them to present theology in a more practical manner, so that the work of the Holy Spirit, particularly in the adoption and sanctification of the human soul, received greater attention at their hands. Indeed, the attitude of Nicolas in all his consideration of the Holy Spirit's relation to mankind may be summed up in one of his epigrams, 'No one is happy unless he is a son of God.'1 1 Excitat., vi. IV THE ANTI-SCHOLASTIC MYSTICS UNLIKE the earlier Mysticism of the Victorines and the later Mysticism of the Scholastic Revival, the Mysticism of the German type which flourished in the fourteenth century was definitely anti-scholastic. It was the direct negative to the question whether man can by searching find out God. It was a striking recoil from the long conventionalism in Scriptural interpretation and from the maze of Nominalist dialectic which had been outstanding features of the Scholastic system.1 To say bluntly that the Mystics preferred the authority of the Holy Spirit to that of Aristotle would be to cast an undeserved slur upon theologians who, while they were Schoolmen, were spiritually-minded. At the same time there had been in existence too great a tendency to dislodge Divine guidance from its first position, and this tendency was now roundly countered by men whose outlook was not only anti-Scholastic but also anti-worldly. At this point Mysticism begins to take shape as a distinct phenomenon, as a movement in itself, so that when taken in conjunction with the Renaissance it figures as one of the two main sources of a new river of free thought which was destined to overflow its banks in the Reformation. Yet Eckhart, Suso, Tauler, and Ruysbroek were all genuine Catholics, bent truly on popularizing religion, but without any separatist motive. There were, indeed, dangers of exaggeration in the subjectivism of their system which were to receive correction at the hands of the still more practical Reformers, while their insistence on the possibility of union with God, to the subordination of the Atonement, also on the statement that God teaches The deification of things (res), found in extreme Nominalism, is related to Pantheism, and Pantheism (as Eckhart illustrates) is akin to Mysticism. Thus there was a link between the first and the third, in cause if not in effect. Inge, Christian Mysticism, p. 57, notes in history an extreme mysticism which was little more than a dramatization of the normal psychological experience.' These, however, he calls' pseudo-mystics.' See Pope, Christian Theology, ii., p. 428. individuals as distinct from the Church, aroused the suspicion of the ecclesiastical authorities. For all that, their devotional works rest upon an essentially orthodox foundation, and the air of singularity which attaches to their movement was due in no little measure to the fact that the mystical spirit has always been more congenial to the Eastern temperament than to the Western.1 Dean Inge's definition of Mysticism as 'the attempt to realize, in thought and feeling, the immanence of the temporal in the eternal, and of the eternal in the temporal' prepares us to expect in this chapter a greater emphasis on the Divine Unity than on the Divine Trinity. Throughout this section, too, the familiar designation of the Holy Spirit as Love is much in evidence. MEISTER ECKHART Johann Eckhart (1260-1327), generally called 'Master,' and possessing ever widening influence in the circles of the Dominican Order, was the first and the chief of these speculative Mystics. Thoroughly conversant with Aristotelian philosophy, he taught theology from pulpit and desk, his scholars at Cologne including Suso and Tauler. In his extant writings' there is little to indicate any definite development of doctrine save from the pantheistic standpoint. He largely identifies the Deity with Natur, and his work is one protest against binding God, who is essentially Spirit, within set formulae. He dwells upon the power, creatorship, and sole reality of God, and, while he admits the existence of the Trinity, he asserts that the contemplative soul is desirous only of union with God in His Unity of Love, in which character He has most clearly revealed Himself. Within this Unity of Love, which is God, there are three equal, eternal, and Personal distinctions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, as the love-bond of the Father and the Son and as that eternal distinction in the Deity corresponding to the human will, is immanent in the world as Divine love, and illuminates and draws humanity upwards to its true Divine 1 Cf. Swete, Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church, p. 148 n, on Dr. Inge's reference to a connexion between the German Mystics and Methodius, the Eastern Father. 2 Ibid., p. 5. 'Eine Theologische Studie (Martensen, Copenhagen, 1842). end which is God Himself. But on the exact mutual relations of the Persons Eckhart remains somewhat obscure. HEINRICH Suso 1 Of the remaining three Mystics here considered, the one who came most fully under Eckhart's influence was Heinrich Suso (1300-1365), also a Dominican. An ascetic, writer, preacher, and passionate admirer of his master, he has been styled the poetic spirit of the movement, and, like Eckhart, his mind was occupied more with the Divine Essence than with the Divine Persons. A 'dialogue' between Maiden and Minister, in the Appendix Quarundam Sublimium Quaestionum, reveals certain of his trinitarian opinions. The very fact that from the supreme and essential Goodness there can proceed a supreme Emanation clearly reveals in the Holy Trinity a consubstantiality or communion of Substance which must itself be supreme. It also reveals that the highest equality and identity of Essence, together with undivided power, belong to the three Divine Persons. But that a Trinity of Divine Persons is able to subsist in a unity of Essence cannot be explained in words.' These sublime facts are for belief rather than for argument. Thus we believe 'that the reciprocal love (amor reciprocus) of the Father and the Son is named Holy Spirit, and this mutual love (amor mutuus), which is the Holy Spirit, 'is distinct in Person, but is one God in one Essence along with the Father and the Son.' Since this Emanation is by way of will and of love, the third Person in the Godhead, who emanates from the flowing forth of love (ex amoris perfluvio), proceeds both from the Father and from His own express Image; but this Person is not a Son, nor can He be called begotten. Since, again, this love exists in the will intellectually or spiritually, or exists as a certain inclination and uniting power of love in the One who loves toward Him whom He loves, the emanation of will, which is love, belongs to the third Person, and is called Holy Spirit. The Father and the Son simultaneously bring forth the Holy Spirit, and the Unity which is the Essence of the first origin is also the Substance of the three Persons together '; so that the three Persons do not exist apart from Each Other, but cohere at once in unity of Essence. The warning is 1 Appendix Q.S.Q. (ed. 1588), chaps. xix.-xxi. repeated that the mystery of the Three in One and the One in Three is altogether too deep a subject for explanation in language. Suso shrinks from debate and prefers contemplation. Even so, his mind is neither aloof nor abstruse. He holds that the Church's means of grace, in particular the Sacraments, are necessary to spiritual growth. The Cross is central to his teaching, and his view of Jesus, which closely resembles that taken by Bernard, was as real a stimulus to a practical spirit-filled life in his own case as it was in the case of the other. JOHANN TAULER The other noted Dominican pupil of Eckhart was the famous preacher of the movement. Johann Tauler (1290-1361) was early attracted by mediaeval devotional literature, and he proceeded to turn to good effect the impressions received from his master and later from other Mystics in Germany. His devotional mind was of a more practical type which discourages unreality. He was eager to reach the people, and in this he succeeded, becoming the human instrument of a great revival of spiritual life in the Rhine region. Accordingly his opinions on the subject under review are in the main set forth in his sermons, which have seen many editions, and which are singularly free from the extravagances so often associated with 'mystical' utterances. The Holy Spirit, for instance, teaches us by means of Holy Scripture and Church tradition.1 Taught thus, we learn that our most loving Creator is present with us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,' a most Holy Trinity truly mirrored in the three very notable powers of the human mind-memory, understanding, and will. The most fundamental article of the faith declares that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are only one God-God in a unity of Essence and in a Trinity of Persons. As the one God the Trinity is Holy and should ever be revered. . . . Concerning this Trinity we are unable to employ suitable expressions, and yet something must be said concerning It. . . . No created intellect can at all comprehend that that super-essential 1 Sermones (Paris, 1623); Dominica iii., Adventus, Sermo i. In Nativitate Domini, Sermo i. Dominica i.: Post Octavas Epiphaniae, Sermo i. 'Dominica iv.; Post Pascha, Sermo ii. |