Book I. Dialogue VIII: The same subject continued: this kind of prayer does not exclude the acts commanded for the Christian life

I

Q. What happens in this prayer, according to Bossuet ?

A. He repeats¹ that it is only reasoning and discursive considerations which are suspended in the passive prayer of quiet, and continues thus: ‘ God does not rest here; once he has drawn the soul from its accustomed habit he uses it as he wishes; often he merely wishes that it should regard him in wonder and silence; it knows not where it is, but only that it is well, and a peace that nothing can disturb makes it feel that it is not far from God; at other times it will perform the ordinary Christian acts, but at this moment it neither wishes nor is able to do anything but feel itself plunged in God.'

Q. Do not the mystics explain at greater length these divine operations ?

A. Those who have done so have done it no better, for these are all operations of pure sentiment, and can no more be explained than can the taste of certain fruits to those who have never tasted them. That is why Bossuet speaks so shortly here.

Q. I should like nevertheless to hear some of the mystics explain in greater detail, as far as is possible, what Bossuet has just said.

A. This is how Hugh of S. Victor does it in his Treatise on the Foretastes of the Soul Joined to God; he is speaking in the person of this soul, or if you will, causing it to speak, thus: ‘ Who is it that touches me and contents me with such vehemence and such gentleness that I am drawn in some way out of myself and know not whither I am taken: my conscience is happy, I lose the remembrance of my troubles, my heart kindles, my desires are satisfied, and I find myself in a place where I am not wont to be: though I know not where: I embrace I know not what, within myself, as with arms of love; I work all the time with the whole strength of my heart to cleave to it and never lose it. My soul fights and struggles so as not to be deprived of that which it wishes to embrace incessantly: is it possible that this is my Beloved ? Oh ! I pray him to tell me who he is, and to speak to me clearly so that I may conjure him not to withdraw but to make here his permanent home.—Truly, my soul, this is thy Beloved who comes to thee, hidden, invisible, to charm thee, to ravish thee, carry thee out of thyself.’

Q. Though I cannot understand very well all this mystical language, yet there is here something which has penetrated to the depths of my heart. But to return to Bossuet; had he more to say ?

A. All I can say of this Prayer, he adds later, 1 is that in it God holds the School of the Heart, where he makes us listen in great tranquillity and silence; we will say in due course what the Holy Ghost teaches to men of God in whom he inspires this practice. It would seem, from the principles we set earlier, that this prayer in its great simplicity is perceived less in itself than in its effects, the principal one of which is to keep the soul supple and pliant in the hand of God, for it has experienced by its impotence the truth of these words: ‘ Without me you can do nothing.’

Q. Bossuet speaks so briefly and obscurely that I need several explanations; for in the first place, what does he mean by this School of the heart where God is heard in great tranquillity and silence ?

A. Does not S. Teresa, that great mistress of mystical theology—whom the Church, as we said before, puts ‘Book VII, § 16.

almost in the ranks of doctors when celebrating the sublimity of her heavenly soul-nourishing doctrine, explain herself with the same obscurity when she says that in it one hears without hearing, and sees without seeing; nothing is more true or better explained according to the language proper to this divine theology; for while it is certain that in this hidden School and in this profound silence one hears nothing and sees nothing in the ordinary way, it is no less true on the other hand that when it is over it is as if one had heard and seen; for the reason that God has clothed us in the effects of his word, as the mystics say; that is, that he has infused into the heart all the lights and the sentiments which pleased him, as when a printing-engraver, in a single instant and by a single motion, engraves whatever he likes on a sheet suitable to receive the impressions. Thus the Saint goes on to say that in the obscurity and profound silence of this School we * comprehend in a moment more than we could comprehend in many years with all the efforts in the world.’² This is what appeared so marvellously in the Apostles at the descent of the Holy Ghost. It is this that has been renewed a thousand times in Christendom, whose ministers still see certain secret examples in the proportion and measure it pleases God to keep, and according to the dispositions of souls to receive more or less of the divine light and sentiments.

Q. What does Bossuet mean, in the second place, when he promises that he will say in due course what the Holy Ghost teaches those men of God whom he places in this habitual state ?

A. He means that in order to understand what happens in this kind of prayer it is necessary to have learnt the mysteries in the School of the Holy Ghost; that is why, having been obliged earlier to go into some detail, he concludes with these words so worthy of the modesty of a truly learned man: 2 This is all

I can hesitatingly say about the perfect exercise of contemplation. How far removed from such sentiments do the so-called learned men of to-day appear, for they are convinced that they must know everything in this matter when they have never learnt anything either in theory or practice, and do not even know the correct terms of the science; do they understand what they have neither read nor thought of? They have made up their minds that the whole thing is an innovation, an error, an illusion or a chimera. In order that they may recover from a presumption as harmful to themselves as to their fellow men, let them listen respectfully to this profound theologian when he says,³ speaking in favour of those who are truly learned but inexperienced: Learned men well versed in the science of prayer will know when not to judge, and will judge when it is necessary, provided that they are humble and that their hearts are right with God. Let them consider carefully this humility and this uprightness of heart with God, and let them understand the necessity of a prudent suspension of judgement in cases where one does not feel well enough instructed in the rules and principles; let them remember too what happened to the fifteen doctors assembled at Avila, who, through neglect of this wise maxim, rashly deceived themselves as to the state of prayer of S. Teresa of Jesus.

Q. And what, lastly, does Bossuet mean by saying that according to the principles laid down it would seem that this kind of prayer in its great simplicity is perceived less in itself than in its effects ?

A. It is because after having said elsewhere that direct acts being only simple deliberate movements of the mind and the heart, and therefore scarcely sensible or perceived, and having just said that there are seldom other acts than these in passive prayer, it follows that this prayer is hardly perceived in itself; yet it is not entirely unknown to those who practise it, because they generally feel that they have been praying with sweet recollection, which means that they are not entirely ignorant of their prayer; as he already told us⁴ in talking of prayer, which unconscious of itself is well known in its effects.

II

Q. What according to him is the chief of its effects ?

A. The holding of the soul supple and pliant under the hand of God. How profound are these two words ! What do they not tell those who can understand ! for they mean that in this prayer one acquires the pliancy and docility of a child to respond to the least sign of the will of God, at the lightest feeling of his interior inspirations, either for the putting to flight of evil or the performance of good deeds. How far will not this docility go in the path of virtue !

His next words seem to me no less profound; how has this soul, which was formerly rebellious and recalcitrant, soon become so supple, so pliant, that God can do with it what he wishes, can turn it in any direction and handle it as he wills ? Because, he replies, it has experienced through its impotence the truth of these words:

‘ Without me you can do nothing.’ He does not say it knows this truth; faith and reason could tell us that without giving us any more humility of heart, perfect mistrust of ourselves or that total confidence in God which is one of the great causes of perfection; instead of this one enters without difficulty into all these various sentiments to the extent that by frequent and intimate experiences one feels on the one hand so violent a leaning to evil, and such impotence to do good, that without the special aid of God one would completely succumb; and on the other hand, with this special aid, one feels in every circumstance an interior force and vigour which make weakness itself capable of doing and suffering all for God.

III

Q. But in banishing reason and reflections, does not this prayer of quiet and habitual silence involve the suspension of commanded acts and particularly of express petitions ?

A. Certainly not, according to Bossuet he quotes Fr. Baltazar Alvarez, who replied to a like objection:

• There are other times for requests, and this one is not appropriate 5; he supported this with the following excellent rule, that every exercise has its own time, as in prayer one does not request and give thanks all the time; from which he concludes that ‘ it is not tempting God to cease from discoursing on particular things which concern the perfection of God and our own reformation; this may be left till another time. 5

Q. What does the Bishop of Meaux conclude from this ?

A. Listen once more; again he is correcting the capital error which contains the whole of Quietism.

This, he says, 2 is indeed far from the doctrine of the new mystics and of the perpetual suspension of acts, which they practise against the precepts of the Gospel by the irrevocable continuity of their single and universal act.

Q. But if a person who was habitually in this state of prayer found himself always impotent to perform those commanded acts, through a continual and absorbing attraction which drew him always to a simple gaze at God, how could he perform them ?

A. Bossuet says, 3 with S. John of the Gross, that while there are souls who are often moved by God in their actions, there is hardly a single one who is moved in all things and at all times; it can therefore apply itself to the commanded acts in its free moments.

Q. But suppose that at these moments, either from habit or by trial, the soul could not make any manifest * Book VII, § 10. a Ibid. 'Ibid., § 24.

8 o reflection, and could only produce simple deliberate movements of the heart towards the object of the commanded acts, which would be only perceived without express reflection ?

A. Tou now seem to me to have fallen a little into the error of many people who think they are not making formal acts of hope, contrition, thanksgiving and petition, etc., if they do not assure themselves of this by marked refections and by pronouncing in an interior way the words of the ordinary formulae, but it must not be understood in this way; know then that every deliberate movement which has for object the simple view either of promised recompense, or of sins committed, or of graces received or desired, exists independently of all refections, of all interior and explanatory words; these acts are, I say, equivalent to formal acts of hope, of contrition, of thanksgiving and petition;—and inasmuch as they are not expressly refected upon, they are (says Bossuet⁵ ) so much the more simple, natural and sincere and come more from the depth of the soul where God distinctly sees them and favourably hears them, according to this prayer of the Church: ‘ God unto whom every heart is open and every will speaketh; Deus cui omne cor patet et omnis voluntas loquitur f d* This is most consoling for persons scrupulous in the performance of the commanded formal acts; but is this really the teaching of Bossuet ?

A. It is from him that I learned it; but he goes further, for he declares that even in passive prayer it is often possible to perform the commanded acts; this is how he explains it with reference to petitions, but it may apply equally well to any other commanded act. Having as usual cited Fr. Baltazar Alvarez with praise, he continues thus: 2 This holy religious says that God, seeing the heart of his servant prone to desire something yet not asking for it, gives it to him easily himself, without awaiting a more specific request and seeing that all is done in the desire itself, because wishes are before God what the voice is among men. From which it follows, Bossuet concludes, that

8l e one makes petitions in this prayer inasmuch as one leads the desires up to the point of petition, which is no less than making petitions not, indeed, by signified acts, that is by explanatory words, but by practised acts, that is by desires which at bottom are requests to God, to whom all desires are known. 5 Thus he reasons, on the basis of the words and views of Fr. Baltazar Alvarez. This is even more consoling and instructive for those souls who enjoy perfect recollection and are sometimes a little too scrupulous about the necessity of explicit acts.

IV

Q. Now that I am well enough informed as to the truth of passive prayer and the abuses which have been and might be made of it, I beg you to tell me the precise difference between true and false mystics, so that if necessary I can easily remember the whole truth and falsehood of the doctrines of each respective side in the matter of passive prayer.

A. Two fairly simple propositions contain all you need i⁶ (i) according to the first, ordinary passive prayer implies the suppression of only the discursive acts or some others at the time of prayer alone; to the others it implies the suppression of all acts in general and at all times; (ii) according to the first, there is a fixed and even perpetual state of prayer, but only in inclination, which is not always resolved into acts; according to the others this fixed state of prayer is perpetual, by an uninterrupted and purely passive exercise, so that, reduced to this perpetually passive condition, the soul has no need to stimulate itself to acts of piety and does not in fact do so.

Q. I did not know it was so easy to avoid Quietism in this matter, but I realize that it would be impossible to fall into it without grave malice and, I might say, a sort of madness. Nevertheless your two latest propositions have awakened in my mind two difficulties;

• Book VIII, § 15.

82 ONPRAYER the first is: How can the Quietists be accused of admitting a prayer which suppresses in general all acts at all times, since that is not even possible ?

A. I know as well as you, and the Bishop of Meaux knows even better, that: (i) a soul can never be without thoughts or feelings, which are its acts and its ways of being, in the same way as a body cannot be without shape, which is its way of being; the Bishop of Meaux merely means that the Quietists suppressed in their prayer all acts they perceived; which is to wish to have none; (ii) in admitting only one single and perpetual act in prayer and at all times, they banished for ever the other necessary and commanded acts; now it is in this general and perpetual suppression that the error of Quietism formally lies; (iii) to what a danger did they not expose themselves !

Q_. What is this danger ?

A. Fr. Baltazar Alvarez, who is quoted here by Bossuet, will enable you to understand it, and at the same time the difference between the good and evil suspension of acts during passive prayer. 1 We must not think, this Father says, as several ignorant people do, that this silence of the soul, this attentive stillness in the silence, cause to cease at all points acts of the powers, for this is impossible except in sleep; and it would be culpable and regrettable also, for it would mean more than being idle and wasting time, for it might put souls in danger of imaginatively entertaining some chimera, or evil thoughts cast into the mind by the devil. These views are all far removed, Bossuet concludes, from those of the new mystics with their continuous and perpetual act which nothing can interrupt and which therefore suppresses all other acts; an act of which there is no sign among the approved spiritual writers.

Q_. My second difficulty concerns the last part of the second proposition, where we are told that souls who are in this state of prayer even habitually must often stimulate themselves; how can they do this, when they have acquired the contrary habit, which involves suspension of reasoning and discursive considerations which might excite piety ?⁷

A. Apart from the fact that there are times and circumstances when one can and must resume these reasonings, these discursive acts, for these persons there is a special way of kindling their devotion, for the mere consideration of a truth of the faith, the mere remembering of a word of the Scriptures, a single good thought, is usually sufficient to draw them to prayer.

Besides, as Bossuet says,⁸ with S. John of the Gross, in order to return to prayer these people have only two things to do: to detach themselves without doing violence to the soul, except to elevate it and shelter it from everything. That is to say, without costing the soul a single effort, except that of banishing sensible matters from the heart and the mind with the sole intention of raising all the thoughts and feelings to God; which is the exercise of entire self-abandonment to God, of a perfect love for God.

V

Q. But if in order to reach thus to God it is necessary to retreat from everything, to banish from the mind all particular and sensible ideas, those of Jesus Christ must then be banished.

A. No, God forbid; it was for this that the true mystics, as well as S. Teresa, made an exception to the general rule: S. John of the Gross, who is quoted here, 2 gives the reason: 3 ‘ The contemplation of the

Sacred Humanity and loving meditation upon It, will help us up to all good, and it is by It we shall ascend most easily to the highest state of union. It is evident at once that, while all visible and bodily things ought to be forgotten, for they are a hindrance in our way, he, who for our salvation became man, is not to be accounted among them, for he is the truth, the door, and the way, and our guide unto all good. 5

Q. Was there no other mystic who, speaking of the same subject, taught us by this means some easy way of prayer, even for beginners ?

A. I have found what you ask for in the well-known ‘ Villageois 5 who, without any other study or science than Christ crucified, as he himself admits at the beginning of his book, has yet well and fully treated of mystical theology, by the express order of his directors. These are his words: 6 Regarding the matter in question, I have had no other instruction on prayer than that of a good priest; who told me in my youth: my son, when you wish to pray, you have only to picture to yourself Jesus Christ, God and man together, in whichever of his mysteries pleases and attracts you most; during this simple representation, you will do and say in spirit, with great simplicity, all that you would actually have done and said if you had seen with your eyes the Sacred Humanity in the same state as that in which you represent him. 5 He continues: c I know people to whom I have never given other instruction, and that I know to have attained to a higher state of prayer than myself. 5 This shows what blessings attach to the frequent remembrance of the holy humanity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who has paid all for us, merited all, bought all with his blood, in whose name we may desire all things, hope all things, ask and obtain all things. 51

1 The following note from S. John of the Cross may make more easily understood the action of God on the soul in prayer. This note will serve as introduction to the following dialogues. This great saint writes a whole chapter on the union of the soul with God. We will extract the following passages:

1... And so when I speak of the union of the soul with God, I do not mean that substantial presence which is in every creature, but that union and transformation of the soul in God by love which is only accomplished through likeness begotten by love. For this reason should this union be called the union of likeness, as the other is essential or substantial union; this latter one is natural, the other is supernatural, which takes effect when two wills, the will of God and the will of the soul, are conformed together, neither desiring aught repugnant to the other. Thus the soul, when it shall have driven away from itself all that is contrary to the divine will, becomes transformed in God by love... the soul must, therefore, be detached from all created things, from all actions and powers of its own, that is from its own understanding, liking, and feeling, so that passing by everything which is unlike to, and not in conformity with God, it may attain to the receiving of his likeness, and resting upon nothing which is not his will, it may thus be transformed in him... the soul has need, therefore, to be detached from those natural contrarieties and dissimilarities, that God, who communicates himself to it naturally, in the order of nature, may also give himself supernaturally, in the order of grace. This is the meaning of S. John when he said, “ born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”⁹ It is as if he had said, “ He gave power to be made the sons of God,” that is, to be transformed in God, only to those who are “ born, not of blood,” not of natural temperaments and constitutions, “ nor of the will of the flesh,” nor of our natural free will and capacities, and still less of the will of man, which includes every form of intellectual judgement and comprehension. To none of these gave he power to be made sons of God in all perfection, but only to those who are born of God; to those regenerated by grace, first of all dead to all that is of the old man, rising above themselves to that which is supernatural, and receiving from God their new birth and sonship, surpassing every thought of man.... To be born again of the Holy Ghost, in this life perfectly, is to be a soul most like unto God in impurity without any stain of imperfection. Thus the pure transformation by participation of union may bo effected, though not essentially.

In order that we may have a clearer notion of the one and the other, let us consider the following illustration: the sun, with its rays, strikes a window; but if that window be stained and unclean, the sun cannot shine through nor transform it perfectly into itself, as it would have done, had it been clean and unsullied. This depends not on the sun but on the window, so that if the latter were perfectly clean, the rays of the sun would so shine through it, and so transform it as to make it seem identical with the rays and to give forth the light thereof, though in truth the window, while it appears one with the rays of the sun, preserves still its own separate and distinct substance. In this case we might say that the window is a ray, or light, by participation.

Thus the soul resembles the window;... the soul then by resigning itself, in removing from itself every spot and stain of the creature, which is to keep the will perfectly united to the will of God... seems to be God rather than itself, and indeed is God by participation, though in reality preserving its own natural substance as distinct from God as it did before.... Hence it becomes more evident that the fitting disposition for this union is, not that the soul should understand, taste, feel or imagine anything on the subject of the nature of God, or any other thing whatever, but only that pureness and love which is perfect resignation, and complete detachment from all things for God alone.’

The Ascent of Mount Carmel, Book II, Ch. 5. I have substituted the English version of Fr. Benedict Zimmerman’s corrected edition (Baker, 1922) for the French version quoted by P. Ludovic de Besse.—[ Translator ].

Footnotes

1. Book VII, § 11. ↩

2. Life, Ch. XII. * Book V, § 22. ↩

3. Preface, § 6. ↩

4. Book V, § 12. ↩

5. Book V, § 5. a Book yil, § 18> ↩

6. Book VII, § 21. ↩

7. It should, however, be noted that the passage here quoted from S. John of the Cross is an interpolation according to the Editor of the critical edition of his Works. It does not occur in any of the five MSS. that have come down to us, and all similar additions in other places in the Saint’s writings are, in his opinion, equally spurious. They were inserted by Teresians who hoped in this way to mitigate the divergence of S. John’s teach- ing from that of S. Teresa.— [Translator's Note]. ↩

8. Book VII, § 12. 2 Ibid., § 20. ↩

9. S. John i, 13. ↩