mons concerning the life of Jesus Christ. Third, during the vision personal activity may be so mingled with the Divine action that answers in the sense desired seem to be received. In fact, during prayer
vivid imaginations may go so far as to produce revelations and visions out of whole cloth without any evil
intent. Fourth, sometimes, in his desire to explain it,
the seer afterwards unconsciously alters a genuine
revelation. Fifth, amanuenses and editors take deplorable liberties in revising, so that the text is not always authentic. Some revelations are even absolutely false because: first, in describing tlieir prayer, certain persons lie most audaciously; second, amongst
those afflicted with neuropathy there are inventors
who, in perfectly good faith, imagine to be real facts
things that have never occurred; third, the devil may
to a certain degree, counterfeit Divine visions; fourth,
amongst writers there are genuine forgers who are responsible for political prophecies, hence the profusion of absurd predictions.
Illusions in the matter of revelations often have a serious consequence, as they usually instigate to exterior acts, such as teaching a doctrine, propagating a new devotion, prophesying, launching into an enterprise that entails expense. There would be no evil to fear if these impulses came from God, but it is entirely otherwise when they do not come from God, which is much more frequently the case and is difficult of discernment. On the contrary there is naught to fear from mystical union. It impels solely towards Di- vine love and the practice of solid virtue. There would be equal security in the impossible supposition that the state of prayer was only an imitation of mystical union, for then the tendencies would be exactly the same. This supposition is called impossible because St. Teresa and St. John of the Cross keep repeating that the devil cannot imitate nor even understand mystical union. Neither can our mind and imagination reproduce the combination of the twelve characters described above.
What has been said shows us the importance of not confounding mystical union with revelations. Not only are these states of a different nature but they must also be differently estimated. Because ignorant of this distinction many persons fall into one of these two extremes: first, if they know the danger of revelations, they extend their severe judgment to mystical union and thus turn certain souls from an excellent path; second, if on the contrary, they are reasonably persuaded of the security and tranquillity of mystical union, they wrongfully extend this favourable judgment to revelations and drive certain souls into a dangerous path.
When God so wills He can impart to him who receives a revelation the full certainty that it is real and wholly Divine. Otherwise one would not have had the right to believe the Prophets of the Old Testament. Scripture ordained that they be distinguished from false prophets. For instance, the envoys of God performed miracles or uttered prophecies the realization of which was verified. In order to judge private revelations in a more or less probable way, two kinds of information must be obtained. First, one should ascertain the qualities or defects, from a natural, ascetic, or mystical point of view, of the person having revelations. When the one in question has been canonized the investigation has already been made by the Church. Second, one should be acquainted with the qualities or defects of the revelation itself and with its various circumstances, favourable or otherwise. To judge of ecstasies one should be actuated by the same principles, the two chief points to settle being: first, in what the soul is absorbed whilst thus deprived of the senses, and whether it is captivated by knowledge of a higher order and transported by an immense love; second, what degree of virtue it possessed before reaching this state and what great progress it made afterwards. If the result of the investigation be favourable the probabilities are on the side of Divine ecstasy, as neither the devil nor disease can work the imagination up to the pitch.
There are several rules of conduct in connexion with revelations but we shall give only the two mo important. The first relates to the director. If the revelation or the vision has for its .sole effect the augmenting of the love of the seer for God, Christ, or the saints, nothing prevents these facts from being provisionally considered Divine; but if, on the contrary, the seer be impelled to certain undertakings or if the wish that his prediction should be firmly beheved, the utmost distrust must be shown, but with the greater kindness. If the seer be dissatisfied with this prudent attitude and insist upon being believed, he should be told: "You must admit that you cannot be believed simply upon your word, consequently give signs that your revelations come from God and from Him alone. As a rule this request remains unanswered. Note the prudence of the Church in regard to certain feasts or devotions which she has instituted in consequence private revelations. The revelation was only the occasion of the measure taken. The Church declared that such a devotion is reasonable but she does not guarantee the revelation that suggested it. The second rule concerns the seer. In the beginning, at least, he is gently to do his utmost to repulse the revelations and to turn his thoughts away from them. He is to accept them only after a prudent director we have decided that he may place a certain amount confidence in them. This doctrine, which seen severe, is nevertheless taught forcibly by many saints such as St. Ignatius (Acta SS., 31 July, Préliminaire no. 614), St. Philip Neri (ibid., 26 May, 2nd life, no. 375), St. John of the Cross (Assent, Bk. II, ch. xi, xvi, xvii, and xxiv), St. Teresa, and St. Alphonsus Liguo (Homo Apost., Appendix I, no. 23), for the reason that there is danger of illusions. With even great reason, revelations and visions (of created object should be neither desired nor requested. On the other hand many passages in St. Teresa and other mystics prove that mystical union may be desired and asked for, provided it be done humbly and with resignation to God's will. The reason is that this union has disadvantages but presents great advantages for sanctification (see Theology, under sub-title Mystical: Quietism).
St. Teresa far excels all writers that preceded her on the subject of contemplation. In their descriptions those prior to her confined themselves to generalities. Exception must be made in favour of Bless Angela de Foligno, Ruysbroeck and the Veneralble Marina d'Escobar as regards the subject of ecstasy St. Teresa was likewise the first to give a clear, accurate, and detailed classification. Before her time hardly anything was described except ecstasies and revelations. The lower degrees required more delicate observation than had been devoted to them before today. After St. Teresa the first place for careful observation of these matters belongs to St. John the Cross. But his classifications are confused. Teresa and St. John of the Cross are also greatly superior to subsequent authors who have been satisfied to repeat them, with comments.
Denis the Carthusian. De Contemplatione; Idem, De ;W lucis et simitd vita: (Nuremberg, 1495): Blosius, Works r goldst,idt, I(i31-I72G): S.\int Teresa, Works (Salama 1588): SuAREZ, De Relatione Societatis Jesu (Brussels. 1' tr. iv; Alvarez de Paz, De inslitulione pads site studio tionis (L.vons, ltiI7, 1619, 1623: re-cditcd Paris, 1S75_ Schramm, Institutiones theolooiccE mysticw (.\ugsbvirp. IT Seraphin, Principes de th&ologic mystique (1873); Mkvn.J. Traite dc la vie intirieure (3rd ed., .\iuat, 1899); Pon.M.v.o mystique de St. Jean de la Croix in Messager du Ctfi/r dc J^ (1893); Idem. Les desiderata de la mystique in Les EludrsS RIarcli, 189S); Saudreau, Les degris dc la vie spiritiirlle 9 and Amat, lS9(i-97); Idem, La vie d' union d Dirt, l.:VA 1900); Idem, Vital mystique (Amat, 1903); Joly, I'such,.fl
