J. J. Chapman, in the Political Nursery, vol. IV p. 4, April, 1900, abridged. ↩
George Fox: Journal, Philadelphia, 1800, pp. 59–61, abridged. ↩
Christian saints have had their specialties of devotion, Saint Francis to Christ’s wounds; Saint Anthony of Padua to Christ’s childhood; Saint Bernard to his humanity; Saint Teresa to Saint Joseph, etc. The Shiite Mohammedans venerate Ali, the Prophet’s son-in-law, instead of Abu-bekr, his brother-in-law.
Vambéry describes a dervish whom he met in Persia, “had solemnly vowed, thirty years before, that he would never employ his organs of speech otherwise but in uttering, everlastingly, the name of his favorite, Ali, Ali. He thus wished to signify to the world that he was the most devoted partisan of that Ali who had been dead a thousand years. In his own home, speaking with his wife, children, and friends, no other word but ‘Ali!’ ever passed his lips. If he wanted food or drink or anything else, he expressed his wants still by repeating ‘Ali!’ Begging or buying at the bazaar, it was always ‘Ali!’ Treated ill or generously, he would still harp on his monotonous ‘Ali!’ Latterly his zeal assumed such tremendous proportions that, like a madman, he would race, the whole day, up and down the streets of the town, throwing his stick high up into the air, and shriek out, all the while, at the top of his voice, ‘Ali!’ This dervish was venerated by everybody as a saint, and received everywhere with the greatest distinction.”
Vambéry, His Life and Adventures, Written by Himself, London, 1889, p. 69
On the anniversary of the death of Hussein, Ali’s son, the Shiite Muslims still make the air resound with cries of his name and Ali’s. ↩
Compare H. C. Warren: Buddhism in Translation, Cambridge, U.S., 1898, passim. ↩
Compare J. L. Merrick: The Life and Religion of Mohammed, as Contained in the Sheeah Traditions of the Hyat-ul-Kuloob, Boston, 1850, passim. ↩
Bougaud: Hist. de la bienheureuse Marguerite Marie, Paris, 1894, p. 145. ↩
Bougaud: Hist. de la bienheureuse Marguerite Marie, Paris, 1894, pp. 365, 241. ↩
Bougaud: Hist. de la bienheureuse Marguerite Marie, Paris, 1894, p. 267. ↩
Examples:
“Suffering from a headache, she sought, for the glory of God, to relieve herself by holding certain odoriferous substances in her mouth, when the Lord appeared to her to lean over towards her lovingly, and to find comfort Himself in these odors. After having gently breathed them in, He arose, and said with a gratified air to the Saints, as if contented with what He had done: ‘See the new present which my betrothed has given Me!’
“One day, at chapel, she heard supernaturally sung the words, ‘Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus.’ The Son of God leaning towards her like a sweet lover, and giving to her soul the softest kiss, said to her at the second Sanctus: ‘In this Sanctus addressed to my person, receive with this kiss all the sanctity of my divinity and of my humanity, and let it be to thee a sufficient preparation for approaching the communion table.’ And the next following Sunday, while she was thanking God for this favor, behold the Son of God, more beauteous than thousands of angels, takes her in His arms as if He were proud of her, and presents her to God the Father, in that perfection of sanctity with which He had dowered her. And the Father took such delight in this soul thus presented by His only Son, that, as if unable longer to restrain Himself, He gave her, and the Holy Ghost gave her also, the Sanctity attributed to each by His own Sanctus—and thus she remained endowed with the plenary fullness of the blessing of Sanctity, bestowed on her by Omnipotence, by Wisdom, and by Love.”
Révélations de Sainte Gertrude, Paris, 1898, I 44, 186
Furneaux Jordan: Character in Birth and Parentage, first edition. Later editions change the nomenclature. ↩
As to this distinction, see the admirably practical account in J. M. Baldwin’s little book, The Story of the Mind, 1898. ↩
On this subject I refer to the work of M. Murisier (Les Maladies du Sentiment Religieux, Paris, 1901), who makes inner unification the mainspring of the whole religious life. But all strongly ideal interests, religious or irreligious, unify the mind and tend to subordinate everything to themselves. One would infer from M. Murisier’s pages that this formal condition was peculiarly characteristic of religion, and that one might in comparison almost neglect material content, in studying the latter. I trust that the present work will convince the reader that religion has plenty of material content which is characteristic, and which is more important by far than any general psychological form. In spite of this criticism, I find M. Murisier’s book highly instructive. ↩
Example:
“At the first beginning of the Servitor’s [Suso’s] interior
