the essay on universal peace, the Kant who sympathized with Rousseauan liberty, equality, and fraternity, the Kant who tells us never to treat human beings as things (even though they be Belgians), the Kant who put the golden rule of Jesus into philosophical language. What though his doctrine is twisted from its true meaning because of its use in the interests of arbitrary political absolutism instead of the absoluteness of the moral standard of the City of Souls! Morality, it is true, is not an ultimate end; that function is forever reserved for the Coming of the Kingdom of God; but it is a proximate end, as are all the great ideals of the true, the beautiful, and the good. Yea, all ultimate spiritual means are proximate spiritual ends, otherwise æsthetic, moral, and scientific and philosophical habits could not be formed, and the human race would expose its heritage to the deadly microbes of selfish subjectivity. Kant would not have denied that self-preservation is the first law of nature (not the last nor the greatest), the law of the natural man; but he would have scorned the miserable casuistry that would save some risk to the national skin at the expense of the national honor - especially when such a plea is put forward by admittedly the most efficient nation on earth about to attempt a "defensive aggressive advance" in the face of its opponents' unreadiness.

3. Mystical. It may be that the German overlords would scorn the very name of "mystic." But Germany has ever been the land of the truest mysticism. Two of her leading theologians, if not the two most influential, namely, Schleiermacher and Ritschl, though they cannot be called technical mystics, and the latter thought that he scorned mysticism, have taught the world to build theology on the principle of Universal Love. Now Christian Love is always mystical. It insists on believing all things and hoping all things, it suffereth long and is kind, vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly. Contrast this central doctrine of Christianity and of the most influential German theology with German "Hymns of Hate," and the current German feeling toward England for doing her manifest duty and thus protecting her ultimate national integ

rity. Individual Englishmen and Frenchmen may hate Germany, but German hatred of the Allies, especially England, seems to be active and effective in its results. Even if England had outwitted Germany in the game of diplomacy, why should Germany be so unsportsmanlike as to rave over "perfidious Albion"? Once again we see the truth of the contention that Germany's chief trouble is her lack of sportsmanship. Love is always generous, sportsmanlike, gentle, and manly.

4. Visional.

We have seen the two universal-minded poets teaching us the meaning of the Vocation of Man; two philosophers of the same nation have shown us the sacredness and universality of the Law of Righteousness as opposed to the pseudo-imperative of a merely self-preserving and narrow national "duty" interpreted by a bureaucracy; we have found two great German theologians teaching us of Love as the unifying principle of religion, and thus bringing us back to the central meaning of the revelation and cosmic activity of Jesus. And now, when we come to the final apocalyptic stage of the manly-religious Mystic Way, we are once more indebted to Germans. Johannes Weiss and Schweitzer would be the last to claim equality with the great men we have spoken of; but they have brought, through their vocation as New Testament critics, a new vision of values in the revelational philosophy of Jesus. I call this stage the Vision of Immediacy; and I believe that it transvaluates the meaning of the stages that precede it. The world needs a Vocation, an Ethics, a Love, an Apocalyptic Vision, each an attitude of progressive immediacy. Weiss and Schweitzer have shown incontestably that Christ emphasized the apocalyptic aspect of His Mission, and that the early church was true to His teaching. Jesus expected the end of the world and His own coming in largest cosmic fashion some time within the generation of men then on the earth. He did not profess to know the day or the hour; but from first to last He used but transfigured the message of His predecessor, John the Baptist-"Repent ye, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." And this is the message in this day of catastrophe and cataclysm. We can hear as seldom before the groaning and travailing of

the whole creation. The cry, "Kill and conquer," drowns out the voice of the angel choir with its "Peace on earth to men of good-will." The men of good-will toward mankind are not in charge of the destinies of Germany. The German Kultur-bringers deceive themselves by thinking or pretending to think that they may pick and choose which human souls they may value and which despise. They call this attitude super-moral "patriotism." Not so. Inasmuch as ye have done harm to these my brethren, even these least, ye have done it unto Me, says the strong Son of God who came to bring peace and a sword. Men will and perhaps should fight until they learn to repent and love. Men will fight until peace is the product of the fight for perfection. Men will fight until the Hymns of Hate, uttered or unuttered, English or German, give place to the Law of Love written in the hearts of men and therefore on the statute books of the nations.

The dominant Liberal Protestantism of Germany has been foremost in putting the Kingdom of God as the prime object of Christ's endeavors, and therefore the conscious goal of Christians. German scholars have lately been showing the intense futurism of the work of Jesus. Yet it is the German bureaucracy that has dealt a staggering blow to that international law which represents the efforts of the nations towards humaneness and the righteousness of the Kingdom of God. The Messiah was due to come in Christ's day. The sufficient Cause was present in a Life, a Death, and a Resurrection; but the wicked wills of man have kept it back until now. God has "all the time that is," but how do we dare to retard the Course of Things? Let all the nations answer; but especially must the Cultured Nation give its account at the last day, if not sooner.

The Conscience of the World, acting as Grand Jury of Humanity, has brought in a true bill against Germany. The Trial Jury of Germany's own has judged her guilty. Not a German "von Gott," but the God of all men will pronounce sentence and put it into execution. "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do

right?"

University of the South.

THOMAS P. BAILEY.

THE MYSTICAL INTERPRETATION OF ART.

The foundation for any clear discussion of a subject lies in an understanding of terms. In discussing a subject having anything to do with mysticism this is especially true, as mysticism has been a much abused and misunderstood term, even by schol

ars.

Mysticism is a phase of thought, or rather, perhaps of feeling, which from its very nature is hardly susceptible of exact definition. It is not a name applicable to any particular system of thought. It has been called a doctrine, but it is scarcely that, for mystics have never formulated any doctrine to which they would all subscribe. It may be the outgrowth of many differing modes of thought and feeling. In the absence of any formulated definition, we may, tentatively, suggest the following, and then, after a historical survey, we can see if this carries us safely through: Mysticism may be called the belief that the unity of the individual, or the human soul, with the absolute, or God, is possible. Correlative to this we may say that a mystic is one who believes in the immediate revelation of the truth. Professor Rufus Jones of Haverford College in his Studies in Mystical Religion1 thus carefully defines his term: "I shall use the word mysticism to express the type of religion which puts the emphasis on immediate awareness of relation with God, in direct and intimate consciousness of the Divine Presence. It is religion in its most acute, intense, and living stage." While mysticism is thus religious in that it aims for actual communion with the Supreme Being. It is also philosophical in that it is an attempt of the human mind to grasp the ultimate reality of things. But its religious character is paramount, in that "it demands a faculty above reason, and becomes triumphant where philosophy despairs."2 In this sense it is also transcendental.

Mystical writers of the past have so little cared for a formal declaration of their own ideas that we can readily understand

1Introduction, p. xv.

2Prof. Andrew Seth in the Encyclopedia Britannica, under "Mysticism."

why the term mysticism has become synonymous with vagueness or mysteriousness, and it has been given so wide a scope that the Hindoo ecstatics, the Neo-Platonists, the morbid mediæval ascetics and the Quakers have all been put in the same class. The error of such a classification is apparent. It arose from a notion prevalent at all times concerning mystics.

It seems to have been believed that the mystical ideal is not a life of ethical energy among mankind, but an inward life, spent wholly in contemplation and devout communion. That there have been mystics who held this extreme view must be true. Dionysius and Scotus Erigena believed that unity with God, with its eternal rest, was held to be unconditionally higher than the world, and that life should not strive to enter into the fullness of the world, but rather to retire from it into the unity superior to all plurality and movement, separation and unrest. Thomas à Kempis and other ascetics held a similar attitude. With this type of mysticism in mind, Rudolf Eucken wrote, "Mysticism holds that the essence of all wisdom consists in becoming increasingly absorbed in the eternal being." George Santayana, believing that the ideal mysticism consisted in the throwing off of the human, thus criticises the mystical attitude: "The mystics declare that to God there is no distinction in the value of things-only our human prejudice makes us prefer a rose to an oyster, or a lion to a monkey. To the mystic, the defi

nite constitution of his own mind is hateful. A passionate negation, the motive of which, although morbid, is in spite of itself perfectly human, absorbs all his energies, and his ultimate triumph is to attain the absoluteness of indifference. And what is true of mysticism in general is true also of its manifestation in æsthetics."4 Thus Santayana understands that the mystic finds beauty in everything, that taste is abolished, and, "for the ascending series of æsthetic satisfactions we have substituted (by the mystic) a monotonous judgment of identity."

Coomeraswamy, the Hindoo mystic, gives us the answer to

Main Currents of Modern Thought, p. 244. 4Sense of Beauty, p. 127.