Sermon 103 — I came forth from the mouth of the Most High

Pfeiffer Sermon 103Middle High German + EnglishAbout this edition

Original Source (Middle High German)

English Translation

Ego ex ore altissimi prodivi (Eccles. XXIV, 5.).

Daz wort, daz ich gesprochen hân in latîne, daz mügen wir sprechen in der persône des êwigen wortes, daz dâ sprichet ‘ich bin ûz gegangen ûz dem munde des obersten.’ Diz ist der hôhe sprunc, der daz êwige wort gesprochen hât ûz dem veterlîchen herzen unde hât an sich genomen menschlîche nâtûre in dem lîbe unser vrouwen. Von diser lîplîcher geburt wil ich niht sprechen, wan iu hie von vil ist geseit: ich wil sprechen von der êwigen geburt. Hier wil ich ûf unser materie komen, sô genuoc ze tuon zwein vrâgen.

Diu êrste ist: ob daz êwige wort ein volkomen wort geheizen müge, wan ez noch in der geburt ist? Jâ, wan daz êwige wort wirt enpfangen in eime wesentlichen liehte und inblîbende ist unde sich niht ûz gibet ûf niht, daz ûzer im ist, und ist doch volkomen gesprochen von vater. Her umbe mac ez wol heizen ein volkomen wort.

Ego ex ore altissimi prodivi (Eccles. XXIV, 5.).

The word that I have spoken in Latin we may speak in the person of the eternal Word, which says: “I came forth from the mouth of the Most High.” This is the lofty spring from which the eternal Word has been spoken out of the Father’s heart and has taken human nature upon itself in the body of our Lady. Of this bodily birth I do not wish to speak, for much has been said to you about it here; I wish to speak of the eternal birth. Here I wish to come to our subject by dealing sufficiently with two questions.

The first is: whether the eternal Word may be called a perfect word, since it is still in the act of birth? Yes, for the eternal Word is conceived in an essential light and remains within and does not give itself out toward anything that is outside it, and yet it is perfectly spoken by the Father. Therefore it may rightly be called a perfect Word.

Diu ander vrâge ist: ob unser verstentnisse iht müge gebern ein volkomen wort? wan daz ist eigen allen verstentnissen, daz sie verstânt. Ist daz niht daz selbe, daz daz verstentnisse an sich selber ist? Ich spriche: nein! wan unser wort wirt enpfangen in eime wandelhaftigen liehte. Wan unser verstentnisse wandelhaftig ist, dar umbe mac ez niht gebern ein volkomen wort. Daz wort, daz ir von mir hœret, daz ist niht ein volkomen wort, ez ist ein bezeichenunge des wortes, daz in mir ist.

Nû merket die wîse der êwigen geburt, dâ sich daz persônlich verstentnüsse heldet zuo der einekeit der nâtûre. Der ist ein mit dem selben verstentnisse, dâ sich der vater mit verstêt nâch eigenschaft sîner nâtûre. Wêre daz niht alsô, sô müesten dâ zwei vernünftic wesen sîn. Des enist niht: dâ ist niht dan ein vernünftic wesen, dâ sich der vater ansiht nâch eigenschaft sîner nâtûre. Der fürwurf, daz gehügnüsse ist daz êwige wort. Dâ sich daz heldet zuo dem nâtûrlichen verstentnisse des vaters, dâ ist niht wan nâtûre des vaters. Dâ sich daz selbe wort kêret ûf sich selber, dâ ist ie underscheit an der persône und ist doch ein einvaltic wesen in gotlîcher nâtûre. Ûf disen sin wil ich sprechen vier vrâge, durch daz ir die wîse der êwigen geburt dester baz verstânt, diu doch allen verstentnüssen unverstentlich ist. Doch wil ich iuch lêren alsô verre, als iwern sinnen müglich ist ze verstân.

The second question is: whether our understanding can beget a perfect word? For it belongs properly to every understanding that it understands. Is that not the same as what the understanding is in itself? I say: no. For our word is conceived in a changeable light. Since our understanding is changeable, it cannot beget a perfect word. The word that you hear from me is not a perfect word; it is a sign of the word that is within me.

Now observe the manner of the eternal birth, where the personal understanding is related to the unity of the nature. It is one with that same understanding by which the Father understands himself according to the property of his nature. If this were not so, there would have to be two intellectual beings there. But this is not so: there is nothing there but one intellectual being, in which the Father beholds himself according to the property of his nature. The object of memory is the eternal Word. Where this is related to the natural understanding of the Father, there is nothing but the nature of the Father. Where the same Word turns back upon itself, there is always distinction in person, and yet there is one simple being in the divine nature. In this sense I wish to put forward four questions, so that you may better understand the manner of the eternal birth, which nevertheless is incomprehensible to every understanding. Yet I wish to teach you insofar as it is possible for your understanding to grasp.

Diu êrste vrâge ist: war umbe diu persône des suns geborn heize unde diu persône des vater niht. Diu berihtunge ist, daz sî daz persônlich verstentnisse des vater, dâ er sich mit verstêt nâch eigenschaft sîner nâtûre, wan der fürwurf des verstentnisses ist daz êwige wort. Her umbe muoz diu persône des êwigen wortes geborn heizen und diu persône des vater niht. — Diu ander vrâge: ob daz werc der êwigen geburt volbrâht werde von der persônlîcher kraft oder von der nâtûrlîchen kraft? Her ûf sprechent etlîche meister, ez werde vollenbrâht von der persônlîchen kraft des vater, wan daz eigen allen gebürten ist, daz sie enpfân gemeinschaft der nâtûre, von der sie sint. Wâ sâhent ir einen vater, er enmache gemein sîne nâtûre sîme sune? Hie mite wellent sie bewern, daz daz werc der êwigen geburt volbrâht werde von der persônlîchen kraft. Des enhalte ich niht. Dâ sich persônlich verstentnüsse heldet zuo der einikeit der nâtûre, dâ ist diu nâtûre persône. Wan daz êwic wort entspringet in dem wesentlichen gehügenisse, dâ sich der vater mite verstêt nâch eigenschaft sîner nâtûre. Her umbe muoz daz werc der êwigen geburt volbrâht werden von der nâtûrlîcher kraft, unde sprünge daz êwige wort in dem persônlîchen verstantnisse des vater, sô wêre daz êwige wort ein ursprunc sîn selbes, wan daz verstentnisse ist daz wort.

Diu dritte vrâge ist: wâ diu vaterlicheit hât muoterlîchen namen? Dâ si wirket muoterlich werc, dû sich persônlich verstentnisse heldet zuo der einekeit der nâtûre und gemeinet sich dâ mite, dâ hât diu veterlicheit muoterlîchen namen unde wirket muoterlich werc, wan daz ist eigenlich ein muoterlich werc, daz si enpfâhe dâ daz êwic wort entspringet. In dem wesentlichen gehügenisse dâ hât diu muoterlicheit vaterlîchen namen unde wirket veterlich werc.

The first question is: why is the person of the Son called begotten, and the person of the Father not? The answer is that it is the personal understanding of the Father by which he understands himself according to the property of his nature, for the object of the understanding is the eternal Word. Therefore the person of the eternal Word must be called begotten, and the person of the Father not. The second question: is the work of the eternal birth brought to completion by the personal power or by the natural power? Concerning this some masters say that it is brought to completion by the personal power of the Father, for it is proper to all births that what is born receives a participation in the nature from which it comes. Where have you ever seen a father who does not communicate his nature to his son? By this they wish to prove that the work of the eternal birth is brought to completion by the personal power. I do not hold this. Where personal understanding is related to the unity of the nature, there the nature is person. For the eternal Word springs forth in the essential memory by which the Father understands himself according to the property of his nature. Therefore the work of the eternal birth must be brought to completion by the natural power; and if the eternal Word sprang forth in the personal understanding of the Father, then the eternal Word would be the origin of itself, for the understanding is the Word.

The third question is: where does fatherhood have a maternal name? Where it performs a maternal work, where personal understanding is related to the unity of the nature and is united with it, there fatherhood has a maternal name and performs a maternal work, for this is properly a maternal work: that it conceives where the eternal Word springs forth. In the essential memory, there motherhood has a paternal name and performs a paternal work.

Diu vierde vrâge ist: ob daz werc istic sî oder ob der vater ein tuon oder ein lâzen dar an hât? Ich spriche: nein! Lieze er ez einen ougenblic, sô lougente er sîn selbes. Wan daz êwige wort ist ein bilde des vater, dâ er sich selber verstêt nâch eigenschaft sîner persône und ist ouch an der wirdikeit, die daz êwige wort hât enpfangen nâch eigenschaft sîner persône, alle die volkomenheit, die der vater hât, und alle die almehtikeit nâch eigenschaft sîner nâtûre. Her wider sprichet ein ungloublich meister Arrius: mich dunket, daz daz niht wâr sî, daz daz êwige wort hât enpfangen alle die volkomenheit des vater, wan ez vermac niht, daz der vater vermac, wan er mac niht bern einen andern sun. Her ûf sprichêt sant Augustînus: daz er niht enbirt einen andern sun, daz kumt niht von unmaht, wan er sol sîn niht tuon. Diz wort verstânt etlîche lêrer unrehte unde gebent ze verstân: wolde der sun, er möhte einen andern sun gebern. Diz ist unreht, wan sô müeste diu persône des suns diu persône des vaters sîn. Her umbe ensol er sîn niht tuon. Ein ieclîch persône enpfêhet die einikeit der nâtûre, unt doch mit underscheide: der vater nâch vaterlicheit unde der sun nâch sunlicheit, der heilige geist nâch eime gemeinen ûzsprunc ir beider. Hie sint die persône ein understôz der nâtûre, ein ieclîch persône enpfêhet die einikeit der nâtûre alzemâle als ein wesen. Der die wirdikeit enpfêhet, die einen schîn liuhtent, die den schîn nement als ein wesen, die drie die wirdikeit, die daz êwic wort hât enpfangen von sîner êwigen geburt, daz ist, daz ez êwic ist dem vater, wan ez enspringet in dem wesentlichen gehügnisse des vater. Dâ ez sich heldet zuo dem gehügnisse, dâ enist ez niht wan gotlich nâtûre; dâ ez sich kêret ûf daz wort, dâ ist ez underscheiden an der persône und ist doch ein einvaltic wesen in gotlîcher nâtûre.

Her ûf ist ein vrâge: wie diz müge gesîn, daz diz êwig wort ist underscheiden und doch ein einvaltic wesen in gotlîcher nâtûre? Diu behendiste berihtunge, die die meister her ûf habent, daz ist: von der einvaltikeit unde von der simpelheit der nâtûre. Allez, daz gotlich nâtûre begrîfet, daz ist ein einvaltic wesen unt daz wirket ein mit gotlîcher nâtûre. Daz wir zuo diser einunge komen alse verre, als ez uns mügelich ist, des helf uns got. Âmen.

The fourth question is: whether this work is essential, or whether the Father has any doing or any refraining in it? I say: no. If he were to cease from it for a single instant, he would deny himself. For the eternal Word is an image of the Father, in which he understands himself according to the property of his person, and in the dignity that the eternal Word has received according to the property of its person, it also has all the perfection that the Father has and all the omnipotence according to the property of his nature. Against this an unbelieving master, Arius, says: it seems to me that this is not true, that the eternal Word has received all the perfection of the Father, for it cannot do what the Father can do, since it cannot beget another Son. To this Saint Augustine says: that he does not beget another Son does not come from lack of power, but because he ought not to do it. Some teachers understand this word wrongly and give us to understand: if the Son wished, he could beget another Son. This is wrong, for then the person of the Son would have to be the person of the Father. Therefore he ought not to do it. Each person receives the unity of the nature, yet with distinction: the Father according to fatherhood, the Son according to sonship, the Holy Spirit according to a common procession from them both. Here each person is a suppositum of the nature; each person receives the unity of the nature wholly as one being. Those who receive the dignity that shines with one brightness receive that brightness as one being. The three receive the dignity that the eternal Word has received from its eternal birth, namely that it is eternal with the Father, for it springs forth in the essential memory of the Father. Where it is related to the memory, there it is nothing but divine nature; where it turns toward the Word, there it is distinguished in person and yet is one simple being in the divine nature.

Concerning this there is a question: how can it be that this eternal Word is distinguished and yet is one simple being in the divine nature? The most subtle answer that the masters give to this is: because of the onefoldness and simplicity of the nature. Everything that the divine nature comprehends is one simple being and works as one with the divine nature. May God help us to come to this union insofar as it is possible for us. Amen.