{ "meta": { "schema_version": "1.1", "endpoint": "/api/sources/rhineland-mystics/suso/vol-1-47-chapter-lv.json" }, "work": { "slug": "suso", "name": "Heinrich Suso" }, "parents": [ { "slug": "rhineland-mystics", "name": "Rhineland Mystics", "url": "/sources/rhineland-mystics/" } ], "chapter": { "num": 48, "slug": "vol-1-47-chapter-lv", "title": "Chapter LV.", "of": 51, "words": 2979, "text": "## Chapter LV.\n\nAn explanation where and how God is. \nThe good daughter said: — Sir, I have now \nindeed found out what God is ; but I would \nfain know also where God is. He answered : — \nThou shalt hear this. The learned doctors say \nthat God has no where, but that He is all in all. \nOpen then the inward ears of thy soul and givt \ngood heed. These same doctors tell us in the \nart of logic, that we come to know what a thim \nis through its name. Now, one doctor says thai \n\n\nWHERE GOD IS. 289 \n\nbeing is the first name of God. Turn, then, \nthine eyes to being in its pure and naked sim- \nplicity, and take no note of this or that partial \nbeing. Consider only being in itself, unmixed \nwith all non-being. For as all non-being is the \nnegation of all-being, even so being in itself is \nthe negation of all non-being. A thing which \nhas yet to be, or which once was, is not now \nat this moment in actual being. Moreover, \nwe can have no knowledge of mixed being or \nnon-being, unless we take into account that \nwhich is all-being. For if we would under- \nstand what any thing is, the first point which \nour mind meets with in it is being, and this is a \nbeing which is the efficient cause of all things. \nIt is not the partial and particular being of this \nor that creature; for partial being is always \nmixed with some other element, and has a \ncapacity for receiving something new into it. \nTherefore, the nameless Divine Being must be in \nitself a being that is all-being, and that sustains \nall particular beings by its presence. \n\nIt is a proof of the singular blindness of \nman's reason, that it cannot examine into that \nwhich it contemplates first before every thing, \nand without which it cannot perceive any thing. \nIt is with the reason as with the eye. When \nu \n\n\n290 LITE OF BLESSED HENKY SUSO. \n\nthe eye is intent upon observing a variety of \ncoloured objects, it does not notice the light \nwhich enables it to see all these objects, and \neven if it looks at the light, it still does not see \nit. Thus, too, is it with our soul's eye ; when it \nlooks at this or that particular being, it takes \nno heed of the being, which is every where one, \nabsolute and simple, and which enables it to \napprehend all other beings. Hence a wise doc- \ntor says, that the eye of our intelligence, owing \nto its infirmity, is affected towards that being \nwhich is in itself the most manifest of all beings, \nas the eye of a bat or a night-owl towards the \nbright light of the sun; for particular beings \ndistract and dazzle the mind, so that it cannot \nsee the Divine darkness, which is in itself the \nbrightest of all brightness. \n\nOpen now thy inward eyes and gaze as best \n■thou canst on being in its naked simple purity, \nand thou wilt see at once that it comes from no \none, and has no before nor after, and no ca- \npacity of change, either from within or from \nwithout, because it is a simple being. Thou \nwilt note too that it is the most actual, the most \npresent, and the most perfect of all beings, with- \nout flaw or alteration, because it is absolutely \none in naked simplicity. And this truth is so \n\n\nWHERE GOD IS. 291 \n\nevident to an enlightened reason, that it is im- \npossible for it to think otherwise ; for one point \nproves and implies the other. Thus, because it \nis a simple being, it must needs be the first of \nbeings, and without origin and everlasting ; and \nbecause it is the first and everlasting and simple, \nit must be the most present. It is at the very \nhighest summit of perfection and simplicity, to \nwhich nothing can be added and from which \nnothing can be taken away. If thou canst un- \nderstand what I have just told thee about the \npure Godhead, thou wilt have been guided a \nlong way into the incomprehensible light of \nGod's hidden truth. This pure and simple \nbeing is the first and highest cause of all beings \nwhich have a cause (created beings), and by its \npeculiar presence it encloses, as the beginning \nand end of all things, whatever comes into being \nin time. It is altogether in all things, and alto- \ngether outside all things. Hence a certain doc- \ntor says : — God is a circular ring, whose centre \nis every where and circumference nowhere. \n\nThe maiden answered : — Praised be God, I \nhave been shown, as far as can be, what God is \nand where God is. I would fain now learn \nhow, if God is so exceeding simple, He can be \nat the same time threefold. \n\n\n292 LIFE OF BLESSED HENRY SUSO. \n\nThe Servitor replied : — Each several being, \nthe more simple it is in itself, the more manifold \nit is in its productive efficacy. That which has \nnothing gives nothing, and that which has much \ncan give much. Now, I have already spoken of \nthat inflowing and overflowing fountain-head of \ngood which God is in Himself, and of God's \nunfathomable supernatural goodness which con- \nstrains Him not to keep all this to Himself, but \nto communicate it joyfully both within and with- \nout Himself. But the highest and most perfect \noutpouring of the supreme Good must of neces- \nsity take place within itself, and this can be \nnone other than a present, interior, substantial, \npersonal, and natural outpouring, necessary, yet \nwithout compulsion, alike infinite and perfect. \nAll other outpourings which take place in time \nand in creatures are but a reflection of the eter- \nnal outpouring of the unfathomable Divine good- \nness. And learned doctors say that, in the \noutflow of creatures from their primal fountain- \nhead, there is a circular return-movement of the \nend to the beginning; for as the outflowing of \nthe Person from God is an image and repre- \nsentation of the origin of creatures, so also it \nforeshadows the flowing back again of creatures \ninto God. \n\n\nTHE TRINITY IN UNITY. 293 \n\nNow, observe the difference between the \ncreature's outpouring and God's outpouring. \nInasmuch as a creature is only a partial being, \nits giving and its outpouring is also partial and in \nmeasure. Thus a human father gives his son, \nwhen he begets him, only a part of his own be- \ning ; he does not give him wholly and eutirely \nall that he is, for he himself is but a partial good. \nBut since the Divine outpouring is manifestly \nof a far more interior and nobler kind than the \ncreature's outpouring, in proportion to the great- \nness of the good which God is in Himself and \nHis immeasurable superiority over all other \ngoods, it follows as a necessary consequence \nfrom this that the outpouring must be like the \nbeing; and this cannot be unless God pours out \nHis being according to the personal relations. \n\nIf now with cleansed eye thou canst look \ninto and gaze upon the most pure goodness of \nthe supreme Good, which goodness is of its own \nnature a present active principle of the natural \nand spontaneous love with which the supreme \nGood loves itself, thou wilt behold the exuberant \nsupernatural outpouring of the Word from the \nFather, by which act of begetting and speaking \nall things are spoken forth and produced; and \nthou wilt see too in the supreme Good and in \n\n\n294 LIFE OF BLESSED HENRY SUSO. \n\nthe highest outpouring the divine Trinity, Fa- \nther, Son, and Holy Ghost, necessarily bursting \nforth. And if it be that from the supreme es- \nsential goodness the highest and most perfect \noutpouring gushes forth, it follows that there \nmust be in the aforenamed Trinity the most \nsupreme and intimate community of behig, as \nwell as the most perfect similarity and identity \nof that being, which the Persons possess in the \njubilee of their outpouring, without any division \nor partition of the substance and the almighti- \nness of the three Persons of the Godhead. \n\nThe maiden exclaimed: — O wonderful! I \nswim in the Godhead as an eagle in the air. \nHe answered: — It is impossible to express in \nwords how the Trinity of the Divine Persons \ncan subsist in the unity of one essence. Never-* \ntheless, to say what can be said about it, St. \nAugustin lays down that the Father is the foun- \ntain-head of all the Godhead of the Son and \nof the Holy' Ghost, personally and essentially. \nSt. Denys says, that in the Father there is an \noutflowing of the Godhead, and that this out- \nflowing or stream pours itself out naturally in \nthe outrunning Word, who is the Son by nature. \nHe also pours Himself out according to the \nloving bountifulness of the will into the Son, \n\n\nTHE TKINITY IN UNITY. Z*dj \n\nand the Son in turn pours Himself out accord- \ning to the lovingness of the will into the Father, \nand this is called a reciprocal love, and is the \nHoly Ghost. The hidden meaning of this is \ndisclosed and proved to us by that bright light \nthe dear St. Thomas, the teacher, who speaks \nthus: — In the outpouring of the Word from \nthe Father's heart and reason, it must needs be \nthat God, with His luminous intellect, contem- \nplates Himself, bending back, as it were, upon \nHis Divine essence; for if the reason of the \nFather had not the Divine essence for its object, \nthe Word conceived would be a creature and \nnot God, which would be false. But in the way \ndescribed, the Word is a Divine being from a \nDivine being. Again, this backward look upon \nthe Divine essence in the reason of the Father \nmust take place in a manner productive of a \nnatural likeness, otherwise the Word would not \nbe the Son. Here, then, we have unity of \nessence with diversity of Persons; and, as a \ngood attestation of this distinction, the high- \nsoaring eagle, St. John, has said : — \" The Word \nwas in the beginning with God.\" \n\nWith regard to the outpouring of the Holy \nSpirit, thou shouldst know that the substance \nof the Divine intellect is an act of cognition (in- \n\n\n296 LIFE OF BLESSED HENRY SUSO. \n\ntellectio), and this, moreover, must have an in- \nclination for its object under the form in which \nit has been received into the intellect. This in- \nclination is the will, and the longing of the will \nis to seek after pleasure as best it can. Thou \nshouldst also observe that the object loved is not \nin the person loving under the likeness of its natu- \nral form, as is the case with the object of the in- \ntellect in the light of the cognition. Now, inas- \nmuch as the Word flows out from the looking \nforth of the Father according to the form of the \nnature, without confusion of Persons, this outpour- \ning of the Father is called a begetting. But since \nthis mode of procession does not occur in the out- \nflowing of the will and of the love, which is the \nthird Person, who is poured forth like a stream \nof love by the Father, and also by His express \nimage the Son, from out His very inmost depths, \ntherefore this outflowing cannot be termed a Son \nor begotten. And since this love is in the will \nafter an intellectual or spiritual fashion, like an \ninclination or love-bond present inwardly in the \nlover towards the object of his love, the third \nPerson in the procession, who j)roceeds accord- \ning to the loving manner of the will, fittingly re- \nceives the name of Spirit. But when a man has \nreached this point he is transformed by the Divine \n\n\nDIFFERENT VIEWS OF GOD. 297 \n\nlight in that mysterious way which they only can \nunderstand who have experienced it. \n\nThe daughter said : — Ah, sir, this is indeed \na sublime fulness of Christian doctrine. Never- \ntheless, there are to be met with certain intel- \nlectual men who deny what has been just said \nabout God, and whose view is, that he who \nwould attain to perfect union will find the con- \ntemplation of God a hurtful impediment. He \nshould, on the contrary, according to them, \ndivest himself of God and of the spirit, and \ncast behind him all visions, and turn himself \nonly to the inwardly-shining truth, which he is \nhimself. \n\nHe answered : — This doctrine is false if the \nwords are taken in their ordinary sense. There- \nfore keep clear of it, and hearken to what the \nChristian faith teaches on this point. The \ncommon view which men take of God is that \nHe is the Lord and Creator of the whole world, \nwho suffers no wickedness to pass unpunished, \nand no good deed unrewarded. He, then, who \ncommits sin regards God as a terrible God ; as \nthe good Job said, u I have always feared God \nas shipmen fear the great waves\" (Job xxxi. 23). \nHe also who serves God for reward has a great \nand munificent God, able to recompense him \n\n\n298 LIFE OF BLESSED HENRY SUSO. \n\nabundantly. But a well-exercised and experi- \nenced man, who by manifold dyings has rid \nhimself of the sinful things which God hates, \nand who serves God at all times with burning \nlove, this man loves God in his heart, and not \nafter the afore-mentioned fashion. And he has \nin a certain sense divested himself of God, and \nhe loves Him as his heart's own loved one ; for \nservile fear has passed from him, as St. Paul \nsays. Thus to the spiritual man God remains \ntruly God and Lord, and yet at the same time \nhe has emptied himself of God, according to the \ngrosser acceptation of the term, for he has at- \ntained to a more perfect conception of Him. \n\nNow as to the way in which a man should \nbe divested of the spirit, hearken to the true \naccount of it. When a man at the outset of \nhis interior life begins to observe that he is a \ncreature composed of body and soul, and that \nhis body is mortal, but that his soul is an ever- \nlasting spirit, he gives his body and all his \nanimal nature their dismissal, and cleaves to \nthe spirit, and brings his body into subjection \nto it; and every thing he does is interiorly in \nthought directed to this one end, how he may \ndiscover the superessential Spirit, and how lay \nhold of It, and how unite his spirit with It. A \n\n\nTRUE AND FALSE VISIONS. 299 \n\nman of this kind is called a spiritual and holy \nman. Now, supposing that all goes right with \nhim, after he has exercised himself in this for \na long time, and yet the superessential Spirit, \nthough ever playing as it were before him, has \nalways eluded his grasp, his created spirit begins \nat last to realise its own helplessness, to abandon \nitself by an utter renunciation of self to the \neverlasting Divine might, and to turn away \nfrom itself, with contempt for what comes from \nthe senses, to the immensity of the Supreme \nBeing. In this taking-up of the spirit into God \nit attains to a forgetfulness and loss of self, of \nwhich St. Paul speaks, \"I live, but not I\" \n(Gal. ii. 20) ; and of which Christ has said, \n\"Blessed are the poor in spirit\" (Matt. ii. 3). \nThus it is that a man's spirit, while it remains \nwhat it was as to its essence, is nevertheless \ndivested of itself in regard to the possession of \nitself through the senses. \n\nI will also explain to you the difference \nbetween pure truth and doubtful visions. To \ngaze without any medium upon the unveiled \nGodhead is undoubtedly absolute and unmingled \ntruth; and the more intellectual and unima- \nginary a vision is, and the more nearly it ap- \nproaches to the unveiled contemplation, the more \n\n\n300 LIFE OF BLESSED HENRY SUSO. \n\nnoble is its character. Some of the prophets \nhad imaginary visions, as Jeremias and others. \nAnd snch imaginary visions are still often gran- \nted to God's intimate friends, sometimes when \nasleep and sometimes when awake, their out- \nward senses being at the time stilled to rest and \nabstracted. A learned doctor says, that angelic \nappearances happen to some persons oftener \nin sleep than when awake, and for this reason : \nbecause a man in sleep is in a state of greater \nquietude with regard to the multiplicity of his \nexternal operations than when awake. But when \nit is that a vision which takes place in sleep \nmay and ought to be deemed a true vision — as \nthe dream in the Old Testament which King \nPharaoh had about the seven fat and seven lean \nkine, and many similar dreams mentioned in \nHoly Writ — and also how the truth of such \nvisions is to be discerned, — for dreams are usu- \nally deceptive, though undoubtedly they some- \ntimes announce the truth, — all this thou mayest \nlearn from what St. Augustin writes about his \nholy mother. God, she told him, had given her \nthis gift : that when He showed her any thing \nin sleep or half-sleep, she received at the same \ntime the inward power of discerning whether it \nwas merely a common dream, which she should \n\n\nTHE SOUL'S HIGHEST FLIGHT. 301 \n\ndisregard, or an imaginary vision, to which she \nshould attend. Those persons who have this \ngift from God can all the better explain to \nthemselves how this is. But no one can com- \nmunicate it to another by words. Those only \nunderstand it who have had experience of it.", "project_translation": false, "text_trust": "verbatim", "quote_safe": true, "license": null, "methodology_url": null } }