either mystical or
s)eculati3e, $ut the degenerate oCs)ring of a false
theory of mysticism1 and its method is nothing $ut a
corru)ting inHuence, $oth in theology and in
)hiloso)hy& Its )hiloso)hical tendency is a))arent in the
transcendentalism ali,e of 6ant, :aco$i, ?ichte,
(chelling and 8egel, and of (cho)enhauer and
8artmann,NO Aho )ractically agree in ta,ing crude
emotional data as the $asis of a rational eB)lanation of
things& The "categorical im)erati3e," the
"IndiCerenJ)un,t," "self-o$Decti3isation" -- no less than
the Will and the Enconscious, are instances of the a
)riori idealism from Ahich such Neo)latonists as
9lotinus and 9roclus Aere entirely free& In theology
there is scarcely any a$erration of human credulity, or
eBtra3agance of human fantasy, that is not directly
attri$uta$le to the same source& Montanus, 9riscillian
and the ?raticelli, Luther, Cal3in and 7eorge ?oB,
'oehme, (Aeden$org and Ir3ing, unli,e as they are to
one another in many res)ects, agree in founding
themsel3es on unreasoned, and generally irrational
intuitions& Mysticism, in the Catholic 3ieA, cannot $ut
$e discredited Ahene3er it enters into com)etition Aith
the magisterium of the Church -- Ahene3er it lea3es its
true s)here of the )ersonal and eB)erimental, and
$ecomes dogmatic and didactic&
'ut one naturally loo,s further for some intrinsic
distinction Ahich may diCerentiate s)urious from true
mysticism1 one Aishes to Dudge of its character, not
merely $y the )ractical test of its fruits, $ut $y the
nature of its )rinci)les, considered in themsel3es and
a)art from all conse0uences or relations Aith )articular
)hiloso)hical or theological doctrines& (uch a
distinction is readily to $e found in the essential
features of true mysticism, Ahich Ae ha3e seen to $e of
such a nature as to $e inca)a$le of )resentation in the
form of a$stract doctrine& The essence of mysticism is,
as Ae ha3e seen, the actual eB)erimental 3ision or
,noAledge of 7od, and in itself is necessarily ineCa$le
and indescri$a$le1 it may $e either real, or imaginary
and delusi3e, $ut it cannot $e either true or false, in the
sense in Ahich a doctrine must $e one or the other& It
is, of course, 0uite concei3a$le that a doctrine or a
matter of fact may $e re3ealed in mystical 3ision1 $ut
the doctrine or fact is not, and cannot $e, mystical,
sim)ly $ecause it $elongs not to the mystical or
su)ernatural s)here, $ut to that of the sensi$le and
intelligi$le Aorld& % false doctrine or statement for
Ahich mystical authority is claimed may $e either a real
di3ine communication, misunderstood and misre)orted,
or a deduction from a true mystical eB)erience, or a
mere delusion of the senses or the imagination& %ny
doctrine so )ut forAard is o)en to criticism li,e any
other statement, and cannot $e acce)ted merely on the
authority attri$uted to it $y an indi3idual Aho may
)ossi$ly $e the 3ictim of his oAn imagination or
misunderstanding& 'ut it is e3ident that Ahere the
doctrine constitutes the Ahole of the eB)erience, there
is really no 0uestion at all of mysticism& The intelligence
of the )erson to Ahom the doctrine is su))osed to $e
made ,noAn may ha3e led him to disco3er a truth, or
the re3erse1 he may or may not ha3e $een under the
guidance of di3ine grace in concei3ing it1 $ut there is
no ground Ahate3er for su))osing such a )erson to
ha3e recei3ed a genuine mystical communication&
(ince, in such a case, the doctrine )ur)orts to $e the
$are descri)tion of the su))osed mystical 3ision, it is $y
that 3ery fact con3icted of error1 true mystical
eB)erience cannot $e descri$ed or translated into
terms of the non-mystical& DionysiusGs )aradoBical
canon is here )recisely in )oint -- "If any one, seeing
7od, ,noAs Ahat he sees, it is $y no means 7od that
he sees, $ut something created and ,noAa$le&"
% deduction, on the other hand, from a mystical
eB)erience, or series of eB)eriences, may 0uite
concei3a$ly $e a mista,en one, e3en though the
eB)eriences themsel3es may $e real& There can $e no
reason for su))osing that the fa3our of mystical 3ision
im)lies any su$se0uent immunity from intellectual
error -- or, for that matter, from moral la)se& Neither
Moses nor (t 9aul Aas, or su))osed himself to $e, so
safeguarded $y the mystical fa3ours $estoAed on him&
(t :ohn of the Cross insists at great length on the
)ossi$ility of misunderstanding di3ine communications,
as Aell as on the danger of mista,ing for them those
Ahich come from another source, and concludes, as do
all mystical Ariters, that much im)ortance should not
$e attached to such eB)eriences&N!O
Doctrines, then, Ahich claim mystical authority, must
$e Dudged to $e true or false according to the su))ort
they recei3e from the conclusions of reason or the
truths of re3elation1 their claim to $e in themsel3es
mystical eB)eriences is refuted $y the fact that they are
doctrines, or theories a$out 7od, Ahereas mysticism is
concerned not Aith doctrines or theories -- Ahich
$elong to the domain, not of mystical, $ut of
s)eculati3e theology -- $ut solely Aith 7od 8imself& The
eB)erience, of Ahate3er ,ind, u)on Ahich such
doctrines are founded, may or may not $e genuinely
mystical, and must $e Dudged of a)art from the doctrine
for Ahich its authority is claimed, according to its
alleged character, and the condition of the )erson $y
Ahom it is undergone& Thus 3isions eB)erienced $y
)ersons in a state of alcoholism, ner3ous or $rain
disease, or arti2cially )roduced anaesthesia, are
manifestly to $e attri$uted to those agencies1 3isions or
imaginations of the state of man,ind or of )articular
indi3iduals, or of the material uni3erse, hoAe3er 3ast,
)ictures0ue or sym$olical they may $e, are certainly
not mystical, $ut are generally due to natural emotion,
mental eBcitement, automatic suggestion, or some
similar cause& Those only are to $e considered e3en
)ossi$ly mystical Ahich include a direct consciousness
of the di3ine )resence, Ahich are )receded $y no
emotion or eBcitement, Ahich can $e )ro$a$ly traced to
no )hysical or mental cause, and Ahich are not ca)a$le
of $eing fully descri$ed in Aords&
We may illustrate the )rinci)les thus o$tained $y one or
tAo of the $est-,noAn instances of s)urious mysticism&
We may ta,e 2rst the sect 3ariously ,noAn as Christian
'rethren, 'eghards or ?raticelli, Aho Hourished in the
fourteenth and 2fteenth centuries, and Aere
condemned as heretics at the Council of Vienne& They
Aere said to $e constantly su$Dect to 3isions and
ecstasies, and Aere accused (no dou$t Aith some
eBaggeration, $ut )ro$a$ly not Aithout gra3e cause# of
immoral )ractices of the grossest ,ind& They Aere
inHuenced, more or less directly, $y the s)eculati3e
)antheism of %malric of 'ena, and )rofessed to regard
matter as a secondary and com)arati3ely unim)ortant
as)ect of s)irit1 so that Ahen the s)iritual as)ect of the
uni3erse Aas truly a))rehended, material things and
conduct in regard to them $ecame altogether
indiCerent& (uch s)iritual a))rehension Aas held to $e
a natural )rocess, and o)en to all human $eings at Aill&
*ne of the charges $rought against this sect $y 9o)e
Clement V& at Vienne Aas that they held the 'eati2c
3ision to $e attaina$le $y the natural )oAers of
man,ind, Aithout any need for the inter3ention of the
lumen gloriae& They thus denied Ahat Ae ha3e seen to
$e a fundamental )ostulate of true mysticism1 they
Aere not really mystics, $ut imaginati3e or
"tem)eramental" theoso)hists& Their so-called
mysticism Aas a,in, on the one hand, to Ahat some
modern Ariters ha3e called sym$olism or "nature-
mysticism," and on the other, to the humanism of the
>enaissance, their )ractical 3ieA of life $eing )retty
nearly identical Aith that of LorenJo VallaGs treatise on
9leasure& Visions and ecstasies allied Aith doctrines of
this ,ind must o$3iously $e ta,en as the conse0uence
of such doctrines rather than as their cause, and can $e
considered only as a neuro)athic form of sensuality, as
far remo3ed from true mysticism as anything could
)ossi$ly $e&
*f a 3ery diCerent character Aere the strange
transcendental imaginations of the )ious shoema,er,
:aco$ 'oehme& 8is mind a))ears to ha3e $een
constantly 2Bed on the idea of 7od1 and $y a )urely
natural )rocess there arose in it, together Aith many
sane and de3out reHections, a ,ind of )hiloso)hical
statement of the )ro$lems of eBistence, transferred in
strange and $iJarre )hraseology to the di3ine nature&
These ideas 'oehme declared to $e "o)ened" to him1
they came, he could not say hoA, into his mind, and
had u)on him the eCect of a communication from an
eBternal source& 'ut there is no need, indeed there is
no )ossi$ility of acce)ting his eB)lanation of their
origin& % meditati3e and a$stracti3e mind, Aithout
authoritati3e guidance or restraint, Aill naturally and
almost ine3ita$ly 2nd in the a$stract idea of the di3ine
nature a re)etition of the inHuences it sees at Aor, in
the surrounding Aorld& Thus the %$yss, the 9otential
Trinity, the relation of 'eing to Not-$eing, the Will, the
Imagination, the Maiden Idea and the mo3ing ?ire, and
the li,e, are undou$tedly no more than the )seudo-
)hiloso)hical forms under Ahich 'oehme concei3ed
and contem)lated the uni3erse, and Ahich rose $y
some )rocess of auto-suggestion into his consciousness
as he contem)lated the idea of 7od, and thus a))eared
to him in some sense identical Aith it& 'oehme has
aInities -- as )ro$a$ly all naturally contem)lati3e
minds must ha3e -- Aith 7nosticism and Neo)latonism
on the one hand, and on the other, Aith modern
idealism -- Aith :aco$i, (chelling and 8egel, and Aith
(cho)enhauer and 8artmann& 'ut Aith true mysticism
he has none Ahate3er1 he may $e thought to claim a
re3elation as the authority for his system, $ut to
mystical theology -- the eB)erimental, ineCa$le
,noAledge of 7od -- he ma,es no )retension&
The theoso)hy of (Aeden$org may $e classed Aith
'oehmeGs, inasmuch as $oth )retend to direct
,noAledge of transcendental realities& 'ut Ahereas
'oehme, Aith all his strange terminology, is
)hiloso)hical and intellectual, (Aeden$org does no
more than em$ody, in crude, allegorical form, certain
)hases of 9rotestant theology& 8is 3isions do, indeed,
)rofess to $e statements of fact, and not allegorical or
imaginary -- to $e, in fact, a re3elation& 'ut e3en if this
claim Aere admitted, if one could seriously acce)t, for
eBam)le, the story of the angelsG )rotracted attem)ts
to con3ert Luther from his doctrine of Dusti2cation, and
their daily Huctuations of ill-success, Ae should still
ha3e nothing li,e a true mystical eB)erience& The
s)iritual, ineCa$le di3ine )resence has no )lace in
(Aeden$orgGs gallery, and indeed Aould $e sadly
incongruous there& (Aeden$orgGs sym$olical
inter)retation of (cri)ture, ela$orate and dogmatic in
tone as it is, has really nothing to do Aith mystical
theology )ro)erly so called&
Kuietism has a))eared to many Ariters to $e a genuine
eBam)le of mysticism: the doctrines of Molinos and
Madame 7uyon ha3e $een identi2ed Aith those of (t
Teresa, and the condemnation of the former has $een
attri$uted to the recalcitrance of their authors against
ecclesiastical authority, as contrasted Aith the docility
of (t Teresa and (t :ohn of the Cross& 'ut the doctrine of
"disinterested lo3e," as inter)reted $y the Kuietists, is
0uite a diCerent thing from the mystical )assi3ity of (t
Teresa, to Ahich it has $een li,ened& With her, as Aith
other mystics, )assi3ity consists in a concentration of
the faculties u)on 7od, not, indeed, alAays in
successi3e "acts," $ut at least in one continuous act1
Ahereas the Kuietist Aould ha3e the soul renounce its
3ery )ersonality and conscious eBistence, and that not
merely during the condition of ecstatic contem)lation,
$ut as a )ermanent state& Madame 7uyon is ne3er tired
of declaring that her soul "has no inclination or
tendency for anything Ahatsoe3er"1 she is "in such an
a$andonment" that she is o$liged to reHect in order to
,noA "if she has a $eing and su$sistence&" "I ha3e to
ma,e an eCort to thin, if I am and Ahat I am1 if there
are in 7od creatures and anything su$sisting&"
Whate3er may $e thought of the o)inions or conduct of
the o))onents of Kuietism, of (egneri, DG.strUes,
'ossuet, La Chaise and De la Com$e, it cannot $e
dou$ted that its distincti3e doctrine, no less than the
condemned )ro)ositions eBtracted from the 7uida
()irituale, is contradictory, not only of di3ine re3elation,
$ut of the elementary facts of human nature& 'ut it is in
no sense mystical: it is a theory founded )rofessedly on
mystical eB)erience, $ut it is not and cannot $e the
eB)erience itself& Madame 7uyon herself says of a
mystical state Ahich she declares herself to ha3e
eB)erienced that it Aas "too sim)le, )ure and na,ed for
me to $e a$le to s)ea, of it& The most ele3ated
dis)ositions are those of Ahich one can say nothing&"
*ne is tem)ted to eBclaim, * si sic omnia] 'ut the
diCerence $etAeen mystical contem)lation, and
theories more or less directly founded u)on it, could
scarcely $e $etter illustrated than $y Madame 7uyonGs
account of herself&
The 0uestion remains, are these )rofessedly mystical
eB)eriences genuinely su)ernatural or notM *n the
Ahole, one is inclined to thin, that they may $e& They
seem to ha3e had no emotional state immediately
)receding them1 they are a))arently indescri$a$le and
unsought1 they )roduce su$Decti3e con3iction of a
direct di3ine inHuence1 and they do not a))ear to ha3e
any real tendency to suggest the false or 0uestiona$le
doctrines founded on them& We may therefore )erha)s
safely admit that Kuietistic mystical eB)eriences may
Aell ha3e $een genuine and su)ernatural ones1 and in
that case, that the doctrines founded u)on them Aere
due to mista,en inferences from them& There is, at any
rate, no reason for regarding the Kuietist doctrine as
necessarily connected Aith mysticism, or as necessarily
discrediting the mystical eB)eriences -- if such they
Aere -- Ahich ga3e rise to them&
% )recisely similar distinction must of course $e made
$etAeen the a))ro3ed teaching of orthodoB mystics,
and the incommunica$le eB)eriences on Ahich it Aas
founded& The reforming Jeal of (t Teresa and (t :ohn of
the Cross had to Ain its Aay on its oAn merits against
)oAerful o))osition1 it Aas 3ery far from $eing
considered as guaranteed $y the s)iritual and )ersonal
fa3ours Ahich ga3e $irth to it& The fre0uent and
eBtraordinary 3isions of Margaret Mary %laco0ue, again,
and the Aides)read )o)ular de3otion resulting from
them, gained acce)tance only $y degrees, and after
much o))osition& The essentially mystical side of her
life, Ahich has $een someAhat o$scured in general
estimation $y the )rominence 3ery naturally gi3en to
her 3isions and re3elations, is easily distinguisha$le
amid the more stri,ing $ut less e3idently su)ernatural
occurrences in Ahich it a$ounds, and folloAs the lines
uniformly characteristic of genuine mysticism&N"O
Thus the alleged diIculty of distinguishing false from
true mysticism is reduced to that of discerning Ahether
any alleged mystical state or eB)erience is truly
re)orted $y its su$Dect or not1 and this diIculty is again
greatly reduced $y o$ser3ing the regularity Aith Ahich
certain features a))ear in all mystical eB)erience that
may $e considered genuine& The element of uncertainty
still remaining arises from our fre0uently inade0uate
,noAledge of the circumstances of any alleged
eB)erience -- such as that of Madame 7uyon a$o3e
mentioned -- together Aith the a )riori discredit
necessarily throAn $y heretical or immoral inferences
u)on the source to Ahich they are ascri$ed& Where the
alleged mystical state ful2ls the conditions Ahich admit
of its $eing attri$uted to a su)ernatural cause, and the
inferences $ased on it are in accord Aith the )rinci)les
of religion and morality, there is )ractically no room for
dou$t&
NO Cf& 8artmann, "9hiloso)hy of the Enconscious"
(The Enc& in the 8uman Mind, ch& iB&#&
N!O %scent, II& B3iii& and BiB&
N"O "Tous les matins, lors0ue De mGU3eille, il me sem$le
trou3er mon Dieu )rUsent, au0uel mon coeur sGunit
comme S son )rinci)e et S sa seule )lUnitude1 ce 0ui
me donne une soif si ardente dGaller S lGoraison, 0ue les
moments 0ue De mets S mGha$iller me durent des
heures& :Gy 3ais le )lus sou3ent sans autre )rU)aration
0ue celle 0ue mon Dieu fait en moi& & & & Il me sem$le
0uel0uefois 0ue mon es)rit sGUloigne de moi, )our
sGaller unir et )erdre dans lGimmense grandeur de son
Dieu& & & & Mon entendement demeure dans un
a3euglement si grand, 0uGil nGa aucune lumiTre ni
connaissance 0ue celle 0ue le di3in (oleil de Dustice lui
communi0ue de tem)s en tem)s& CGest en ce tem)s
0ue DGem)loie toutes mes forces )our lGem$rasser, non
)as des $ras du cor)s, mais des intUrieurs, 0ui sont les
)uissances de mon Yme& & & & :GU)rou3e encore des
attraits si )uissants, 0uGil me sem$le 0ue ma )oitrine
est toute tra3ersUe de rasoirs, ce 0ui mG+te sou3ent le
)ou3oir de sou)irer, nGayant de mou3ement 0ue )our
res)irer a3ec $ien de la )eine& La )artie infUrieure ne
3oit ni ne connait ce 0ui se )asse en la )artie
su)Urieure de mon Yme, 0ui sGou$lie elle-mWme et nGa
dGautre dUsir 0ue de sGunir et se )erdre dans son Dieu& &
& & VoilS les )lus ordinaires occu)ations de mon oraison,
non )as 0ue De fais, mais 0ue mon Dieu fait en moi, sa
chUti3e crUature&" -- Vie )ar (es Contem)oraines -- Vie
el *.u3res, t& i&
C8%9T.> F
M@(TICI(M, 98IL*(*98@ %ND >.LI7I*N
98IL*(*98@ is the eB)lanation of facts1 and since
mysticism is undou$tedly a fact, it necessarily has a
certain relation to )hiloso)hy, and falls Aithin its
legitimate sco)e& 'ut mysticism, unli,e other facts of
Ahich )hiloso)hy has to ta,e account, is not a normal
function of the human faculties, and is not o)en to
direct in3estigation& It can only $e dealt Aith through
the re)orts of mystical contem)lati3es, and no analysis
of mystical states is attaina$le eBce)t such as is
furnished $y the mystics themsel3es, ill-e0ui))ed as
they most fre0uently are for such a )ur)ose& Mysticism
is indeed the eBact )arallel of sensation, in its
immediate and intuiti3e character& 'ut Ahereas
sensation is common to man,ind, and the in3estigator
is therefore a$le to consider it directly, as re)resented
in his oAn consciousness, as Aell as indirectly, through
the re)orts of other )eo)le, as to mysticism he is
mostly restricted to the latter method, and to a num$er
of eBam)les Ahich, as com)ared Aith eBam)les of
sensation, is eBceedingly small& Thus though the nature
of mystical eB)erience seems naturally to $e as
legitimate a su$Dect of en0uiry as that of sensation, the
limitations under Ahich the en0uiry has to $e )ursued
are so great as )ractically to destroy the )arallelism
altogether& %nd seeing hoA little it has so far $een
)ossi$le to disco3er in regard to the nature and cause
of sensation, in s)ite of the com)arati3ely numerous
eBisting facilities for the )ur)ose, it is not sur)rising
that )hiloso)hy should ha3e little or nothing to say
a$out mysticism, Ahich oCers so much narroAer a 2eld
for in3estigation&
Those Ariters, therefore, Aho ha3e considered
mysticism of the true or su)ernatural ,ind from the
)oint of 3ieA of )hiloso)hy, ha3e )ro$a$ly acted Aisely
in declining to consider the transcendental as)ects of
the matter, and con2ning themsel3es to conDectural
eB)ositions of the )sychological )rocesses in3ol3ed in
mystical states& Mystical theology has, hoAe3er, one
)oint of contact Aith )hiloso)hy, in its $earing on
natural theology, oCering as it does an eB)erimental
3eri2cation of the rational )roof of the eBistence of 7od,
and of the "su$stantial" human soul& (uch eB)erimental
e3idence has $een thought $y some to $e furnished $y
the dou$tful )henomena of s)iritualism1 $ut it may
fairly $e contended that the 3ery much less
0uestiona$le e3idence of mysticism is considera$ly
more Aorthy of acce)tance&
It must $e added, hoAe3er, that e3en if mysticism Aere
more o)en to in3estigation than it is, it Aould still in its
essence $e $eyond the )ur3ieA of )hiloso)hy, as
$elonging eBclusi3ely to a region of Ahich )hiloso)hy
itself must sto) short& The "science of causes" cannot
deal inducti3ely Aith the ?irst Cause -- the causa
causarum, $ut must $e content in all cases Aith noting
its eCects1 and in regard to that )articular eCect on the
human soul Ahich constitutes mysticism, )hiloso)hy
can do little more than $arely recognise its occurrence&
NO That s)ecies of )hiloso)hy Ahich refuses to acce)t
the eBistence of a transcendental ?irst Cause cannot, as
Ae ha3e already seen, treat mysticism on its
transcendental side as anything $ut a delusion --
relying, as it must, in the a$sence of direct e3idence,
merely on a negati3e )resu))osition&
With religion, hoAe3er, mysticism stands on common
ground, $eing itself a form of religious eB)erience& Its
o$Dect is indeed the o$Dect of all religion, )ro)erly so
called, since it is nothing less than the actual 3ision of
7od, Ahich is the 2nal consummation of all that is
sought $y religious )ractices of any ,ind& 'ut Ahereas
mysticism attains in this Aorld to some degree of
immediate and eB)erimental ,noAledge of 7od,
religion in general remits this 2nal reAard to a future
state of eBistence& 8ere 7od is ,noAn indirectly, or
theoretically, through 8is Aor,s1 8is direct inHuence is
)ercei3ed in the action of di3ine grace, and 8is
su)ernatural )resence is recognised $y faith in the
transu$stantiated elements of the .ucharist& 'ut the
direct intuition of the di3ine $eing itself is not among
the ad3antages guaranteed $y the Church to its
mem$ers& We ha3e thus to consider the fre0uently
)ro)ounded 0uestion of the relation $etAeen mysticism
and Ahat is called "institutional" religion -- that is, a
religion the doctrines of Ahich are de2ned, and of Ahich
the )ractices are rigorously enDoined $y a su)reme and
un0uestiona$le authority& The tAo are often regarded
as $eing, to a 3ery great eBtent, mutually incom)ati$le1
the tendency of mysticism is, it is thought, to
de)reciate the eBternal o$ligations, and to disregard
the doctrines im)osed $y organised religious authority&
(omething has already $een said on this )oint& The
alleged o))osition $etAeen mysticism and
scholasticism (Ahich deals mainly Aith the doctrine and
disci)line im)osed $y eBternal authority# has $een seen
to $e )urely imaginary& The same may undou$tedly $e
said of the alleged antagonism $etAeen the )ractical
system of the Church, Ahich folloAs certain )rescri$ed
methods in regard $oth to the o$ligatory elements of
Christian life and those left free to indi3idual de3otion,
and the inner life of contem)lation, for Ahich no rules
are laid doAn $eyond such as may $e draAn from the
recorded )ractices of )ious )ersons&
The fact is that human nature has a tAofold as)ect, and
conse0uently a tAofold set of needs& *n the one hand,
man is a "social animal," and cannot e3en eBist, much
less lead a truly human life, in isolation1 some ,ind of
social organisation is an a$solute necessity for him, in
regard ali,e to his material, intellectual and moral
re0uirements& *n the other hand, the life of e3ery man
is indi3idual and )ersonal1 he is self-conscious and
reHecti3e, as Aell as acti3e and res)onsi3e: the social
acti3ities necessary to human life do not eBhaust the
"a$ysmal de)ths of )ersonality," Ahich ne3ertheless
can only eBist in a social en3ironment& The ideally
)erfect condition is one in Ahich full )lay is alloAed to
$oth sides of human nature -- in Ahich social needs are
fully )ro3ided for, and indi3idual thought, feeling and
enter)rise are ham)ered $y no restrictions $ut such as
are needed for their due )rotection& 9ro$a$ly no (tate
has e3er eBisted, or can e3er eBist, in Ahich this )erfect
$alance is maintained1 in the Church, hoAe3er, the
restrictions im)osed, dee)ly as they aCect the eBternal
acti3ities of the indi3idual, are merely the necessary
safeguards of s)iritual li$erty&
Thus in the Church, as to a great eBtent in the (tate,
com)liance Aith the o$ligations im)osed $y eBternal
authority is no more than the necessary condition of
the eBercise of )ersonal li$erty& ?reedom for the citiJen
im)lies a condition of things in Ahich his life and
)ro)erty are duly )rotected, not one in Ahich he is left
entirely to shift for himself1 and in li,e manner, religious
or s)iritual freedom is only )ossi$le under
circumstances in Ahich the fundamental needs of
s)iritual life are su))lied, and its energies rightly
directed& % man may not, in a rightly ordered (tate,
)reach sedition or commit suicide1 that is, he is not
alloAed to 3iolate the conditions under Ahich alone he
and his neigh$ours can freely eBercise their natural
)oAers& In li,e manner, the Church for$ids her
mem$ers to neglect the means of grace, or to teach
heresy& 'ut freedom to enDoy life, natural or
su)ernatural, is not interfered Aith, $ut safeguarded in
each case&
It is, indeed, undenia$le that one as)ect of human
nature is from time to time unduly em)hasised at the
otherGs eB)ense& The "?riends of 7od" and the disci)les
of Molinos, li,e the many forms of 9rotestantism,
undou$tedly Aere led $y their )rinci)les to ma,e light
of Christian institutions and of Church authority& *n the
other hand, a too eBclusi3e attention to the eBternal
and legislati3e as)ects of religion fre0uently )roduces
such an intellectual aridity as may $e o$ser3ed in the
later and degenerate scholastics, or such a materialistic
formalism as ga3e rise to the religious notions u)held
$y ?e$ronius and )ut in )ractice $y the .m)eror :ose)h1
or to the eBtra3agant ideas of the s)iritual authority of
the (tate Ahich Aere entertained $y 8o$$es& 'ut it
should $e o$ser3ed that this de)reciation of eBternal
o$ligations has ne3er resulted sim)ly from mysticism,
rightly understood, $ut only from s)eculati3e )rinci)les
alleged to $e deduced from mysticism, and Arongly
identi2ed Aith it& True mysticism cannot come into
collision Aith Church ordinances of any ,ind, sim)ly
$ecause it $elongs to a totally diCerent s)here1 it can
no more $e the su$Dect of Church legislation than the
height, Aeight or ear for music of the )o)ulation can $e
the su$Dect of (tate decrees&
It is, unfortunately, Aithin the )oAer of human $eings --
a )oAer too fre0uently eBercised -- to se)arate things
that are naturally and )ro)erly united& ?aith and
charity, )u$lic s)irit and domestic aCection, res)ect for
authority and indi3idual enter)rise, are all
com)lementary 3irtues& 'ut in )oint of fact faith eBists
Aithout charity, )u$lic men are not in3aria$ly models of
domestic 3irtue, nor are the most enter)rising s)irits
alAays the most laA-a$iding& 'ut it Aould $e a$surd to
maintain that there is any natural o))osition $etAeen
the tAo factors of any of these )airs of eBcellences1 and
it is really not less a$surd to imagine any natural
antagonism $etAeen mysticism and s)iritual authority,
or that they can $e mutually o))osed otherAise than
$y the )ractical inade0uacy due to the in2rmities of
human nature&
It has $een a$undantly shoAn that mysticism is in a
true sense diCerent in ,ind, and not merely in degree,
from )rayer and contem)lation of the natural order& 'ut
it does not $y any means folloA that the tAo are to $e
regarded as radically distinct, or as mutually
inde)endent& *n the contrary, there is a connection
$etAeen them Ahich may )erha)s $e characterised as
that of continuity, as distinct from identity& The soul, it
Aill $e remem$ered, has, ordinarily s)ea,ing, to go
through a )re)aration $efore the life of mystical
contem)lation can $e entered u)on1 and this
)re)aration is nothing more than eBercise in the loAer,
or more common)lace methods of de3otion and )iety&
%ll religion is an a))roach to 7od, and mysticism
re)resents, not a short cut, $ut an ad3anced stage of
the Dourney -- the more ad3anced the stage, the more
fre0uent or constant is the mystical condition& The
tra3eller sets out on his Dourney Aith no sight of his
distant goal $efore him1 he ,noAs only that he is on the
right road, and he recognises features in the landsca)e
Ahich others Aho ha3e made the Dourney $efore him
ha3e noted, and Ahich assure him of his )rogress in the
right direction& 'ut it is not till he nears his DourneyGs
end that he catches sight, indistinctly at 2rst and
intermittently, of the city he is $ound for& The distant
toAers and s)ires groA clearer and clearer as he
a))roaches them1 they are seen no longer in glim)ses,
3anishing and rea))earing at the turns of the road1 till
at last the Ahole mass of $uildings comes into full
sight, e3en Ahile some distance remains to $e tra3elled
$efore the )ilgrim can )ass through the gates and ta,e
his Aell-earned rest& It is one thing to see the 2nger-
)ost and to o$ser3e the landmar,s $y the Aay side,
and 0uite another to see the city standing graceful and
sunlit, li,e a Aelcoming host, at the roadGs end& @et $oth
are incidents of the same Dourney, and the end cannot
$e reached Aithout the $eginning&
The relation $etAeen the tAo states may $e 3ery
clearly seen in the Imitation of Christ -- a $oo, Ahich
)ro$a$ly oAes much of its 3ast )o)ularity to its
constant recurrence to the elementary duties of religion
and morality, and its insistence on the necessity of
their )erformance as the )rere0uisite of the more
eBalted s)iritual states& The ")urgati3e," "illuminati3e"
and "uniti3e" Aays are seen, so to s)ea,, together, and
are dealt Aith as as)ects or constituents of the
Christian life as a Ahole, to the com)leteness of Ahich
all three are necessary, and, in diCerent Aay, of e0ual
im)ortance& The )urely mystical )assages are
com)arati3ely feA and short1 and the a$undance of
)ractical directions the $oo, contains has sometimes
caused its mystical character to $e entirely o3erloo,ed
This dis)ro)ortion, hoAe3er, is 0uite suIciently to $e
accounted for $y the character of the Aor,, Ahich is
that of a directory of s)iritual life in general, and not a
scienti2c treatise on any )articular de)artment of it& In
such a $oo, attem)ts at descri$ing the indescri$a$le
)henomena of mysticism Aould o$3iously ha3e $een
out of )lace, Ahereas the )ractical details of the loAer
and )reliminary states admit of and re0uire minute
eB)lanation& 'ut the tone of the Ahole $oo, is mystical,
and the most common)lace duties and the most
humiliating stri3ings Aith tem)tation are in a manner
illuminated and glori2ed $y the $rilliancy of the result
to Ahich they tend& Thus, in )oint of fact, the higher
and the loAer elements, the mystical and the non-
mystical, the )urgati3e, the illuminati3e and the
uniti3e, are $lended in actual human eB)erience& The
)ro)ortion may indeed 3ary almost inde2nitely1 Aith
some, the mystical consciousness Aould seem to $e
almost ha$itual, and Aith others a rare and eBce)tional
)ri3ilege& 'ut in greater or less degree, all the elements
of Christian life are )resent in its highest most )erfect
form&
?rom this Ae are led to the consideration of a 0uestion
of 3ery great interest, in regard to Ahich a s)eculati3e
o)inion may $e considered alloAa$le for Ahich no
direct e3idence can $e adduced& (ince the higher Aal,s
of s)irituality are thus ine3ita$ly inter)enetrated $y the
loAer, and since no height of mystical contem)lation
Aill Aholly emanci)ate the contem)lati3e from the
hum$le necessities of )enance and of tem)tation, is it
not )ossi$le to su))ose that the loAer life need not
Aholly eBclude the higher, $ut hoAe3er dry and
common)lace and, generally s)ea,ing, uns)iritual it
may $e, may ne3ertheless $e enriched $y some
occasional and transient )artici)ation in the )ri3ilege of
the more )erfect stateM It is admitted $y all s)iritual
Ariters that the mystical life does not eBclude the
3icissitudes of the ordinary or non-mystical states&N!O
Little or nothing is said $y them, hoAe3er, as to the
)ossi$ility of some measure of the higher life entering
into the loAer -- of some )assing foretaste of "infused"
contem)lation $eing granted to those Ahose li3es are,
as a Ahole, $y no means of the contem)lati3e order& @et
it seems natural to su))ose that such may $e the case&
If there is no incongruity in the recurrence in the uniti3e
life of the distincti3e features of the )urgati3e, there
can hardly $e any in the occasional occurrence of the
con3erse )rocess1 and it seems not unreasona$le to
su))ose that such a largesse of s)iritual fa3ours, of
Ahich the $est are unAorthy, may $e occasionally
granted e3en to the most undeser3ing& It can hardly $e
denied that an as)ect Ahich it is diIcult to distinguish
from that of genuine mysticism seems at times to
$elong to some of the inAard eB)eriences of ordinary
)ersons Aho ha3e no thought or ,noAledge of the
contem)lati3e life& (uch states of consciousness are,
indeed, too transitory and elusi3e to $e Dudged of Aith
any degree of certainty1 and it may $e that they are
really no more than the )roduct of )urely natural
feeling& 9roof is either Aay out of the 0uestion& 'ut it is
at least alloAa$le o)inion that the "mystical in religion"
may eBtend $eyond the limits Aithin Ahich alone
e3idence of any direct ,ind is attaina$le1 and such an
o)inion must un0uestiona$ly $e nearer the truth than
that Ahich Aould e0ualise all religious eB)erience $y
denying to mysticism its genuinely su)ernatural
character&
NO (uch attem)ts as that of M& >UcUDac to formulate a
)urely meta)hysical theory of mysticism necessarily
)art com)any Aith the Christian, and e3en Aith the
Theistic )rinci)les on Ahich true mysticism is $ased&
?rom their )oint of 3ieA, the "uni3ersal mysticism"
consists of "tous les moyens de transcendance 0ui
tendent S Ugaler lGeB)5ience auB dUsirs de la li$ertU"1
hence it is re0uired "0ue la charactTre sym$oli0ue de
nos ra))orts a3ec lG%$solu serait franchement reconnu,
cGest-S-dire 0uGon renonce S lGintuition directe dGune
essence di3ine, uni3erselle et in2nie&" (>UcUDac,
?ondements de la Connaissance Mysti0ue, ))& 4, /1
;4&# % tendency in the same direction a))ears in
9rofessor IngeGs 9ersonal Idealism and Mysticism, Ahere
mysticism is descri$ed as "a ty)e of religion Ahich )uts
the inner light a$o3e human authority, and 2nds its
sacraments e3eryAhere&"
N!O .&g&, (uareJ, De *rat&, & !& 1 and cf& De3ine,
Manual of Mystical Theology, ch& &, and Macarius,
Christian 9erfectiom, V& ", 4&
C8%9T.> FI
DI*N@(IE(
T8. authority of the Dionysian Aritings is for us
(Ahate3er may ha3e $een the case in earlier and less
critical times# deri3ed rather from the use made of
them to eB)ress the recei3ed doctrines of the Church
than from any 3ieA that may $e entertained of the
identity or )osition of the Ariter& Their history is a
curious one& They 2rst recei3ed )u$lic notice at a
conference held at Constantino)le in the year /""
$etAeen re)resentati3es of orthodoBy under 8y)atius,
'isho) of .)hesus, and those of a Mono)hysite sect
called after and headed $y (e3erus, )atriarch of
%ntioch& The (e3erians at this conference a))ealed to
the Aritings of Dionysius the %reo)agite as u)holding
the Mono)hysite doctrine, $ut their 0uotations Aere
disalloAed $y 8y)atius as )ro$a$ly s)urious& ?rom that
time forAard an increasing im)ortance Aas attached to
the Aor,s attri$uted to the %reo)agite, not only $y
heretical Ariters, $ut also $y orthodoB Catholics, among
Ahom may $e mentioned .ulogius, )atriarch of
%leBandria in /;=, 9o)e 7regory the 7reat, and
MaBimus, the author of lengthy scholia on the
Dionysian $oo,s1 and Dionysius Aas referred to $y the
Lateran Council in P4< as an authority against
Monothelitism& *n the introduction of the Dionysian
Aritings into ?rance in the eighth century the idea arose
that the author Aas identical Aith (t Denys of ?rance1
and 8ilduin, a$$ot of (t Denys at 9aris, su$se0uently
did much to )romote the authority of the %reo)agite $y
means of this )atriotic identi2cation, Ahich, it need
hardly $e said, has no historical 3alue Ahate3er&
The Aor,s of Dionysius Aere 2rst translated into Latin
$y 8ilduin, and someAhat later $y :ohn (cotus
.riugena1 other translations Aere made $y :ohn
(arraJenus, 7rosseteste, Thomas Vercellensis,
%m$rosius Camaldulensis, Marsilio ?icino and 'althasar
Corderius& Commentaries Aere Aritten $y 8ugo of (t
Victor, %l$ertus Magnus, (t Thomas %0uinas and
Dionysius the Carthusian1 and the great scholastics
ma,e co)ious references to Dionysius -- nota$ly (t
Thomas %0uinas& Dionysius Aas called, Aith some
)ardona$le eBaggeration, the founder of the (cholastic
method, $y Corderius, Aho gi3es an im)osing list of (t
ThomasGs references to him&
Dou$ts $egan once more to $e cast on the genuineness
of the Dionysiaca $y Ariters of the >enaissance )eriod:
the 0uestion Aas raised $y LorenJo Valla, and Aas for
long a su$Dect of 3ehement contro3ersy, Ahich can
hardly $e said e3en yet to $e at an end, though the
o)inion of the most recent and most com)etent
scholars is on the negati3e side& The arguments on
each side may $e $rieHy summarised as folloAs
& The style is not that of the su$-a)ostolic age, $ut
closely resem$les that of later Neo)latonist Ariters&
!& The corres)ondence of ideas $etAeen the Aor,s of
Dionysius and those of Neo)latonist authors, more
es)ecially of 9roclus, is 3ery close1 moreo3er, eBtracts
from 9roclusGs Aor, De (u$sistentia Malorum a))ear,
as has $een )ointed out $y 9rofessors (tiglmayer and
6och, in the treatise of Dionysius, De Di3inis Nomini$us&
"& No mention is made of the Dionysian Aritings $y any
author earlier than the siBth century: nor are they
mentioned $y .use$ius or (t :erome in their catalogues
of ecclesiastical authors& The Aritings in Ahich they
Aere thought to ha3e $een referred to $efore that
)eriod ha3e noA $een )ro3ed to $e of much more
recent date&
4& Certain rites and ceremonies are mentioned as
customary in the AriterGs time Ahich Aere un,noAn to
the contem)oraries of the %reo)agite& *ther
anachronisms are the mention of mon,s1 the use of the
Aord hu)ostasis (su$stantia# in its later or )ost-Nicene
sense1 a reference to ecclesiastical tradition as archaia
)aradosis ^ "ancient tradition"1 a 0uotation of the Aell-
,noAn )hrase of (t Clement of >ome, "My lo3e is
cruci2ed" (Di3& Nom&, 4#, though (t ClementGs
martyrdom did not ta,e )lace till after the death of (t
Timothy, to Ahom the Treatise de Di3& Nom& is
dedicated, and Aho is, moreo3er, addressed $y the
author as )ais ^ "child" at a su))osed time a the
designation could scarcely ha3e $een a))ro)riate&
None of these arguments Aere altogether un,noAn to
anti0uity, though some of them ha3e $een considera$ly
strengthened $y modern research& They Aere re)lied to
at some length $y Monsignor (afterAards %rch$isho)#
Dar$oy, Aho fairly re)roduces all the considerations
that ha3e $een adduced in fa3our of the Dionysian
authorshi) from (t MaBimus onAards&
& It is contended that the style is due to the early
)hiloso)hical education of the %reo)agite, Ahich Aould
naturally ha3e im)arted to it many of the
characteristics of Neo)latonism1 it may fairly $e
considered as agreeing Aith the )resumed date of the
author&
! 5 "& The corres)ondences $etAeen the Dionysiaca
and 9roclus may $e due to )lagiarism on the )art of the
Neo)latonist, rather than of the %reo)agite& 7eorgius
9achymeres, Ahen ad3ancing this o)inion, suggests
that the Dionysian Aor,s may ha3e $een su))ressed $y
the %thenian )hiloso)hers Aho $orroAed from them for
their oAn )ur)oses&
4& The anachronisms found in Dionysius are ca)a$le of
$eing eB)lained aAay& Thus, it is fairly certain that the
essentials of such ceremonies as the $lessing of the
$a)tismal Aater, tri)le immersion at $a)tism, and the
rites for $lessing the 8oly *ils Aere in use in %)ostolic
or su$-%)ostolic times, though not then committed to
Ariting1 the strange ceremony of anointing the dead,
mentioned $y Dionysius, is found to ha3e $een a
:eAish, and therefore )ro$a$ly also an early Christian
custom& Mon,s (thera)eutae# need not $e understood
to mean cceno$ites or hermits, and a class so called
certainly eBisted in 9hiloGs time& The use of "hu)ostasis"
in its earlier and untechnical sense of ")erson," is
)aralleled from 8e$& &, and the Aord is used in the
same sense $y %leBander, the )redecessor of (t
%thanasius& The 0uotation from (t Ignatius may ha3e
$een added in a recension $y the author, or may ha3e
$een the Aor, of a co)yist1 and a )arallel to the )hrase
"archaia )aradosis" may $e found in ! Thess& ii& 4& The
designation of (t Timothy as "child" is Dusti2ed $y an
ela$orate calculation of the com)arati3e ages of
Dionysius and (t Timothy&
*n the Ahole, it may $e held that though the Dionysian
authorshi) is not a$solutely dis)ro3ed, the $alance of
)ro$a$ility is strongly against it& Who the Ariter, if not
Dionysius, may ha3e $een, or Ahen he may ha3e li3ed,
it is 0uite im)ossi$le to say& Various dates ha3e $een
suggested1 $ut the use a))arently made of the Aritings
of 9roclus seem to )oint to one not earlier than 4P!&
8i)lerGs theory that the author Aas a theologian of the
fourth century Ahose Aor,s Aere, $y a
misunderstanding, attri$uted to Dionysius, found some
fa3our at the time of its )roduction (;P#, $ut is noA
generally reDected& It is indeed diIcult to su))ose that
the direct statements of the author to the eCect that he
had $een a disci)le of (t 9aul, that he remem$ered the
ecli)se at the time of the Cruci2Bion, and that he Aas
)resent Aith (t 9eter and his otherAise un,noAn
master 8ierotheus at the interment of the 'lessed
Virgin, are made Aith any other )ur)ose than that of
su))orting his identity, Ahether real or assumed&
It is of some )ractical im)ortance to consider Ahether
the 3alue of the $oo,s is in any Aay discredited $y the
unauthentic character Ahich may Aith at least great
)ro$a$ility $e attri$uted to them&
In the 2rst )lace, it Aould )ro$a$ly $e unfair to regard
them sim)ly as a forgery& %s Monsignor Dar$oy has
remar,ed, no )ossi$le moti3e can $e assigned for a
forgery of this ,ind& They could hardly, li,e the forgeries
of Chatterton, ha3e $een intended to reHect credit on
their su))osed disco3erer, or to $e a source of )ro2t to
him1 and the su))osition that they may ha3e $een
intended to gi3e su))ort to the cause of orthodoBy is
hardly consistent Aith their su$Dect-matter, Ahich is not
directly concerned Aith any of the contro3ersies
$elonging to the time of their a))earance& Moreo3er,
though )erfectly orthodoB, they Aere 2rst 0uoted in
fa3our of heretics, to Ahose 3ieAs they ga3e no real
su))ort& It must $e remem$ered that our )resent ideas
of literary )ro)riety had $y no means o$tained
acce)tance in the siBth century1 and our modern de3ice
of ma,ing 2ction a 3ehicle for historical, )hiloso)hical
or theological s)eculation had not yet $een disco3ered&
>omances Aere, hoAe3er, not un,noAn, and
)seudonymous Aor,s of a historical and theological
character eBisted in some num$ers& We may fairly
consider that the Dionysiaca com$ined $oth characters&
The author Aould seem to ha3e intended to gi3e the
Christian rendering of the )hiloso)hico-religious system
e3ol3ed $y 9lotinus and later Neo)latonism1 and he
may ha3e sought to gain a hearing for his 3ieAs $y
)u$lishing them under the name of one Aho had held
)ositions of honour $oth in the 9agan and in the
Christian Aorld& ?or the sa,e of 3erisimilitude the
a))ro)riate contem)orary references Aere rather
crudely inserted& Whate3er, therefore, Ae may thin, of
the artistic character of the Aor,, Ae ha3e no more
right to 2B u)on it the moral stigma of forgery than to
condemn on similar grounds such Aor,s as Wa3erley,
:ohn Inglesant or .n >oute&
'ut in any case, the Aor, is of a character& Ahich
cannot $e aCected $y the authority attri$uted to its
author, as, for eBam)le, a historical Aor, )rofessedly
Aritten $y a contem)orary Aould $e& The Dionysian
$oo,s must stand on their oAn merits, no matter $y
Ahom or at Ahat time they Aere Aritten: Ahat they say
is true or false for all times and all )ersons& Their
authority, for us, lies not in their authenticity, as the
Aor,s of any )articular Ariter, $ut in the fact that they
ha3e $een ado)ted $y the Church as truly
re)resentati3e of certain )hases of her doctrine, and as
containing nothing contrary to it: it is, in fact, the
accumulated authority of the long list of a))ro3ed
Ariters Ahose Aor, has $een $ased on, or in
accordance Aith them&
This is more es)ecially the case Aith the Mystical
Theology and the three letters connected Aith it& These
deal sim)ly Aith the relations $etAeen 7od, the Aorld
of created things, and the soul of man& They de)end on
no references to )ersons, )laces or e3ents, $ut a))eal
to that )erce)tion of the inner truth of things Ahich is
ali,e in all ages and all countries, and Ahich )ro$a$ly
no man is altogether Aithout&
The other eBtant Aor,s of Dionysius are the Di3ine
Names, the Celestial 8ierarchy, the .cclesiastical
8ierarchy, and siB letters on diCerent su$Dects, in
addition to the three here translated& The Treatise of
Di3ine Names deals Aith the uni0ue, transcendental
nature of 7od, Ahich of its su)era$undant fulness
creates all that is eBternal to 7od, and gi3es to each
order of $eing its )ro)er degree of the di3ine li,eness,
and its function of communicating a share of the di3ine
gifts to the order $eloA it& It is hardly necessary to
remar, that Ae ha3e here the Christian rendering of the
Neo)latonic "one," the Neo)latonic and 7nostic
doctrines of emanation, and the 7nostic "9leroma," or
fulness, touched on in a manner someAhat li,e the
Dionysian treatment $y (t :ohn and (t 9aul& ((t :ohn i&1
.)h& i& !"1 iii& <1 Coloss& i& <1 ii& <&#
In the other tAo treatises, the %ngelic hierarchy in its
ninefold choirs, and the 3arious orders of the Church,
from $isho) to )enitent, are descri$ed& These are the
more stri,ing and im)ortant eBam)les of the creati3e
energy that HoAs out from the one )ersonal 7od, as the
)rime3al Creator, and as the incarnate 8ead of the
Church& In these $oo,s 7od is considered as in a true
sense immanent in the creatures Ahich 8e
ne3ertheless transcends1 as in the Mystical Theology,
the necessity is insisted on of rising a$o3e the created
manifestations of the di3ine )oAer and eBcellence, for
those Aho desire to o$tain some ,noAledge of the
Creator as 8e is in 8imself&
The inHuence of Neo)latonism, in $oth terminology and
method, is o$3ious enough in the Dionysian Aritings,
and through them has directly or indirectly )assed into
nearly all the mystical literature of su$se0uent ages&
'ut, as Ae ha3e already seen, the )antheistic doctrines
of Neo)latonism are entirely reDected $y Dionysius, and
are indeed incom)ati$le Aith his 3ieA of creation and of
the relations, actual or )ossi$le, $etAeen 7od and the
soul& It may therefore $e )lausi$ly surmised that the
main o$Dect of the author Aas to )resent the orthodoB
Christian 3ieA of the fundamental 0uestions Aith Ahich
all )hiloso)hy and theology has to deal, in the form
Ahich Aould $e most acce)ta$le to the contem)orary
)hiloso)hic mind, and in terms of that mode of thought
Ahich Aas "in the air" at the time of Ariting& In much
the same Aay %ristotelianism Aas christianised $y (t
Thomas, and many a)ologetic Aor,s of the last 2fty
years ha3e sought to eB)ress the conce)ts of Christian
theology in terms of the current )hysiology and
)sychology&NO
Dionysius refers to se3eral Aor,s of his oAn Ahich
seem to ha3e remained entirely un,noAn, and Ahich
are $y some thought to ha3e had no real eBistence&
These are Theological *utlines, (acred 8ymns,
(ym$olic Theology, The :ust :udgment of 7od, The (oul,
and The *$Dects of (ense and Intellect&
% full account of the Dionysian Aritings is gi3en $y
9rofessor (tiglmayer in the %merican Catholic
.ncyclo)edia1 a less recent one is to $e found in the
Dictionary of Christian 'iogra)hy& The a3aila$le
e3idence for the authorshi) is discussed in Dar$oyGs
*.u3res de (t Denys, Lu)tonGs introduction to Dean
ColetGs 9ara)hrase of Dionysius, and 'ardenheAerGs
9atrologie&
Modern translations ha3e $een )u$lished in 7erman $y
.ngelhart (;!"# and (torf (6irchliche 8ierarchie,
;QQ#, and in ?rench $y Dar$oy (*.u3res de (t Denys,
;4/# and Dulac (;P/#& In .nglish a translation Aas
com)leted in ;</ $y >e3& :& 9ar,er1 and a translation of
the Mystical Theology Aas )u$lished in London in P/",
in a 3olume of sermons $y :ohn .3erard, D& D&, entitled
(ome 7os)el Treasures o)ened: or the 8oliest of all
En3ailing -- Ahereunto is added the Mystical Di3inity of
Dionysius the %reo)agite, s)o,en of %cts B3ii& "4&
The most recent, and the most accessi$le edition of the
teBt of Dionysius is that of Corderius, (&:&, )u$lished at
%ntAer) P"4, and fre0uently re)rinted, together Aith
Latin translation, translatorGs notes, the commentary of
(t MaBimus and the )ara)hrase of 9achymeres1 the
same edition is included in MigneGs 7ree, 9atrology&
NO "These Aor,s Aere intended to shoA that all Ahich
the 9latonic school had gathered of truth in all )arts of
the Aorld and in all ages, is to $e found in a far )urer
and more com)lete form in Christianity&" -- 7Rrres,
Mysti0ue Di3ine Naturelle et Dia$oli0ue (tr& )ar (te
?oiB#, 3ol& i& )& PQ&
C8%9T.> FII
T8. M@(TIC%L T8.*L*7@ *? DI*N@(IE( T8.
%>.*9%7IT.
C8%9T.> I
What the Di3ine Dar,ness is
% (EMM%>@& -- (# %ddress to the 'lessed Trinity& (!# Those to Ahom
mystical ,noAledge is o)en must $e distinguished from those
Aho do not realise the transcendental character of the di3ine
nature, and still more, from those Aho li,en the Creator to the
creature in idolatry: Ahereas in 7od all 0ualities of created
eBistence are to $e found eminenter -- though at the same
time such 0ualities cannot strictly $e )redicated of 8im, Aho is
a$o3e all created things& In other Aords, 7od transcends
creation, $ut all the )erfections of creatures are deri3ed from
8im, and constitute a certain li,eness to 8im& 8ence the
7os)el is $oth great and small -- i&e&, it declares the manifold
3ariety and com)leBity of 7odGs Aor,s, $ut 8is oAn a$solute
sim)licity and unity& ("# Therefore those Aho Aould see 7od
must )ass $eyond the limits of creation, into a state Ahich is
$eyond human ,noAledge and light and s)eech, and must
therefore, from the )oint of 3ieA of created $eings, $e called
one of ignorance, dar,ness and silence1 as Moses Aas
commanded to se)arate himself from all im)urity $efore
entering the Di3ine )resence, so those Aho Aould noA enter
that )resence must se)arate themsel3es from all created
things&
M*(T eBalted Trinity, Di3inity a$o3e all ,noAledge,
Ahose goodness )asses understanding, Aho dost guide
Christians to di3ine Aisdom1 direct our Aay to the
summit of thy mystical oracles, most incom)rehensi$le,
most lucid and most eBalted, Ahere the sim)le and
)ure and unchangea$le mysteries of theology are
re3ealed in the dar,ness, clearer than light, of that
silence in Ahich secret things are hidden1 a dar,ness
that shines $righter than light, that in3isi$ly and
intangi$ly illuminates Aith s)lendours of inconcei3a$le
$eauty the soul that sees not& Let this $e my )rayer1
$ut do thou, dear Timothy, diligently gi3ing thyself to
mystical contem)lation, lea3e the senses, and the
o)erations of the intellect, and all things sensi$le and
intelligi$le, and things that are and things that are not,
that thou mayest rise as may $e laAful for thee, $y
Aays a$o3e ,noAledge to union Aith 8im Aho is a$o3e
all ,noAledge and all $eing1 that in freedom and
a$andonment of all, thou mayest $e $orne, through
)ure, entire and a$solute a$straction of thyself from all
things, into the su)ernatural radiance of the di3ine
dar,ness&
'ut see that none of the uninitiatedNO hear these
things& I mean those Aho clea3e to created things, and
su))ose not that anything eBists after a su)ernatural
manner, a$o3e nature1 $ut imagine that $y their oAn
natural understanding they ,noA 8im Aho has made
dar,ness 8is secret )lace& 'ut if the )rinci)les of the
di3ine mysteries are a$o3e the understanding of these,
Ahat is to $e said of those yet more untaught, Aho call
the a$solute ?irst Cause of all after the loAest things in
nature, and say that 8e is in no Aay a$o3e the images
Ahich they fashion after 3arious designs1 of Ahom they
should declare and aIrm that in 8im as the cause of
all, is all that may $e )redicated )ositi3ely of created
things1 Ahile yet they might Aith more )ro)riety deny
these )redicates to 8im, as $eing far a$o3e all1 holding
that here denial is not contrary to aIrmation, since 8e
is in2nitely a$o3e all notion of de)ri3ation, and a$o3e
all aIrmation and negation&
Thus the di3ine 'artholomeA says that Theology is $oth
much and 3ery little, and that the 7os)el is great and
am)le, and yet short& 8is su$lime meaning is, I thin,,
that the $ene2cent cause of all things says much, and
says little, and is altogether silent, as ha3ing neither
(human# s)eech nor (human# understanding, since 8e
is essentially a$o3e all created things, and manifests
8imself un3eiled, and as 8e truly is to those only Aho
)ass $eyond all that is either )ure or im)ure, Aho rise
a$o3e the highest height of holy things, Aho a$andon
all di3ine light and sound and hea3enly s)eech, and are
a$sor$ed into that dar,ness Ahere, as the (cri)ture
says, 8e truly is, Aho is $eyond all things&
It Aas not Aithout a dee)er meaning that the di3ine
Moses Aas commanded 2rst to $e himself )uri2ed, and
then to se)arate himself from the im)ure1 and after all
this )uri2cation heard many 3oices of trum)ets, and
saA many lights shedding manifold )ure $eams: and
that he Aas thereafter se)arated from the multitude
and together Aith the elect )riests came to the height
of the di3ine ascents& @et here$y he did not attain to
the )resence of 7od 8imself1 he saA not 8im (for 8e
cannot $e loo,ed u)on#, $ut the )lace Ahere 8e Aas&
This, I thin,, signi2es that the di3inest and most eBalted
of 3isi$le and intelligi$le things are, as it Aere,
suggestions of those that are immediately $eneath 8im
Aho is a$o3e all, Ahere$y is indicated the )resence of
8im Aho )asses all understanding, and stands, as it
Aere, in that s)ot Ahich is concei3ed $y the intellect as
the highest of 8is holy )laces1 then that they Aho are
free and untrammelled $y all that is seen and all that
sees enter into the true mystical dar,ness of ignorance,
Ahence all )erce)tion of understanding is eBcluded,
and a$ide in that Ahich is intangi$le and in3isi$le,
$eing Aholly a$sor$ed in 8im Aho is $eyond all things,
and $elong no more to any, neither to themsel3es nor
to another, $ut are united in their higher )art to 8im
Aho is Aholly unintelligi$le, and Ahom, $y
understanding nothing, they understand after a manner
a$o3e all intelligence&
C8%9T.> II
8oA to $e united Aith, and to gi3e )raise to 8im Aho is
the cause of all things and a$o3e all
% (EMM%>@& -- Therefore 7od is only to $e ,noAn in a su)ernatural
manner, $y a$straction from all that is natural& Natural sight
and ,noAledge are useless for the )ur)ose of seeing and
,noAing Ahat is a$o3e nature: the su)ernatural can only $e
)ercei3ed in entire se)aration from all that is merely natural& In
this sense, natural light and ,noAledge merely o$scure the
3ision1 Ae can see 7od only in a "luminous dar,ness" -- Ahich
is dar,ness $ecause of the a$sence of created light, luminous
$ecause of the di3ine )resence there made ,noAn& %s, in order
to form our conce)tion of 7od, Ae add together the di3ine
attri$utes (in s)eculati3e theology#, so (in mystical theology#
Ae must su$tract them, from the loAest to the highest, in
order to arri3e at the essential nature of 7od&N!O
W. desire to a$ide in this most luminous dar,ness, and
Aithout sight or ,noAledge, to see that Ahich is a$o3e
sight or ,noAledge, $y means of that 3ery fact that Ae
see not and ,noA not& ?or this is truly to see and ,noA,
to )raise 8im Aho is a$o3e nature in a manner a$o3e
nature, $y the a$straction of all that is natural1 as those
Aho Aould ma,e a statue out of the natural stone
a$stract all the surrounding material Ahich hinders the
sight of the sha)e lying concealed Aithin, and $y that
a$straction alone re3eal its hidden $eauty&N"O It is
needful, as I thin,, to ma,e this a$straction in a manner
)recisely o))osite to that in Ahich Ae deal Aith the
Di3ine attri$utes1 for Ae add them together, $eginning
Aith the )rimary ones, and )assing from them to the
secondary, and so to the last1 $ut here Ae ascend from
the last to the 2rst, a$stracting all, so as to un3eil and
,noA that Ahich is $eyond ,noAledge, and Ahich in all
things is hidden from our sight $y that Ahich can $e
,noAn, and so to $ehold that su)ernatural dar,ness
Ahich is hidden $y all such light as is in created things&
C8%9T.> III
What is aIrmed of 7od, and Ahat is denied of 8im
% (EMM%>@& -- (# The 'eing of 7od and the Names of 7od are
eB)ounded in the Theological *utlines and the treatise of
Di3ine Names res)ecti3ely, and the method according to Ahich
7od is s)o,en of in terms of sensi$le things is treated of in the
(ym$olical Theology&N4O It Aas o$3ious that there Aas less to
$e said of the di3ine nature itself than of the diCerent Aays in
Ahich it may $e )artially eB)ressed in human s)eech& (o here
Ae )ass in contem)lation of 7od not merely to economy of
Aords, $ut $eyond s)eech itself& (!# In aIrming 7odGs nature
Ae must com)are it Aith Ahat is $eneath it1 $ut in denying of it
that Ahich it is not, Ae must distinguish all things from it,
according to their degrees of remoteness& Thus Ae add in the
one case, and su$tract in the other&
IN our *utlines of Theology Ae ha3e declared those
matters Ahich are )ro)erly the su$Dect of 9ositi3e
Theology1 in Ahat sense the holy di3ine nature is one,
and in Ahat sense three1 Ahat it is that is there called
9aternity, and Ahat ?iliation1 and Ahat the doctrine of
the 8oly 7host signi2es1 hoA from the uncreated and
undi3ided good those $lessed and )erfect Lights ha3e
come forth, yet remained one Aith the di3ine nature,
Aith each other, and in themsel3es, undi3ided $y
coeternal a$iding in )ro)agation1 hoA :esus though
immaterial $ecame material in the truth of human
nature1 and other things ta,en from (cri)ture Ae ha3e
eB)ounded in the same )lace& %gain in the 'oo, of
Di3ine Names (Ae ha3e shoAn# hoA 7od is called good,
hoA 'eing, hoA Life and Wisdom and Virtue, Aith other
names s)iritually a))lied to 8im& Then in the treatise of
(ym$olical Theology Ae saA Ahat names ha3e $een
transferred to 8im from sensi$le things -- Ahat is meant
$y the di3ine forms and 2gures, lim$s, instruments,
localities, adornments, fury, anger and grief1
drun,enness, oaths and curses, slee) and Aa,ing, Aith
other modes of sacred and sym$olical nomenclature& I
thin, you Aill ha3e understood Ahy the last are more
diCuse than the 2rst1 for the eB)osition of theological
doctrine and the eB)lanation of the di3ine names are
necessarily shorter than the treatise on sym$olism&
'ecause in )ro)ortion as Ae ascend higher our s)eech
is contracted to the limits of our 3ieA of the )urely
intelligi$le1 and so noA, Ahen Ae enter that dar,ness
Ahich is a$o3e understanding, Ae )ass not merely into
$re3ity of s)eech, $ut e3en into a$solute silence, and
the negation of thought& Thus in the other treatises our
su$Dect too, us from the highest to the loAest, and in
the measure of this descent our treatment of it
eBtended itself1 Ahereas noA Ae rise from $eneath to
that Ahich is the highest, and accordingly our s)eech is
restrained in )ro)ortion to the height of our ascent1 $ut
Ahen our ascent is accom)lished, s)eech Aill cease
altogether, and $e a$sor$ed into the ineCa$le& 'ut Ahy,
you Aill as,, do Ae add in the 2rst and $egin to
a$stract in the lastM The reason is that Ae aIrmed that
Ahich is a$o3e all aIrmation $y com)arison Aith that
Ahich is most nearly related to it, and Aere therefore
com)elled to ma,e a hy)otheticalN/O aIrmation1 $ut
Ahen Ae a$stract that Ahich is a$o3e all a$straction,
Ae must distinguish it also from those things Ahich are
most remote from it& Is not 7od more nearly life and
goodness than air or a stone1 must Ae not deny more
fully that 8e is drun,en or enraged, than that 8e can $e
s)o,en of or understoodM
C8%9T.> IV
That 8e Aho is the su)reme cause of all sensi$le things
is 8imself no )art of those things
% (EMM%>@& -- The Creator is not a mere lifeless and unintelligent
a$straction1 yet 8e is Aholly distinct from all forms of sensi$le
eBistence&
W. say that the cause of all things, Aho is 8imself
a$o3e all things, is neither Aithout $eing nor Aithout
life, nor Aithout reason nor Aithout intelligence1NPO nor
is 8e a $ody nor has 8e form or sha)e, or 0uality or
0uantity or mass1 8e is not localised or 3isi$le or
tangi$le1 8e is neither sensiti3e nor sensi$le1 8e is
su$Dect to no disorder or distur$ance arising from
material )assion1 8e is not su$Dect to failure of )oAer,
or to the accidents of sensi$le things1 8e needs no
light1 8e suCers no change or corru)tion or di3ision, or
)ri3ation or HuB1 and 8e neither has nor is anything
else that $elongs to the senses&
C8%9T.> V
That 8e Aho is the su)reme cause of all intelltgi$le
things is 8imself no )art of those things
% (EMM%>@& -- The Creator is distinct from all merely intelligi$le
forms of eBistence, $eing neither one of them nor all of them
together&
%7%IN, ascending, Ae say that 8e is neither soul nor
intellect1 nor has 8e imagination, nor o)inion or reason1
8e has neither s)eech nor understanding, and is
neither declared nor understood1 8e is neither num$er
nor order, nor greatness nor smallness, nor e0uality nor
li,eness nor unli,eness1 8e does not stand or mo3e or
rest1 8e neither has )oAer nor is )oAer1 nor is 8e light,
nor does 8e li3e, nor is 8e life1 8e is neither $eing nor
age nor time1 nor is 8e su$Dect to intellectual contact1
8e is neither ,noAledge nor truth& nor royalty nor
Aisdom1 8e is neither one nor unity, nor di3inity, nor
goodness1NQO nor is 8e s)irit, as Ae understand s)irit1
8e is neither sonshi) nor fatherhood nor anything else
,noAn to us or to any other $eings, either of the things
that are or the things that are not1 nor does anything
that is, ,noA 8im as 8e is, nor does 8e ,noA anything
that is as it is1 8e has neither Aord nor name nor
,noAledge1 8e is neither dar,ness nor light nor truth
nor error1 8e can neither $e aIrmed nor denied1N;O
nay, though Ae may aIrm or deny the things that are
$eneath 8im, Ae can neither aIrm nor deny 8im1 for
the )erfect and sole cause of all is a$o3e all aIrmation,
and that Ahich transcends all is a$o3e all su$traction,
a$solutely se)arate, and $eyond all that is&
L.TT.> I
To Caius the Mon,
% (EMM%>@& -- The discursi3e o)eration of the intellect not only is
not the means $y Ahich 7od is to $e eB)erimentally ,noAn,
$ut actually )recludes such ,noAledge: the mind ,noAs 7od
$y a su)ernatural o)eration, Ahich transcends its natural
functions&
D%>6N.(( is destroyed $y light, es)ecially $y much
light1 ignorance is destroyed $y ,noAledge, es)ecially
$y much ,noAledge& @ou must understand this as
im)lying not )ri3ation, $ut transcendenceN<O and so you
must say Aith a$solute truth, that the ignorance Ahich
is of 7od is un,noAn $y those Aho ha3e the created
light and the ,noAledge of created things, and that 8is
transcendent dar,ness is o$scured $y any light, and
itself o$scures all ,noAledge& %nd if any one, seeing
7od, ,noAs Ahat he sees, it is $y no means 7od that
he so sees, $ut something created and ,noAa$le& ?or
7od a$ides a$o3e created intellect and eBistence, and
is in such sense un,noAa$le and non-eBistent that 8e
eBists a$o3e all eBistence and is ,noAn a$o3e all )oAer
of ,noAledge& Thus the ,noAledge of 8im Aho is a$o3e
all that can $e ,noAn is for the most )art ignorance&
L.TT.> II
To the (ame
% (EMM%>@& -- 7od is a$o3e and $eyond that di3inity and goodness
Ahich Ae ,noA, Ahich Ae see, to imitate, and of Ahich Ae are
made )arta,ers, as $eing their source and fountain head&
8oA can 8e Aho is $eyond all things $e also a$o3e the
3ery )rinci)le of di3inity and of goodnessM 'y di3inity
and goodness must $e understood the essence of the
gift Ahich ma,es us good and di3ine, or that
una))roacha$le sem$lance of the su)reme goodness
and di3inity Ahere$y Ae also are made good and
di3ine& ?or since this is the )rinci)le of dei2cation and
sancti2cation for those Aho are so dei2ed and
sancti2ed, then 8e& Aho is the essential )rinci)le of all
)rinci)les (and therefore the )rinci)le of di3inity and
goodness# is a$o3e that di3inity and goodness $y
means of Ahich Ae are made good and di3ine:N=O
moreo3er, since 8e is inimita$le and incom)rehensi$le,
8e is a$o3e imitation and com)rehension as 8e is
a$o3e those Aho imitate and )arta,e of 8im&
L.TT.> V
To Dorotheus the Deacon
% (EMM%>@& -- (ince 7od transcends all things, $oth sensi$le and
intelligi$le, 8e can $e ,noAn only $y se)aration from the
senses and the intellect& Thus the inaccessi$le light in Ahich
8e dAells is dar,ness $y reason of its eBcess&
T8. di3ine dar,ness is the inaccessi$le light in Ahich
7od is said to dAell& %nd since 8e is in3isi$le $y reason
of the a$undant out)ouring of su)ernatural light, it
folloAs that Ahosoe3er is counted Aorthy to ,noA and
see 7od, $y the 3ery fact that he neither sees nor
,noAs 8im, attains to that Ahich is a$o3e sight and
,noAledge, and at the same time )ercei3es that 7od is
$eyondNO all things $oth sensi$le and intelligi$le,
saying Aith the 9ro)het, "Thy ,noAledge is $ecome
Aonderful to me1 it is high, and I cannot reach to it&" In
li,e manner, (t 9aul, Ae are told, ,neA 7od, Ahen he
,neA 8im to $e a$o3e all ,noAledge and
understanding1 Aherefore he says that 8is Aays are
unsearcha$le and 8is Dudgments inscruta$le, 8is gifts
uns)ea,a$le, and 8is )eace )assing all understanding1
as one Aho had found 8im Aho is a$o3e all things, and
Ahom he had )ercei3ed to $e a$o3e ,noAledge, and
se)arate from all things, $eing the Creator of all&
NO The Eninitiated& -- The tAo classes of uninitiated
here referred to are, 2rst, the less s)iritually minded
among Christians, and secondly, the heathen& Corderius
considers that $y the 2rst non-Christian )hiloso)hers
rather than Christians of any ,ind are intended: $ut the
Neo)latonist contem)lati3es could hardly $e descri$ed
in the terms here used, and they only could ha3e $een
the ")hiloso)hers" in 0uestion& The distinction draAn $y
some $etAeen the Aords $y Ahich the tAo classes are
designated (amuWtoi ^ not fully instructed, and amustai
^ not formally admitted# is )erha)s fanciful, $ut is
)ro$a$ly the true eB)lanation of the classi2cation
intended& The im)otence of the natural faculties in
mystical contem)lation is here stated as a 2rst )rinci)le
of mystical theology& Com)are (t :ohn of the Cross, %sc&
ii& 4: "It is clearly necessary for the soul aiming at its
oAn su)ernatural transformation to $e in dar,ness and
far remo3ed from all that relates to its natural
condition&"
N!O The Di3ine %ttri$utes& -- 7odGs attri$utes, such as
Aisdom, Dustice, goodness, etc&, are human conce)tions
in themsel3es& We ,noA them as they are manifested in
the Aor,s of 7od, not as they eBist in 8imself& 7od is
not, so to s)ea,, the mere sum of 8is attri$utes, $ut
the sim)le di3ine essence, Ahich in diCerent as)ects is
each of the di3ine attri$utes& Thus Ae truly say that
7od is lo3e, Dustice, mercy, etc&1 $ut Ae could not truly
say that lo3e, Dustice, mercy, etc&, together constitute
7od& Therefore those Aho, in any sense, see 7od in
8imself must contri3e to go $ehind all those created
forms in Ahich 8is )erfection is manifested& ((ee
(umma Theol& I& Biii& !, "&#
N"O This illustration is used $y 9lotinus (de 9ulcritudine,
3ii&#, and is adduced as an argument against the
identity of the author Aith the %reo)agite $y u)holders
of the contrary 3ieA& It eB)resses 3ery )recisely the
attitude of mysticism toAards the immanence of 7od,
though it cannot $e )ressed as an illustration of the
nature of immanence& The statue is re3ealed $y
a$stracting su)erHuous material, as 7od is made
,noAn $y a$stracting all that is not 7od& 'ut the
residuum, Ahich is the statue, is of the same nature as
the a$stracted su)erHuity1 Ahereas the a$straction of
Ahat is natural lea3es only the su)ernatural, or di3ine&
Com)are (t :ohn of the Cross, ii& /: "In e3ery soul 7od
dAells and is su$stantially )resent & & & the soul, Ahen it
has dri3en aAay from itself all that is contrary to the
Di3ine Will, $ecomes transformed in 7od $y lo3e&"
N4O (ee )receding cha)ter&
N/O "8y)othetieal" (or com)arati3e#, i&e&, setting one
thing $eloA another& 7od is in2nitely higher than the
highest created thing: and 8e is to $e distinguished
from all forms of created eBistence, high and loA ali,e:
yet 8e is more truly life than a stone (com)arati3e or
hy)othetical aIrmation#: 8e is more a$solutely not
)assionate than ineCa$le (com)arati3e a$straction or
negation#& Thus in aIrmation "more" is )redicated of
Ahat is nearer to 7od1 in negation, of Ahat is remoter
from 8im (Corderius#& In the hierarchy of creation, the
higher the form of eBistence, the greater its
resem$lance to 7od: yet in all there is the in2nite
diCerence of the creature from the Creator& We ha3e
here the Theistic or Christian rendering of the
Neo)latonic and 7nostic doctrines of emanation&
NPO The su)reme, uni3ersal, or 2rst cause cannot $e
identi2ed Aith any of its eCects, or Aith all of them
together& The sim)licity of the di3ine nature im)lies
entire distinction from all created things& ((ee (umma
Theol& I& "& ;&#
NQO Neither one nor, etc& -- (ee Letter II& to Caius,
Ahere the sense is eB)lained in Ahich this statement is
to $e understood& There is a sense in Ahich 7od is 8is
oAn nature1 i&e&, as it is in itself, not in the inade0uate
sense in Ahich alone it may $e concei3ed or
eB)erienced $y us& (ee (umma Theol& I& "& ", Ahere it
may $e remar,ed that (t Thomas says, not "Deus est
Deitas," $ut "Deus est sua Deitas&"
N;O 8e can neither $e aIrmed nor denied -- The di3ine
nature cannot $e ade0uately (though it may $e truly#
de2ned, either )ositi3ely or negati3ely&
N<O Transcendence (hu)erochi,+s#& -- The ignorance $y
Ahich man sees 7od is more, not less, than natural
,noAledge -- it is not ignorance of the o$Dects of natural
,noAledge, $ut the reDection of such ,noAledge as out
of relation to the su)ernatural s)here in Ahich 7od is
eB)erimentally ,noAn&
N=O Inimita$le, etc& -- ManGs goodness and sanctity
can resem$le 7odGs only analogically, not a$solutely&
We cannot imitate the uni0ue )re-eminence of 7od,
though Ae may endea3our Aith e3entual success to
ful2l 8is Aill )erfectly, as 8e )erfectly ful2ls 8is oAn
Aill&
NO 'eyond all things (meta )anta#, not "in" or "Aith"
all things, as it has $een translated, $ut "after" them --
i&e&, from the human )oint of 3ieA, in Ahich the natural
comes $efore and is nearer than the su)ernatural&
IND.F *? 9>*9.> N%M.(
%'>%8%M, =!%laco0ue, Margaret Mary, ;/, <, "!,
Q4%l$ertus Magnus, /Q, <Q, </%leBander, <;%malric
of 'ena, PQ%m$rosius Camaldulensis, <4%mmonius
(accas, 4Q%ngela, '&, of ?oligno, Q/, !", "
%)ollinarians, =<%)ollonius of Tyana, /4%0uinas, (t
Thomas, !Q, 4!, /Q, Q=, Q;, <", <4, <Q, !", !Q, "Q,
</, !=/, !4, !!=, !!"%ristotle, /P, !=/%ugustine, (t,
4!, 44, <Q, <;, ==, !Q, /Q, /;
'%LT8%(%>, ==, =!'ardenheAer, !=P'artholomeA,
(t, !='eghards, PP se0&'enedict FIV&, "Q, Q!, ;Q,
", ;'ergson, 8&, ""'ernard, (t, Q=, "'igg, /4
'iran, Maine de, /'losius, <4'oehme, :&, P, P;
se0&'ona3enture, (t, ;'ossuet, Q4, Q/, Q!'radley,
!;, "<'uddhism, !;
C%IE(, letters to, !!4, !!PCal3in, PChaise, 9Tre la,
Q!Chandler, !Cleanthes, !QClement of %leBandria,
4!Clement, (t, of >ome, <PClement 3&, PQColet,
Dean, !=PCorderius, ;!, <, </, !=P, !=<
D%>'*@, <Q, !==, !=PDecius, .m)eror, /"De la
Com$e, Q!DelacroiB, =;, =, /Denys, (t, <4
DG.strUes, Q!De3ine, <=Dionysius, %reo)agite, ",
44, P4, <" se0&-- Mystical Theology, !=Q se0&
Dionysius Carthusianus, </Dorotheus, letter to, !!;
Dulac, !=P
.C68%>T, Q<, ;, ;!, "<, 4".mmerich, %nne
Catherine, "4, ;/.ngelhart, !=P.riugena, :& (&, <4
.ulogius, <4.use$ius, <P.3erard, :ohn, !=P
?.'>*NIE(, ;/?ichte, P?icino, Marsilio, </?oB, P
"?riends of 7od," ;4
7%LLI.NE(, .m)eror, 4Q, /"7erson, /, /<, QP, QQ,
Q;7nosticism, !="7orres, "", /, !=/7regory the
7reat, <47rosseteste, <47unther, =<7uyon,
Madame, Q se0&, Q/
8%>N%C6, /"8artmann, !;, P, P<8egel, "<, 4,
P, P<8ermas, //8ierotheus, !==8ilduin, <48i)ler,
<<8o$$es, ;/8ugo of (t Victor, QQ, ;, </8y)atius,
<", <4
I7N%TIE(, (t, //IllingAorth, "=Imitation of Christ, ;;,
;<Inge, , !, !P, P/, ;=Ir3ing, P=, P
:%C*'I, P, P<:ames, "P, Q!, =;, =, !, "
:erome, (t, <P:oachim of ?iore, P=:ohn, (t, !=":ohn of
the Cross, (t, !=, "P, Q=, Q4, Q/, ;", ;/, <P, <Q, ;;, <<,
=!, ", <, /, /!, P/, Q, Q4, !=<, !4:ose)h
II&, ;/:ulian of NorAich, "4, ;/, ==, !4
6%NT, 44, P6och, <P
L%W, William, !LeDeune, PQLu)ton, !=PLuther, P
M%C%>IE(, <=Maeterlinc,, ii, /PMaher, PMaBimus,
(t, <4, <QMigne, !=PMohammed, P=Molinos, <,
Q, ;4Mono)hysites, <"Monothelites, <4Montanus,
PMoses, P/, !
N.*9L%T*NI(M, /P, P=, !Q, 4Q, /!, /", /4, P<,
</, <Q, !=, !=", !=<
*CC%M, =<
9%C8@M.>.(, <;9aley, "=9ar,er, !=P9aul, (t, /!, Q=,
</, <Q, =<, P/, <<, !=", !!<9eter, (t, ==, <<9hilo,
, /P, <;9hilostratus, /49lato, /P, /Q, P=9lotinus, ;,
=, /P, !Q, 4P se0&, P, !=, !49or)hyry, 4;, /",
/Q9oulain, =9riscilla, P=9riscillian, P9roclus, ;, =,
/P, P, <P, <Q
>ZCZ:%C, ;=>i$et, "">ichard of (t Victor, QQ, ;>oyce,
<>uyshroec,, /<, Q=, <<, "!, 4, 4!
(T 8IL%I>., 'arthelemy, /, //(arraJenus, :ohn, <4
(caramelli, <Q(chelling, P<(cho)enhauer, !", !;,
P, P<(chrarn, ""(egneri, Q!(e3erus, <"(ocrates,
//, /P()inoJa, !P, !;, "<, 4(tiglmayer, <P, !=/
(torf, !=P(uareJ, <=(Aeden$org, P!, Q=
T%EL.>, /<, P=, ;=, 4, 4!Teresa, (t, "4, /<, P4, Q=,
Q4, QQ, ;", ;P, <P, <Q, <<, =!, ", <, ", /,
/!, Q, Q4Theologia 7ermanica, 4, 4!Thomas
Vercellensis, <4Thorold, %&, !4Timothy, (t, <Q, <<,
!=;
V%LL%, LorenJo, P;, </Vaughan, =Victorinus, /"
Vienne, Council of, PQVirgil, /