Sermon 54 — From him, through him, and in him are all things; to him be glory forever

Pfeiffer Sermon 54Middle High German + EnglishAbout this edition

Original Source (Middle High German)

English Translation

Ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso sunt omnia, ipsi gloria in sæcula (Rom. XI, 36.).

Sanctus Paulus sprichet ‘ûzer ime, an ime, in ime sint alliu dinc: ime sî lob und êre.’ Disiu wort sint gesprochen von der drîvaltikeit der persônen unde von der einekeite der nâtûre. An dem worte daz er sprichet ‘ûzer ime’ verstêt man den vater, der ein anegenge ist alles des, daz ist, ân êwekeit und âne zît. An dem worte daz man sprichet ‘an ime’ sô verstêt man den sun, an dêm elliu dinc sint ûz gegangen. An dem worte daz man sprichet ‘in ime’ verstêt man den heiligen geist, in dem elliu dinc behalten und gegeistet und widerbrâht werdent zuo irm ende. Dâ man disiu wort anderwarbe an siht, sô bewîsent sie aber die drîvaltikeit der persônen, dâ er sprichet: ûz und an und in. Als disiu wort underscheiden sint, alsô bewîsent sie die underscheidenheit der persônen. Aber an dem worte daz er sprichet ‘ime’ (daz al einz liutet) dâ verstêt man die einekeit der nâtûre. Dâ von sprichet er ‘ime sî lob und êre.’ Hie ist bewîset, daz drie persônen sint ein got, dem man alleine die êre geben sol.

Nû gebürt uns fort ze sprechende von götlîchen dingen, von persônen und von wesenne, daz man mit grôzem vlîze muoz verstân. Die aber dise rede niht wol verstênt, die kêren wider ûf den gelouben, den ich dâ vor gewîset hân, der ist alsô: daz drie persônen sint in einem wesenne, und ein wesen ist in drin persônen. Nû verstênt, wir wellen sprechen von vater und von vaterlîcheit, unde wizzent, daz disiu zwei niht underscheiden sint mit zwein understôzen, mêr: sie sint ein understôz, mêr: sie sint ein unde drie nâch der wârheit der rede. Nû prüevet, wie man vaterlîcheit verstân sol. Daz tuot man in der maht der art des vater. Man merket vater dâ, dâ er birt; aber vaterlîcheit merket man in der maht der art des vater. Des habent ein glîchnisse bî einer juncfrouwen, diu ein maget ist. Diu ist an ir wesennes art wol muoterlîch und enist doch niht muoter. Alsô verstânt umbe den vater: an der maht, daz er bern mac, dâ ist er veterlîch, aber an dem, dâ er birt, dâ ist er vater. Seht, alsus verstânt underscheit vater unde vaterlîcheit, dâ man dise rede geistlîche bringet ûf die sêle. Daz verstên wir, swenne diu sêle geistlîche gezogen und zuo gefüeget wirt, dâ si von sîme liehte enpfênget und götlîch geartet wirt: von der îngeartekeit götlîcher vermügenheit sô wirdet si enpfênget götlîcher mehte. Seht, nâch diser înwesender maht sô heizet ouch diu sêle vaterlîch. Aber sô si ûz liuhtet mit offenbârunge, sô birt si mit dem vater, unde dâ heizet si mit dem vater vater. Diz ist underscheit an der sêle vater unde vaterlîcheit.

Ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso sunt omnia, ipsi gloria in sæcula (Rom. XI, 36.).

Saint Paul says: “From him, through him, in him are all things: to him be praise and honor.” These words are spoken of the Trinity of the persons and of the unity of the nature. In the word where he says “from him,” one understands the Father, who is the origin of all that is, without eternity and without time. In the word where one says “through him,” one understands the Son, through whom all things have gone forth. In the word where one says “in him,” one understands the Holy Spirit, in whom all things are preserved and spiritualized and brought back again to their end. When one looks at these words in another way, they again manifest the Trinity of the persons, where he says: from, through, and in. Just as these words are distinct, so they manifest the distinction of the persons. But in the word where he says “him”—which in each case sounds the same—one understands the unity of the nature. Therefore he says: “To him be praise and honor.” Here it is shown that three persons are one God, to whom alone honor should be given.

Now it falls to us to speak further of divine things, of the persons and of the being, which must be understood with great diligence. But those who do not understand this discourse well should return to the faith that I set forth before, which is this: that three persons are in one being, and one being is in three persons. Now understand: we wish to speak of Father and of Fatherhood, and know that these two are not distinguished by two supposita; rather, they are one suppositum—indeed, they are one and three according to the truth of the discourse. Now consider how Fatherhood is to be understood. It is understood in the power of the nature of the Father. One discerns Father where he begets; but Fatherhood one discerns in the power of the nature of the Father. Of this we have a likeness in a virgin who is a maiden. According to the nature of her being she is indeed motherly, and yet she is not a mother. Thus understand concerning the Father: in the power whereby he can beget, there he is fatherly; but insofar as he begets, there he is Father. See, thus understand the distinction between Father and Fatherhood when this discourse is spiritually applied to the soul. We understand this when the soul is spiritually drawn and joined to him, where she receives from his light and becomes divinely natured: through the in-naturedness of divine power she becomes receptive of divine might. See, according to this indwelling power the soul too is called fatherly. But when she shines forth in revelation, she begets with the Father, and there she is called Father together with the Father. This is the distinction in the soul between Father and Fatherhood.

Ouch merket underscheit von sune unde sunlîcheit, unde wizzent ouch, daz dise zwei niht underscheiden sint an zwein understôzen, mêr: ez ist ein understôz. Sunlîcheit nimet man in der maht der art des vater ungeborn, want enwêre er niht in der maht der art ungeborn, sô enmöhte in der vater niht gebern, want swaz ûzgang haben sol, daz muoz ê inne wesen. Alsus bewîset man sunlîcheit. Aber sun bewîset man an begerunge des vater sînes eigenen wortes, dâ von ouch der vater vater ist. Der sun ist ouch got an ime selber unde niht von ime selber, mêr: von dem vater alleine. Wêre er got von ime selber, sô enmöhte er niht ein mit dem vater gesîn, sô müesten zwei âne begin sîn. Alsô enmac ez niht sîn. Dâ man bewîset drie underscheidenlîche eigenschafte, sô ist des vater eigenschaft, daz er von niemande sî, mêre: von ime selber. Sô ist des sunes eigenschaft, daz er von ime selber niht ensî, mêr: von dem vater gêt er in gebürte wîse. Des heiligen geistes eigenschaft ist, daz er niht ûz gêt von dem vater in gebürte wîse, mêre: sîn ûzgang ist von in zwein, gemeine vater und sun, und enist niht als gebürte, mêr: als minne. Want zwei, diu gesundert sint an den persônen, diu enmügent mit einander ein niht gebern, mêr: sie gebernt mit einander einez ûz als minne.

Hie von ist der heiliger geist niht geborn, want er von zwein ûz gêt und niht von dem vater alleine, als etlîche meister sprechent, daz der heilige geist alleine von dem vater gê unde niht von dem sune. Daz was valsch, want dâ der vater den sun gebirt, dâ gemeinet er ime allez sîn wesen und alle die vollekommenheit, diu dâ hœret ze wesende der nâtûre, alsô daz der vater vor dem sune niht behalten hât. Har umbe mac der vater niht alleine ûz geben den geist, als er alleine bar den sun. Doch hêten ez die meister rehte verstanden, si soltenz wol bewîset haben. Sie sprâchenz und verstuondenz niht. Dâ von was daz unreht, daz man sprichet, der sun sî got von ime selber unde niht von dem vater. Dâ sprichet man, daz der sun den geist geben mac, aber niht von ime selber, mêr: von dem vater, von dem er selber ist. Alsus gêt ûz der heiliger geist von in zwein unde niht von eime; aber niht als sie zwêne sint, mêre: als sie einez sint. Diz ist gesprochen von sune und von sunlîcheit.

Also take note of the distinction between Son and Sonship, and know likewise that these two are not distinguished in two supposita; rather, there is one suppositum. Sonship is understood as unborn in the power of the nature of the Father; for if he were not unborn in the power of the nature, the Father could not beget him, for whatever is to have an outgoing must first be within. Thus Sonship is manifested. But Son is manifested in the Father’s desire for his own Word, through which the Father too is Father. The Son is also God in himself, yet not from himself, but from the Father alone. If he were God from himself, he could not be one with the Father; then there would have to be two without beginning. But this cannot be. Where three distinct properties are manifested, the property of the Father is that he is from no one, but rather from himself. The property of the Son is that he is not from himself, but proceeds from the Father in the manner of birth. The property of the Holy Spirit is that he does not proceed from the Father in the manner of birth; rather, his procession is from them both, Father and Son together, and is not as birth, but as love. For two who are distinct as persons cannot together beget one; rather, together they bring forth one as love.

For this reason the Holy Spirit is not begotten, because he proceeds from two and not from the Father alone. Some masters say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and not from the Son. That was false, for where the Father begets the Son, there he communicates to him all his being and all the perfection that belongs to the being of the nature, so that the Father has held nothing back from the Son. Therefore the Father cannot give forth the Spirit by himself alone, as he alone begot the Son. Yet if those masters had rightly understood it, they could have demonstrated it well. They said it and did not understand it. Therefore it was wrong to say that the Son is God from himself and not from the Father. Here one says that the Son can give the Spirit, but not from himself; rather, from the Father, from whom he himself is. Thus the Holy Spirit proceeds from them both and not from one; yet not insofar as they are two, but insofar as they are one. This has been said concerning Son and Sonship.

Nû möhte man vrâgen von geiste und von geistekeit, obe man daz ouch sprechen möhte oder niht, ob iht widerrede sî ze disen dingen, dâ von man ez niht sprechen müge? Man vindet wol, daz die sunlîcheit ist ze verstênde in der art der veterlîcheit, want er niht alleine von ime ûz geborn ist. Diz ist widersatz, daz man niht wol sprechen mac von geiste unde von geistekeit. Nû suln wir prüeven, ob man irgen künne vinden einen nâwen behenden sin von geiste unde von geistekeit. Diz verstân wir: dâ zwei mit einem. Hie merket underscheit: geist unde geistekeit. In dem êrsten, dâ man sprichet: dâ zwei, dâ verstêt man sun unde vater. Aber dâ man sprichet: mit einem, dâ verstân wir geistekeit. Daz selbe mit einem ist blôz aller formen: daz bewîset geistekeit. Aber dâ man sprichet: mit einander, dâ bewîset man geist, der ein ander ist denne vater unde sun an sîner eigenschaft.

Now one might ask concerning Spirit and Spirithood, whether one might also speak in this way or not, or whether there is some contradiction in these matters because of which one cannot speak so. One can indeed find that Sonship is to be understood in the nature of Fatherhood, for he is not born forth from him alone. This presents a difficulty, for one cannot so readily speak of Spirit and Spirithood. Now we should consider whether one can find here a precise and subtle sense of Spirit and Spirithood. We understand it thus: where two are with one. Here take note of the distinction between Spirit and Spirithood. In the first expression, where one says “where two are,” one understands Son and Father. But where one says “with one,” there we understand Spirithood. This same “with one” is bare of all forms: this manifests Spirithood. But where one says “with one another,” there one manifests Spirit, who according to his proper property is other than Father and Son.