Book I. Dialogue IV: The doctrine of the saints opposed to the modern errors of the false mystics

I

Q. To what do these new errors founded on the new abuse of the doctrine of the true mystics amount ?

A. To the exclusion of four kinds of acts in particular:

(i) Acts of true charity towards oneself, for they exclude desire and prayer for salvation;

(ii) Acts of contrition;

(iii) Acts of petition;

(iv) All reflective acts, for it banishes all reflection from the state of the perfect.

Q. How do they teach the first exclusion?

A. By these words taken from the Interpretation du Cantique ‘ The perfect soul puts away all thoughts of salvation and perfection, so as to think only of God.’ If the author had meant by that that she could but forget herself by an abundant love which ordinarily prevented her from thinking directly of her greatest interests, without, however, ever excluding them, she would only have said what the true mystics say; but Bossuet realized from the system of the new mysticism that it positively excluded from the state of the perfect any interest in eternal salvation, c as if God, 5 he adds,

‘ had any other interest than to do good to those he loves. 5 It is obvious, he concludes, that this separation of our interests from God’s interests does away with the principle of true charity to oneself, which embraces the desire and prayer for eternal life.

1 Book IV, § 3.

Q. How does it teach the exclusion of acts of contrition ?¹²³

A. By these words from the Moyen Court⁴: ‘ In place of the regret and the act of contrition that these souls were wont to make, they have need now only of a sweet and tranquil love, which takes possession of their hearts.’ The true mystics would certainly say that this happens, ordinarily speaking, from attending to their greatest interests, even usually to these holy souls; and it is to avoid suppressing the good doctrine in condemning the bad that Bossuet uses these words: 2 € It is strange that these people should presume to make a rule, for a whole state of soul, of this cessation of contrition 5; and later he adds: c What I condemn without hesitation in company with all the holy Doctors is the desire to be in this state habitually; to exclude, I say, habitually the act of contrition for sins, and not only to suppress it when it presents itself but to make it one’s aim never to arouse it; for with these exclusions and suppressions the act of love which one believes oneself to be making is merely imaginary.’ 3 This is his conclusion. But with regard to what the new mysticism says later in reference to communion, ‘ the souls of this degree should leave God to act and rest in silence, without seeking other dispositions than those of simple repose ’; this is very true when God draws them to it, say the true mystics; here again Bossuet condemns only the attempt to make this state of repose into a law, and a law which includes everything, confession, communion, thanksgiving, in the entire cessation of all action. These, he goes on, are

Q. On the basis of what maxim was she able to

A. On the pretext that there is a degree of prayer

Q. How did she exclude from Prayer all kinds of

A. Among all the definitions of Prayer which she

Q. And how, lastly, does she exclude all kinds of

A. The error and abuse consist in this case, as in exclusion of all kinds of reflection from certain states; this is why 1 the Bishop of Meaux said that the new spirituality rejects in general reflections from the entire state of the contemplatives and the perfect. And in order to make it clear that it is this precisely that he wishes to condemn, he says further on, 2 that it is a vain idea to imagine that through reflection the need for reflection ceases; this can be true in a sense, but never simply and absolutely; lastly, 3 he continues, ‘ God suspends reflection when it pleases him 5: the question is whether there are any states in this life in which he removes it altogether, and whether one can justifiably put forward that it only belongs to the imperfect; from which he finally concludes⁵ that one of the errors of the false mystics is that the perfect do not reflect, they never act except in direct movements towards God.

Q. How is it established that the new mysticism insisted on this general exclusion of reflection, in the way of the perfect ?

A. The book in which they most boldly teach this, according to Bossuet, 6 is the Moyen Court, where it is said that ‘ the movement of the Holy Ghost which the soul must follow never leads it to draw back, that is to reflect on creatures; nor to bend back on itself, but to go always forward, advancing unceasingly towards its end.’ It is plain here, says Bossuet, that drawing back means reflecting, which is called bending back on oneself, and elsewhere returning to oneself; and if one must always abandon oneself, this surely means the general exclusion of all reflection.

Again one may read in her Cantique that the virtue of simplicity so recommended in the Scriptures makes us act in God’s regard incessantly, without hesitation, directly, without reflection... to look back on oneself even to a small extent is infidelity. It is clear from this, says Bossuet in conclusion, how far reflection is

» Book V, § 2. 2 Ibid., § 5. 3 Ibid., § 8.

rejected, since one cannot reflect without being guilty of infidelity.⁶

Q. I see the error here quite clearly, but not the abuse of the true doctrine.

A. The abuse lies in taking in such a bad sense certain expressions of the mystics, as the heretics did with regard to many passages in the Fathers and in the Scriptures.

Q. Have the mystics, then, similar expressions?

A. Yes, in their words but not their meaning, as the Bishop of Chartres stated in his Ordinance.

II

Q_. In what sense did the true mystics use these words, and what kinds of reflection did they exclude from the state of the perfect ?

A. They excluded from it all reflections in which one returns on oneself, on one’s actions, on the gifts one has received, in order to feed one's personal pride, to seek a human comfort, or to be too concerned with oneself; all this is rejected in these very words in Article XVII of Issy.⁷

Q. I cannot understand how it can be a manifestation of self-love to reflect on the gifts and graces of God, and on his benefits; this seems to me quite spiritual and holy.

A. You should understand that self-love is never entirely suppressed, even in the most perfect souls, and that since it has in them no more habitual object than spiritual and holy things, it leads them under this pious pretext to be concerned with themselves, reflecting on their acts, and on their good dispositions, and on the gifts of God, not so much to thank God for them, as to gratify themselves, to find for themselves comfort and satisfaction: in a word, this is a continual feasting of self-love.

Now in the beginning of this way of perfection one is not yet dead to oneself, one is hardly capable of suppressing all this vain complacency except by the suppression of that which occasions it, that is, of perpetual reflections on oneself. The effort to suppress these, by that interior abnegation which consists in renouncing the sweetest delights of a heart which has little left but these spiritual satisfactions to enjoy, is called by the mystics going out of oneself. Ceasing to do this they call returning to oneself, returning to the custom of seeing oneself amid the most holy reflections; and these are, they go on to tell us, so many acts of unfaithfulness. Because, so far from relating everything

S. Francis de Sales did not pretend to cut out all thanksgiving or attention to oneself; otherwise there would be no more need of loving colloquy with God, such as the great Saints have in the most passive prayer. There would be no more need of a director; for one speaks always to one’s director of oneself and one’s dispositions, which is a reflection on oneself. All this then comes down to not making impetuous reflections, not even methodical and deliberate ones in order to examine oneself or give thanks to God, when the attraction of prayer is real and when it occupies us in the repose of love with God.

Wo should say only that those reflections of self-love should be suppressed which are impetuous or which interrupt the divine operations in the prayer of quiet.

It is to be seen that Fenelon is here in perfect accord with Bossuet.

F continually to God, one appropriates it to oneself, by a thousand secret complacencies. But when, by letting fall with these pleasant reflections so many satisfying returns on oneself, one gradually becomes accustomed to act only for God directly with almost no thoughts of oneself; this is called holy simplicity, for it has only a single eye which is turned always to God and never to oneself.

Ill

Q. Where does this practice of interior abnegation lead?

A. To a state of perfection and death to self, says Bossuet,⁸ no reflection ever gives rise to self-love. Because all reflections now join in the direct movement which bears us to God. On this point he cites S. Paul, who reflected repeatedly on himself but only to glorify God the more; so that in all his reflections on the great things he had done for God, self-love was so little present that he might never have heard of it. But how is it possible to achieve such a degree of perfection and death to self, without long practice of this self-forgetfulness in good deeds and ordinary acts !

Q. But most of the books say that one cannot reflect too much on oneself, and now I gather one cannot too much forget oneself; how can I reconcile these doctrines ?

A. Perfectly easily, so long as one distinguishes between one’s listeners. For, as our Bishop tells us in Article XXXIV 2 it is certain that the perfect and beginners should be guided by different rules, each according to his way. Now there are two chief ways, one in which one must reflect deeply in order to avoid dispersal of one’s energies and retire seriously into oneself; the other in which one must leave oneself in order to enter into God and join oneself more perfectly to him. In the first, all good reflections, however

4 *

mingled with imperfections, are very useful and often necessary; in the second, if indispensable reflections are excepted, the others cannot be too strongly suppressed, so that one may think only of God and forget oneself.

Q. Should not the perfect, as well as the beginners, thank God for the virtuous deeds he has made them perform: if this is banished from reflection, what thanksgiving can be paid him ?

A. Apart from acts of ordinary thanksgiving made at the appropriate times, they give him continual and most perfect thanksgivings. This comes to pass because, independently of all specific reflection, knowing well through our conscience, as they say, on the one hand, the virtuous acts that grace makes us perform, and on the other that at the mere sight of this our self-love revives in order to gratify itself, we withdraw our interior gaze from it, so as to reject with these nascent reflections the cause of the vain complacency we so often feel, which usually spoils all the good we do. Now to renounce ourselves, to forget ourselves so continuously in order to leave good to Him to whom it belongs, is not this the same as if we said each time: * O God, all is thine, and therefore I know better than to make myself a subject of complacency and vanity, even less to run the risk of it by reflections which so often have robbed thee of the glory which is due to thee alone. 5 This is true and solid thanksgiving, according to our author, which means the relating of everything to God, ut totum Deo detur, as S. Augustine said, following S. Cyprian.

Q. But would not one better refer to God the good that belongs to him by ordinary thanksgiving ?

A. Alas, how often in doing this does not one glorify oneself, does not one praise oneself secretly for having done right, which amounts to thanking oneself and not God, as Bossuet tells us whereas to relate everything to God in the way we have just described it is necessary 1 Book V, § 10.

that self-love should be stripped continually of all satisfactions, of all self-complacency; this is the only gratitude that is really costing. Then too it appears to me more perfect to do this not by means of specific reflections but by the actual, simple disposition of the heart; I mean by those direct acts which are most simple, most natural, most sincere, and which spring from the deepest source, in Bossuet’s words.⁹

IV

Q. Having told me those reflections which the mystics exclude from the way of the perfect, I pray you tell me those which they exclude from all prayer.

A. To do that I have only to bring to your mind the words of S. Francis de Sales, as I find them quoted by Bossuet, 2 with the short remarks he added to them: c The reflections which this Saint excluded from all Prayer are those perpetual returns, those bendings back on ourselves, by which we desire to reflect on our thoughts, consider our considerations, see our views, discern what we discern: all of which throws the soul into a labyrinth and an entanglement which destroys the directness of our actions and all the strength of our piety. The Prayer of such souls is a disturbance in Prayer itself the gentle movements of which they abandon to see how they are behaving: if they are indeed content, if their tranquillity is truly tranquil, their quietness sufficiently quiet: they are never concerned with God, but only with their own feelings' This is indeed, continues the Bishop of Meaux, one of the most dangerous distractions of those who pray, for now it is no longer God that we look on, but ourselves, our bearing, and our own behaviour when we look on him.

Q. Did not Bossuet add anything to these short remarks ?

A. He said one other very important thing, 3 on the difference between these holy reflections which are inspired by the love of God, and the returns on oneself which are inspired by self-love: c In the first,’ he says,

‘ the soul possessed wholly by God reflects on its movements only to relate them to God; in the others it congratulates itself. It wishes to be able to say to itself, in its heart: “I pray, I am concerned with God ”; whereas under this pretext it is at bottom absorbed in itself, and seeks to glorify itself for having done good, which is thanking oneself and not God.’

Q. I begin to realize that those acts which are called reflective, because they spring from an express and manifest reflection, are very different from direct acts, which are simple and deliberate movements of the heart; and I realize that these last may be more or less perceived according to the impression they make. But I should like to know which of these sorts of acts is the most perfect.

A. Bossuet tells us 1 that we can only judge of the merit of these acts according to circumstances and effects; we must therefore leave it to God to see the merit without ourselves seeing it, and the only certain rule is to refer to God all the good that we perceive in ourselves; to which I would add that acts hardly if at all understood expose one less to the danger of self-love, for the less our self-love sees the less it has to admire itself for.

Q. What is the reason for the imperceptibility of certain acts ?

A. Inasmuch as Bossuet explained this question at great length, and also the prayer of the mystics which consists of direct acts imperfectly understood, let us reserve our discussion of the subject to another dialogue.

Book V, § 1C.

Footnotes

1. The Church attaches a plenary indulgence to the prayer En ego recited after Communion; in this formula so highly approved are the words: te oro atque obtestor ut meum in cor vividos fidei, spei, caritatis sensus atque veram peccatorum meorum poenitentiam eaque emendandi firmissimam voluntatem velis imprimere, etc. This is the mind of the Church: this is the express condemnation of that mysticism which excludes all acts of contrition in order to leave the soul in a state of empty con- templation which they call perfection. ↩

2. ONPRAYER the lessons given to souls who are in this state of prayer. exclude acts of contrition, and thus weaken the spirit of compunction, even in the most perfect souls ? where it is better to forget our own concerns in order to remember God alone, and that forgetfulness is, therefore, the sign of the purification of faults; on which subject Bossuet replies 1 first that it is a culpable excess to give this oblivion as a general rule for the purification of one’s faults; then he adds: ‘ I will agree, if you like, with Cassian, or with some other spiritual either ancient or modern, that sometimes, when the abundance of mercy has made itself felt in a soul, the great calm of the soul may be a sign that God has forgotten the sin; but to make of this sign a general rule, a perpetual state, is an untenable error.’ Xou will see how cautious and careful Bossuet always is not to confuse in his condemnation the good doctrine of the true mystics, and how he condemns only the abuses. Would that certain zealous and imperfectly informed folk to-day would act thus; which should be quite easy for them, after things have been so pro- foundly analysed and cleared up. petitions ? gives in an entire chapter of the Moyen Court, there is not a single mention of petitions, Bossuet tells us; 2 from which their exclusion follows, and in this precisely lies the fault. reflections, and wherein precisely lie the error and the abuse of the good doctrine here ? the others, in insisting on exclusion, not merely at certain times, as the true mystics say, but on a general ↩

3. Book IV, § 7. 3 Book V, § 11. ↩

4. Book IV, § 5. 1 Book IV, § 5. ↩

5. Ibid., §11. 6 Ibid., § 3. ↩

6. Desolatione desolata est terra, quia nullus est qui recogitet corde. Reflection is called the eye of the soul, and by its regard affirms our acts by the knowledge we have of them, and as if by a confirmatory judgement, makes our resolutions penetrate to the bottom of the soul. As long as judgement vacillates and the will is changeable, reflection is necessary. The will, said S. Thomas, naturally reflects on itself; it loves to love, it wishes to will. This fortifies, engraves, impresses acts on the heart, and inspires precautions. If we say that the perfect have no need of it in this life, we contradict David, who says: ‘ I will recount all my years in the bitterness of my soul ’; and again: ‘ I will search thy commandments *; and again: ‘ I have thought on my ways: and turned my feet unto thy testimonies.’ ↩

7. A letter from Fen61on to Mme. de la Maisonfort, March 1695: ‘ The only bad reflections are those which one makes, through self-love, on oneself and on the gifts of God in order to make them one’s own.... If one speaks of giving up reflection and of forgetting oneself, this must only be taken to mean the dropping of impetuous reflections springing from self-love, which are those most often seen in souls, or those which interrupt the actual vision of God in times of simple prayer.’ ↩

8. Book X, § 10. * Book V, § 10. ↩

9. Book Y, § 5. 8 Ibid., § 9. 8 Ibid., § 10. ↩