The astonishing thing is that this multiplicity of forms should consist with the simplicity of God in whom all essential things arc one. We can explain it thus. The idea of the work exists in the worker’s practical mind as an object of his understanding which regards it as expressing his idea to which he forms the material work, and is not in the mind of the worker as a form of under- standing informing his mind and setting up active intellection. The plan of the house in the architect’s mind is (something under- stood by him). It is not repugnant to the simplicity of divine understanding to see and understand more than one thing as object. But it would be repugnant to his simple nature if by a plurality of objective forms it were stimulated and reduced to the subjective act of understanding as opposed to the mirror of God’s SERMONS AND COLLATIONS essence. Countless ideas exist in God in the sense that he sees and understands them, not in the sense that his intellect sees in them. To resume. God knows his essence perfectly so far as it is knowable both in itself and so far as all creatures in their natural mode are exemplified in divine essence; and this express image of all creatures in the divine essence is their prototype, their idea. It follows that there are as many types as there are grades of nature to be typified.
With regard to this question of how the countless forms in the divine essence consist with their being the essence of God, they being many in number and the essence of God only one, it may be looked at in this way. We call these ideas the essence of God, not as such but inasmuch as the essence of God is a mirror reflecting all creatures. And since in the impartible essence of God we have the exemplar of all things, which we call their idea, therefore the form is many and the essence only one. Even as in a mirror there are many forms reflected, but an eye placed in the mirror would see all these forms as one object of its vision; they would not be innate in it nor would they form the eye’s intrinsic faculty of active present or passive and potential sight, for in that case the image would be no more than one.
The third question was, whether God has in him ideas of all the things he knows or does he know at all without ideas? Doctor Thomas answers this as follows: These pre-existing forms are the origin or principle of the creation of all creatures, and in this sense they are types and pertain to practical knowledge. These forms, again, are the principle of all knowledge of creatures and as such they are really essential images of creatures; wherefore of everything he knows and his conception of it he must have ideas.
This fact prompts the question. How does God know evil, which has no being in itself but is a privation of being? The answer is this. As I said above, all creaturely existence has its idea in God, but since evil or sin has no being that is aught (as Dionysius says), but deprives good of good or virtuous being, as blindness of eye has no positive existence but it deprives the eye of sight, even so God’s mind perceives all sin and evil in the idea of the corresponding good, not in the form of sin; for instance, he knows lying in the idea of truth.
Consider next how God knows virtue. In the eternal mirror of his works God knows all creaturely perfections both natural and ghostly, perceiving in their pre-existing forms all accidents as substantial being. But accidents are various. Basic character- istics of the abiding nature of their subject God has no ideas of apart from the ideas which are proper to their subject: the whiteness of the daisy, for example, not its whiteness as a separate MEISTER ECKHART idea. But accidents subsequently added to the abiding nature he knows in particular ideas apart from the idea of any host. Whence it follows that all noble human attributes like acquired virtues and spiritual wisdom, God knows in separate eternal forms reflecting the wisdom and virtue of souls in general.
Moreover, since grace is not natural to creature therefore grace is communicated to the soul in the guise of accident, and by the same token, faith and other godly virtues are inspired super- naturally in the soul, and love and sometimes divine wisdom as with the prophets and apostles. Again, the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost are supernaturally instilled into the soul. And spiritual sweetness too is an inspired accident. Wherefore of all the graces in mere creatures God has ideas wherein he knows the contingencies of grace.
In the divine essence there exist then also particular ideas reflecting the certainty or hope and divine charity of the soul, albeit she is but a creature. In their own ideas there exist as well all the gifts of the Holy Ghost, which have an adventitious character. This I affirm because the prime gift of love wherein he gives all gifts, this love he is himself in Person and in essence. And because, again, all the sacred rites of the seven sacraments, wherein the soul is sanctified and initiated into godly life, because all these were instituted to show forth the workings of grace in the soul, therefore God must know all the seven sacraments in eternal pre-existing forms and each in a distinct one. The cathartic virtue of baptism by natural water comes springing out of the eternal formal baptism of the mirror of God’s nature. So, too, the primordial perfect conception of that nature survives in marriage, wherein the mutable nature of the father is reborn into the immortal and impersonal nature of the soul of his child, where nature, no longer ridden by the race-instinct governing creatures, is in that sense performing the work of all creation. Marriage is true to its exemplar as long as we preserve it in its natural purity and free from animal intention which is all opposed to its divine ideal. And the same I say about the other sacraments. God then has ideas of every longing, love and godly intuition, whether of sweetness or of inwardness, wherein he feels and knows at once all thy desires when thou dost call on him in prayer; and in these same ideas the soul of any saint whom we invoke sees all our prayerful longings from the beginning of the world down to the very end in one flash of God’s essence, just as an angel sees creatures and their prototype in God all at once in the vision of God, in the dawn, not in the evening light, or else they would not know our longing for them. Here ends the first part of this sermon.
SERMONS AND COLLATIONS Part II' Now it must be remembered that this rest of the inner man in the divine wonder born of vision and divine love, transcends in its perfection and its sweetness any activity of the outward man, and for nine reasons.
The first reason is, because in this passivity of the interior man, which is one of knowing and loving, the highest of the faculties in man are engaged in their noblest and most proper occupation and are thus detached and free from everything temporal and mor- tal, and these powers are knowledge and love. The life of the exterior man, on the other hand, is one of varying sensation. St Gregory says that Rachel, meaning the interior life, signifies a vision of the source, but Leah, the other sister, means the life of the exterior man, for she had weak eyes.
The second reason is, that man’s interior wont of love and con- templation is more lasting, though not at the culminating point of actual vision, for the moment of supreme illumination is short- lived, and passes like a flash of lightning. According to St Augus- tine, the common use of love and knowledge lasts longer with the inner man than with the outer.
The third reason is, because man’s inner life of rest and spiritual leisure is somewhat like the peace of the divine eternal essence; for albeit the Father is ever in the act of engendering his Word that does not disturb his rest; as our Lord says, ‘ My Father worketh until now.’ The life of outward man, on the other hand, is one of perpetual physical unrest. Mary sat still and Martha kept about the house.
The fourth reason is, that the interior life is more self-sufficient than that of outward man. The inner man needs nothing for his work but the freedom from bodily affairs which comes with detachment of the soul-powers, together with knowledge and love. The freer and less occupied with mortal tilings the better adapted to God is the life of the inner man. But the life of outward man has need of many things which are disturbing: of working and talking and giving and taking and eating and drinking. St Luke tells us how Martha, meaning the outward man, was cum- bered with overmuch serving; aye, though it be all on God’s account, like works of mercy, natheless it entails a deal of trouble.
The fifth reason is, that the interior life is infinitely more enjoyable than that of outward man. As the philosopher says, Intellectual delights are free from drawbacks, but every mortal ^ This is not numbered separately in Pfeiffer’s text.
MEISTER ECKHART pleasure has its other side. St Augustine says that while Martha was distraught Mary was in company with her interior man. Hence the comment of one teacher, ‘ Mary taxed Martha before the eternal Word Christ Jesus.’ Why did not Mary answer? She did not hear, because she was not at home by herself. Where was she then? She was with her inner man in the Word whose word she was attending to. For the soul is where she loves rather than where she is giving natural life.
The sixth reason is, because the interior life, apart from know- ledge and apart from love, is desirable in itself. But the outward life is desirable only in so far as it makes for the greater good of the soul. The prophet cries, ‘ One thing have I desired of the Lord and that same will I seek: to see God’s will and behold his godly habitation.’
The seventh reason is, because the inner life is concerned with things divine and the outer with things human. St Augustine says, Mary heard the Word in the beginning, whereas it was the human word that Martha served.
The eighth reason is, because the inner life is that of the powers most proper to the soul. But the powers used for outward purposes we have in common with the brutes, the senses, namely. David says, ‘ Lord thou dost nourish man and beast.’ And later on he adds, ‘ but I^ord, we men shall sec thy light in the light of thine own self,’ that is, in the light of understanding whereby man is distinguished from the brutes.
The ninth reason is given by our Lord himself, who says, ‘ Mary has chosen the better part.’ St Augustine says, ‘ Martha had no bad one; hers was a good one too, though Mary had the best.’ Hers the uses of the inner man, which starting here go on eternally. But the outward life of works of mercy ends where there is no poverty nor woe, that is, in eternity. Now though the inner life is intrinsically best, the outward life is sometimes better, as in cases of bodily necessity; to feed the hungry, for example, were better than to spend the time in contemplation. According to one teacher, to see a man in any need and fail to help would make me guilty towards him, and St Augustine says I ought to lend him aid. In cases then of real necessity, to use the works of the outward man for the relief of one’s own self or neighbour is better than to settle down to the interior man’s spiritual idleness of mind and will. — It is now explained how our Lady rested in the eternal good. Let us too seek rest for the inner man as well as for the outer. So help us God. Amen.
SERMONS AND COLLATIONS CII HONOUR THY FATHER Hcec dicit dominus: honora patrem tuum etc, {Matt I54). This Latin quotation is taken from the gospel. The words were spoken by our Lord, and the translation runs, ‘ Honour thy father and mother.’ And another commandment is given by God our Lord, ‘ Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s goods nor his house nor anything that is his.’ The third point is that the people went to Moses and said, ‘ Do thou speak to us, for we cannot hear God.* The fourth, that God said to Moses, ‘ An altar of earth and in earth shalt thou make unto me and all that is offered thereon thou shalt burn away.’ The fifth is that Moses went into the cloud and ascending into the mountain there he found God: it was in the darkness that he found the true light.
There is a saying of St Augustine’s, ‘ Where the lamb sinks there swims the ox and the cow and where the cow swims the elephant runs and forges ahead.’ Which is a pretty parable to draw a moral from. The scriptures arc the deep sea, St Augustine says, and the little lamb the humble, simple soul which is able to fathom Holy Writ. By the ox that swims we understand ill- tutored folk: each choosing out of them the things that suit himself. But in the elephant that goes ahead we recognise wise souls searching the scriptures and making progress in them. I am amazed how full the scriptures are withal the masters say they are not to be taken merely as they stand; the material things in them, they say, must be translated to a higher plane, for which we must have symbols. — First it reached to the ankles, next it came up to the knee, thirdly it rose to the girdle, and fourthly it covered his head and he was submerged altogether.
Now what does this mean? St Augustine says, at first the scriptures will amuse and attract the child, and in the end, when he tries to understand them, they make fools of the wise, for none is so simple-minded but can find his level there nor none so wise but when he tries to fathom them will find they are beyond his depth and discover more therein. All the stories and quotations taken from them have another, esoteric, meaning. Our under- standing of them is as totally unlike the thing as it is in itself and as it is in God, as though it did not exist.
To return to our text. ‘ Honour thy father and mother,’ and in a general sense it does mean father and mother, that we ought to honour them, and all who have spiritual power are to be honoured and preferred as well as the authors of thy temporal weal. Herein we wade, herein do we touch bottom; but it is precious little we 17 MEISTER ECKHART get out of it. It is a woman who says, ‘ If we ought to honour the authors of our outward good much more are we behoven to magnify the author of it all.’ What we have here outwardly in multiplicity is all within and one. Yours to make this likeness like unto the Father. I was thinking this evening that all likeness ends in sameness with the Father. In the second place, thou oughtest to honour thy father, meaning thy heavenly Father, the source of thy being. Who honours the Father? None but the Son: he alone does him honour. And none honours the Son save only the Father. The Father’s whole love, his fondness, his favours, are for the Son and him only. The Father knows nothing at all but the Son. Such delight does he take in his Son that he wants nothing else but to be getting his Son, for he is his exact likeness, the perfect image of his Father.
The teaching of our school is that anything known or born is an image. They say that in begetting his only-begotten Son the Father is producing his own image abiding in himself, in the ground of the image, as it has ever been in him, {formce illius) ix, his immanent form. It is contrary to nature and seems to me irrational, the doctrine that God is known by likeness, by this thing or by that. For he, after all, is neither this nor that, and father is not satisfied till he returns to his first nature, to the innermost, to the ground and core of fatherhood, where he has been for ever in himself, in his father-nature: to where he enjoys him- self in the Father as the Father does himself in the one alone. Here wood, stone, grass-blades, all things are the same. This is the best of all, and I have fooled myself therein. All the natural powers being gathered to a head are plunged into the Father- nature, so that they are one, one Son, transcending all the rest and subsisting alone in the paternal nature, or if not the one they are at least the image of the one. This nature, being of God, seeks not what is outside her, nay, this nature, existing in itself, has naught to do with ornament: nature which is of God seeks none other than God’s likeness.
I was thinking this evening that a likeness is an outwork (preamble). I cannot see a thing unless it has some likeness, some relation to me, neither can I know a thing excepting it is like me. God has all things hidden in himself; not this and that distinct but one in the same nature. The eye is coloured and also receives colour, the ear not. The ear senses tone and the tongue has taste. It is a case of like to like. The form of the soul and God’s image have the same nature: we being sons. If I had neither eyes nor ears still I might have being. Who robs me of my eyes robs me not therefore of my being nor yet of my life, for my life is seated in the heart. A blow aimed at my eye I parry by a lifting of the SERMONS AND COLLATIONS hand. A blow at my heart I should stop with any portion of my body. But if someone attempted to cut off my head I should hit out straight from the shoulder in order to preserve my life and being.
I am fond of saying, You must break the outside to let out the inside: to get at the kernel means breaking the shell. Even so to find nature herself all her likenesses have to be shattered and the further in the nearer the actual thing. On coming to one, where it is all one, she is the same. Who honours God? He who is ever seeking God’s glory.
Many years ago I was not; not long after that my father and my mother eating bread and meat and the vegetables growing in the garden, I became a man. In this my father and my mother were unable to assist, but God made my body without aid and created my soul after the supreme. Thus I became possessed of life {possecli me). This grain of rye has it in its nature to develop into wheat, and it never rests until it has that nature. This corn seed has it in its nature to be all things and pays the penalty of death in order to be all things. And this metal, copper, has it in its nature to be gold, and it will never rest till it has gotten that same nature. Aye, this wood has in its nature the power of turning into stone; I say more than that: it may indeed become all things if put into the fire and allowed to burn away and be transmuted to the firc-nature; then same comes to same and has eternally one being. I trow that wood and stone and bone and all the grasses have collectively one being in the first nature. And if so with this nature then how about the nature which is so intrinsically pure that it seeks not either this or that but transcending all the others is simply making for its primitive perfection?
I was thinking this evening, there arc many heavens. There are some incredulous who will not believe that this bread upon the altar may be changed, that God can do it. (How unworthy, to deny that God is capable of this.) If God has given to nature the power to be all things, how much easier to him must be the changing to his body of this altar bread. If this frail nature from a drop of blood can contrive a man, how much more possible for God to make his body from a bit of bread. Who honours God? He who is ever seeking God’s glory. This meaning is more obvious albeit the former is the better one.
The fourth point (is), ‘ they stood afar off and said unto Moses: Moses speak thou to us for we cannot hear God.’ They were standing at a distance, that is the reason they could not hear God, ‘ Moses went into the cloud and ascended into the mountain and there he beheld the divine light.’ We see this light best in MEISTER ECKHART the dark: in suffering and travail this light is nearest to us, Let God do his best or his worst he is bound to give himself to us whether in travail or distress. There was once a pious dame with many sons, whom they sought to slay. Smiling she said, * Grieve not, be of good cheer and remember your heavenly Father, for from me ye have gotten nothing whatsoever.* As though to say, Ye have your being straight from God. This applies to us. Our Lord said, ‘ Thy darkness {ix. thy suffering) shall be turned into bright light.’ But I must not love nor covet it. It was said by a master in another place, ‘ The mysterious darkness of the invisible light of the eternal Deity is unknown and never shall be known.* And the light of the eternal Father has ever ^been shining in this darkness and the darkness comprehends not the light. May we arrive at this eternal light. So help us God. Amen.
cm OUT OF THE MOUTH OF THE MOST HIGH Ex oro altissimi prodivi (EccL 24^). These words, which I have quoted in Latin, we may speak in the Person of the eternal Word. He says, ‘ I proceeded forth out of the mouth of the Most High.’ This is the exalted source which uttered from the Father’s heart the eternal Word which took on human nature in our Lady’s womb. Not of this carnal birth am I going to tell, for much is told you of it. It is on the eternal birth that I propose to speak, and I will broach the subject by answering two questions.
The first one is. Whether the eternal Word can be called the perfect Word seeing it is still in the throes of birth? — Yes, for the eternal Word is gotten in the essential light and abides therein, untold to anything outside it, and is withal infallibly uttered by the Father. Hence it may well be called the perfect Word.
The second question is. Whether our intelligence can at all conceive the perfect Word? for it is proper to every under- standing that it should understand. Is it not the same as our understanding in itself? — I say no, because our word is gotten in a fitful light. Our understanding is a changing thing, so it cannot conceive a perfect word. The word you hear from me is not infallible, it is a sign of the Word within me.
Now mark the way of the eternal birth. The Personal under- standing as confined to its unity of nature is one with the under- standing whereby the Father understands himself in his char- acteristic nature. Were this not the case there would be two intelligible essences. But there are not: there is but one intelli- gible essence wherein the Father sees himself in his characteristic SERMONS AND COLLATIONS nature. The object of his thought is the eternal Word. Where this is confined to the natural understanding of the Father it is none other than the Father- nature. Where this same Word is directed to itself there is ever distinction of Person and withal one simple essence divine in nature. Here I will put four questions the better for you to understand the mode of the eternal birth, though, let me say at once, that this is inconceivable to the multi- tudinous mind. However, I will tell you as much as it is possible for your minds to grasp.
The first question is, Why is the Person of the Son called born and the Person of the Father not? The answer is, that it is the personal understanding of the Father wherewith he understands himself in his characteristic nature, but the product of this con- ception is the eternal Word. Hence the eternal Word is said to be begotten and the Person of the Father not. — Question two: Is the work of the eternal birth wrought by his personal power or by his natural power? Some theologians say it is due to the personal power of the Father since it is proper to all begotten things to receive the same nature they arc gotten by. Where saw ye the father that imparted not his own nature to his son? So runs the argument for the eternal birth being due to personal power. This is not my view. Where the personal understanding keeps to its unity of nature there is this nature Person. Now the eternal Word originates in the essential thought wherein the Father understands himself in his characteristic nature. It follows that the work of the eternal birth must be due to his natural power, for if the eternal Word sprang from the personal understanding of the Father then this eternal Word would be the cause of its own self, for this conception is the Word.
The third question is. Where does the Father-nature have maternal names? Where it does maternal work. Where personal understanding keeps to its unity of nature and has intercourse therewith, there the Father-nature has maternal names and is doing mother’s work, for it is exclusively a mother’s work to receive the seed of the eternal Word. In essential thought the mother- nature has paternal names and docs paternal work.
The fourth question is. Whether this work is essential or does the Father play a casual part therein? I say, no. If he stopped a single instant he would negate himself. For the eternal Word is the image of the Father as he conceives himself in his character of Person, with the added dignity which the eternal Word receives in its own Person, all the perfection which the Father has and all the omnipotence peculiar to his nature. The heretical doctor Arius observes concerning this; It appears to me to be untrue that the eternal Word receives all the perfection that the Father MEISTER ECKHART MEISTER ECKHART has and all the omnipotence peculiar to his nature, for it cannot do what the Father does; he cannot beget another Son. But as St Augustine says, That he does not beget another Son is not due to impotence, but it behoves him not to. A statement which some doctors misconstrue, giving to understand that the Son an he would could beget another Son. Which is erroneous, for in that case the Person of the Son would be the Person of the Father. The reason for not doing it is this. Each Person receives the same nature albeit variously: the Father as fatherhood, the Son as sonship and the Holy Ghost as the common product of them both. Here the Persons are an hypostasis of the nature, each Person receiving the one nature all at once as essence. Where (the Word) receives its dignity the three shine with one light, they having this light as their common being. The dignity the eternal Word receives by birth is that of being equal with the Father, for it springs from the essential conception of the Father. As con- fined to this conception it is none other than divine nature; in its aspect of the Word it is distinct in Person and withal in nature one impartible essence.
Here arises the question. How can the eternal Word be at once discrete and one simple essence divine in nature? The best answer theologians have to this is that it is due to the imparti- bility and simplicity of that nature. The entire content of divine nature is one impartible essence which operates by divine nature. May we attain this oneness so far as it is possible to us. So help us God. Amen.
CIV SUFFERING I say that next to God there is no nobler thing than suffering. Were there anything more noble than suffering the heavenly Father would have given it to his Son Jesus Christ, in exemplary fashion, for all things. We find in Christ, as regards his manhood, nothing so much as suffering. Suffering was with him at his birth, and it never left him while he was here on earth. I say, moreover, that had Christ been a man upon this earth without his deity, yet would he have been noble beyond all human ken by reason of his suffering; for granting that suffering is noble, he who has most suffering is the noblest. But no human suffering was equal to Christ’s passion. And he is the more noble in proportion to it. Again I hold, if anything were nobler than suffering, God would have saved mankind therewith, for we might well accuse him of being unfriendly to his Son if he knew of something superior to suffering. And I say, were not suffering SERMONS AND COLLATIONS always noble, the heavenly Father would have left his Son some few hours on earth that were free from suffering. But we do not find that Christ on earth spent one single hour without suffering. Suffering then must be superior to all else. I ween that our Lady, God’s mother, rather than that she should be deprived of the reward attached to the least instant of her suffering at sight of her child’s martyrdom, would choose to have remained here upon earth and not behold God till the judgment day, provided that would win back this reward. So great the guerdon won in that short hour.
I declare, all the humility and virtue we attribute to our Lady brought her no such great reward or love of God as the least of all the sufferings that God sent her. I say that if our Lady, God’s mother, and suffering stood together in the street and with our Lady all her earned reward for chastity, humility and her other virtues except suffering: to our Lady suffering would appear as lovely as sunshine in a burrow, for in that case she would be out- side God. And again, I say: suppose a man committed a sin beyond all sins, it might involve a suffering wherein by virtuous conduct he could cancel all his sin and win greater merit in God’s eyes than any of his saints. Further, I maintain, no man apart from God has ever been so holy or so good as to deserve the least nobility such as the smallest suffering would give. Given one man endowed with the collective humility and virtues of all the people who have lived since God created the first man, he, for all his virtues, would not merit the reward a man wins by a little suffering. I tell you, right suffering is the mother of all virtues, for right suffering so subdues the heart, it cannot rise to pride but perforce is lowly. And suffering makes for chastity; for in right suffering vice is burnt away. And to one who has mastered all the virtues, suffering is the mother of virtue as a whole. Noth- ing makes a man so like God as suffering. For he who has least vices is the most like God. But nothing is like suffering for killing a man’s vices. Ergo, it makes man Godlike. Finally I say, not all the theologists together could describe what profit, what glory lies in suffering. Suffering alone is sufficient prepara- tion for God’s dwelling in man’s heart. God dwells only with the sinless. But suffering exorcises sin. Hence God is always with a man in suffering; as he himself declared by the mouth of the prophet, ‘ Whosoever is sorrowful, I will myself be with him.’
[Peradventure thou wilt say, ‘ If it be a fact that suffering is so noble and profits one so much, why are not the Jews and heathens saved? I see and hear a great deal of their sufferings, for as captives they are ever subject to the Christians and that MEISTER ECKHART causes them much suffering.’ I answer. Baptism is the basis of the welfare, the salvation, of mankind. In the absence of it, virtues and good works are not rewarded with eternal grace. And since the Jews are not baptized, they have no guerdon of eternal grace, but are accursed on earth as well as in the other world.] ^ But thou mayst object, Why is it that all Christians are not saved; they are all God’s, and there is nobody on earth but is bound to suffer in some fashion? My answer is, There are two kinds of sufferers. Some, when suffering befalls, take it not as if it came from God; they resist it to the utmost, saying in their hearts. What have I done to God that he should visit me with such misfortune? and are moved to tears. Not that in this thought they are to blame, but in other cases they chide God vehemently, whereas God sends the suffering to rid them of their sins and by not accepting it in the proper spirit they make it useless to them; and to such as these there is no reward for suffering though they are always having it; they scorn God’s gift and thrust it from them. And they chase away God too, albeit they fain would have him. On the other hand, some people take it as from God, when their suffering comes, and send it back to God. They take it from God, saying in their hearts; God, T accept this suffering from no one else but thee, for my sins have thoroughly deserved it. And they send their suffering back to God, saying in their hearts.