Page:Mind (Old Series) Volume 12.djvu/468

 M. CAEKI&RE, DIE REFORMATIONSZEIT. 455 the alternative Zer's, en-' dt/d^Kij (fivtreo? ctre vov<i (Bporwv, and therefore was not first revealed to consciousness by Christianity, as Prof. Carriere almost seerns to hold. According as it takes one or the other side of this alternative, pantheistic philosophy may assume the form either of what Prof. Carriere calls " natural- istic pantheism" or of what may be called spiritualistic or intellectualistic pantheism ; or it may seek to unite the two opposites in a single conception. Now this opposition of nature and mind is that on which Prof. Carriere principally dwells. When he speaks of "ordinary pantheism," it is naturalistic pantheism that he means ; and in most cases when he speaks of the union of pantheism and theism he means the union of the ideas of nature and mind. As he does not clearly distinguish this opposition from that of immanence and transcendence, but rather seems to regard them as the same, identifying the idea of a transcendent and personal God with the idea of God as intellect or spirit, it is necessary to consider separately how far there is an effort at reconciliation of either pair of opposites on the part of Bruno and of the Christian mystics. Now there is no doubt that Christian Mysticism really affirms a Deity who is at once immanent and transcendent, or in the universe and above the universe. The mystics identify the transcendent and personal God of theology with an internal divine principle manifested in nature and in the human mind. Thus they may be said to combine, if they do not reconcile, the theistic with the pantheistic position. The pantheistic element of their doctrine, however, tends to gain the mastery ; hence accusations of heterodoxy against the mystics. Prof. Carriere himself sometimes seems to reject altogether the idea of an extra-mundane Deity, and in one place he ascribes this rejection to Bohme (i. 373-5) ; yet in other places (e.g., ii. 305-6) he affirms it as the necessary complement of the pantheistic element of his doctrine. The consistent pantheism of Spinoza rejects the idea of a transcendent God altogether, but at the same time seeks to unite the conceptions of nature and mind by making thought and extension attributes of the one substance. Is Bruno to be classed with Spinoza, or, as Prof. Carriere contends, with the Christian mystics ? According to Prof. Carriere there is evidence of development in Bruno's writings. In the De Umbris Idearum he is a Platonic Idealist ; afterwards, in the Italian works composed in England, he gives clear expression to naturalistic Pantheism ; finally, in the Frankfort books, and especially in the DP Immenso, the theistic element becomes distinct. If then in the De Immense Bruno not merely leaves aside but positively rejects the doctrine of tran- scendence, this is conclusive against Prof. Carriere's contention for the theistic character of his doctrine. That there are passages in the De Immenso obviously directed against the New Testament miracles and the doctrine of the