Οὐχ ἓν ἐὼν, οὐ πάντα. Πανώνυμε πως σε καλέσσω, Ὦ πάντων ἐπέκεινα· τί γὰρ θέμις ἄλλο σε μέλπειν.1 Thou art beyond all things: no other name is worthy of Thee. How can speech praise Thee? For Thee no word can speak. How can mind look on Thee? Thee Who no mind can grasp. Thou only art beyond words; creator of all that speak. Thou only art beyond knowledge; from Whom all knowledge proceeds Thee all things voiced and dumb proclaim. All things that have thought and have not, honour Thee. For Thee. The prayers of all are to Thee. To Thee all Thou makest all things to rest and to move. Thou art the end of all, art one and all, and none, Not one nor all. All things are Thy name, how shall I call Thee Who alone hast no name? What heavenly mind can pierce the veil That is above the heavens? Have mercy Thou, Who art beyond all things: no other name is worthy of Thee. See also a fine passage by Bishop Lightfoot on the words, "Why stand ye gazing up into heaven?" "We behold not the eternal things themselves, but only their shadows," etc. seq. And again on It must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh." "God hates sin, and yet God allows sin. This is the contradiction involved in the text. The enigma is stated, 1 Gregorii Nazianzeni opera, vol. ii. p. 252. 2 vols. fol. (Coloniæ, 1690), and Selectæ Preces e Patribus Ecclesiæ Orientalis, p. 118. (Paris et Lyon, 1848.) 2 Sermons preached in St. Paul's Cathedral, pp. 157–159. but it is not explained. Christianity did not create the difficulty, and Christianity does not offer to solve it."1 Both Valdés and Molinos we believe to have been pure and holy men, men of the best intentions, both morally and spiritually in advance of their contemporaries. The charges against the purity of Molinos we do not credit. And though Valdés, in commenting on I Cor. vii. 5, comes very near that union of casuistry and mysticism which is so perilous, his life seems to have been pure, without a stain. It is evident from the above remarks that we fear more danger from Molinos than from Valdés. What is erroneous in the latter is already taught amongst us, and is more or less successfully resisted. The teaching of the former is newer, more subtle in its perils, less tangible, and may seduce the souls of higher aspiration. There is, moreover, this further danger: good and excellent as the originators of any false teaching may be, however much they may in life and in their own exposition guard against its errors, yet none the less the logical outcome of their error will produce itself in their disciples, and with consequences no less mischievous in practice than in doctrine. Again and again in the history of the Church do we find the followers acting in a way which the founder would have abhorred, but which, however contrary 1 Cambridge Sermons, p. 249. (Macmillan and Co., 1891.) Albertus Magnus in one place says of God, "non est sensibilis, neque imaginabilis; sed super omne sensibile et intelligibile," op. cit. p. 146; and L. Blosius, "in solo ignoto et innominable Deo quiescat (anima)," Institutio Spiritualis, p. 191. to his own life, is yet but the logical and necessary outcome of his opinions! May we, in conclusion, mark one note of difference between such mysticism as we have been considering, and that which we find in the Scriptures and in the hymns of the early Church. There, when men found themselves, as it were, in the conscious presence of God, when, to use the words of our author, the soul was lost in God, and in the contemplation of Him, the result was not a consideration of their own peace, but of their own unworthiness, and of His glory: "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts," in the words of the Ter Sanctus, or in those of Gloria in Excelsis, or the Song of the Great Fisherman"; still more in the Te Deum. This attitude of mind is, we think, one of the safeguards against the perils of a too subjective mysticism; not the learning to "interiorize,' as it is called, the soul; not the thinking more of self, but thinking more of God, and of our duty and privilege, and joy, to love and to praise, and to glorify Him. The effect of the one is like the stifling air of a hothouse, beautiful though some of its strange products may be; the effect of the other is like the invigorating, life-giving breath of heaven, which nerves and strengthens the soul to do cheerfully and with courage whatever work God may have appointed for it to do in a world which Christ died to save. VIII HISPANISM AND REGALISM IN THE SPANISH CHURCH Western FEW national movements in the Church have attracted more attention, or have been more studied by English Churchmen, than that known as Gallicanism in France; while the similar movement in the Spanish Church known as Hispanism, or Regalism, has received but comparatively little attention. Yet without some investigation of it there are many features in the history both of Spain and of the Spanish Church which must remain a puzzle to all those who wish to penetrate a little below the surface. Thus, during the late Carlist war many were completely surprised at the warm repudiation of Ultramontanism on the part of the Carlist chiefs, while maintaining and almost exaggerating the dogmas which are usually connected with that term. To many an English reader the works of Fernan Caballero seem to be thoroughly steeped in Ultramontanism; yet she had really no sympathy with Neo-Catholicism, as modern Ultramontanism is called in Spain, and steadily repudiated all idea of propagating its maxims. This peculiar attitude of the Spanish Church, so difficult to understand, began very early. We may perhaps find traces of it in the attitude of Hosius at the Council of Nicæa, taking the lead as an allied but independent and equal power and authority to that of the Church of Rome. In the first Council of Braga, A.D. 563, though a letter of Pope Vigilius to Profuturus is read and treated with all respect, yet in Canon iii. the appeal for unity is "sicut et ab ipsis apostolis traditum omnis retinet Oriens."1 So in later Councils the appeal for unity of practice is that of the province; e. g. Toledo iv. (A.D. 633) Canon ii., after stating that second to a confession of the right faith, there should be no difference or discordance in the sacraments of the Church, says, "Unus igitur ordo orandi at psallendi a nobis per omnem Hispaniam atque Galliam (v. 7. Galliciam) conservetur, unus modus in missarum solemnitatibus, unus in vespertinis matutinisque officiis, nec diversa sit ultra in nobis ecclesiastica consuetudo qui una fide continemur ut regno; hoc enim et antiqui canones decreverunt, ut unaquæque provincia et psallendi 1 So in Brun's Canones Apostolorum et Conciliorum, sæculorum iv., v., vi., vii. (Berlin, 1839), and in Migne, vol. lxxxiv. Sancti Isidori Hispalensis Opera, tomus octavus, col. 566. Cardinal Bona, Rerum Liturgicarum, lib. ii. cap. v. p. 500, (Lutetiæ, MDCLXXVI), after quoting the canon "Omnis retinet Oriens," says, "In hunc autem canonem mendum irrepsisse, ut pro occidens oriens legatur, dudum viri docti observarunt; nam in Ecclesia Orientali alium fuisse usum, quæ modo allata sunt, manifestant." Compare the article "Dominus Vobiscum" in Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vol. i. p. 572. The mistake of the Spanish bishops does not nullify their intention to appeal to the practice of the Universal East. |