Christian Mysticism | Page 2

of finding in their writings a philosophy and a rule of life which
would satisfy my mind and conscience. In this I was not disappointed;
and thinking that others might perhaps profit by following the same
path, I wished to put together and publish the results of my thought and
reading. In such a scheme historical details are either out of place or of
secondary value; and I hope this will be remembered by any historians
who may take the trouble to read my book.
The philosophical side of the subject is from my point of view of much
greater importance. I have done my best to acquire an adequate
knowledge of those philosophies, both ancient and modern, which are
most akin to speculative Mysticism, and also to think out my own
position. I hope that I have succeeded in indicating my general
standpoint, and that what I have written may prove fairly consistent and
intelligible; but I have felt keenly the disadvantage of having missed
the systematic training in metaphysics given by the Oxford school of
Literae Humaniores, and also the difficulty (perhaps I should say the
presumption) of addressing metaphysical arguments to an audience
which included several eminent philosophers. I wish also that I had had
time for a more thorough study of Fechner's works; for his system, so
far as I understand it, seems to me to have a great interest and value as
a scheme of philosophical Mysticism which does not clash with
modern science.
I have spoken with a plainness which will probably give offence of the
debased supernaturalism which usurps the name of Mysticism in
Roman Catholic countries. I desire to insult no man's convictions; and
it is for this reason that I have decided not to print my analysis of
Ribet's work (_La Mystique Divine, distinguee des Contrefacons
diaboliques_. Nouvelle Edition, Paris, 1895, 3 vols.), which I intended
to form an Appendix. It would have opened the eyes of some of my
readers to the irreconcilable antagonism between the Roman Church
and science; but though I translated and summarised my author
faithfully, the result had all the appearance of a malicious travesty. I
have therefore suppressed this Appendix; but with regard to Roman
Catholic "Mysticism" there is no use in mincing matters. Those who

find edification in signs and wonders of this kind, and think that such
"supernatural phenomena," even if they were well authenticated instead
of being ridiculous fables, could possibly establish spiritual truths, will
find little or nothing to please or interest them in these pages. But those
who reverence Nature and Reason, and have no wish to hear of either
of them being "overruled" or "suspended," will, I hope, agree with me
in valuing highly the later developments of mystical thought in
Northern Europe.
There is another class of "mystics" with whom I have but little
sympathy--the dabblers in occultism. "Psychical research" is, no doubt,
a perfectly legitimate science; but when its professors invite us to
watch the breaking down of the middle wall of partition between matter
and spirit, they have, in my opinion, ceased to be scientific, and are in
reality hankering after the beggarly elements of the later Neoplatonism.
The charge of "pantheistic tendency" will not, I hope, be brought
against me without due consideration. I have tried to show how the
Johannine Logos-doctrine, which is the basis of Christian Mysticism,
differs from Asiatic Pantheism, from Acosmism, and from (one kind of)
evolutionary Idealism. Of course, speculative Mysticism is nearer to
Pantheism than to Deism; but I think it is possible heartily to eschew
Deism without falling into the opposite error.
I have received much help from many kind friends; and though some of
them would not wish to be associated with all of my opinions, I cannot
deny myself the pleasure of thanking them by name. From my mother
and other members of my family, and relations, especially Mr. W.W.
How, Fellow of Merton, I have received many useful suggestions.
Three past or present colleagues have read and criticised parts of my
work--the Rev. H. Rashdall, now Fellow of New College; Mr. H.A.
Prichard, now Fellow of Trinity; and Mr. H.H. Williams, Fellow of
Hertford. Mr. G.L. Dickinson, Fellow of King's College, Cambridge,
lent me an unpublished dissertation on Plotinus. The Rev. C. Bigg,
D.D., whose Bampton Lectures on the Christian Platonists are known
all over Europe, did me the kindness to read the whole of the eight
Lectures, and so added to the great debt which I owe to him for his

books. The Rev. J.M. Heald, formerly Scholar of Trinity, Cambridge,
lent me many books from his fine library, and by inquiring for me at
Louvain enabled me to procure the books on Mysticism which are now
studied in Roman Catholic Universities. The Rev. Dr. Lindsay,