tamius and inveighs against him severely. The following passage is quoted by Pocoke. "The matter went so far that certain persons boasted of a union with the Deity, and that in His unveiled presence they beheld Him, and enjoyed familiar converse with Him, saying, 'thus was it spoken unto us, and thus we speak.' Bustamius himself is reported to have exclaimed, 'Laus mihi! Laus mihi!' that is, 'Let divine honors be paid me!' This style of discourse exerted a very pernicious influence upon the common people. Some of the husbandmen, indeed, letting their farms run to waste, set up similar pretensions for themselves; for human nature is pleased with maxims like these, which permit one to neglect useful labor in the conceit of acquiring spiritual purity through the attainment of certain mysterious degrees and qualities. This notion was productive of great injury, so that the death of one of these foolish babblers was a greater benefit to the cause of true religion than the saving alive of ten of them." Such are the words of Ghasalius. The divinity of man is more explicitly asserted by Bustamius than by any other of the Soofee teachers. Many of his sayings and precepts are imbued with so senseless a fanaticism, that weak minded persons would be led by them into a contempt for law as great as that of Carpocrates1 or the Beghards.2

The Teskirat ol Aulia among other sayings of this mystic, has the following. Said Bustamius, "I am the sea that is bottomless and shoreless; (sine fundo, sine initio, sine terminis)."

When asked, “What is the throne?” "I am the throne of God," was his reply. "What is the tablet?" (i. e. on which the commandments were written.) "I am the tablet." "What is the pen of God?" (ó lóyos, the "Word" by whom God made the world.) "I am the pen." "What! Abraham, Moses, Jesus?" "I am Abraham, Moses, Jesus." "The Angel Gabriel, Michael, Israfil ?" "I," said he, "am Gabriel, Michael, Israfil, because whatsoever has attained unto the true essence is absorbed into God and therefore is God."

There is nothing new under the sun, says Solomon; and however insane this pantheism of Bustamius may seem to be, the same errors good, noble and sublime which his great soul had compassed, he bestowed upon Mohammedanism, and he adorned the doctrines of the Koran with so much piety and learning, that in the form given them by him, they seem in my opinion worthy the assent of Christians. Whatsoever was most excellent in the philosophy of Aristotle, or in the Soofic mysticism he discreetly adapted to the Mohammedan theology; from every school he sought the means of shedding light and honor upon religion; while his sincere piety, and lofty conscientiousness imparted to all his writings a sacred majesty. He was the first of Mohammedan divines.

See Murdock's Mosheim, 2d Cent. P. 12. ch. 15. § 14.

2 See Mosheim, 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries.

1849.]

The Party of Bustamius.

235

have existed among Christians. What S. Epiphanius hands down concerning the Messalians agrees with this word for word; e. g. “The sayings of these Messalians are surpassingly absurd. For, ask any one of them, and he will assert that he is anything that you please to name. If you mention some prophet, they are that prophet; or Christ, the reply is, 'I am Christ,' or one of the patriarchs, or an angel; they hesitate not to declare themselves to be whatsoever you name."

Again, Bustamius says, "While men imagine that they are worshipping God, it is God himself who adores Himself."

At another time he exclaimed, "How long, my God, art thou pleased that I remain intermediate between the individual and the absolute (inter egoitatem et Tuitatem). Cause this distinction to cease, that I in mine own individuality may cease (remove egoitatem)."

Again, "If on the last day they shall inquire of me, Wherefore hast thou done nothing? I shall be better satisfied than if the question had been, What hast thou done? For whatsoever I do belongs to my own individuality. But all individuality (egoitas) is idolatry, and idolatry is surely the worst of sins."

There is even current in the East an incredible report of Bustamius having ascended up to heaven. But although this is treated of in the works of the more pious Mohammedans as a sure and indubitable reality, Tholuck inclines to the opinion that we ought to understand Bustamius as using the term in the metaphorical sense of the Mystics who adopted it to designate the last and highest stage of the progress toward union. It is nevertheless true, that he has described this event in the most graphic and exalted language. His account is still extant in the Tesk. ol Aulia, and may be found in the Bombay Trans. Lond. 1819. p. 100.

Dschuneid, the leader of the other party, claimed by them to be the light of Soofism, although manifestly led into the same errors, was nevertheless, more cautions than Bustamius, and never affected so abstruse or so paradoxical a style of discourse. A few of his sayings are here quoted from the Tesk. ol Aulia.

They inquired of Dschuneid, "When a servant of God can be said to be truly his servant?" He replied, "If he is satisfied that from God all things have their source, that they remain in Him, and will at last return to Him." That is to say (if we understand him rightly), He is a true servant of God to whom God appears the beginning and the end of all things, literally and really, the "all in all."

Once when inquired of concerning " Tauhid" (Union), he replied, "When with an absolute assurance thou knowest that activity and rest are created of God, without any operance of man, then hast thou

observed the laws of Tauhid;'" i. e. when thou hast lost all notion of individual activity, and of personal existence, in the recognition of the Eternal and the Absolute.

The end and aim of Soofism was thus described by him. "To free the mind from the too frequent assaults of perturbations, to take away the habit that is of nature, to extirpate human nature, to repress sensual instinct, to assume spiritual qualities, to be borne to the heights of true knowledge, and to do whatsoever is good-behold the end of Soofism."

To these sentiments of Dschuneid, it may not be inappropriate to subjoin the sayings of some of his illustrious contemporaries.

Abul Hussein Nuri says, " Soofism is neither a rule (praescriptio) nor a doctrine, but a something inborn. For were it a rule, the good of it might be secured by diligent observance; if a doctrine, by study. But it is a something innate; according to the words of the Koran, we are created with a Divine nature (cum indole Dei). Evidently no one is able by any diligent observance or study to possess himself of a Divine nature."

Hussein Nuri was accustomed to say, "If God veil himself from thee, no guide and no direction can lead thee to Him." In these words, according to the opinion of Tholuck, the fact that God does reveal himself to man, is adduced to prove that God is our true essence. If God be not our true essence, we cannot know Him,' would then be the proper interpretation of the above remark.

Abu Rugaim, a Soofee of great renown, who died 303 H., is reported by Casivinius to have spoken as follows respecting the "Union." "Tauhid is the extirpation of human nature and the unfolding of Divine types" (indicia).

Helladschius ben Manssurus was another famous mystic who was noted for his sayings. Fancying that he had not gone far enough in assigning to man a Divine nature, he even presumed to declare himself openly to be The Most High God, and stripped the veil from his pantheism in the presence of the multitude, with strange audacity, even amid the flames of his funeral pyre, crying out in a loud voice, "Numeri Unius (Dei) sunt membra Unius."

The disciples of Manssur were accustomed to write to their master in language like the following.

66

"O of all essences the essence, summit of all delights! We testify that thou assumest diverse forms, but now thou hast taken the form of Manssur; grant us thine aid! we seek assistance from thee!" etc.

The inquiry naturally arises, now, whether these pantheistic notions were of foreign origin, and were engrafted upon the simpler

1849.]

Their Origin in Mohammedanism.

237

mysticism of Ssaid, or whether they are developments from a basis of Mohammedan doctrine. Tholuck inclines decidedly to the latter opinion, and considers that all the peculiar dogmas of the Soofees, their views respecting the enunciation of the world, or the annihilation of the distinction between "good and bad" and the rejection of all human laws, that these all depend, as it were, from that one doctrine of the "mystic union." It is not claimed that explicit and convincing testimony can be adduced that this dogma was held in specific form during the first two centuries after the Hegira. But whether known, by name, to Rabia and the mystics of her age or not, it was really familiar to them, and well understood. Nay, Mohammed himself may be claimed as the originator of it. Who has not heard of that saying of his, so often celebrated by his followers: "Momenta habeo ubi nec cherubinus me capit nec propheta" (I have moments when neither prophet nor angel can comprehend me). But this state which Mohammed speaks of is placed on a level with the "mystic union" of the Soofees. There is a little Turkish book which treats of this sub

ject, where the " Conjunctio Mystica" is defined to be "a union with God free from every impediment." On another page, it is explained as "the extinction of one's individual existence in the being of God, as snow is lost in the ocean, and an atom in the sun."

In prosecuting our inquiries concerning the mysticism of the Soofees, the next question which presents itself is, Whether, after the manner of the Hindus, and others, they believed that the Divine union could be promoted by external rites and observances. The essence of those ceremonies of the Indian mystics (called by them maschgul—occupatio) consisted in shutting up, so far as possible, all avenues of sense, through which the external world can affect the mind; that, freed from every perturbation of thought, it may attain a state of profound tranquillity: this brings with it divine knowledge; nay, even the very light of Deity.

The discipline of Fo is similar to this. In the Su-che-ulh-hang-king, which is the most important of the sacred books of that religion, may be found the following passage: "He must abandon father and mother, his wealth, his possessions, and all conveniences of life, stifle all his passions, even to the least desire, to the end that he may attain a state of complete self-annihilation. He must be, in this state, immovable as mount Siumi."

That those enjoying the light of Christianity and professing its faith are not wholly secure from the invasions of this wondrously absurd superstition, our next extract affords but too convincing proof.

The following recipe for contemplation, used with signal success in

the eleventh century by the monks of Mount Athos, may be found in Waddington's Church History, Vol. III. p. 214: "Being alone in thy cell, close the door and seat thyself in the corner. Raise thy spirit above all vain and transient things; repose thy beard on thy breast, and turn thy eyes, with thy whole power of meditation, upon thy navel. Retain thy breath, and search in thine entrails for the place of thy heart, wherein all the powers of the soul reside. At first, thou wilt encounter thick darkness, but by persevering night and day, thou wilt find a marvellous and uninterrupted joy; for as soon as thy spirit shall have discovered the place of thine heart, it will perceive itself luminous and full of discernment."

The Soofees, though much inclined to solitary contemplation, appear never to have fallen into any such gross absurdities. So far were they, indeed, from conceding any mysterious virtue to these observances, that Dschelaleddin, a Soofee of great authority, eloquently rebukes the practice of them. Sir John Malcolm bears testimony to the same fact. "The Persian Soofees," says he, "though they have borrowed much of their belief and many of their usages from India, have not adopted, as a means of attaining beatitude, those dreadful austerities which are common among the visionary devotees of India." They appear not even to have subjected themselves to the ordinary rules of monastic life. These, although by no means held in contempt, and though strongly recommended by some of their teachers, were yet practised by very few. Those who were able to attain the loftiest heights of contemplation, considered that if the mind were only free to divine meditation, all outward action were of small consequence. This disregard of the external and formal, sometimes amounted to a contempt for all rules of conduct, like that of the Beghards and Messalians. The following sentiment occurs even in the Metsnewi of Dschelaleddin :-"When, on a certain time, a monk was accused to his superior of garrulity, sluggardliness and gluttony, and was admonished by him of the trite proverb, Medium tenuere beati,' he is said to have replied as follows: Although to hold a middle course is wise and good, yet even this is to be done with reason. I am lord of meditation, not subject to it.' Therefore," adds Dschelaleddin, "he to whom a cake becomes divine light, eats whatsoever pleases him. It is permitted." If charges, then, of dissolute life are brought against the Soofees, it is not possible altogether to deny their correctness.

But although these Oriental mystics rejected the strict observances and absurd austerities of some of their European brethren, we still find certain "rules" for such as wished to enjoy the divine "approach." The first injunction laid down for their observance, returns to the