First, the soul (as well as the body) can see and perceive—­[Greek:  esti de psyches aisthesis tis], as Proclus says.  We have an organ or faculty for the discernment of spiritual truth, which, in its proper sphere, is as much to be trusted as the organs of sensation in theirs.

The second proposition is that, since we can only know what is akin to ourselves,[8] man, in order to know God, must be a partaker of the Divine nature.  “What we are, that we behold; and what we behold, that we are,” says Ruysbroek.  The curious doctrine which we find in the mystics of the Middle Ages, that there is at “the apex of the mind” a spark which is consubstantial with the uncreated ground of the Deity, is thus accounted for.  We could not even begin to work out our own salvation if God were not already working in us.  It is always “in His light” that “we see light.”  The doctrine has been felt to be a necessary postulate by most philosophers who hold that knowledge of God is possible to man.  For instance, Krause says, “From finite reason as finite we might possibly explain the thought of itself, but not the thought of something that is outside finite reasonable beings, far less the absolute idea, in its contents infinite, of God.  To become aware of God in knowledge we require certainly to make a freer use of our finite power of thought, but the thought of God itself is primarily and essentially an eternal operation of the eternal revelation of God to the finite mind.”  But though we are made in the image of God, our likeness to Him only exists potentially.[9] The Divine spark already shines within us, but it has to be searched for in the innermost depths of our personality, and its light diffused over our whole being.

This brings us to the third proposition—­“Without holiness no man may see the Lord”; or, as it is expressed positively in the Sermon on the Mount, “Blessed are the pure in heart:  for they shall see God.”  Sensuality and selfishness are absolute disqualifications for knowing “the things of the Spirit of God.”  These fundamental doctrines are very clearly laid down in the passage from St. John which I read as the text of this Lecture.  The filial relation to God is already claimed, but the vision is inseparable from likeness to Him, which is a hope, not a possession, and is only to be won by “purifying ourselves, even as He is pure.”

There is one more fundamental doctrine which we must not omit.  Purification removes the obstacles to our union with God, but our guide on the upward path, the true hierophant of the mysteries of God, is love[10].  Love has been defined as “interest in its highest power";[11] while others have said that “it is of the essence of love to be disinterested.”  The contradiction is merely a verbal one.  The two definitions mark different starting-points, but the two “ways of love” should bring us to the same goal.  The possibility of disinterested