THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF THE VICTORIA INSTITUTE WAS HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM B, THE CENTRAL HALL, WESTMINSTER, ON MONDAY, MARCH 12TH, 1923, AT 3.30 p.m. ALFRED W. OKE, ESQ., B.A., LL.M., VICE-CHAIRMAN OF COUNCIL, TOOK THE CHAIR. After the notice convening the Meeting had been read, the Minutes of the previous Business Meeting were read and signed. The CHAIRMAN then called on the Auditor, Mr. E. Luff-Smith, to give some information as to the financial position of the Society, and then proposed the adoption of the Report, which, being in the hands of the Members, was taken as read. He commented on the financial position of the Society and pointed out that the prospects were rather more hopeful owing to measures taken by the Council to ensure all possible saving in the publishing of the papers. He asked Members to notice the proposals made in the Report to Members and Associates inviting their co-operation, in view of the fact that the subscriptions had not been raised, either during or since the War. He also called attention to the liberal gift of the relatives of the late Professor H. Langhorne Orchard, to endow a prize to be offered every three years, open to Members and Associates of the Society. The adoption of the Report was seconded by W. H. FRIZELL, Esq., M.A., J.P., and carried unanimously. Dr. ALFRED H. BURTON then read the list of the Members of Council retiring by rotation, and proposed that all, except Dr. E. W. G. Masterman, who did not offer himself for re-election, be re-elected on the Council: Professor T. G. Pinches, LL.D., H. Lance Gray, Esq., Dr. E. W. G. Masterman, Theodore Roberts, Esq., Lieut.-Colonel F. A. Molony, O.B.E., Lieut.-Colonel Hope Biddulph, D.S.O., and William Dale, Esq., F.S.A. Also that Mr. E. Luff-Smith should be re-elected Auditor at an Honorarium of three guineas, and also that the nomination of Lieut.-Colonel A. H. D. Riach, R.E., as Member of Council, should be confirmed. These motions were seconded by W. E. LESLIE, Esq., and carried unanimously. Pastor F. E. MARSH then proposed a vote of thanks to the Council and Honorary Officers for their efficient conduct of the Victoria Institute during the year. The name of the Secretary, Mr. A. E. Montague, was also associated with this vote, which was seconded by Mr. H. P. Rudd. A vote of thanks to Mr. A. W. Oke for presiding, and for carrying through the business so effectively and expeditiously, was proposed by Mr. H. LANCE GRAY and seconded by Mr. W. HOSTE and passed unanimously. The Meeting was then declared closed. HELD IN THE CONFERENCE HALL, CENTRAL HALL, THE REV. ERIC K. C. HAMILTON, M.A., IN THE CHAIR. After the reading and signing of the Minutes of the previous Meeting, the HONORARY SECRETARY announced that the following had been Elected since our last Meeting: Members: Colonel H. Biddulph, C.M.G., D.S.O., R.E.; Arthur S. Life Associate: Admiral T. P. Walker, D.S.O. Associates: Rev. J. H. Taylor, D.D.; Paul Hoehner, Esq.; J. T. The CHAIRMAN then introduced the Rev. Charles Gardner, B.A., to deliver his lecture on Romance and Mysticism." 66 ROMANCE AND MYSTICISM. By the Rev. CHARLES GARDNER, B.A. EFORE speaking about mysticism, one ought to say what one means by the word. Dean Inge collected twentyseven definitions. I shall use some such definition as this: The mystic is one who claims to have the immediate apprehension of absolute truth. He goes behind names and symbols. He is the opposite of the pragmatist. Whereas the pragmatist thinks truth to be relative, the mystic knows it to be absolute-it is for him the one reality. Mysticism was in the world long before Christ. We may divide the subject into pre-Christian mysticism and Christian mysticism. There are many cults to-day that claim to be new, but we need not consider them this afternoon, since they are merely a revival of pre-Christian mysticism with new faces. Pre-Christian mysticism, which flourished especially in Egypt and India, affirmed that there was one only fundamental religion, and it assumed that there was one only life. There appears We are partial manifestations of the one life. to be a wall of separation between soul and soul, between the soul and God; but the appearance is an illusion, maya, and salvation consists in overcoming the illusion and realizing essential union with God. The Oriental conception of union is different from the Christian, which we shall come to presently; it may be likened to the absorption of a drop into the ocean, or a flame leaping to its parent flame. The Hindoo mystic often has a passionate love of Nature. He knows how bewitching she is, yet refuses to be bewitched, because he sees in her, not an end, but a means by which he may climb to God. Few do, Wordsworth and some other nature mystics have said that man may pass from love of nature to love of man. I think, pass to man. They more often, like Wordsworth, stop at nature and succumb to her witchery. The Hindoo mystic makes no ultimate distinction between man, nature and God. When he looks forth on a flying cloud or the deep sea; when he hears the rustle of the leaves or the cry of an animal in pain, he longs to realize his oneness with the tumultuous life around; and when by means of his religious exercises he effects ecstasy, he is able for some rapturous moments to lose all sense of distinction, and to fly with the cloud, sigh with the leaves, wail with the dumb beast in labour, and exult with the advancing wave. The mystic believes that there are seven planes. There are the physical, astral, mental, to which most men have access. Beyond are the higher mental and nirvanic to which the mystic climbs after stern discipline. Still beyond are the paranirvanic and the mahaparanirvanic, which transcend conception and are unattainable, at any rate, in this world. These are the cosmic planes. To become aware of them is to awaken the cosmic consciousness. None can attain in one lifetime. Therefore the soul returns again and again until it attains union, then it need go out no more, unless, impelled by self-sacrifice, it chooses to become incarnate for the sake of helping struggling mortals. Such a soul has attained after hard disciplines, fastings, contemplation, and many lives. It has realized its essential holiness. How shall we regard the Oriental Saint? Certainly he is a poet and an artist. He is infinitely patient, long-suffering, gentle, non-resisting. He is serene, detached, inhuman. He is apt to be introspective, indifferent, immobile. He has, in truth, lost all sense of distinctions. He has nibbled away the sharp edges, he has lost the feeling of separateness between himself and God. He is all-knowing, all-present: he is God. Religion, romance, adventure have left him for ever. He is It, and therefore he cannot bind himself, and give himself, or worship, when there is no object outside of his own consciousness. Let us now turn to Christian mysticism. It is not easy to find a perfectly pure type. The Christian mystics have often drunk deeply from an alien source. Madame Guyon was introspective, exotic, impassive. Jacob Boehme had eyes within and without, but he was too much in the tradition of Fludd and Paracelsus. Our own William Law was deepened by his study of Boehme, but his writing was better than his thought. The Quaker mystics had the scent of the lily, but they were one-sided. The German mystics-Tauler, Suso, Tersteegen were pure and devout, but not robust, and they were too much pre-occupied about death to self. Thomas à Kempis and Saint Theresa were mystics of the highest monastic kind. Still higher and more universally significant were St. Catherine of Siena and St. Francis of Assisi. These last were not theologians. They felt and believed aright, and the beauty of holiness was revealed in their lives. It was St. Thomas Aquinas who not only felt, but also enunciated, the specific Christian theology of a pre-Christian temper of mind. The great doctrine behind all mysticism is the immanence of God, and this is also the implicit assumption of our modern. cults. Christianity found it already in the world; but inheriting the Hebrew doctrine of the transcendence of God, it completed through the Son of God that which was partly revealed by the prophets concerning the transcendent God, and by so doing gave a new start and a new life to those who believed in Christ. The doctrine of transcendence insists without compromise on distinctions in the Godhead, and draws a sharp line between the Creator and the creature. It gives the promise of union with God through Christ, the one Mediator. Union is not absorption, but a conscious union based on an eternal difference. The nearest human revelation of divine union is that between husband and wife. They severally desire union but only while they may remain conscious of separation. They belong to the |