{
  "meta": {
    "schema_version": "1.1",
    "endpoint": "/api/sources/rhineland-mystics/eckhart/03-liber-positionum.json"
  },
  "work": {
    "slug": "eckhart",
    "name": "Meister Eckhart"
  },
  "parents": [
    {
      "slug": "rhineland-mystics",
      "name": "Rhineland Mystics",
      "url": "/sources/rhineland-mystics/"
    }
  ],
  "chapter": {
    "num": 4,
    "slug": "03-liber-positionum",
    "title": "Liber Positionum",
    "of": 4,
    "words": 20022,
    "text": "## Liber Positionum\n\n\n1. Here the disciple is supposed to question his master, saying,\n\n' Tell me, could God an he would have made all things as good as\nhe is himself ? ' The master said, Yes, what God wills he can do. —\n' Are things all made of his own nature ? ' The master said. No.\n\n2. The disciple inquired, ' What is the soul made of ? ' — She is\nmade out of nothing. — ' Where did God get the nothing he made\nthe soul out of ? ' — Some say he got it in himself. That is not\nthe case for in God is not nothing : that which is in God is God. —\n' But God has all things in himself and without God is nothing.\nSurely then he gets this nothing out of himself ? ' — The master\nsaid, No, not at all ! He gets it neither in himself nor out of\nhimself, nor above himself nor below himself. There is no getting\nnothing from inside or out. If it were gotten anywhere it would\nnot be nothing. Anything that docs this : takes nothing from\nnowhere and makes of it something, is God. So runs the argument\nthat the nothing is gotten from nowhere. They asked St Augustine\nabout this mysterious nothing out of which the soul is made and\nwhere, apart from place, this nothing hides ? His explanation was\nthat this nothing is openly enclosed in betwixt God and God-\nhead, in his almighty power. Were it in close confinement it would\nnot be naught : it either would have ))lace or else be God by nature,\nthe soul being made of the nature of God. But it is not. Ergo,\nthis nothing is at large in the almighty power of the Father to\nwhom it is as easy to get from nowhere naught as aught. It is\nconfined to his omnipotence to be able to take naught from\nnowhere and from it create aught. Whatever can do this is God.\n\n3. Now another question. Dionysius says, Tell me, what about\nthe soul who is in full enjoyment of her rights : what is it that she\nhas by rights at the height of her perfection ? — By rights the soul\nhas knowledge : clear understanding of all things and is so mellowed\nby love as to be all unwitting, when people love and hate her,\nwhether she be not dearer to her haters than her lovers. And\nthis soul has by rights absolute freedom from herself and things :\nsunk in the sovran good she cannot find herself at all. Here we\nhave two natures. One, the thing that sinks ; the other, what it\nsinks in. She sinks eternally but never touches bottom. This\n\nMEISTER ECKHART\n\nsinking shows her two things. In sinking from herself she is\nmore God than creature. The fact that she does sink proclaims\nher creaturely for deity sinks not. — But when she has yielded her\naught to his aught and her naught is subsisting in naught, then\nwhat will belong to her aught and her naught ? — None can tell,\nbut she has no more than her rights. That is the answer.\n\n4. Another question is, has the soul more enjoyment in the\nsource of joy or in the vision of its wonders ? — Consider what she\nhas in each. In admiring its wonders she obeys the selfsame\nwondrous law that the first cause laid down for all causes as\nbefitting each. But soul does not stop here, she transcends\nwonder. The wonders have become her potential being. Hence\nher enjoyment is much keener in the source of joy than in tlie\nbeholding of its wonders. In the source is her abode, not in its\nwondrous vision. There all wonders end ; there all is one to her\nand one in all. That is the answer to this question.\n\n5. The question is, if the Godhead has all things how comes it\nthen neither to give nor to beget ? If it does not beget it is not\nFather. — The explanation is this. Man's nature is called man-\nhood, and manhood as such neither acts nor begets ; it acts and\nbegets in a human person. And the same with Godhood : it is\nall-containing and yet not active and productive in itself. What\nit does is all done by the Persons in person and nature. The God-\nhead is called fruitful inasmuch as it is brought forth in the Persons\nin Person and essence.\n\n6. An angel may do three things in the soul. Either he con-\nfronts her with the scriptures or with the holy life or, again, with\nthe e?camplc of Christ Jesus, showing her something clearly as\nthough in a mirror wherein one may espy some blemish on the\nhuman face and so proceed to cure it. Thus she sees herself, what\nshe still lacks ; where she is not as yet all that she ought to be ;\nwhat things to leave and what to keep ; how much or little she\nshould be to things : all this she plainly sees. And whatever an\nangel can do the devil may very well copy. — ' Have we no means\nof telling. Sir, if it is an angel or the devil ? ' — Yes, they are very\ndifferent. Tests for angel and the devil are as follows. Anything\nan angel does is done in the light, orderly and clearly, and the soul\nrejoices in the amiable presence of the angel ; also it is a sign to\nknow him by that she is left with a sense of pleasure. In counter-\nfeiting this the devil makes it vague, confused, ambiguous, and the\nsoul, affrighted at this haunting of the fiend, is restless and depressed\nand by this she may know it is the devil.\n\nThe angel talks virtue to the soul, the fiend talks virtue too but\nGod does not talk virtue. — ' For the love of God, good Sir, tell us\nwhat you mean.' — 1 will explain. The angel talks virtue to the\n\nsoul and his talk (the angel's), which is of necessary virtue, is\nfriendly and persuasive, something in this fashion : ' See, there is\nstill this to go and that to do and the other to leave off ' : orderly\ncounsel and plain and the soul finds peace in complying with\nhis words. The devil talks virtue too, but he urges superfluous\nvirtues : too much fasting and watching and kneeling, too much\nweeping, and his counsels are more in the nature of commands, as\nthus : ' Do this or that or thou art damned,' or ' art not good nor\nperfect.' An orgy of uncontrolled virtues with no definite aim,\nthat is his cue and the soul is affrighted within her and gleans no\nsatisfaction from his words. — But God's talk is not of virtue\nthough it is wonderful talk. The burden of it a fair Word that\nis passing good to hear. The Holy Ghost goes before the angel\nand embracing the soul prepares her to receive what the angel\nhas to say ; and the Son gives wisdom and order to the words\nand God the Father help and consummation to that which is\nspoken in the soul. Thus God does not talk virtue in the soul ;\nhe forestalls the angel and prepares the soul, giving wisdom, order\nand achievement to the angelic utterance in the soul ; the Holy\nTrinity all work together in her without speaking.\n\n7. The statement that our Lord from time to time holds con-\nverse with good people and that they hear words or become im-\npressed with the sense of certain sayings such as, ' Thou art mine\nelect, or my beloved ; thou shalt never leave me and I will never\nleave thee,' and the like, things like this, I say, should be accepted\nwith reserve and judged upon their merits for locutions of this kind\nare often due to a trick the soul has, when indulging in comfortable\nintuitions of divinity, of answering herself by a sort of reflex\naction. When the soul, aflood with God, is void and free from\nsensible affections she grows apace in created light till nothing\ntranscends her but intellect and essential knowledge. In this\ndetachment the knower is the known ; out of her own light she\ncreates what, she desires. Such is the effect of the benignant\nreign of essential understanding. Aristotle says in the third book\nof The Soul, ' Every immaterial substance or isolated form is in\nitself both the knower and the known,' and this is why the soul,\ncut off from the corporal things by the encircling flood of God,\ndraws deiform truth out of her own self. It follows that anything\nin her of which she has a rational perception is not said by God :\nGod's speech is none other than the perfect image of divine truth\nwherein the spirit is caught up out of its selfhood, past under-\nstanding, into intellect. There in unity she understands without\nunderstanding.\n\n8. To drag the hawthorn through the hay without a catch we\nmust lop it well, like our Lord Jesus Christ, the tree of love, who\n\n448 MEISTER ECKHART\n\ndragged the hawthorn through the hay of this wicked world, so\nshorn of all its branches that no moving thing could cling thereto\nand so he gathered up nothing that was unstable. And to attain\nto him we must be too bare for things to cling to us or we to them.\nWe take up our cross when stripping everything of self and self\nof everything we cling all pure and naked to the bare cross of Christ.\n\n9. He who loves aright loves not nor is not loved. They love\nand are beloved who can be pleased and pained : they pour out\nthemselves in love on creatures and creatures back on them.\nBut they love not nor are they loved who are not moved by creature\ngood and ill ; these neither give nor do they take ; they pour\nnot out on creature nor creature back on them. They love not\nneither are they loved. We ought to love God out of love. They\nlove in love who love for why : who love him for some bodily or\ntemporal good. But they love out of love who love without a\nwhy ; who do not love for temporal good nor yet eternal : they\nlove him merely for himself, for his own sake pure and simple\napart from anything he gives.\n\n10. We read of John the Baptist that he was a prophet. He was\nmore than prophet for when the Holy Ghost from time to time\nspake by the prophets they were thereafter as they were before,\nin sinful habit. Prophets are people who are now and then con-\nstrained to play this part. While the Holy Ghost is speaking\nthrough them by actual infusion of his grace they are exercising\nvirtue and thereafter they revert to their former habit : they are\ncalled virtuous as practising virtue intermittently : they do right\nand also wrong. Not so St John ; he was more than prophet for\nhe practised virtue not at intervals, it was his natural and settled\nwont. And those who follow him in this are not prophets either,\nthey are more than prophets, seeing as they do in the clear light\nof God exactly what to do and what to leave undone and having\ngiven them the Godlike power to act up to their lights with\neffortless, spontaneous delight and delightful spontaneity. These\nare called virtuous not because they practise virtue intermittently :\nthey are fixed and established in it. That thing is habitual\nwhich we do at one time and at another not ; it is an alternation.\nThat is not habitual which is continuous and without admixture.\n\n11. A good man is known by three things. One is singleness of\nwill : all we call nature his will is free from. The second is clear\nunderstanding : any mental knowledge that she has his soul\nhas fully mastered : she either approfounds it here or yonder in\nthe common groilnd during illumination. The third is peace of\nmind : such images as may occur therein are nd hindrance to the\nsoul;\n\n12. Three things distinguish the solitary soul. The first is,\n\ncessation of desire : no more wants or sense of deficiency. The\nsecond is, active love for and acquiescence in the will of God.\nThe third is a lively feeling in the soul of the love of the Holy Ghost.\n\n18. Divine good in the singular no body or blood receives but\nit does receive God's manifold goodness. It is simple divine good\nfor the spirit to be rapt out of itself into God's oneness, there to\nunderstand without sensible perception. But God's manifold\ngoodness means anything revealed to her in form and likeness,\nfor this is all a matter of the mortal nature. — The heavenly\nFather gives his consolation to none but the man of peaceful heart,\nChrist said to his disciples, ' My peace I give unto you.'\n\n14. Let no one claim to have received the perfect gift of the\nHoly Ghost, who can be shaken in his convictions by any arguments\nthat are disquieting. I refer to things which are spoken contrary\nto our knowledge of eternal truth.\n\n15. Nature comes with God into creature and driving God out\nremains alone in creature. Spirit goes with creature into God\nand driving creature out stays by itself in God. The most perfect\nmode of soul is one of self-oblivion in good works as a whole and\nthe way thereto is the clear discernment of special imperfections.\nIn the least of mortal quests there is at stake all natural creature\nappetite. Effortless achievements are wiped out of the mind as\nthough they had not been. It is true wisdom to recognise the\nfolly of evil and the freedom of perfection.\n\n18. Hosea the prophet, rapt in wonder, had a threefold marvel\nshown him. The first one was, how God is one in essence and\nthree in Person. The second marvel, which, though somewhat less\nis still ineffable and incomprehensible to creature, is this^ how\ntwo natures meet together in one Person. The tliird marvel is\nthe marvel of marvels : how creator is creature and creature is\ncreator. The prophet Hosea says, ' His going forth is prepared\nas the morning ; he shall come unto us as the soft evening rain.'\nHere the morning light suggests the nearness of his coming : the\ndawn is the herald of the day. The day dawns thrice. First in\nthe chamber of the Person of the Father. Next, in the chamber\nof the Person of the Son. Thirdly, in the world. The first dawn\nwas the will of the Father ; the second, the obedience of the Son ;\nthe third one broke when their common Spirit caught the precious\nmost pure blood-drops that ever flowed from the virgin heart of\nMary. The fire of love once kindled, he no longer tarries : day\nis here.\n\n20. Suppose a man insults me and I silence him by my retort,\nit is not I who conquer : I am conquered. I conquer if, in true\nhumility, I hold my peace. Conquering we are conquered and\nbeing conquered conquer.\n\nt 29\n\nMEISTER ECKHART\n\n21. It is a question if angels grow in heaven ? I declare they\ndo. They go on growing till the day of judgment, waxing in\nknowledge and in love ; by then th^ lowest is about as wise as the\nhighest was when he was created. — ' But tell me Sir, does the soul\ngrow in heaven as well ? ' — I say. No. — ' But why. Sir, should\nthe angel grow and not the soul ? ' — For this reason. The soul\ngrows in the body and when she quits the body that is her judgment\nday : the highest she has reached by then is the nearest she will\never get to knowing God. But her growth is far nobler than an\nangel's for what an angel has comes by no effort of his own ; hers\nis the reward of toil so that one light of hers is worth ten of any\nangel's.\n\n22. Three kinds of progress take place in serious people. The\nfirst is natural ; when, fought to a finish, man's nature is van-\nquished and subdued, then at length he sees all random thoughts\nas things he can turn to his account and we to ours. Not a single\nnotion but will serve to bring light to pious people, and this (light)\nis essential almost as much as natural ; essential, though by grace,\na divine repugnance to all base inventions. — The second kind of\nprogress is unconscious. The man is spiritualised so that his\nwords, his ways and his whole self enlighten other people with a\nrealization of their own shortcomings. Nature sleeping, spirit wide\nawake, that I call light and she is a light not alone to other people\nbut the devil quails before her. — * Sir, tell me, what is he afraid\nof ? ' — The devil does not know what is in the soul except what\nhe can recognise by its outward form. Supposing her brimfull of\nlight then divine light comes surging out of her and when the\nfiend sees this he is afraid and durst not test her with a notion,\nso the soul stays undisturbed. Which is to her credit though\nunbeknownst to her. — The third progress is spiritual. When such\na soul is flooded with the influx of God's spirit, love reinforces love,\nlight light, giving a love which fires the soul and which she cannot\nfail to be aware of. The first growth is conscious, the third also\nis conscious and the middle one unconscious.\n\n28. Plato says, ' The soul of all creatures is the Godhead.' Then\nour Lord Jesus Christ is the soul of the elect.\n\n24. The question is, what is the effect on man of the body of\nour Lord Jesus Christ ? I say that its effect on nian is to clarify\nhis nature and prevent him committing mortal sin. On the en-\nlightened it confers another boon, receptivity to the divine light\nand then though they die they will have nothing between.\n\n27. ' Pray Sir, one to whom eternal light is given, suppose he\nwere to die, would he have aught between ? ' — Once having had\neternal light he never has anything between.\n\n28. ' Tell me, good Sir, what is divine light ? ' — ^With divine\n\nLIBER POSmONUM 451\n\nlight the natural life is no obstacle to the eternal light, or in other\nwords, there is no consenting to sin. When we are unable to act\nup to our lights that is a sign that we have not received eternal\nlight. Knowledge with the power to apply it, that is eternal light.\nHe who receives eternal light takes everything the same.\n\n29. ' But even good people are now and then perturbed : have\nthey then no light ? '—When our Lord Jesus Christ was drawing\nnear his passion, his agony of suffering pierced his soul and called\nforth the rebuke to Judas at the table and St Peter on the mount,\nto whom he said, ' Couldst thou not watch with me a while ?\nThou who didst promise to be with me unto death.' But he did\nnot on this account lose the light of unity. Once more har-\nmonious with his Father's will he was filled with joy at having in\naccord therewith submitted willingly to pain. The fact of being\nmoved involves no loss of light : anything conceived in time is\nmoved in time. While we are in time we are affected by time.\nBut the more imperturbable one is the more one is established\nin eternity. By their deeds ye shall know them.\n\n30. He alone can do God's will who resigns his own. Wc are\nstrong in proportion as we are inspired with divine power to\nwithstand the things that come between ourselves and God.\nWhen we stand in our primitive innocence, then at last we begin\nto live.\n\n31. ' But when is a man in a state of primitive innocence ? ' —\nPrimitive innocence is not attained without divine light. Simple,\nprimitive innocence reigns when the pattern of all virtues is\npresent in a man and he stands without impediment of nature in\nthe eternal truth. It is only by treading upon creature thift we\nreach the bottom rung of Godhood. — ' What is the bottom rung\nof Godhood ? ' — It is spiritualised nature.\n\n32. ' Sir, is it better having and giving or not having and\nletting ? ' — Letting is better than giving. Giving adds more\nlustre, letting shows more spirituality. We shed our blood ; the\nsaints let their blood be shed.\n\n33. ' Will you tell me. Sir, what causes the decay of tenderness ? '\n— ^What is the tenderness you mean ? — ' I mean interior tenderness.'\n— ^To have it is a sign of immaturity ; to lose it betokens ado-\nlescence. The father pets his child when the child is young but\nas it gets to know its father's will he grows seemingly less fond and\nthis less obvious fondness is an indication of the child's approach\nto man's estate. With the soul it is the same. Ilis tenderness\nto her proclaims her immature, but as she grows in knowledge and\nconstant harmony with the will of God he inspires her with less\nirrational fondness and this is a sign she is developing.\n\n85. That alone is perfect which does not seek for aught outside\n\nMEISTER ECKHART\n\nitself. — Whatever we can say about perfection to that we can\nattain. — A gentle man is one whose serenity no trouble can dis-\nturb. — ^We stand before God while we do not cross the will\nof God.\n\n36. When does God work in man unhindered ? — God finds no\nhindrance in a man who takes both good and ill from God with the\nsame thankfulness.\n\n87. Sure proof of true humility is the fearful joy of being\npraised. For on coming into touch with truth and finding in\nhimself a witness of it, a man is sensible of pleasure but fears it as\na likely cause of his undoing.\n\n88. The right loyal heart receives with bitterness inventions of\nthe soul which are not sent by God. — That heart is kind whose\ngraciousness is proof against every good and ill.\n\n89. The treasure of God is loss of possessions, people's despisery,\nsickness and submission to God.\n\n41. Our Lord Jesus Christ waxed not at all in eternal light ; but\nthe things he taught, in beholding these he took peculiar pleasure.\n\n42. Pious folk should imitate the deified man, Christ. By\nimitating Christ I mean becoming Godlike. What I mean by\nGrodlike is, your words, deeds, conduct, being free from human\nwont. By human I mean imperfect. In proportion to his im-\nperfection a man is moveable by aught or anybody can be (moved)\nby him. — ' What do you mean by moveable ? ' — By moveable I\nmean not impatience only : moveable I call anything affected by\neither good or ill and that can in anywise be anything to anyone\nor to whom anyone can as such be anything, and I call immoveable\nonly- that which nothing can affect and which affects nothing.\nThat man then I call immoveable to whom good and ill are just\nthe same ; who is as far as possible exempt from the agitations of\nboth joy and sorrow. It will never be natural to him that his\nemotions stir not independently of mind. But once the mind takes\ncharge, it is all over and as it was before and then the man is not\na mortal man, he is man deified.\n\n48. Good people have three sorts of expert knowledge. In the\nfirst place the intelligence is sharpened so that it estimates correctly\nthe smallest thing presented to it : its more or less amount of\nsensible admixture they gauge to a nicety and can act accord-\ningly. — In the second place, when they have to do a thing they\ncan always tell whether it proceeds from the ground of God or\nthe ground of nature. Thirdly, so subtile is their understanding\nthat any ghostly form, the very faintest light, which appears to\nthem, they recognise for fiend or spirit.\n\n44. The true test of interior perfection is that nothing thou\ndoest from without casts any shadow within.\n\n45. When the Godhead began to inquire how mankind could be\nrestored to its original perfection, the Father sat in counsel in the\nchamber of the Holy Trinity. The Father said, ' Who shall we\nsend to save mankind ? ' Answered him the Son and said, ' Father,\nsend me : I will save mankind.' Then stooped him down the\neternal Word of the heavenly Father, that is to say, his Son, who\nis the middle Person of the Holy Trinity, and clad himself in\nhuman nature. Remaining what he was he took upon him that\nwhich he was not and was thus obedient to his Father in heaven\nand not in heaven only but on earth as well. Obedience to his\nFather and love towards mankind constrained him to perfect\nall his Father's work.\n\n46. ' Sir, for God's sake, may I ask you something that I want\nto know, something very subtle ? ' — By all means. Whatever it\nmay be and however subtle, I will try and answer. Ask me what\nyou will. — ' Well, what I want to know is this : was our Lord\nJesus Christ hindered in any way by doing outward works ? '\n— I can give you a definite answer to that. The soul of Christ\nwas never an independent entity as such. It no sooner was than\nit was Christ ; directly it was made, straightway it was united ;\nfirst one and then the other it is true but yet both timeless. At his\nfirst appearance Christ was snatched from independence into the\nkeeping of the middle Person of the Trinity where in essential\nwisdom he gazes without blenching at the naked fullness of the\ndivine perfection. From the moment when Christ's soul and body\nwere united with the Godhead his soul has been gazing at the\nGodhead as it is doing to this day. As to the lower powers of\nhis soul which function in the body making possible his preaphing\nand his teaching and the other things he did, there the joy of\ncontemplation was diminished somewhat : not the vision but the\npleasure of the sight. But the higher powers of his soul, wherein\nhe was united, these remained always in unveiled contemplation.\nNow I have explained how Christ was hindered and at the same\ntime not. One thing more and let that suffice as giving you the\nkey to the whole matter. The hindrance was physical not\npsychic. But even so he never failed in the minutest point to\nfulfil the mission on which his Father sent him, preaching and\nteaching and doing outward works whereby he earned reward\nand honour.\n\n47. ' Could Christ earn reward ? ' — There are two rewards ; one\nof them Christ earned, the other not. One of the rewards we earn\nby our good works is the vision of the Godhead. This reward\nChrist did not earn since from the moment Christ's body was\nunited with the Godhead, his soul has been gazing at the Godhead,\nas it is doing to this day. The other reward we earn by our good\n\n454 MEISTER ECKHART\n\nworks is the glorification of the body with the soul after the day\nof judgment and this reward Christ earned by his holy life, his\nbody being glorified together with his soul at his resurrection.\nNow thou knowest how Christ did earn' reward and also not.\n\n48. ' Just one other thing.' — Tell me, what is that ? — ' You\nsay that Christ gained honour. What honour did he gain ? ' —\nChrist has the title of The Head of Holy Christendom and this\nhonour Christ has won by his holy life.\n\n49. ' A man to whom eternal light is given, is he prone to sin\nin time ? ' — One to whom eternal light is given may well stoop to\nimperfection and sometimes falls an easier prey to frivolity and\nsuctilike venial sins than another man. — ' What is the cause of\nthis propensity ? ' — It comes from being engrossed in one simple\nthing ; multitudinous images disturb the soul, tossing her about\nwith their various conceits. Once conceiving unity she is dis-\ntracted by diversity. But as soon as she begins to sec, it is as\nthough it had never been and she can free herself completely\nwithout the slightest effort ; which is a sign that she has eternal\nlight. To see and be unable to escape would argue lack of eternal\nlight. You know now how it is that people, even with eternal\nlight, are prone to sin. St Paul sinned after he had been\ncaught up.\n\n50. The first and noblest work of God is motionlessness : divine\nrest. It stands to reason that the maker of the motionless is him-\nself unmoved. Were God not immoveable there could nothing\nmotionless be made.\n\nAristotle says all moving things proceed from rest and from\nnecessity and moving things arc all seeking rest. Man likewise\nthen \"^ought to be as motionless as possible. — ' When is a man\nmotionless ? ' — The soul is motionless when nothing whatever can\nperturb her ; when she is neither glad nor sad and cannot be\ngladdened nor yet saddened. And she must be unnecessitous. —\n' When is she unnecessitous ? ' — The soul is unnecessitous when\nshe has no need to cleave to any creature and not only has no need,\nit is hell-pain to her to dwell upon the form of creature since there\nis no rest for her save in the formless form of God. She is un-\nnecessitous when she has come into her rights and, with no need of\nchange, rests in the unnecessitous nothingness of his unchanging\nnature.\n\n51. ' Sir, what did St Paul mean by saying, ' ' We shall be one spirit\nwith God ? \" When is the soul one spirit with God ? ' — She is one\nspirit with God when she has no image or anything between. And\nshe is turned to spirit when she is not subject to any creature love\nor appetite.\n\n52. ' Sir, what is perfect love ? ' — Perfect love leaves nothing\n\nLIBER ROsmONUM 455\n\nless than God. — ' Pray tell me what you mean.' — I mean, having\nhold of nothing but God they cannot leave go of less than God,\nwho are as they should be. Natural ties have been cut.\n\n53. ' Tell me, Sir, for the love of God, is it possible to pray or\nask of God quite unselfishly ? ' — Oh yes. I will tell you how.\nThere are two cases of unselfish prayer. The first is on our own\naccount, that we may be rid of some imperfection which comes\nbetween us and eternal truth. The second case is prayer for some\nother person's sin, knowing all the facts and that he desires to be\nfree. For these things we may pray and with avidity. But our\nhuman will must confine itself to the will of God, as thus : ' Lord,\nthou knowest I desire not nor do I will aught save what thou dost\nwill : an thou know something better, give me that,' so losing\nthine own and keeping his.\n\n54. ' Sir, what about the man they talk of sometimes among\npious folk, who sets such store by physical austerities and long-\nwinded prayers ; is that the best or is there something better ? ' —\nThe most perfect bond that we can have is innocence, a blame-\nless life, and being wholly without guile it is best to drop words\naltogether for words are interlopers between ourselves and God.\n\n55. ' What is the sign of union with God's will ? ' — Perfect\nsinglemindedness. — It is characteristic of the gracious, deified\nmind, from trivial error to extract much wisdom. — The very least\nthing in excess of absolute necessity will count. — Christ's every\naction is a pious precept. — An angel's nature is his intellect and\nhis intellect is his impartible nature.\n\n56. He to whom light is given grows conscious of the darkness\nin all creatures.\n\n57. ' Will you tell me, Sir, why Solomon should say. The righteous\nman falls seven times a day ? What is this falling of the righteous\nman ? ' — It is the lapsing of his soul from the highest level she can\nreach to : failure to remain at the very summit where she tran-\nscends creature in God, that is the fall of the perfect man.\n\n58. ' When does one person love another in God without ad-\nmixture of nature ? ' — The sure test of pure divine love is the sense\nof nothing but God, always with enlightenment.\n\n59. ' Why is it that a man will ask for things he does not need\nand knowing this to be the case will still go on doing it : what\ndoes he do it for ? ' — It is nature. When appetites are uncon-\ntrolled a man will ask for the impossible. — ' But supposing it is\nnot impossible nor yet unlikely and he is self-controlled, what is it\nthen ? ' — I tell you it is nature. — ' Yes, yes, good Sir, but leave\nout nature I ' — That will I not. It is nature inasmuch as it is\nmingled with divine nature.\n\n60. ' What is an angel ? ' — Angel like soul is a perpetual nature.\n\n456 MEISTER ECKHART\n\nThe soul has no parts, this and that. Wherever she turns she turns\nas a whole.\n\n61. ' What is essential virtue ? ' — In essential virtue man is in\na state of having no active heart's desire ; he knows what is right\nand is able to live up to his lights in the power of his primitive\nnobility.\n\n62. ' What is the sign of eternal life ? ' — Absence of hate is a\nsign of eternal light. So far as we fail in love towards all mankind,\nwe never really have it.\n\n63. ' Pray Sir, when are we discriminating ? ' — When we know\none thing from another. — ' And when are we above discrimination ? '\n— When we know all in all then we transcend discrimination.\n\n64. ' What does St Paul mean when he speaks of \" redeeming the\ntime because the days are evil \" ? ' — He calls the days evil referring\nto the changeableness of time. He says, redeeming the time —\n\n' When is time redeemed ? ' — Let me tell you. To do a good work\nis not to redeem time but to pawn it. It is a good work to rest\nfrom sin and exercise some virtue. To do better work is not\nredeeming time. He who perfects by practice does better. To do\nthe best of all, that does redeem the time. It is best of all to rest\nin the embrace of God. — ' But is that redeeming the time ? ' — To\nbe sure it is. Time is not redeemed in time. The redemption of\ntime is the timeless spirit's atonement above time.\n\n65. ' Will you expound that sentence in St John's epistle,\n\" Blessed are the dead that die in God ? \" When do we die in God ? '\n— When everything is dead that intervenes between ourselves and\nGod. — ' Well then, will you tell me what is the joy of spirits in\neternity : arc they always finding something new in God ? ' —\nVerily Psay, if they did not find it ever new there would be an end\nto eternity. Were there aught in Gk)d exhaustible by creature,\neternity would end and heaven cease to be.\n\n66. ' Sir, what is true wisdom ? ' — True wisdom, so says one\nphilosopher, means the knowledge of all created things and the\ncreator who has made them.\n\n67. According to St Paul, the closest bond of love a man can\nhave is harmony of will. Our Lord in his love made eternal\nprovision for all human suffering when his Son died upon the cross.\n\n68. He follows hardest on the heels of God who leaves all\ntemporal things behind and clings to the eternal.\n\n69. Joy is the reward of virtue, says one of the saints. — ' Tell me,\nwhen does a man do his duty by creatures ? ' — ^When he knows\nthem and leaves tjiiem.\n\n70. A saint says. So long as we will and will not our free will is\nnot captive to God. If any man does as he should God will do what\nthat man would.\n\n71, ' Sir, how would you define grace ? • — I define grace as him\nwhom no joy nor pleasure can gladden, no pain nor adversity\nsadden.\n\n72. The most successful prayers are the willing learners from\ncreature or the spoken word.\n\n78 . ' When does God work in man unhindered ? ' — When he\ntakes good and ill from God with the same thankfulness. — ' But,\nwith one and the same thankfulness or each with thankfulness ? '\n— ^They must be received with the same thankfulness. Time is\nalways true to its own nature but were soul and body displaced\ninto eternity motion would be lost. The less moveable thou art\nthe more thou art established in eternity.\n\n74. ' Sir, when is virtue present in a man ? ' — There is virtue in\nthe soul just as memory and knowledge and love are in the soul,\nfor they are spiritual in their substance. There is virtue in the\nsoul and it is present in a man as long as it is not cast out in\nlawless utterances.\n\n75. ' Will you tell me. Sir, why we are sometimes quite unmoved\n\nin suffering whereas at other limes we hail it with delight and then\nagain it readily affects us ? ' — Supposing a man is by himself with\nhis senses indrawn from the multiplicity of things and recollected\nto himself, then his soul will be unmoved inasmuch as God is\npresent in her. But if his senses are broadcast upon things and\nmore or less unstable on those things, he will be readily affected.\nThen let him beware of lawless utterance ; he must recollect him-\nself and in deep humility just appeal lovingly to God : ' Lord thou\nknowest I can do naught without thee,' and quick as thought thou\nart back in God. ^\n\n76. ' Pray Sir, is one quite detached w^hen one gives no consent\nto sin and bitter as it was to part from things it were just as bitter\nto return to them ? ' — Yes, surely.\n\n77. ' Is eternal light vouchsafed to anyone who falls short ? '-r-\nOh yes ! It was to St Paul.\n\n78. 'Is no holy soul beatified that has shortcomings ? ' — Yes,\nthousands if one reckoned them. — ' But no saint can be sanctified\nunless he has received eternal light ? ' — Yes, numbers.\n\n79. ' What do you mean, Sir, when you talk of divine light and\neternal light, are they the same or is there a difference ? Do they\nconsist in the same thing ? — They are not the same. By one\nlight we know, by another we can and by a third one we do.\nNow to distinguish between them. To perceive divine truth and\nanswer thereto, that I call divine light. I say it is God's light\nbecause it is Godlike. It is not God himself ; it may be given by\nan angel or a saint. Eternal light, again, I define to be the perfect\nimage of the impartible nature of God and of it St Paul says, the\n\nMEISTER ECKHART\n\nthird heaven and its light are not immediately present to us here\nin this body ; we have to return to our true selves. Ah, woe is me,\nhow wearisome my exile 1 It is impartible light when the soul\ndeparting from the body flies straight back to God into whose\nlight she is absorbed. Beyond this her perception does not go.\nAnd I mean by impartible light the vision of God with nothing\nbetween : no creaturely hindrance, no time, no looking back : in\neternity. — St John had eternal light ; he knew the whole truth\nand attained to it. All things were possible to him, but though\nnot guilty of any mortal sin he was still liable to its suggestion.\nThat no man can escape.\n\n80. ' What is the sign of eternal light ? ' — It is a sure sign when\neverything not God is irksome and virtue has become a second\nnature.\n\n81. Talkativeness or over-attention to our daily wants is fatal to\nfriendly intercourse with God. If wc would escape the purgatorial\nfires we must set a watch on all our ways, especially our words.\nDifferent is the cleansing fire of the perfeetion of God and the love\nof the soul, between them imperfections are consumed away.\n\n82. Good people's food is clear consciousness and intercourse\nwith holy souls and constant reception of the body of our Lord\nJesus Christ. Neither the devil nor yet any creature ever gave\nan appetite for the body of our Lord Jesus Christ ; this comes\nfrom God alone, you may be sure.\n\n84. ' Tell me. Sir, do we find in holy writ mention of any rapture\nbesides that of St Paul ? ' — No. — ' But they tell me three are to\nhe found ; Adam was caught up while he was asleep and St John\nwhen he was resting on the bosom of our Lord and St Paul when\nhe was felled to earth ; they each saw God without means, without\nany image or likeness.' — Verily, I say, before the death of our\nLord Jesus Christ no man had ever seen God in his God-nature\nexcept that golden temple our Lady Mary at the moment when\nour Lady conceived divine and human nature ; then she received\neternal light and saw God in his simple nature, but before that no\ncreature. — ' Then what was Adam's rapture and St John's ? ' —\nWhen God created Adam his body was made painless like his soul.\nYou could have hewn him in his sleep and it would not have\nhurt him for the lower powers of his soul were obedient to her\nhigher ones and she was subject to the law of her perfect nature\nand unhindered by gross body and this was his by right of nature.\nHad he stayed at the summit of his soul he would have kept her\nin her maker. \"He knew God had created him and that divine\nnature \"was destined to unite with human nature and he had dis-\ncriminate knowledge of all creatures, each in its natural perfection\njust as God had made them and he was carried away by enjoyment\n\nof the sight. You must know that he was sleeping like any other\nman. — * Then what was the rapture of St John ? * — ^He was resting.\nRest so called from its likeness to the abstraction of our Lord Jesus\nChrist and St John's from its likeness to them both ; a gentle\nsinking into dispassion, that is what his rapture was.\n\n85. ' Is a man liable to fall once he has had eternal light ? ' — I\nsay, No. If Adam had seen God he would not have fallen and the\narchangel Lucifer, if he had seen God in his impartible essence\nwould not have fallen. — ' I have heard tell that in ecstasy there\nis no interference with free will. Is that really so ? ' — It neither\nstrengthens nor weakens the free will. Verily I say, anyone who\nholds that a man can fall after eternal light, though he commit no\ngreater sin than St Agnes did, shall die infiillibly for it is lieresy and\nmortal sin to have this belief. That soul can no more fall than\nSt Peter could. The heavenly Father might as well forsake his\nSon as the soul wherein he has given his Son birth. If the Father\nends the Son ends ; if the Son ends eternity ends ; if eternity ends\nthe soul ends.\n\n86. ' Sir, when you speak of God's birth, of the Father begetting\nhis Son in the soul, is this birth the same as the rapture of St Paul\nand what happened at Pentecost to the disciples or are these\ndifferent things ? ' — They are exa('tly the same. — ' Then when you\ntalk of eternal light do you mean God's birth in the soul or is that\nsomething else ? ' — I mean the same thing ; they are identical.\nBut one thing I do say. Birth is the better term and nearer to\nthe truth though in reality there is no difference. I will tell you\nwhy. An angel by nature is eternal light ; the sun is eternal\nlight ; the stars are eternal light. Eternal light is ascribed to\nthings that are not changed by time ; and since we can attribute\neternal light to creatures so we may to man in an imperfect sense.\nBut birth applies to the heavenly Father alone, this birth in eternity.\nGod catches the soul all at once to himself and his birth is gottetl\ntherein. There it is to him well-nigh the same as the Son in the\nTrinity. I say, well-nigh, for it is there by grace and the Son by\nnature. — ' Suppose a man has eternal light, is he prone to temporal\nsin ? ' — It was after Pentecost that Peter sinned.\n\n90. ' Can a man make certain of having nothing more to over-\ncome ? ' — St Paul had things to overcome after he was caught up.\nAnd our Lord Jesus Christ had to overcome. Though his soul\nand body were united with the Godhead and the Godhead is\nimpassible, yet his future pains were present with him, racking\nall his soul-powers.\n\n91. ' When the soul prepares for God by chasing away thoughts\nand discarding all the things she has relied on and endeavours\nto get rid of every means but without success, tell me. Sir, what\n\nMEISTER ECKHART\n\nought she to do next ? ' — When the images from outside are all\ngone let her abase herself and lovingly entreat of him somewhat\nthat she still lacks. — ' But if she refuses to desire or entreat, being\nminded to remain quite simple ? * — Then let her simply fix her\nmind on God with vehement longing. — ' But surely, Sir, longing\nis a means and she wants to be quite simple and direct : without\nany images and free from this and that, with not a word or prayer\nto come between ? ' — I say^it is impossible in the unglorified body ;\nshe ought not to expect it. — ' If that is the case, Sir, then it seems\nto me her watchword ought to be refusal — of objective things and\nsubjective images — and that is her best way.' — There is no doubt\nof it ; she can do no more. When a soul like this is rapt above\nherself int6 naked knowledge of naught it is God who does it at\nhis own good pleasure, absolutely freely, without any help of hers.\n\n92. ' Sir, can we realize all our minds can grasp ? ' — No. I can\nconceive of things I cannot be : the unglorified body is not so agile\nas the mind.\n\n93. ' What is a reasonable man ? ' — One who is controlled in\njoy and sorrow, him I call a reasonable man. — ' How would you\ndefine prayer ? ' — St Augustine says, prayer is the soul's detach-\nment from things and attachment to God. — ' Tell me. Sir, can we\nbe rid of things at once without any trouble ? ' — No, it is always\naccompanied with pain : that indicates the pull of something\nhigher. If it comes without pain it is no matter for rejoicing.\nTrue, St Paul lost things all at once, but afterwards he had to\nconquer them in detail. Conquests made by suffering are lasting.\n\n94. What God has by nature in unity is not denied to any\nrational ^creature, by grace, in his individuality. Rejoicing and\nsorrowing, that is nature. We must expect nature in people.\n\n95. ' Sir, are we punished for faults ? ' — We are punished for\nsins and hindered by faults. — ' But you said that when a man has\neternal light he never has anything between and now you say he\nis prone to sin. Do such people sin and is sin punished w4th fire ?\nYou certainly did say that they have nothing between. How are\nthese two facts to be reconciled ? How is the sin wiped out ? '\n— ^By the perfect love of the creator to his creature and the creature\nto his creator : the sin lies between them and in the fire of their\nlove sin burns away.\n\n96. ' Those to whom eternal light has come, do they afterwards\nremain in a state of love and vision ? I am wondering, being\nestablished in the one, where there is naught but one, how they\nmanage to be one and other, for there is that in me, when spirit\nconceives unity, that passes all distinction. Arc grace and vision\nand light all the same ? ' — No, not by any means. Take an\nillustration. The stars are put out by the sun and in the same way\n\ngrace and vision fade when eternal light is given. The highest of\nthe angels draws a form from God and on assuming it, adapts it\nfurther to himself and informs therewith the middle ones who pass\nit on to those below and the lowest give it to the soul and the\nfiend can copy it. So they may be deceived. But the soul in\nwhom the heavenly Father speaks his Word does not receive from\nthe lower angels : what the highest of the angels draws from God\nhe pours into this soul without the intervention of the rest. Verily\nI say, seldom or never do people get through angels apparitions of\nsuch things as are given in time and temporalities.\n\n97. ' What is the difference between nature and spirit ? ' — I call\nthat spirit whereby we are aware what we ought to have and\nwhat to leave whether we would or no. Spirit makes us do it,\nwilly-nilly. Not to do it because we do not want to would be\nnature.\n\n98. ' When is nature uppermost ? ' — When we have at heart\nsomething we ought to get rid of and will not.\n\n99. ' How would you distinguish, Sir, between sin, fault and\ninfirmity ? ' — It is sin to cleave with desire to anything that does\nnot make for God. By a fault I mean any accidental falling\nshort of God. And infirmity may be defined as not having the\nmind fixed on God all the time.\n\n100. ' O thou fathomless Truth,' cries St Paul, ' thy ways are\npast finding out ! ' When he cries O, he is thinking of the hidden\nhoard of the divine nature. — ' What hoard ? ' — The wisdom of God.\nAngels' and souls' desire is appeased by nothing but the best.\nThe wisdom of God is savoured when all creatures point (us) towards\nthe best. The other hoard is God's art. Art amounts, in^temporal\nthings, to singling out the best. True art loses this altogether\nand abides in the ground of them all. St Paul was caught up\nabove this wonder and above this O and saw the very thing he\nis seeing to this day, the bond of life meanwhile persisting in his\nbody as form does in its matter. His higher self received naked\neternal light ; body was no hindrance, soul received from God.\n\n101. ' When is the soul above O ? ' — When she gets the simple\nimpression of divine form, of the image which is the Son himself\nfor so the Father is always letting down the apex of the higher\nworld into the one below. — Anyone on earth may be deceived\nexcepting him in whom the Father bears his Son.\n\n102. ' What is the sign of the eternal birth ? ' — While a man is\nsubject to sensible affection he has no conception of eternal truth.\nWhen he does conceive the eternal truth no creature can comfort\nor discomfit him. The time when Paul was felled to earth he heard\na voice which said to him, ' Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me ? '\nHe said, ' Who art thou Lord ? ' — \" I am Jesus of Nazareth.'\n\nMEISTER ECKHART\n\nThe voice was not God : God was speaking through an angel.\nGod can no more lose his nature than utter his eternal Word in\nsound or image. God said through an angel, I am Jesus of\nNazareth. He said /, referring to the impartible I of divine nature.\nThe shows distinction between the Father and the Son. Jesus\nof Nazareth suggests the union of divine and human nature.\n\n108. St James says, ' With the Father of lights is no turning.'\nThere arc three kinds of turning. One of nature, another of will\nand a third of power. I speak of the first. Turning means\nchanging from one thing to another, becoming more or less, going\nto and fro. One philosopher says, ' Things are all fighting their\nway back to naught.' If God withdrew support things would all\nrelapse into primeval chaos. The philosopher says, all created\nthings are fluent. That is fluent which is not stationary in itself.\nIf creature could touch bottom heaven would end and creature\nwould be God. Natural change there is none with the Father of\nlights. Change is due to a longing for rest. If there were rest\nin him divine nature would pass away and heaven be at an end.\nHe does not alter. What he has like nature is generation. If\ngeneration stopped things would all go back to their primeval\nnothingness. But of what avail are long discussions of God's\nnature if we are not aware of his image in us ?\n\n104. ' Pray Sir, what makes the soul unchangeable ? ' —\nStability of soul depends upon three things. First on her having\nher body well- controlled : what the soul wills, that her body must\ndo without question. If Adam had preserved his natural perfection\nhe could have done whatever he desired and creatures would all\nhave beein obedient to him. But when he fell both his own body\nand all creatures left off obeying him : they were no longer true\nto him who was untrue to God. — ^The second thing is to have no\nattachment to or enjoyment in anything inferior to God. — Thirdly,\nno quarter must be given to the mortal nature. If Adam had\nstood firm he would not have become mortal. Adam as God\nmade him on the first day would have survived until the day of\njudgment. St Paul declares, ' From the moment God called me\nnot once have I looked back.' If Adam had seen God in him-\nself he could not have fallen. He knew that God had made\nhim and what he made -hini^for and this he viewed with carnal\npleasure. It was this and nothing else that carried him away.\n\n105. When our Lord Jesus Christ was about to depart to heaven\nto his Father his disciples were with him at the place of his ascen-\nsion, distraught and unable to speak or pay attention, so much\nwere they engrossed with the bodily presence of our Lord. And\nwhile they stood staring up at the sky there came an angel saying,\n\n' Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye here gazing up into heaven ? '\n\nWhy so absorbed in that which, after all, cannot remain with you\nfor ever ? Philosophers tell us that creature does not stay, it is\nflowing all the time back into its source. If the disciples had been\nproof to sweetness not one of them would have been distraught.\nFor this the angel chid them saying, ' Why stand ye here ? ' as\nthough to say, why occupy your minds so much with the beloved\nbodily form of our Lord Jesus Christ ? Ye only waste yourselves\non temporal things which, after all, are impermanent. ' Why\nstand ye gazing up into heaven ? ' God is the form of the soul,\nthe soul's soul. When spirit is caught up above all images, into\nthe eternal truth, then the soul stops and sees into heaven. It is\nman's highest happiness that she cannot rest until, being rid of\nimages, she is reflected back into the naught where she has been\neternally without herself. Soul becomes Son when she is thus\ntransported over all into the open where God is ; then soul draws\nout of God and when she is as we have said she is standing at\nthe door. She loses her own nature drinking out of God, on\nthe threshold of gnosis, where nothing enters into her except the\neternal. Eternal rest, then, is not given her except by him.\n\n106. Aristotle says, everything partial is painful ; the most\nunited is most painful when divided.\n\n107. Three kinds of people receive God. The first receive him\nfor pleasure. God is sweet to them in anticipation so they enter-\ntain him selfishly and to their cost, with little genuine profit.\nThe second receive him of necessity, in discarding sins, for without\nGod they have no power to do it. The third lose desire and\ndesiring naught receive him wisely and with real benefit. The\nbenefit is this ; they recognise each fault with rue and in true\npenitence contrive that he shall find in us the reflection of what\nwe seek in him ; thus getting him to dwell in us as we do in him\nwe attain to angelic life : the upward flight, the simple glance into\nGod's nature, and at each ending of the act the steady reflection\nof God so that in multitudinous things like bodily necessity, she\nis not debarred from the eternal but in multiplicity is still united.\n\n108. ' Pray Sir, is it possible for mere creature to partake of\nGod's nature ? ' — No, for as St Augustine argues, God is remote\nfrom matter and that which has no matter has no parts and is\nindivisible. Creature can receive no part of God's nature because\nGod is impartible by nature. — ' I do not mean part. Sir, in the sense\nof fragment ; I mean part in the sense of community of spirit\nwith spirit in divine nature. That was my idea in asking.' —\nYou must make allowance for the difference in creatures. One is\nunited, another separated. See how one is united. The will of\nthe Father and the obedience of the Son seized, with the power\nof their common Spirit, in the bare chamber of the virgin heart of\n\n464 MEISTER ECKHART\n\ntheir chosen vessel Mary, her most pure blood-stream and there-\nfrom, with all his members, wrought one faultless man and poured\ntherein a soul complete with powers and this by the power of the\nGodhead. When, out of chaos (having brooded there for aye)\na shining spiritual soul emerged, straightway all imperfection\nwas removed and by the Spirit itself this soul was admitted to the\nrank of spirit and, sponsored by the soul, the body was received\nas well. Such is the mode of union of united creatures. — ' And\nhow do separated creatures participate God's nature ? ' — St Peter\nsays that creatures according to their natures partake of God\nin three ways ; as being, as life and as grace. As being,\ncreatures all without exception. As life, receptive creatures,\nfrom angels and men downwards. Mark how the Father by his\ngenerative power created by the propagation of his Word. From\nhis interior Word burst forth their common mind, by nature the\none angel of all creatures. Him he commanded to pour his mobile\npower into the sun and from the solar energy there showered upon\nearth, increased and multiplied, trees, beasts and all mankind.\nAs regards the soul, the heavenly Father draws up with his power\nthe lower powers of the soul ; the Son lights up the middle ones\nand the Holy Ghost impinging on the sharpness of her mind,\nflashes it back to the absolute zero of the Tri-unity. I say to\nzero ; to the boundary line between united and separated creatures.\nChrist namely, as he was in his first light, bereft of personality\nwhich the middle Person of the Trinity preserves therein, where\nin essential wisdom he is transfixed, confused with God's all-\nperfection. Further, the soul gets light from God's essential\nrevelation. This is her aught and his causeless incomprehensibility.\nThere her aught abides, graven in a point, mounted in the splendour\nof his eternal love-nature. In this sense mere creature receives\nand partakes of the divine nature.\n\n109. ' When do we lose God altogether ? ' — How do you mean,\nlose ? What is your idea in asking this ? — ' I mean lose in the\nsense of knowing God one without other : free from matter and\nform and exempt from creatures, which are matter and form, one\nand other. So that creature conveys to her not one whit of God\nfor all they say that God is in all creatures. How is this loss to\nbe accounted for ? ' — I answer : Three sorts of people are deprived\nof God. One in material creatures, another in spiritual substances,\nthe third above creature and below God. In the first case there\nis loss in creatures of gross material nature. This happens when,\nher senses being sated 'with their objective forms, she escapes from\ntheir separateness to their perfect whole. Thus she loses the\ndense part of their nature and there remains to her only the\nsweetness of their innate nobility. In the second case, since no\n\ncaused thing is superior to its cause and the aforesaid sweetness\nis derived from creatures whereas the soul proceeds from God,\nlike though not of his same nature, therefore the soul being sated,\nnot stinted, with this sweetness will acquire a fresh thirst, for\nineffable sweetness, a longing for her first felicity. This finally\ndetaches her from material nature and drives her to pure knowledge\nof herself and spiritual substances in general. Now she seeks\ndelight in the enjoyments of her kind but finds it not for creatures\nare all dry and like no better than its like : abiding actuality is\nthe only thing to quench her parching thirst. — In the third case\nshe loses her activity. It happens thus. All spiritual substances\nact instantaneously though not at any instant of time. Losing\ninstantaneously her materiality she loses each and every use of\nher separated nature. The thirst is followed by the loss of all\nvariable activities and approach to the outskirts of eternity. Here\nshe awaits the love-light wherein she secs the Trinity. This\nwaiting is personified in Mary, Mary standing without at the\nsepulchre, waiting in her outward helplessness the embrace of the\neternal nature. She saw two angels one at the feet and another at\nthe head. Sight is light-perception. The angel at the head stands\nfor the omnipotence of the majesty of God ; the one at the feet,\nfor his subtile nature. They asked her, ' Whom dost thou seek ? '\nFor the incomprehensibility of God and her passionate desire-\nnature would form no satisfying union. Tlie question is one of\nincapacity for his incomprehensible nature ; she wants to embrace\nthe whole extent of him and is not able to. She said, ' Jesus of\nNazareth ! ' He is the keeper in this solitude. Turning, she sees\nhim standing in the likeness of a gardener : in the in-graven nature\nof the Person imaged in the ground of unity. He questionfid her,\n\n' Whom seckest thou ? ' This is the blinding transcendental light,\nthe glory in the midst of the Trinity, which eclipses her own dim\nunderstanding and the aforesaid light. ' If thou hast borne him\nhence, tell me, ' she says. She has lost her wits in the overwhelming\nlight of the immediate truth. He says, ' Mary ! ' using her own\nname. When the Father, departing from his essential personality,\nbegets out of himself in otherness of Person his Word, the perfect\nreproduction of himself, he grasps with his paternal hand his\nimpartible, beatific nature and harking back in spirit to himself\nis with himself as Son well-nigh in otherness. This is her name of\nwhose child David cries, ' Thou art my Son this day have I begotten\nthee.' She would have touched him. Now behold and marvel at\nher love of God ! Not satisfied with rising beyond all creaturely\nconception she desires to sink into the undifferentiated oneness of\nthe essence of the Three, of Gk)d with God, nature with nature,\nftnd lose the creature-nature that is hers e'en though that would\n\nMEISTER ECKHART\n\nnot be for her own highest happiness. For in oneness she would\nlose her knowledge, her love and her enjoyment, in other\nwords, the actual goal of creatures. Hence his warning,\n' Touch me not ! ' for this touching means the refunding into God\nof separated natures, whereas it is to creatures full of love and\nfeeling that the consciousness of unbroken oneness brings supreme\nfelicity. If she runs into God or God runs into her, either way\nhers is the loss because of the immensity of his essential nature\nand the insignificance of her creaturchood. As a dewdrop to the\nocean are all creatures as compared with their creator. He bids\nher ' Go to Galilee to my disciples and tell them of my resurrection ;\nthere they shall see me as I said.' Truly a bitter blow ! She,\nwho was not satisfied with God in the likeness of the second\nPerson, who wanted to merge into his oneness, and Jesus bids\nher go to Galilee to bring word of his presence to mere creatures :\nher, who was impatient of the universal Word in eternal unity !\nShe obeys him and goes thither. To Galilee, submissive to Jesus.\nGalilee means crossing (or transition). There is no temporal life\nbut has to yield to physical necessity. Her watchword then must\nbe, ' I no longer live but Christ liveth in me.' She came to Jesus'\nbrethren who are three. Uninterrupted union ; perfect corre-\nspondence with the mirror of eternity, without any discrepancy\nwhatever ; complete submission of the soul -powers and loss of all\nactivity in the actual power of God in the essential nature of the\nbody and the soul. Lo, she loses God in the limiting value of\ncreature.\n\n110. Love God with all thy soul. — ' What do you mean by loving\nGod with all one's soul ? ' — Ascending naked to God with nothing\nbetween, that I call whole-souled love. The soul's life is love, the\nsoul's love is gnosis and her gnosis is her being. The soul's real\nbeing is delight. The soul is never so near to God but God stands\none side soul the other. Being belies not itself. Augustine says,\nGod is the soul's soul and being.\n\n114. 'Pray Sir, can one be moved without sinning?' — ^When\nthe animal passions are stirred the movement comes from with-\nout, not from within. Like a tree blown about by the wind and\nnot torn up from the ground because the roots hold. In a case\nof agitation allowance must be made both for the person and\nthe cause.\n\n115. ' Can one remain the same in good and ill ? ' — Your bodily\nnature must always be the sport of joy and sorrow ; that it can\nnever lose. But will remains the same in fortune and misfortune,\nwithout resentment in the depths of woe. The power of impatience\nis taken from the recipient of eternal light.\n\n116. ' How do you megn Sir^ the power ? Pray explain.' — I\n\nam using power here with reference to two things. On the one\nhand there is loss of the power of resentment. And on the other\nhand the power to be upset is removed from those who are vouch-\nsafed eternal light. To lose their equanimity would be to them\nhell-torment and impossible. Joys and sorrows are not grown in\nthe ground of eternal truth ; none of creatures' nurslings are truth's\nseedlings and that is the key to this matter of dispassion.\n\n117. ' There is another thing that needs explanation. You say\nthat power is withdrawn and they are not able for it. Is this\ninability of nature or of grace ? ' — Nature acts differently. Were\nit a natural disability then effort would be vain, which it is not.\nIt is an inability of grace ; the soul is caught in the blaze of divine\nlight and held by the majesty of God in the reflection of the\nessential good of the third Person. There personal distinction\ndisappears merged in the oneness of the Three. There she is lost\nto the multiplicity of creatures. That answers your inquiries\nabout the loss of power in pious souls and how they are impotent\nto lose their equanimity. Now, at last, they are omnipotent.\n\n118. ' For the love of God, Sir, expound to me one statement\nyou are fond of making.' — What is that ? — ' You say that inability\nto live up to one's lights shows the absence of eternal light. The\nman who has eternal light can put his theories into practice. She\nonly has to see a thing and lo, it is as though it had not been and\nshe is free from it, which alarms me somewhat for I am never guilty\nof the most venial fault but first it is suggested to my mind and\nthis does not prevent me from committing it. Tell me, Sir, what\nis her essential power ? ' — ^Essential power is one. Her essential\npower is will-and-love and this is not a prey to images bodily or\nghostly, so she is essentially potential and that is what I fnean\nwhen I call her really free from (passive to) it.\n\n119. 'I crave your counsel. Sir : In the throes of intellectual\nconception, at the actual moment of it, I would fain be absolutely\nfree.' — It is impossible ; gross matter forbids. Soul is volatile by\nnature, body is made of dense material. That this dense material\nshould be as nimble as the psychic is not to be expected in the\nunglorified body. To the eye colour, to the car sound. There is\nno harm in that nor is it any barrier to eternal truth. We ought\nto disregard them it is true, but that cannot be. Yet one thing I\ncan tell you for your comfort : no will or love is lost on these dis-\nturbers of the peace. Furthermore I say, the power to will and\nlove being absent, her power is what I call essential power. It is\na certain test of essence when nothing wrought from without gives\nany reaction within.\n\n120. In the image-bearing form of God which impartibly con-\ntains the form of all things there shines the universal form unformed\n\nMEISTER ECKHART\n\nin oneness, which radiates one single light into all spirits variously :\nthe highest spirits, as becomes their stable nature, without reflec-\ntion and souls in this body according to their fitness in this passing\ntime. Mark how this image-bearing light, which the soul receives\nfrom its reflection, carries her beyond this mode of changing time\ninto eternity, to the level of the highest spirits. When a mind\nhabitually dwells in its eternal image, God to wit, with more\ndelight than in itself, to such a mind the image-bearing light appears\nin its eternal form. Then the mind is transported over these\nmanifold and changing things which exist in time and inhabits\nthese rather than itself. Remember, we are dealing here with spirit\nnot with essence.\n\n121. The image-bearing light of divine unity is impartible and\nyet both essence and nature. Now the question is, how is it\nessence and how is it nature ? The answer is as follows. As\nessence it subsists in permanent, immanent stillness. It appears\nas all things in impartible mode ; not in the mode of any creature :\nit is a mode of its own in that same absolute stillness. There the\ndistinctions of the Persons are sublimed to this simple modeless\nmode. Behold it now the essence of the Persons and of all things :\nthe essence of the Persons it is by nature but of creatures by grace.\nFor consider. It contains the form of all things impartibly, as\nessence. In this form it is ingrained in all things. This same\nimpartible form (or image) is also nature and as nature it preserves\nits one-being in the Trinity and the Trinity its one-being in the\nunity. And as this one-being in the Trinity it is the impartible\npotentiality of the Trinity : the nature of the Persons but not\nthat of all things. For if it were the nature of all things it would\nreproduce itself in all the things in manifestation in its own potential\nnature. Then things would all be God in the same sense that God\nis God. Now that is not the case. This shows that it is not the\nnature of all things but only the nature of the Persons and there\nexists no thing but has its own appropriate nature.\n\n122. Since the impartible image-bearing light behaves as essence\nand also as its nature, has it then, I ask, the idiosyncrasies of each\nor not ? — No, assuredly not. There is no more than one. Its\nchief idiosyncrasy is that it is shining by itself and is manifest\nonly to the Persons. But in that this image-bearing light falls\nupon all things and the only thing that shows it is itself, you see\nit has the character of light. This character belongs to essential\nessence and it also belongs to its nature's nature. Here essence and\nnature are shown to be one being with one idiosyncrasy not two\nidiosyncrasies ; for supposing there were two then one idiosyncrasy\nwould cause the other ; which is impossible : the essential stillness\nbehaves as simple essence and nature's radiant Trinity as well.\n\n128. Hence arises the question, in the essence and its nature do\nthings all appear in impartible fashion or no ? — The answer is, Yes,\nthey appear in the essence in immanent stillness and impartible\nmode : essence and nature one light in light's summit. The\nessence is light's source and centre. As such it is essence. Also\nin the Trinity nature shines with the light of all things in the same\nimpartible way. But there is stillness in the depths of essence.\n\n124. But how nature in the Trinity is one and three proceed\n\nfrom one is not to be deduced from the impartibility of the first\ncause. Augustine says, the Persons are one in nature. Hence\nnature and Persons are alike eternal. Intellect is by nature\nperfectly intelligible to itself in the light of nature and its con-\nception of itself is other than this intellect. Intellect is not\nbegotten ; it is the paternal Person who begets the knower in\nperfectly conceiving his own Person. Lo, on a sudden, the eternal\nbirth ! Now there are two Persons and in the very act of the Son's\nproceeding from the Father, the knower looking back, leaps to the\nperfect understanding of his Father whence he sprang. In that\nsame origin these two natures know each other with one knowledge.\nThe knowing is the same as the knower himself. Therein they\nknow themselves one love in the omnipotence of the Father whence\nthe knower sprang. This love is their common spiration : in this\nlove they are one. It is the third Person. It starts with the re-\nbirth, the reposing of the knower on the heart of the omnipotent\nFather. Thus the first river originates the second river, in con-\njunction with the original source. Hence the several natures are\nall one in nature and this nature is the same in the several natures.\nThat is to say, Persons. ^\n\n125. ' But what enjoyment do the Persons get out of their\nnatural essence ? ' — Well, as you may prove, the Persons are in\ntheir nature and their nature in the Persons : their nature keeps\nthe Persons quite distinct while at the same time preserving them\nin unity. As preserving them in one, nature is simply the power\nof the Persons. In this same power the three Persons disappear\ninto their nature. For essence and nature form one light in light's\nsummit, the impartible image of God, essence passing into nature ;\nmoreover all the Persons being clapt into their nature vanish into\nthe dim silence of their interior being. There they retain no per-\nsonality for with this confinement goes entire loss of property. Lo,\nGod de-spirited ! The fathomless deep is fathomed by the master-\nmind of God. The delight and satisfaction and perfection found\ntherein no nature can describe. That is how the three Persons\nenjoy their natural essence.\n\n126. ' Tell me, when the spirit runs back into its source, does it\nremain in its original source or in the naught of its idea ? ' — Its\n\nMEISTER ECKHART\n\nproper habitation is its source. The naked spark of spirit is the\nmens. Mens is the natural image of the spirit. But mind is never\nperfect spirit till it passes into its exemplar and is lost to its own\nselfhood, escaping in that same natural image into its ideal nature.\nIn this sense its abode is in the naught of its idea rather than in\nits source. But its origin is its real abode.\n\n127. How is the Son re-born in the Father once he has come\nforth ? — In this way. The Father grasps the light of his own\nunderstanding and bears it into the ground of his essence. Thus\nthe knower is reflected back into the light of his Father's heart.\n\n128. 'I should much like to know, about the appearance of the\npaternal Person in the unity, where it is all-conceiving.' — When the\nFather conceiving the impartible idea of all things in the unity,\nappears to himself in Person and essence, lo, the paternal Person\nvanishes in this mysterious unity and there is an end of the Father\nand of all distinctions. Unity conceiving all as one, nothing but\none appears and communes with itself. But sinee logieally speak-\ning there is Person in the unity, it is in this unity that it conceives\nits nature, appearing and calling itself Person and there too the\npaternal Person must conceive his unity, as the unity the Person,\nsince both of them have the same nature.\n\n129. Mark how conception differs. There is ideal conception\nand real concej^tion. Ideal conception is the nature's general\nconception of the Persons, all the three. But the real conception\nis the special conception of each particular Person in its own\nproper nature in the nature.\n\n130. ' Tell me, when God conceives the soul does he conceive\nher by ideal conception or by real conception ? ' — He conceives\nher by ideal conception for this general idea embraces all in one ;\nsupposing he conceived her by particular conception she would\nbe bereft of the flower of her nature for in a particular conception\nnothing is conceived besides the special nature of the thing itself.\nIn other words, its nature as a unit, an expression, not its\ninnate nobility.\n\n131. Mark the noble lineage of the Persons. They are uncreated\nand without beginning and infinite and inconceivable and are\npossessed of property which comes to them in the course of\nnature. Not so with the soul : she is created and has a beginning\nand is man and has possessions and not property for to her it is\nall given.\n\n182. ' Is the seer as free as the will ? ' — No, not by any means.\nIf it were it would be always in the naked Godhead. But it is\nnot ; it has to be doing its work, the ordering and management\nof the various powers. Will has not got this to do : it bids and\nforbids.\n\n188. ' Now what I want to know is this : why has the Godhead\na feminine name and no feminine function and the Person of the\nFather on the other hand a masculine name and a feminine\nfunction ? ' — The explanation is this. The Godhead contains all\nthings impartibly and the thing in which another is contained is\ncalled mother in virtue of this content. It has, however, no\nmaternal act since it docs not as such give birth to anything. The\nFather, again, has a masculine name and a feminine function and\nthe reason is that the Father in Person docs not contain things\nin him, he begets them out of him by the power of his Person.\nThe Father in his proper personality is empty of the content\nwhich he impartibly contains. But also he plays a mother's\npart, the unity providing him with all that ho brings forth. In\nthis bringing forth he is functioning as mother ; as being free from\ncontent in his personal nature he retains his masculine name.\nThe birth of the Son shows the Father travailing. But the Father\nis Father in that he begets.\n\n134. ' Then there is this question : Is the Son born or is he not\nborn or is he still to be born ? ' — Let us consider. There are three\nPersons and that shows the Son is born for each of the Persons\nhas its own peculiar nature. They could none of them have this\nif the Son had not been born. This proves the Son is born. But\nthe Father changes not at all in his eternal childbirth : could we\nattribute to him any deed at all it would be in the sense that\nanything he docs he is doing now and what he is doing now he\nhas always done, for with him there is no past nor future. This\nproves the Son has not been born : he is now this instant being\nborn and this now is an ever-becoming ; as the Father himself\nsays, ' To-day have I begotten thee.' To-day is the etern&l now.\nIt is in this now that his birth is taking place.\n\n135. Remember, the eternal Word is both unborn and born.\nThis is a hard saying, but being in the Trinity the Word must\nneeds be born ; it cannot there be called the unborn Word.\nTaking the eternal Word as Person, it is born ; but take it in its\nessence and the Word is non-existent. Here the Word has to be\nborn.\n\n136. Now mark how we argue that the Word remains the Word\nunborn. Where the Word issues from the Father as a birth it\nshows its born nature and proclaims the Father parent. But\nwhere the Word proceeds from the Father as a light it is the\nspecies of the Father and shows the Father formless for it has the\nform of the Father. He himself declared, ' He who seeth me\nseeth my Father.' Thus the Word reveals the Father in his own\nform and shows the Father formless and where the Word proceeds\nfrom the Father as understanding it proceeds as abiding within.\n\nMEISTER ECKHART\n\nAs intelligence leaves not the heart but reveals to himself the man\nin whom it dwells, so we have the Word in the eternal procession\nof the Father, the Word which proceeds from understanding,\nwhile understanding itself does not issue forth but abides within.\nIn this procession wc have, in the immanent understanding, the\nWord unborn. This explains what is meant by the unborn Word\nand how, in the eternal procession, the Word is as it were born of\nunderstanding and is still to be born and is this instant being\nborn.\n\n137. One of the masters (Erigena) says : The Father never\nwrought anything inferior to himself. If this is true, then all the\ncreatures God has ever wrought are God. The question here is,\nwhether the work wrought is as noble as the worker when the\nworker is God ? Let us see. We speak of a working work and a\nwrought work. The working work is God, the wrought work is\nnot God for it is creature. Hence the explanation. When it is\nstated that the Father wrought no work inferior to himself that is\nas good as saying that the Father does one work and one alone in\nhis own Person, to wit, the begetting of his Son in the eternal\nemanation personal and essential. Only this one work properly\nbelongs to the Father-nature and all other work wrought we\nattribute not to the Father alone but to the three Persons atid one\nGod. But, it may be objected, can the eternal emanation of the\nSon from the Father be called a work ? You can look at it in this\nway. Everything existing has its appropriate work ; the work of\nfire, for instance, is to heat and so with understanding : it is its\nwork to understand itself. Here the work is not inferior to the\nworker. And in this sense the Son may very well be called the\neternaf work of the Father. He brings him forth eternally as\nPerson who yet remains in him in essence.\n\n138. Then there is the question : Was the eternal Word con-\nceived in Mary in Person and essence and was it in the bosom of\nthe Father as Person and essence as well ? — In the continuous\nemanation wherein the Word emanates from the Father as it\nwere from understanding, wherein the Word is now being born,\nin that same emanation Mary received the eternal Word in a\npoint of time as Person and essence, in its immanence : the Word\nas flowing from the understanding of the Father. It remained\nin the bosom of the Father as immanent understanding personal\nand essential. Thus it came, coming after the manner of a flow\nand remaining within after the manner of an understanding.\nAh, what light and grace enlightened souls obtain from this\nglorious knowledge !\n\n139. To return to Christ. According to theologists, our Lord\nJesus Christ's soul and Lucifer's were made in the same light.\n\nLIBER POSmONUM 478\n\nThe soul of Jesus Christ our Lord was the very wisest soul that\never was. She turned in the creature to the creator wherefore the\nFather clothed her in the divine garment and flower of her nature.\nLucifer turned to the deficiency and he therefore fell, falling\neternally. So fall all they who turn away from God to perishable\nthings.\n\n140. But this light which Christ's soul supernaturally was, this\nwas a creature and our Lord's soul itself being creature too, which of\nthese two creatures then, theologians ask, is the nobler and the\nhigher ? — I was asking one wise doctor about this and he said that\nin one way the light is nobler but in another Christ. Sec what this\nsupernatural light means. When Christ's soul was created she\nwas taken from herself and haled above herself into the Tri-unity.\nTherewith she was united. This was not natural to her, it was all\nabove nature, what befell Christ's soul. What befell was the\nsupernatural light. Herein Christ's soul was omnipotent, in virtue\nof this happening. Here the supernatural light is nobler than\nChrist's soul, you can see that for yourselves. The adorner is\nmore noble than the thing that it adorns. Take an illustration.\nMaterial is adorned by colour while the colour is displayed by the\nmaterial, since it has no body of its own. Even so Christ's soul\nis adorned by this supernatural light and on the other hand\nChrist's soul makes manifest this supernatural light.\n\n141. Now mark how the soul of Christ is nobler than the super-\n\nnatural light. The supernatural light having had its effect upon\nChrist's soul (it happens in a flash), Christ has no more to do with\nthis supernatural light, for the union of divine and human nature\nto one Person liappens instantly and once for all. Here the soul\nof Christ is nobler than the supernatural light. *\n\na 42. Then as to souls who have overcome themselves so far as\nto imagine themselves God. This is due to nothing more than\ntheir own natural light : they are withdrawn into themselves\ntill they can see themselves in it as light. You know how a\nblow in the eye will sometimes make one see stars. By stars in\ntheir eyes these souls see themselves. The way the supernatural\nlight reveals the soul to herself is this : the naked spark of the\nsoul, her mens, reflects the supernatural light and the pure essence\nof her spirit seeing itself in this supernatural light fondly imagines\nitself God. But as you see, it is nothing else than the spirit in\nthe supernatural light, a very great perfection, none the less.\n\n143. Another question is, whether God is (God) by nature or\nby will ? — He is God not by nature nor by will. If God were\nGod by nature he would be a caused God : nature would have\ncaused him. But that is not the case. And the same with will :\nwere he God by will he would be subject to will and will would\n\nMEISTER ECKHART\n\nbe superior to God. Which is not true either ; but he is God\nnaturally, not by nature ; he is God willingly and not by will.\nThat is the answer.\n\n144. Again, did God beget himself or did he beget some other ?\n— He did not beget himself nor any other : God the Father is\nunbcgotten God. He begat another and not any other. He\nbegat another, i.e, another Person, not something other, i,e.\nanother nature : the impartible nature of the Father is also the\nimpartible nature of the Son and of their common Spirit. That\nis the answer.\n\n145. It is a question among theologians whether the nature is\ncommon to the Persons and the Persons common to the nature\nseeing that each Person contains the whole of nature as its natural\nbeing. Docs God impart himself to human nature ? — ^Yes. — How\ncan God impart himself to human nature if he is one in essence\nand distinct in Person ? — Each of the Persons has the nature as\na whole and the Person of the Son, by assuming human nature,\nimparted himself to it, the two natures meeting in his Person.\nHere divine and human natures are in communion. Only the\nmiddle Person took on human nature but the three Persons are\nequally allied with the three powers of the soul. — Are these two\nnatures one or are they united ? — They are united and not one.\nThat is one which is in itself without any other and where two\nmeet in one they arc united. — How arc these two natures united ?\n— They are united by something between so that each one keeps\nits own nature. The Person which took on human nature is the\nmedium uniting these two natures. Had this Person not assumed\nman's nature the two natures could not have been united. Neither\nrobs thft other of its idiosyncrasy ; uncreated nature does not\nrob created nature of its createdness nor docs created nature rob\nthe uncreated of its uncrcatcdness. — How did the Person take\nman's nature ? — He assumed manhood and not man. — What is\nthe difference between man and manhood ? — Man originates\nwith perfect man and is not taken by a Person : it is two natures\nunited in one Person. But manhood is emanating God and man\nand is taken by the Person of the Son and is divine and human\nnature and corporal nature united in one person. So much for\nman and manhood.\n\n146. Did the Person take the manhood of our Lady ? — Yes and\nno. He took the bodily nature of our Lady and the nature of\nhis spirit God produced from naught and poured it into corporal\nnature ; God inspired his spirit and embodied himself in his body.\n— Is our Lady, soul and body, one person ? — Yes. — Did he not\ntake the person of our Lady ? — No. The eternal Word of the\nFather took to itself what was not there already. There was\n\nPerson there for the eternal Word is itself a Person. But human\nnature was not there. Hence the eternal Word assumed a nature\nnot a person ; God's nature and man's nature were united in one\ncommon form with one Person for Christ does not belie himself.\n— ^What brings about this union ? — Grace. — What is grace ? —\nAccording to Dionysius, grace is the light of the soul, which\nlights the understanding of the soul. This light is not God but\nit is something from God. Just as the sunshine is not the sun\nbut something that comes from the sun so God sheds this light\ninto the soul. In this light man knows and loves and to some\nextent enjoys in time what beatilic spirits know and love and feel\nin eternal life. But here in time man knows and loves in his own\nway, dimly : he docs not see God face to face as a spirit does in\neternal life. Yet the mere feeling of him makes a man able to\ndo all things, to practise all the virtues and in the virtues he\ngrows Godlike and the liker God in virtues the more one he is\nwith God. Thus grace makes for union.\n\n147. There is a further cpiestion about the union of divine and\nhuman nature : have they both the same essence in the Person\nthey arc joined in or have they two essences in this non-potential\nstate ? — One Person can have no more than one essence. So far\nas the personal nature is Person each nature is its own hypostasis.\nWhere two natures are created in one Person that Person has one\nessence and that in two natures so far as the two natures are\nunmingled. — Then we may consider nature as apart from essence\nin the personal union ? — Yes, it can be seen from another point\nof view. We find nature in its image unmingled but in the Person\ntwo natures are present in one Person as in their hypostasis. So\nfar as both belong to the same Person the Person has ohe essence\nand that in two natures. The Persons arc eternal, they are in no-\nwise creature for they have no before or after. Person, that is\nunity keeping silence albeit big with speech. The Persons are not\ncontained by the unity : they arc in unity.\n\n148. There is the question of the worker and the work, whether\nthe work is as noble, as perfect as the worker ? This refers to the\nPersons of the Trinity. Examine it in this way. The Father is\nan origin able to originate an origin like unto himself. The Son\nis such an origin and he together with his Father originates their\ncommon Spirit. Here the worker and the work, the effectual\nwork of revelation, are equally perfect. As Dionysius says, ' The\nfirst cause causes everything equal to itself.' It was said by one\nmaster that the work wrought by God in the patient soul which is\nall bare of things is nobler than any of the works he has ever\nwrought in time in heaven or in earth. Just think what this\nmeans. The works God has wrought in the angels in heaven\n\nMEISTER ECKHART\n\nwere wrought by the almighty power of God who created them\nfrom naught. He was not hindered in this work. In the case of\nthe soul which also he created out of naught, he endowed her\nwith free will nor would God do a single thing without her free\nwill's sanction. But when the soul is passive and cleared of every-\nthing in her that might be a hindrance to God's will and turning\nto God of her own account she gives God the freedom of her noble\nwill as though she had never had free will, enabling God to work\nin her as freely as when he made all things from naught, then this\nwork has two outstanding features. One is that her free will is\nno obstacle to God although he is so careful not to override free\nwill : God can work as freely as he will, what he will and when\nhe will and how he will just as if the soul had no free will. The\nsecond feature is that God being free in himself his work is freely\nwrought in what by right of its free will might well object but\nwhich does in fact raise no objection. And that is why this is\nthe noblest work God does in heaven or earth in respect of\ncreature. Now you may ask what this work is ? It is nothing\nless than God's revelation of himself to himself in the soul. As\nsure as he is in himself he himself is in this work. That which\nis wrought in is turned into that which works there, to the\nlikeness of him, the worker, who has wrought there his like.\nHere the work which is wrought is as perfect as the worker for\nit is his living image which is in the work.\n\n149. The soul cannot prepare herself for the reception of God :\nhe who prepares her, him does she receive in preparation. There\nis a special profit accruing to the soul in the reception of the\nbody of our Lord, which she does not get in any other gift. — ' What\nprofit is 'that ? ' — Her nature receives its own nature for Jesus\nChrist's nature is our nature. Nature is received by nature\nalbeit not received pure nature : it is received united with divine\nnature.\n\n150. Mark how these two natures are united. They are not\nunited nature to nature : they arc joined together in one Person,\ni.e. the middle Person. Just as the divine nature is the nature\nof this Person so is human nature in Christ the Person in the\nTrinity. For what the eternal Word assumed was humanity\nnot a human person. Had the eternal Word assumed a human\nperson there would be four Persons in the Trinity. But there are\nnot. Jesus Christ's humanity in the eternal Word is the very\nPerson who has ever been the central figure of the Trinity. There-\nin is not one nature as there is one Person : the natures are of\ndifferent nature and arc united in the Person. Wherefore whoso\nreceives the body of our Lord receives the middle Person and\ndivine nature and Christ's manhood, which is Person in the\n\neternal Word, and Christ's eternal soul. We receive this all at\nonce in Jesus Christ's body. This we do not do in any other\ngift in heaven or earth. Let us therefore prize this gift above\nall other gifts to be gotten here below.\n\n151. When Christ gave his body to his disciples he said, ' Take,\neat, this is my body.' But Christ was mortal. Now the question\nis, did Christ give his body mortal or immortal ? According to\nHugo of St Victor, every property of his original body of immor-\ntality, the whole of these Christ had in him what time he was\nmortal. So in spite of being mortal he could give his brethren\nhis immortal body ; if 'he had given them his mortal body the\neating of it would have outraged them. Bishop Albertus contro-\nverts this doctor. I am amazed, he says, that such a great\nauthority should hazard such a foolish statement. Every nature\nemanates from its appropriate form and Christ's form here was\nmortal and no immortal property could emanate from his mortal\nform. If you really want to know how Christ gave his body,\nmortal and immortal, he gave his body as mortal in itself and\nimmortal in its form and in its effect for its action is divine and\nhe gave it therefore in another form than that of himself. He\ngave his body as immortal in its work and in its form and mortal\nin itself for in his mortal body Christ had power to communicate\nhis body immortally as to its effect but not so as to its own nature.\n\n152. It is a question whether in Christ's body there remains\naught of what it seems ? No, there is seeming without substance\nand substance without seeming. It seems to be bread but there\nis really no substance of bread : it is really the body of God\nwithout its appearance. So far as its appearance goes it would\nnourish us like any other food. But if there is really no 'substance\nof bread and only the substance of bread feeds the body then how,\nwithout the substance of bread, does this nourish the body ? —\nAt the consecration of the body of our Lord the bread loses its\nnature while it retains its form, its mass, its smell and its feeling of\nbread, so that it does not disappear. Nothing we can taste and\nfeel, nothing, in short, which is apparent to the outward senses,\nis God's body. The outward senses do not lose what pertains to\nthem. They derive their nourishment from such things as re-\nmain. In bread the solid part is all that nourishes. The solidity\nof the body of Christ is not his body : the solid of the bread\nremains and that feeds the outward man. This is the explanation\nof how the sacrament nourishes like any other food. But it really\nhas none of the nature of bread.\n\n158. — ^When Christ consecrated his body on that Sabbath day\nand gave it to his disciples, supposing some to have been left and\nhidden in a bush, would this have died when Christ died on the\n\nMEISTER ECKHART\n\ncross ? — If the consecrated body had been maltreated by scourging\nor in any other way, that would not have hurt it. Christ suffered\nno hurt by eating in the sacrament for he gave his body in another\nform than that of himself. Christ suffered not at all in the form\nhe gave. But mark. When Christ died upon the cross since\nthere lay under consecration the body of the soul that died upon\nthe cross therefore all the pain Christ suffered in his human form\nwas suffered by his body under consecration. When Christ died\nto his manhood there died his body dying under consecration, for\nthere was no more than a single body. This death of Christ was\nthe parting of the soul from body ; and since she is impartible\ntherefore wherever she is she is altogether. When she was in the\nprecincts of hell she was not in the body. Neither could she be ^\nin his consecrated body. We speak here of two bodies, but there\nis only one, that which rose from the dead on the third day.\n\n154. Did the consecrated body rise too ? — Oh yes, it rose up\nglorified for it was the Christ.\n\n155. Then it was questioned, can the soul while in this body get\nto the point of receiving without means ? — The answer is both no\nand yes. In the first sense I declare that anything the soul\nreceives must be by light and grace. Light and grace are her\nmeans for she is creature. Soul cannot do without these means\nas long as she is in the body. On the other hand the affirmative\nreply, that the soul is able to receive direct while in the body, is\nargued thus. The soul has within her a likeness of the sovran\ngood. In this likeness she receives like. Here like is being\nreceived direct by like. Mark how. In receiving thus without\nmeans we have to abide by this likeness. — Wherein does this like-\nness consist ? — Likeness to the sovran good consists in motionless-\nness of the inner and the outer man : in imperturbability towards\nall nether things, the outward man not being moved by them nor\nthe inward man disturbed by any mental agitation ; he remains\nfirm and unshaken in the here and now. Be so always.\n\n156. One other question. How have all things been in God ? —\nIn his impartible essence all things subsist impartibly, no one more\nnoble than another. But in the essential Word where all things\nare distinct one thing is nobler than another.\n\n157. Once the spirit is one with God is it at all enriched by\nvirtues ? — Virtues are products of necessity and necessity enriches\nnot the spirit. It is not virtues that enrich the spirit but the fniit\nof virtues.\n\n158. It may be asked, are we to take the impartible image of\nall things as Person or essence ? — There are three distinct Persons\nbut not three images to correspond. We may therefore look at\nthe image in the light of impartible essence. But since essence\n\nLIBER POSmONUM 479\n\nin the Persons is possessed impartibly as essence and partibly as\nspeech (one utterance in the Father and another in the Son and\nanother in the Holy Ghost), therefore we may take the image of the\nTrinity also as a speaking in the Persons as well as simple essence,\nfor the essence is simple in the Persons no less than in its own\nparticular nature.\n\n159. It may be asked, has the one essence no form to correspond\nwith its essential nature ? — That which reveals another is its form.\nEssence cannot manifest itself in its essential nature : it is mani-\nfested by the Persons. Hence the Persons are the form of the\n\nssence so far as they reveal it. But Person is one thing, essence\nis another. Nothing that exists can be without its proper form.\n\nf essence exists it must wear its appropriate form. In its own\nessential form it is manifest to itself as well as to the Persons and\nnone else. But the Persons reveal it to creatures. Here the\nPersons are its form by the fact of being Persons and making\nmanifest the formless essence. The Persons are the form of the\nessence inasmuch as they reveal it and in its arcane nature it has\nits own form latent in itself. This form is none other than the\nimmanent essence itself. Under this essential form the forms of\nall things arc formless for this essential form is the impartible\nform of all things : this universal form is essential God in its\nonefold nature and tlireefold as uttered in the Persons.\n\n160. This is what the spirit clearly sees in a foretaste of delight.\nThe best the spirit can hope for in this body is the perennial feeling\nof being without all and within all. Without all means in com-\nplete detachment, remote from self and things. In all means\nabiding in perpetual stillness : conscious life in its eternal exemplar\nwherein the universal image shines in impartibility. There the\nspirit dwells in all : it has attained to its ideal.\n\n161. Doctors discuss that most abstruse and difficult of ques-\ntions : What is that which is not caused and whicth, though neither\nessence nor yet Person, has might and power in the Father and\nmakes the Father father and the essence essence ? — The answer\nneeds your close attention. Nature cannot be without something\nwhose nature it is and the Person of the Fatlier cannot be without\nsomeone whose Person it is. Neither can exist without the other\nso neither can originate the other. At the same time they have\na dual character ; speech-silence. Where both alike vanish into\ntheir common ground they have the same character ; there speech\ndetracts not from silence neither silence from speech. This lapse\ninto their common ground applies to the eternal and eventful\nnature. Uneventful nature does not interfere : eventful nature\ngoes on speaking while uneventful nature holds its peace. But\nthis uneventful nature must have an hypostasis, the eternal\n\nMEISTER ECKHART\n\nand eventful nature which gives power and might to the objective\nPerson. This makes the Father father and the nature nature ;\nnot that the Father has an eventful nature : his is the eternal\nuneventfulness. This let none gainsay in the interests of eternal\ntruth for it is the eternal truth. The ignorant, remember, are\ngiven to attacking the eternal verity.\n\n162 . St Dionysius says the highest spirits are poured into the\nlower in succession, and the lowest are poured into the soul. Now\nthe question is, can the soul receive at all without the aid or\nknowledge of superior angels ? I answer. Grant one spirit is\nmore toward than the rest then anything received by the other\nspirits will be known beforehand to this spirit which is better\nplaced than any of the others. Thus a Seraph is more open to\ndivine inspiration than any single spirit in this life and for two\nreasons. One is that the angel being pure spirit cannot be poured\ninto the soul. While sharing with the body she has no accom-\nmodation for the angel. Secondly, the angel is in the condition of\never beholding the divine light and that is not for any soul in this\nlife. Hence Seraph is more apt to receive God's inspiration and\nwhat all spirits receive that spirit knows who is more apt than all\nthe rest. Seraph is not the means of its reception, but, flying as\nhe does nearer to the source of the divine light, it is apparent to\nhim what other spirits are getting of that light. In this sense souls\nget nothing without the angels knowing.\n\nBut let us sec, in the working of the soul, if we cannot find some\nsecret way in which enlightened souls receive without the Seraph's\nknowledge. Well, as you know, the soul animates the members of\nthe body all unbeknownst to those same members. And though\nlife runs so secretly into all the limbs that they are unaware of its\nmysterious flow, the work of life is none the less carried on in\nthem. The fact is, God instils his life into the soul and into every\nspirit surreptitiously : no Seraph knows about this stealthy stream\nof life. Its reception by the soul is a clandestine act. How should\nSeraph know ? He knows nothing of himself or of the soul. That\nis one thing the soul receives without the higher angels knowing.\n\nThe other she receives in the mysterious spark of her own\nnature, her undivided likeness. But w^hen like meets like there\nis no mean between them. Like gives like its likeness all unknown\nto its unlike, in unbroken union. But Seraph is unlike the soul.\nA Seraph, as you know, is spirit not embodied in any sort of body.\nBut soul is spirit embodied in something of the kind. And\nsecondly to Seraph in his created nature there came all at once\nand without addition what he this day possesses in his vision of\nthe eternal light ; for he is constant in his likeness to God. Here\nthe soul is different from the angels for in the reflection of her like\n\nshe receives a secret influx unknown to any angel. It has been\nsaid by John, a sage of Greece, that the likeness of the soul consists\nin perfect likeness to that which has no like. Dionysius calls the\nangels 'divine minds.' And St Bernard says of those who lead\nangelic lives while in the flesh that into them there flows the mind\nof God as it does into the angels. O thou God turned God in thy\ntemporal unified mind, thou sjfirit inspired into the oneness of\nGod, stand up and do thy crowning work !\n\nYou ask how the spirit stands up ? He stands on his two feet,\nunderstanding and love, and oversteps all perishable things lest\nhe should foul his feet with matter of corruption. — And what is\nhis crowning work ? — The clear and naked vision of the highest\ngood, God yonder, wherein the highest good shall bathe the spirit\nin the light of exquisite consciousness. Then shall thou look and\nsee ! — Do the light-streams of the highest good affect the spirit ? —\n— When the Sovran Good floods the spirit with light the spirit is\nborne up above its natural abode.\n\nMeister Eckhart was besought by his good friends, ' Give us one\nlast word before you go.' He said, I will give you a rule which is\nthe sum of all my arguments, the key to the whole theory and'\npraetiee of the tnith. ''\n\nIt very often happens that a thing seems small us which is of\ngreater moment in God's sight than what looms large in ours.\nWherefore it behoves us to take alike from God everytiiing he\nsends us without ever thinking or looking to see which is greatest\nor highest or best but following blindly God's lead, that is to say,\nour own feeling, our strongest dictates, what we arc most prompted\nto do. Then God gives us the most in the least without fail.\n\nPeople often shirk the least and prevent themsel s getting the\nmost in the least. They are wrong. God is every wise, the same\nin every guise to him who can see him the same. There is much\nsearching of heart as to whether one's promptings come from God\nor no ; but this we can soon tell for if we find ourselves aware of,\nprivy to, God's will above all when we follow our own impulse, our\nclearest intimations, then we may take it that they come from God.\n\nSomejpeople make believe to find God as a light or savour ; they\nmay find a light or a savour but that is not to find God. Aecording\nto one scripture, God shines in the dark where every now and then\nwe may catch a glimpse of him. Where to us God shows least he\nis often most. So it behoves us to take God the same in every\nmode and in every thing.\n\nSomeone may say, But if I do take God alike in every mode and\nevery thing my mind refuses to abide in that mode or in this one\nas in that. — Then I say, he is wrong. For finding God in one way\nrather than another, I allow, due credit, but that is not the best.\nGod is everywise, alike in every guise to one who can find him the\nsame. Knowing one guise, such and such, is not knowing God.\nFinding this or that is not finding God. God is everywise, the\nsame in every guise to one who can see him the same.\n\nSomeone may \"object, But to find God in every mode and in\nevery thing do I not need some special way ? — In whatever way\nyou find God best and are most aware of him that way pursue.\nShould another way appear quite different from the first you will\n\ndo right in quitting that to close ivith God in this one which\nappears as in the one forsworn. It is a counsel of perfection in\nthis manner to attain to such a final certainty and peace that we\ncan see God and are able to enjoy him in any guise and in any\nthing without having to stop and look for him at all : a boon\naccorded me. For this and to this end all works are wrought\nand on the whole works help. The things that do not help let us\neschew.\n\nWe thank thee, heavenly Father, for giving us thy only Son in\nwhom thou givest thine own self and all things. We pray thee,\nheavenly Father, as thou has given us thy only Son our Lord Jesus\nChrist, through whom and in whom thou dost deny us naught, nor\n\"ouldst nor cculdst not, hear us in him and make us pure and free\nfrom all our many faults, uniting us with him in thee. Amen.\n\nPRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN DV\nNEILL AND CO., LTD.,\nEDINBURGH.",
    "project_translation": false,
    "license": null,
    "methodology_url": null
  }
}