[In the following essay, Clark examines the second book of The Scale of Perfection, notes that it is more Christocentric than the first book, and explains its concern with perfect and imperfect humility.]

Walter Hilton is a pastor rather than a speculative theologian. His higher education was in Canon Law rather than in Theology as such. But he is familiar with the commonplaces of technical theology, more specifically of a rather conservative Augustinian theology whose affinities have yet to be fully worked out, a task which can only be properly fulfilled as more of the Cambridge academic theology of his day is identified and studied. Beyond this, his contemplative interest leads him to become well grounded in monastic and especially Cistercian theology. It is within this framework that this Trinitarian theology needs to be viewed.

Hilton takes for granted the common teaching that man's soul is a created trinity, made in the image of God (cf. Gen. 1.26), in which the three faculites of memoria, reason (understanding), and love (or will) are a reflection of the Uncreated Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,¹ to whom in Augustinian theology the characteristics of Power, Wisdom and Love (or Goodness) are respectively appropriated.² Through Adam's Fall, the ‘likeness’ of God (cf. Gen. 1.26) has been lost, and has to be recovered through receiving the effects of Christ's saving work.³ In Scale of Perfection, Book One, Hilton sees the ‘likeness’ of God in Christ as expressed particularly in the virtues of humility an charity—love of God, and the others in God or for God; these virtues are both interdependent and ‘inclusive’ in the sense that they imply all the other Christian virtues.⁴

This being so, it is hardly surprising that the point of departure for the lofty teaching of Scale of Perfection, Book Two, where Hilton will go on to describe the progressive recovery of the ‘likeness’ of God in terms of a participation through grace in the Trinitarian life, should be once again the consideration of the nature and interdependence of humility and charity or desire for God. We shall see repeatedly that points made in Scale 1, are re-applied in the context of an even more profoundly intergrated Trinitarian spirituality.

It is from Scale 2, 20 onwards that a more emphatically Christocentric and subsequently strongly Trinitarian emphasis appears.⁵ Here an account of humility and desire for God is initiated, which goes far beyond what was written earlier in Scale, 1. This is bound up with an understanding of the life of grace which lays the foundation for Hilton's subsequent exposition.

In Scale 1, Hilton takes it that the disposition of humility is the prerequisite for receiving the freely-given, infused virtue of charity. He even makes a distinction, in general terms, between ‘imperfect’ and ‘perfect’ humility and charity, and states that if one has imperfect humility—humility in the will but not in affection—one will have imperfect charity, but that if one has perfect humility one will have perfect charity.⁶ In common with the Cloud of Unknowing—some of whose insights seem to be taken up in Scale 2⁷—Hilton echoes St Bernard's famous definition of humility: Humilitas est virtus, qua homo verissima sui cognitione sibi ipse vilescit.⁸ ‘He is meke þat sothfastly knowez and felez of hymself as he is.’⁹

In Scale 2, especially, Hilton's understanding of love of God presupposes the point of view found in St Bernard's De Diligendo Deo—a work with parts of which at any rate he seems to have been familiar.¹⁰ True love of God is not without reward, but the reward itself lies in the possession of the Beloved. The Christian's reward is the possession of God, yet God is loved for himself and not simply as a recompense for labour undertaken. There is a loss of self-consciousness about one's deserts, yet this is far from any empty quietism. As Bernard writes, Non enim sine praemio diligitur Deus, etsi absque praemii sit intuitu diligendus. Vacua namque vera caritas esse non potest, nec tamen mercenaria est: quippe NON QUAERIT QUAE SUA SUNT (Cor. 13.5).¹¹

But it is only possible for the possession of God to become a reward in so far as one dies to the false self, to that disordered amor sui which disfigures the image of God in the soul. The particular insight of Scale 2, 20 is that the radical death to the false self which is the very condition of attaining perfect love of God can only be received as a gift, as one is made aware of God in his immensity and love. This will lead to a reversal of the perspective of Scale 1, as Hilton sees that it is only through the unmerited gift of God's love that one can be made perfectly humble; there can be no question of ‘acquiring’ perfect humility.

Hilton points out that there are various acts through which, by grace, men may be led to conformity with God, according to their varying dispositions and situations; no single deed suffices. He insists that man cannot ‘earn’ the possesion of God as of right:

he þat wil serue God wisely & come to þe þerfit luf of God, he schal coueite to haue none oþer mede bot him only. Bot þan for to haue hym may no creature deserue only bi his owne trauail … For he is soueren blis & eendeles godnes, & passeþ wiþ-oute comþarisoun alle mennis desertes …¹²

Hilton holds a careful balance in insisting equally upon the gratuity of God's gift of perfect love of himself, and upon the need for man to dispose himself to receive this unmerited gift.¹³

That contemplation is a gift of God which man may dispose himself to receive, but which remains a gift which God is in no way bound to bestow when man has done all in his power to receive it, is not a new idea. Some anticipation of this might be found in Richard of St Victor.¹⁴ It was familar to the early Cistercians, including Gilbert of Holland,¹⁵ to whom Hilton is indebted at so many points. But perhaps the closest parallel to Hilton's thought, as so often, is in William of St Thierry's Epistola ad Fratres de Monte Dei.¹⁶

Now Hilton takes up the definition of humility which he had given earlier in Scale 1 on the basis of St Bernard's words. But this time he relates it to that awareness of the life of grace which is to become so dominant a theme in the final part of Scale 2:

He haþ not ful mekenes þat kan not felyn of hym-self soþfastly as he is, as þus: he þat doþ alle þe gode dedis þat he kan …, if he reste ay in hem & lene so mikel to hem & rewardeþ hem so gretly in his owne siȝte þat he presumiþ of his owne desertes …, soþly as longe as he feliþ þus, he is not meke inowȝ … Soþly, vntil a soule kan felablely þurwȝ grace noȝten him-self, & baren him fro alle þe gode dedis þat he doþ, þurwȝ behaldyng of soþfastnes of Ihesu, he is noȝt perfitly meke.¹⁷

A humility that is based on the awareness of one's dependence on grace is dynamic, in that it makes one open to the work of grace:

he þat þurwȝ grace may see Ihesu, how þat he doþ al & him-self doþ riȝt noȝt, bot suffreþ Ihesu wirken in him what him likiþ, he is meke … Soþly he þat haþ þis siȝt schal neuer do þe lesse, bot he schal be stirid for to trauaile bodily & gostly mikel þe more & with þe better wil.¹⁸

In the following chapter Hilton distinguised explicitly between the two kinds of humility. The one is concerned in the first instance with one's own wretchedness; the second looks beyond the self to the greatness of God, as the sense of sinfulness is swallowed up in that of creaturely dependence:

I mene not only of þat meknes þat a soule feliþ in þe siȝt of his own syn or freltees … Bot I mene also þis meknes þat þe soule feliþ þurwȝ grace, in siȝt & beholdyng of þe endeles beynge & þe wundreful godnes of Ihesu … For þurwȝ siȝt of his beynge, eiþer in ful feiþ or in felyng, þu scha[l]t holden þi-self not only as þe most wrecche þat is, bot also as noȝt in substaunce of þi soule, þawȝ þu haddist neuer don syn.¹⁹

The distinction between imperfect and perfect humility matches exactly that found in the Cloud.²⁰

In the following chapters, Hilton describes the spiritual pilgrimage and the purification that are necessary if one is to advance from the basic stage of ‘reforming the faith’ to the realisation of the life of grace, ‘reforming in feeling’. He then includes a careful account, using Pauline texts after the manner of Augustine, to explain how this ‘reforming’ takes place in the mind, mens, which is properly the image of God.²¹

It is in Scale 2, 34, that Hilton's exposition becomes explicitly Trinitarian. He takes up again the inter-relationship of knowledge and love in the search for God, on which he had touched in Scale 1. In the earlier book he had said that the third and highest degree of contemplation combines knowledge and love of God; his words echo well-known teaching of Augustine.²² But now he points out that there has been (in Scale 2, 20 ff.) a call to seek only the love of God; how is this to be harmonised with the doctrine that the knowledge of God is the soul's beatitude and end?

The answer that he gives is finely balanced. He stands close to St Thomas as he affirms that the vision of Jesus—that is, of God—is the full beatitude of the soul, and that this is not only for the sake of the vision itself—considered, implicitly, as an intellectual activity involving knowledge—but it is for the love that the knowledge and vision of God is said to be the soul's principal beatitude, with love attendant on this. Nevertheless, it is because one cannot come to this knowledge or to the love that issues from it, without love, that Hilton has said that one should seek only love.²³

From one point of view, one can once again find an antecedent in Scale 1. There, the second part of contemplation, intermediate between the initial stage of naked intellectual knowledge and the third stage which is properly contemplation, is said to consist principally in affection.²⁴ Nevertheless, Hilton goes beyond Scale 1, in what follows—in the careful distinction between Uncreated and created Love, and in the statement that it is God's gift of Himself, in the third Person of the Trinity, Uncreated Love, which enables man to come to the knowledge of God.

The heightened insistence that it is love which enables one to come to the knowledge of God at any rate poses the question whether Hilton may be responding to the Cloud's assertion that while God remains inaccessible to the intellect, he is fully accessible to love,²⁵ and whether he is adapting something of this within his own theological framework, while still refusing to set love against knowledge. If so, this would not be the only case where he adapts for his own purposes a perspective of the Cloud's author. The expression ‘liȝty derknes’, deriving from the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius, is found in the Book of Privy Conselling,²⁶ though not in the Cloud itself; Hilton uses the Dionysian expression in Scale 2 in a very un-Dionysian way.²⁷ But the suggestion should not be pressed too hard.

þat lufe is not þe luf þat a soule haþ in it-self to God; bot þe luf þat oure Lorde haþ to a synful soule þat kan riȝt not lufen him is cause whi þis soule comiþ to þis knowynge & to þis lufe …²⁸

In Scale 1 Hilton followed St Paul in recalling that the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts through the gift of the Holy Spirit.²⁹ Now, referring to the common distinction made by theologians between Uncreated and created Love, he points out (in line with the theology of appropriation deriving from Augustine) that God himself, and specifically the third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, is Uncreated Love—Deus dilectio est (cf. John 4.8).³⁰ It is not created love which gives the soul the spiritual sight of Jesus, as if one could love God by one's own efforts, or deserve such a spiritual vision. Rather, it is the illumination given by the Holy Spirit, Uncreated Love, which discloses Christ in the life of grace, and so is the means of conferring that perfect humility which is no longer self-regarding. Thus at the higher level humility becomes no longer simply the disposition that is necessary in order to receive God's gift of love as it was in Scale 1, but it becomes the fruit of God's disclosure of himself in his love and grace.

In distinguising between Uncreated and created Love, Hilton appeals to ‘holy wryters’. The distinction is indeed a common one, but on this point there was some difference of nuance between different writers. Augustine, accepting that we may in some sense participate in the life and love of God himself, took Rom. 5.5 to mean that the Holy Spirit does ‘give’ himself to us: caritas … usque adeo donum Dei est, ut Deus dicatur.³¹ Passages in Augustine's De Trinitate make a like point.³² Peter Lombard had boldly identified charity itself with the Holy Spirit,³³ but his view had been rejected, since it would have meant the annihilation of the human personality and of a freely given response to God. Hilton's words that ‘þe gift of lufe is þe Holy Gost’³⁴ might, taken in isolation, seem to suggest Peter Lombard's doctrine, but his distinction between Uncreated and created Love obviates such a misunderstanding. He follows the line of development foreshadowed already in Bernard and William of St Thierry,³⁵ and developed by the scholastics, which distinguishes between the Uncreated Gift and our created participation in this, while seeing created charity as an intrinsic modification of the human personality.³⁶ Though there is no incongruity between the tradition represented by, say, St Bonaventure and St Thomas on this point, it is perhaps fair to point out, following Karl Rahner, that it is the Summa Halensis and St Bonaventure who in particular begin deliberately and firmly with the reality of gratia increata—just as St Paul—and St Augustine—begin with the fact that the Holy Spirit does in a real sense give ‘himself’ to us.³⁷

Just so, for Hilton the fact of the Holy Spirit's giving ‘himself’ to us is the primary consideration,and one which emphasises the priority and gratuity of God's gift.

Lufe formed is þe affeccioun of þe soule, made bi þe Holy Gost of þe siȝt & þe knowynge of soþfastnes, þat is God only … Now may þu see þat lufe formed is not cause whi a soule comiþ to þe gostly siȝt of Ihesu, as summe men wolde þenken þat þei wolde luf God so brennandely as it were bi þeire owne miȝt, þat þei were worþi for to haue þe gostly knowynge of him … Bot luf vnformed, þat is God him-self, is cause of al þis knowynge … Bi-cause þat he lufiþ vs so mikel, þerfore he gifiþ vs his lufe, þat is þe Holi Gost. He is boþ þe gifer & þe gifte,³⁸ & makiþ vs þan bi þat gifte for to knowen & lufen him … For soþly a lesse þinge or a lesse gifte þan he is may not auailen vs for to bryngen vs to þe blissed siȝt of Ihesu.

And þerfore schul we fully desiren & asken of Ihesu only þis gift of lufe, þat he wulde for þe mikelnes of his blissed luf touchen oure hertes with his vnseable liȝt to þe knowynge of hym, & departen with vs of his blissed luf, þat as he lufiþ vs, þat we miȝten loue him ageyn … Nos diligamus Deum, quoniam ipse prior dilexit nos

(Cf. 1 John 4.19) …³⁹

God progressively reveals himself in his prevenient love. He loved us much in creating us in his likeness; he loved us more in the costliness of our redemption; but his greatest act of love is in the gift of the Holy Spirit, by which we know and love him, and are assured that we are his sons chosen to salvation.⁴⁰

In redeeming us—and here Hilton must be referring to God's general gift to all mankind—God gave himself in the humanity of Christ; but the gift of himself to our souls for our salvation—and here the reference must be to sanctifying grace—is an even higher gift; it is God's supreme gift of love, for, Hilton repeats emphatically, it is God's gift of himself.⁴¹

Following the theology of appropriation, Hilton recalls that the creation of a soul is appropriated to the Father as Power (potentia); redemption is appropriated to the Son as Wisdom (sapientia), and the justification of the soul through the application to it of Christ's work is appropriated to the Holy Spirit as Love (amor, dilectio). Creation is common to all human beings, and to irrational creatures as well. Redemption is common to all human beings—that is, it is a possibility for all. But it is the application of redemption to the elect which is a special gift, and is the work of the Holy Spirit, who is Love.⁴² There is an extension here of St Augustine's observation that while the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is substantial charity (caritas), there is a particular sense in which charity may be referred to the Holy Spirit.⁴³

Anticipating what he will develop later, Hilton refuses to make any division in the life of grace; the realisation for oneself of adoption in Christ is the further development of the supernatural life which begins with justification. God's love, or grace—Hilton uses the terms interchangeably—is prevenient, so that the assent which the soul makes to God is an assent which he enables the soul to make. The experiential awareness of the life of grace is a further development, a disclosure of what had at first been imperceptible:

þis luf vnformed, when it is gifen to vs, it wirkiþ in oure soule at þat good is … þis lufe lufiþ vs er þat we lufe him, for it clensiþ vs first of oure synnes … it stiriþ vs also for to forsaken þe luf & þe likynge of þe werld … We don riȝt noȝt bot suffren him & assentyn to him … And ȝit is þat wil not of vs, bot of his makynge,⁴⁴ so þat me þinkiþ þat he doþ in vs al þat is wel don, & ȝit we seen it not. And not only doþ he þus, bot aftir þis lufe doþ more. For he opneþ þe eiȝe of þe soule & schewiþ to þe siȝt of Ihesu wundirfully …, how þat he is al & þat he wirkiþ al, & þat alle gode dedis þat are done & gode þouȝtes arn only of him.⁴⁵

The indwelling of Christ in the soul of the just is a familiar theme, for which a theological basis can be found in Ephesians 3.17, and especially in Augustine.⁴⁶ This is explicitly developed in the exposition of the Psalm Qui Habitat, a work which is closely related to Scale 2, and which may very well be Hilton's.⁴⁷

It will be noticed that in the careful Trinitarian theology of Scale 2, 34, it is the Holy Spirit who discloses Christ. This is an emphasis that will be repeated later.⁴⁸

Hilton has already recalled the common doctrine of the co-inherence of the Person of the Trinity, referring to ‘Ihesu, in whome is alle þe blissid Trinite’.⁴⁹ Since the operation of the Persons of the Trinity is inseparable ad extra,⁵⁰ Hilton can speak equally of the operation of ‘Jesus’ as the Love which renews man to God's likeness and opens the way to spontaneous conformity to God's will.⁵¹

It is God's gift of his love and grace that Hilton sees in Scale 2, as making the casual link between contemplation, considered as ‘reforming in feeling’, the awareness of the life of grace, and the full development of charity and of all the other virtues which are implied in charity. The recognition that the gift of God's love is utterly unmerited casts one entirely upon the grace of God, so opening the way to the working of grace in what St Thomas knows as its ‘operant’ mode, where all is perceived as God's work, in distinction from the ‘co-operant’ mode, where there is consciousness of the deliberate conjunction of the human will with grace.⁵² Once again, Hilton here marches closely with the Cloud, which sees ‘operant’ grace as ensuring that God directly governs the will in spontaneous conformity to himself.⁵³

Hilton contrasts the receptiveness and spontaneity of the comtemplative with the self-conscious and laboured efforts of those who try deliberately to feel quasi-physical fervour. In doing so, he cites well-known words of St Paul on the Christian life as one of docility to the Spirit:

a soule þat haþ þe gift of lufe þurȝ gracious beholdynge of Ihesu as I mene, or elles if he hafe it not ȝit bot wolde haue it, he is not bisy for-to streyne him-self ouer his miȝt as it were bi bodily strengþe for to han it bi bodily feruours & so for to felen of þe lufe of God … He seeþ wel þat Ihesu is al & doþ al, & þerfor askiþ he noȝt elles bot þe gifte of his lufe

þan is luf maister, & wirkiþ in þe soule, and makiþ it for to forgetyn it-self & for to seen & beholden only how luf doþ. And þan is þe soule more suffrande þan doande, & þat is clene lufe. þus Seint Poul mened when he seide þus, Quicumque Spiritu Dei aguntur, hii filii Dei sunt

(Rom. 8.14).⁵⁴

This teaching in Scale 2, is closely matched in the Psalm commentary Qui Habitat. Expounding Ps. 90.5, Scuto circumdabit te veritas eius—a text which Hilton will take up in Scale 2, in a closely related manner—Qui Habitat explains that it is the ‘shield’ (scutum) of Christ's divinity, over and above the ‘shadow’ of his humanity, which affords protection against spiritual enemies to the humble soul supernaturally raised to the grace of contemplation.⁵⁵ This is expressed in terms that recall St Bernard's teaching on the passage from the ‘carnal’ to the ‘spiritual’ love of God in Christ—teaching which had become a commonplace of monastic spirituality, but to which Hilton explicitly refers in Scale 1, and with which he shows his familiarity elsewhere.⁵⁶Qui Habitat goes on to describe a spontaneity in God's service which matches that found in Scale 2, and is expressed in closely similar terms:

He þat dispisiþ him-self as he haþ ben & as he is of Him-self soþfastliche, & … fulliche hopeþ in me, … I schal dilyueren him from his enemyes, I schal departe with him þe ȝiftes of þe holi gost, and I schal maken him fre & willi for-to loue me.⁵⁷

In this passage, ‘ȝiftes’ appears as plural in all extant manuscripts. But this is the only passage in Qui Habitat, or in Scale 2, where this is so. In fact, the commentary will go on to refer to the ‘gift’ (singular) of the Holy Spirit, just as Scale 2, does. Qui Habitat describes how, as the meaning of the name of Jesus, who is both God and man, is realised, so the potentia, sapientia, amor of the Trinity are reflected in the soul's spontaneous conformity to God's will through the gift of the Holy Spirit:

… I schal make him mihti aȝeynes alle synnes. And I schal make him wys in siht of soþfastnes. And I schal ȝiuen him þe ȝift of loue, þat is, þe holi gost.⁵⁸

It would be tempting to see in Scale 2,—and in Qui Habitat—a direct echo of the teaching of St Thomas concerning the gifts of the Holy Spirit: secundum ea homo disponitur ut efficiatur prompte mobilis ab inspiratione divina; in this very context St Thomas cites Rom. 8.14, the text used so emphatically by Hilton in Scale 2, 34.⁵⁹ But we should not locate Hilton precisely within the close-knit patterns which Neo-Thomist theologians have constructed on the basis of St Thomas' teaching, although Hilton's account of contemplation as a ‘lifely felynge of grace’⁶⁰ is at any rate congruous with St Thomas' account of the Gift of Wisdom as giving an actual experience of divine things,⁶¹ just as his description of the contemplative's insight into the spiritual meaning of Scripture could be matched with St Thomas' account of the Gift of Understanding.⁶² In fact, Hilton's account of contemplation as an awareness of the life of grace can be matched in William of St Thierry.⁶³ And his subsequent statement of how docility to the Spirit, with the perfection of humility and charity, strikes down the capital sins at their root, has affinities not only with another strand of the early Cistercian tradition—as will be illustrated—but with a deeply-rooted element on the mediaeval teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, emerging in St Bonaventure and also in the well-known Somme le Roy (of which numerous Middle English versions exist), which sees the seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit as effective against the seven capital sins to which they are respectively opposed.⁶⁴

For that matter St Thomas is himself in line here with the same twelfth-century monastic theology that nourished Hilton. St Bernard recalls Rom. 8.14 in a passage of De Diligendo Deo, referring to the liberty of spirit of the sons of God under Christ's easy yoke, which finds many echoes in Hilton, not least in the final chapters of Scale 2.⁶⁵ The same text is also alluded to in a passage of William of St Thierry, Epistola ad Fratres de Monte Dei, which distinguishes ‘perfect’ from ‘animal’ and ‘rational’ souls.⁶⁶

While allowing that God may grant the same heavenly reward to those who love and serve him by deliberate effort under the common grace, as to those ‘perfect lovers’ who receive the special grace of which he has spoken, Hilton affirms that is the ‘special’, operant grace, which for the duration of the experience ensures conformity to the will of God:

in vnperfit lufers of God, luf wirkiþ al ferly bi þe affeccions of man; bote in perfit lufers lufe wirkiþ nerly bi his owne gostly affecciouns, & sleþ in a soule for þe tyme al oþer affecciouns …⁶⁷

The reader should desire only the gift of God's love, that is, the Holy Spirit, who is both Giver and Gift. Again deepening a point made in Scale 1, Hilton contrasts this gift with the gratiae gratis datae of prophecy, working of miracles, knowledge, counsel, or fasting and penance; a condemned soul might have the latter as well as an elect soul.⁶⁸ It is the gift of God's love—the gift which is the Holy Spirit—which distinguishes between the elect and the condemned.⁶⁹ This gift enables one to love oneself and all one's fellow-Christians ‘in God’, thus effecting a union of the soul and of all those creatures who share in God's beatitude.⁷⁰

Hilton stands close to Augustine's exposition of Ps. 45.11, Vacate, et videte quoniam ego sum Deus as he describes on the basis of this text how all the contemplative's good deeds are God's gift, and God's work in the soul that is prepared to still its own efforts and allow him to work in it.⁷¹ He recalls something of the distinction that he made in Scale 1, between ‘virtue in reason’ and ‘virtue in affection’—a distinction that finds a close parallel, once more, in William of St Thierry's Epistola ad Fratres de Monte Dei—as he contrasts the ease in the practice of virtue that comes with God's gift of love, the gift of the Holy Spirit, with the laboured efforts of those who work by the common grace and, like wrestlers, sometimes have the upper hand and sometimes are beneath. The loss of self-consciousness in the striving for virtue which Hilton describes is far from any empty quietism. A soul that has the spiritual vision of Jesus—as he is revealed in the life of grace—does not worry about striving for virtues, but sets his gaze on Jesus, who then becomes master in the soul and fights for it against all sins.⁷²

Still the parallel with William of St Thierry remains close. Just so, in the Epistola ad Fratres de Monte Dei, William had described how, as the imago Dei is restored to the similitudo Dei, the practice of virtue becomes no longer a toil but spontaneous as unitas spiritus with God is realised.⁷³

‘Spiritual liberty’ is a theme found in other twelfth-century Cistercians. There are suggestions of similar doctrine in some of Gilbert of Holland's sermons on the Song of Songs.⁷⁴ Hilton does not echo these particular passages, though his statement that through the awareness of grace:

þus sleeþ lufe generally alle synnes in a soule, & reformiþ it in new felynge of vertues⁷⁵

finds a close parallel in words of Gilbert of Holland on the dynamic force of the fire of love, the fire sent into the earth (cf. Luke 12.49) of the human heart.⁷⁶

Hilton recapitulates the distinction that he has made earlier between imperfect and perfect humility. The first, bound up with the sense of one's own sinfulness, is due to the working of reason; perfect humility, in which the perception of Jesus in his love and grace, and in his infinite being—Et substantia mea tanquam nichilum ante te (Ps. 38.6)—is the fruit of the special gift of God's love, and makes one forgetful of one's demerits or merits.⁷⁷ Such ‘perfect’ humility also enables one to love one's fellow-Christians equally ‘in God’, without passing judgement on them, so fulfilling what has been enjoined in Scale 1.⁷⁸ Through the gift of perfect humility—a gift which is due to the operation of the Holy Spirit, who is himself the Gift of Love—the root sin of pride is struck down, in varying degrees according to the recipient's stage of progress. In place of pride, humility is given. But the gift of perfect humility is dependent on god's gift of perfect love:

þus is þe soule made meke … bi þe wirkyng of þe Holy Gost, þat is þe gifte of luf; for he opneþ iȝe of þe soule for to seen & lufen Ihesu … & he sleeþ alle þe stirynges of pride … he þat lest haþ on þis maner …, soþly he haþe þe gifte of perfit meknes, for he haþe þe gifte of perfite lufe.⁷⁹

From this point Hilton goes on to describe how ‘Love’—by which he implies God's gift of Uncreated Love, the Holy Spirit—destroys the remaining capital sins and makes the practice of the coresponding virtues spontaneous.⁸⁰

When Hilton goes on to describe the character of contemplation in its various facets, the Trinitarian pattern which has emerged so strongly persists as an undercurrent, emerging in such passages as:

þus feliþ þe soule þanne with ful meek sikernes & grete gostly gladnes, & it conceifiþ a ful grete boldnes of saluacioun bi þis acorde-makynge, for it heriþ a pryuey witnesynge in conscience of þe Holy Gost þat he is a chosen sone to heuenly heritage. þus seint Poul seiþ, Ipse Spiritus testimonium perhibet spiritui nostro quod filii Dei sumus

(Rom. 8.16)⁸¹

—once again in line with the passage in St Bernard's De Diligendo Deo on liberty of spirit to which reference has already been made.⁸²

Hilton repeats a catena of familair commonplace terms for contemplation, in order to convey the many-sidedness of the experience and the inadequacy of any single term to convey what is strictly indescribable. Among these terms it is the ‘lifely felynge of grace’⁸³ in particular which sums up those aspects of the contemplative experience which we have examined—the realised awareness of adoption in Christ, and of participation through grace in the life of the Trinity. Hilton refers to this as an awareness of ‘þe presence of oure Lord Ihesu’.⁸⁴ Because the three Persons of the Trinity co-inhere, he can speak simply of ‘Jesus’ where before he has distinguished between ‘Jesus’ and the Holy Spirit. Subsequently he writes:

Bot per-chaunce þou bigynnist to wundre whi I sey o tyme þat grace wirkiþ al þis, & an-oþer tyme I sey þat loue wirkiþ or Ihesu wirkiþ or God wirkiþ. Vnto þis I sey þus, þat whan I sey þat grace wirkiþ, I mene lufe, Ihesu & God; for al is on, & not bot on. Ihesu is lufe, Ihesu is grace, Ihesu is God; & for he wirkiþ al in vs bi his grace for lufe as god, þerfore may I vsen what worde of þese foure þat me list …⁸⁵

At the conclusion of Scale 2, where he is referring to the possibility of intellectual visions of heavenly realities, Hilton says that the contemplative may be granted insight into the unity of substance and distinction of Persons in the Trinity, in accordance with the teaching of the Church's doctors.⁸⁶

So there is the possibility of the verification of the Church's faith in the Holy Trinity. But Hilton is not in the first instance concerned with the verification of abstract metaphysical principles. Rather, he indicates that it is as conformity to God's will is attained that what is received from the Church through faith becomes an experienced reality, as the image of God in man, the trinitas creata, is renewed in his likeness, and faith is illuminated into ‘feeling’ and ‘understanding’

þe whilk vndirstondyng, þat I calle þe siȝt of God if it be gracious a soule may not haue bot þorwȝ grete clennes, as oure Lord saiþ, Beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt (Matt. 5.8) … ; þat is, þei schul see God not with þeire fleschly hiȝe, bot with þe innere hiȝe, þat is vndirstondyng, clensid & illumined þurw grace of þe Holy Gost …⁸⁷

Hilton's Trinitarian theology remains firmly in line with the wisdom of the monastic tradition—and of Augustine; and it is inseparable from his theology of grace.

Notes

1. The common teaching on the image of the Trinity in man, derived from Augustine, is found in Peter Lombard, Sententiae in IV Libros Distinctae, Spicilegium Bonaventurianum 4-5 (Grottaferrata 1971, 1981), Liber 1, d. 3, cc. 2-3, (Vol. 1, Pars 2, pp. 71-76), with references to Augustine, De Trinitate. The trinity of memoria, intelligentia, voluntas, is described in De Trinitate 10.11.17—12.19. (In Augustine there are, of course, various ‘trinities’ in the human soul: M. Schmaus, Die Psychologische Trinitätslehre des heiligen Augustinus (Münster/Westfalen 1927), pp. 195-281).

   Hilton repeats this in Scale 1, 43, Cambridge, University Library, MS Add. 6686 (= C), p. 314a; similarly in Scale 2, 31, London, British Library, MS Harley 6579 (= H), f. 106v. He uses ‘reason’ for the Augustinian ‘intelligentia’. I am much indebted to the late Professor A. J. Bliss for advice on MS C, which is the base-text for his edition of Scale 1, to be completed by M. G. Sargent for EETS. For MS H, I have had the benefit of a gift of Stanley Hussey's edited transcript in ‘An Edition … of Book II of Walter Hilton's Scale of Perfection’ (London University Ph.D. dissertation, 1962), and have also worked directly from plates of the MS.

2. The theology of appropration is stated in e.g. Peter Lombard, Sententiae ed. cit. 1, d. 34 cc. 3-4, pp. 251-253, and is recalled in Scale 1, 43, MS C, p. 314a; cf. also Scale 2, 34, MS H, f. 112r taken up below.

3. Scale 1, 43, MS C, pp. 314b-315a; Scale 2, 1, MS H, ff. 63r-v, with 2, 2, MS H, ff. 63v-65r.

4. Scale 1, 51, MS C, p. 323b, with 1, 70, MS C, pp. 340b-342a; cf. 1, 18 MS C, p. 292a; 1, 62, MS C, p. 334a-b; 1, 77, MS C, p. 349b.

5. Apart from combinations with ‘oure Lord’ or ‘Crist’, the name ‘Ihesu’ occurs four times by itself in Scale 2, 2; three times in Scale 2, 3; twice in Scale 2, 4; once in Scale 2, 10; in Scale 2, 20, it appears six times on its own; in Scale 2, 21, fifteen times on its own; in the rest of the book the Holy Name by itself appears very frequently, except in chapters 28, 29 and 31. In Scale 2, 42, it occurs thirty-three times by itself, and in Scale 2, 43, twenty-three times. The ‘Christocentric’ bias of Scale 2, 20 to the end is actually heightened in the contemporary Latin version by Thomas Fyslake, O. Carm.; see S. S. Hussey, ‘Latin and English in the Scale of Perfection’, Mediaeval Studies 35 (1973) pp. 469-470; J. P. H. Clark, ‘English and Latin in The Scale of Perfection: Theological Considerations’, Analecta Cartusiana 35: 1 (Salzburg 1982), pp. 205-212.

6. If þou haue mekenes perfitely, þen schalt þou haue perfite charite, and þat is best: Scale 1, 68, MS C, p. 339a.

7. J. P. H. Clark, ‘Sources and theology in the Cloud of Unknowing’, Downside Review 98 (1980), p. 109.

8. Bernard, De Gradibus Humilitatis, 1.2, Opera, ed. J. Leclercq et al., (Rome 1957 ff.), Vol. 3, p. 17. Recalled in the Cloud of Unknowing, ed. P. Hodgson, EETS (1944), Ch. 13, p. 40/8-9.

9. Scale 1, 68, MS C, p. 339b.

10. For instance, Scale 2, 40, MS H, f. 123v: grace losiþ þe heuy ȝokke of fleschly luf fro þe soule …, recalling Bernard's treatment of the ‘Grave … et importabile iugum super omnes filios Adam’ (Ecclus. 40.1) in constrast to the spiritual liberty that accompanies Christ's easy yoke (De Diligendo Deo 13.36-14.37, Opera ed. J. Leclercq and H. M. Rochais (Rome 1963), Vol. 3, pp. 150-151); and earlier De Imagine Peccati in Walter Hilton's Latin Writings, edited by J. P. H. Clark and C. Taylor, Analecta Cartusiana 124 (Salzburg 1987), p. 78/91, with notes.

11. Bernard, De Diligendo Deo 7.17 (Opera, Vol. 3, p. 133).

12. Scale 2, 20, MS H, f. 83r.

13. Ibid., MS H, f 83r: he is free and gifiþ him-self where he wile & when he wil, neiþer for þis werk ne for þat … Nerþeles on þe toþer side I say also þat I hope he ȝifiþ it not, bot if a man wirke & trauaile al þat he kan and may …

14. Richard of St Victor, Benj. Min. c. 73 PL 196.52; Benj. Major 5.4 PL 196.172-3.

15. Gilbert of Holland, In Cant. 6.5 PL 184.41; 7.1 PL 184.43.

16. William of St Thierry, Epistola ad Fratres de Monte Dei (Lettre aux Frères du Mont Dieu), ed. J. M. Déchanet, Sources chrétiennes 223 (Paris 1975), c. 251, p. 344.

17. Scale 2, 20, MS H, f. 83r-v.

18. Scale 2, 20, MS H, f. 83v.

19. Scale 2, 21, MS H, f. 85r-v.

20. Cloud, ch. 13, pp. 40/8-41/6. this is a development from traditional teaching. Phyllis Hodgson points to a possible affinity in Bernard, Ep. 393.3; a closer parallel is in Gilbert of Holland, In Cant. 15.7 PL 184.78: Infirmiores in vanitate sua humiliantur; perfectiores, in veritate Dei.

21. Scale 2, 31, MS H, ff. 106r-v, citing Rom. 12.2; Col. 1.9; Eph. 4.23-24; Col. 3.9-10. For related use of texts, cf. Augustine, De Trinitate 7.6.12; 12.7.12; 12.16.22 (C. Ch. Series Latina, 50, pp. 265-7, 366-7, 451-4, citing Rom. 12.2; Col. 3.9-10; Eph. 4.23-24.

22. Scale 1, 8, MS C, p. 282b: Thrid partie of comtemplacioun … lis boþe in cognicioun & in affecioun; þat is forto sey, in knowyng & in perfite louyng of God. Cf. Augustine, En. Ps. 135.8: intellegimus sapientiam in cognitione et dilectione eius quod semper est, atque incommutabiliter manet, quod Deus est. This passage was familiar to the Middle Ages, being cited in Peter Lombard's discussion of the distinction between the Gifts of Wisdom and of Knowledge (Sententiae 3, d.35, c. 1, n. 4 ed. cit., Vol. 2, p. 199).

23. Scale 2, 34, MS H, f. 110v: Bot now wondrest þu, siþen þis knowynige of God is þe blis & þe ende of a soule, whi þan haue I seid here bifore þat a soule schuld noȝt elles coueite bot only þe luf of God. I spake no-þinge of þis siȝt, þat a soule schuld coueit þis. Vnto þis I may say þus: þat þe siȝt of Ihesu is ful blis of a soule, & þat is not only for þe siȝt, bot it is also for þe blissed lyfe þat comiþ out of þat siȝt. Nerþeles for lufe comiþ oute of knowynge & not knowynge oute of luf, þerfor it is seid þat in knowynge & in siȝt principally of God with lufe is þe blis of a soule, & þe more he is knowen, þe better is he lufed. Bot for as mikel as to þis knowynge, or to þis luf þat comiþ of it, may not þe soule come with-oute luf, þerfore seide I þat þu schuldest only coueite luf.

24. Scale 1, 5, MS C, p. 281a; principaly in affeccion.

25. Cloud, Ch. 8, p. 33/11; cf. Ch. 6, p. 26/3-5.

26. Book of Priuy Counselling, in The Cloud, ed. Hodgson, p. 154/17.

27. Scale 2, 24, MS H, f. 90r: liȝty mirknes; 2, 25 and 2, 27, chapter-headings, MS H, f. 143r: liȝtsom derknes; cf. J. P. H. Clark, ‘The “Lightsome Darkness”—Aspects of Walter Hilton's Theological Background’, Downside Review 95 (1977), pp. 106f. On the inter-relationship of Scale 1, The Cloud, and Scale 2, see further J. P. H. Clark, ‘Sources and Theology’, pp. 108-9.

28. Scale 2, 34, MS H, f. 110v.

29. Scale 1, 65, MS C, p. 336a, citing Rom. 5.5.

30. Scale 2, 34, MS H, ff. 110v-111r: Holy wryters seyn … þat þer is two maner of gostly lufe. On is called vnformed, an-oþer is callid formed. Lufe vnformed is God him-self, þe þridde Persoun in þe Trinite, þat is þe Holi Gost …, as Seynt Ion seiþ þus, Deus dileccio est.

31. Augustine, Ep. 186.3.7 (CSEL 57, p. 50).

32. Augustine, De Trinitate 15.17.31-18.32 (pp. 507-8), citing Rom. 5.5; ibid. 15.19.37 (pp. 513-4).

33. Peter Lombard, Sententiae 1, d. 17, c. 1, nn. 1-4 (Vol. 1, pp. 141-3).

34. Scale 2, 36, MS H, f. 115r.

35. Bernard, De Diligendo Deo 12.35 (Opera, Vol. 3, p. 149); William of St Thierry, Speculum Fidei PL 180.395; Aenigma Fidei PL 180.399; Expos. in Cant. cap. 1, PL 180.506.

36. Cf. St Bonaventure, In Sent. 2, d. 26, a un., q. 2, St Thomas, ST 1, q.38, a 1; 2-2 q. 23 a 2; a 3 ad 3; q. 24 a 2.

37. Karl Rahner, ‘Some Implications of the Scholastic Concept of Uncreated Grace’, in Theological Investigations, Vol. 1 (ET London, 1961), pp. 324-5; 337-8.

38. For orientation, with reference to the roots of this doctrine in Augustine, De Trinitate, 15.19.36, see Peter Lombard, Sententiae, 1, d. 18, c. 2, n. 2 (Vol. 1, Pars 2, p. 153).

39. Scale 2, 34, MS H, f. 111r-v.

40. Scale 2, 34, MS H, f. 111v: He loued vs mikel whan he made vs to his liknes, bot he loued vs more when he boȝt vs with his precious blode … : bot he lufiþ vs most when he gifiþ vs þe gifte of þe Holy Gost, þat is luf, bi þe whilk we knowen him & louen him, & are made siker þat we are his sones chosen to saluacioun.

41. Scale 2, 34, MS H, ff. 111v-112r: þerfore þe most token of lufe schewd to vs, as me þinkiþ, is þis: þat he gifiþ him-self in his godhed to oure soules. He gaf him-self first in his manhede to vs for oure raunsoun … þis was a faire gift, & a grete tokne of lufe. Bot when he gifiþ him-self in his godhed gostly to oure soules for oure saluacioun, & makiþ vs for to knowe him & lufe him, þan lufiþ he vs fully … And for þis skil it is seide þat þe riȝtynge of a synful soule purȝ forgifnes of synnes is arettid and apropred principally to þe wirkynge of þe Holy Gost; for þe Holy Gost is luf …

42. Ibid., MS H, f. 112r: þe makynge of a soule is apropred to þe Fader, as for þe souereyn miȝt & power þat he schewiþ in makynge of it. þe byenge is aretted & apropred to þe Sone, as for þe souereyn wit & wisdom þat he schewyd in his manhed … Bot þe riȝtynge & þe ful sauynge of a soule bi forgifnes of synnes is apropred to þe pridde Persone, þat is þe Holy Gost. For þer-in schewiþ Ihesu most lufe vnto mannes soule … His makynge is comune to vs and to all vnresonable creatures … Also þe byenge is comune to vs & to alle resonable soules … Bot þe riȝtynge and þe halowynge of oure soules purȝ þe gift of þe Holy Gost, þat is only þe wirkynge of lufe; & þat is not comune, bot it is a special gifte only to chosen soules …

43. Augustine, De Trinitate 15.17.29 (pp. 503-4).

44. For orientation, see e.g. Peter Lombard, Sententiae, 2, d. 26, c. 2 (pp. 471-2); d. 27, c. 4 (p. 483) - with references to Augustine.

45. Scale 2, MS H, f. 112r-v.

46. E.g. Augustine, De Trinitate 4.20.27, cited by Peter Lombard, Sententiae, 1, d. 15, c. 8, n. 1 (p. 136). Augustine, De Trinitate 15.18.32 (p. 508) refers to the indwelling of the Trinity as such in the souls of the just; cf. Peter Lombard, Sent. 1, d. 17, c. 4, n. 2, (p. 145).

47. An Exposition of Qui Habitat and Bonum Est in English, ed. B. Wallner, Lund Studies in English, 23 (Lund 1945), pp. 32/1-3; 37/12-13. On Hilton's probable authorship of this work, see J. P. H. Clark, ‘Walter Hilton and the Psalm Commentary Qui Habitat’, Downside Review 100 (1982), pp. 235-62.

48. Scale 2, 37, MS H, f. 117r: þe Holy Gost liȝteneþ þe reasoun in-to þe siȝt of soþfastnes, how Ihesu is al & þat he doþ al; 2, 40, MS H, f. 124r: þis stilnes makiþ þe inspiracioun of þe Holy Gost in beholdynge of Ihesu.

49. Scale 2, 32, MS H, f. 108v.

50. For orientation see Schmaus, Die Psychologische Trinitätslehre …, pp. 151 ff., with references to other writings of Augustine as well as to De Trinitate.

51. Scale 2, 34, MS H, f. 113r: þis luf is not elles bot Ihesu him-self, þat for lufe wirkiþ al þis in a mannes soule, & reformiþ it in felynge to his liknes …, þis luf bryngiþ in-to þe soule þe fulhed of alle vertues, & makiþ hem alle clene and trewe, soft and esy …

52. St Thomas, ST 1-2 q. 111 a. 2.

53. Cloud. ch. 34, pp. 70/12-71/1; cf. also Book of Privy Counselling, in Cloud, p. 164/4-6.

54. Scale 2, 35, MS H, ff. 113v-114r.

55. An Exposition of Qui Habitat, pp. 14/1-15/1. Cf. Scale 2, 37, MS H, f. 118r: þen forsakiþ he vtterly him-self & vndirkestiþ him holly to Ihesu. & þan is he in a siker warde, for þe schelde of soþfastnes … kepiþ him so wel þat he schal not ben hirt þurgh no stirynge of pride, as longe as he beholdiþ him with-inne þat scheld, as þe prophet seiþ, Scuto circumdabit te veritas eius; non timebis a timore nocturno.

56. Scale 1, 35, MS C, p. 306b. St Bernard's teaching on this point is found especially in his In Cant. 20.2.3-5.9 (Opera, Vol. 1, pp. 115-121). Cf. further Walter Hilton's Latin Writings, p. 404, notes on Ep. de Leccione, 182 ff.

57. Qui Habitat, p. 43/10-15.

58. Ibid., p. 45/12-15.

59. St Thomas, ST, 1-2 q. 68 a 1; Rom. 8.14 is cited Ibid. a 2.

60. Scale 2, 40, MS H, f. 126r.

61. St Thomas, ST 2-2 q. 45 a 2.

62. Scale 2, 43, MS H, ff. 133r-136r. Hilton cites Luke 24.45 (f. 133v), as St Thomas does (ST 2-2 q. 8 a 2). But one can hardly plead specific dependence on St Thomas for such use of this verse.

63. Cf. William of St Thierry, Ep. ad Fratres de Monte Dei, c. 298, p. 382: in ipso lumine veritatis undubitanter videt praevenientem gratiam.

64. See below, pp. 138-9. Cf. St Bonaventure, In Sent. 3, d. 34, p. 1 a 2 q. 1. The teaching of the Somme le Roy may be found in The Book of Vices and Virtues, ed. W. N. Francis, EETS OS 217 (1942) p. 125. On the Middle English versions of the Somme le roy, see A. Barratt, ‘Works of Religious Instruction’, in Middle English Prose, ed. A. S. G. Edwards (New Brunswick 1984) pp. 416-7.

65. St Bernard, De Diligendo Deo 13.36 (Opera, Vol. 3, p. 151).

66. William of St Thierry, Epistola ad Fratres de Monte Dei c. 43, p. 178.

67. Scale 2, 35, MS H, f. 114v.

68. Scale 2, 36, MS H, ff. 114v-115r: Aske þou þan of God no-þinge bot þis gifte of lufe, þat is þe Holy Gost … For þer is no gifte of God þat is boþ þe gifer & þe gifte, bot þis gift of luf … þe gifte of prophecie, þe gifte of miracles-wirkynge, þe gifte of grete knowynge & counseilynge, & þe gifte of grete fastynge or of grete penaunce-doynge, or ony oþer swilk, are grete giftes of þe Holy Gost: bot þei arne not þe Holy Goste, for a reproued & a damonable miȝt han alle þose giftes as wel as a chosen soule.

    Scale 1, 47, MS C, p. 320a prefers desire for Christ to all the gratiae gratis datae, but does not refer to the gift of God's Uncreated Love as Scale 2 does: Sothly I hade leuere fele and haue a sothfast desyre and a clene longyng in my hert to my Lord Ihesu …, þen forto haue withouten þis desire al bodily penaunce of all men lyuand, all visiouns of aungels apperand, songes and sounes, sauours or smelles …

69. Scale 2, 36, MS H, f. 115r: þis is þe gifte of lufe þat makiþ schedynge atwix chosen soules & reprefed: recalling Augustine, De Trinitate 15.18.32 (p. 507).

70. Scale 2, 36, MS H, f. 115f: þis gifte makiþ ful pees atwix God & a soule, & oniþ alle blissed creatures holly in God. For it makiþ Ihesu for-to lufen vs. & vs him also, and ilke of vs for-to lufe oþer in him.

71. Scale 2, 36, MS H, f. 115r-v: Vacate, et videte quoniam ego sum Deus … þat is, ȝe þat are reformed in felynge & han ȝour inner iȝe opned in-to siȝt of gostly þinges, cese ȝe sum-tyme of outwars wirkynge, & see þat I am God; þat is, seeþ only how I Ihesu, God, & man, do; beholde ȝe me, for I do al. I am lufe, & for lufe I do al þat do, & ȝe do noȝt …, for þer is no gode dede done in ȝowe ne gode þouȝte felt in ȝow, but if it be done þurȝ me …, Cf. Augustine, En. Ps. 70.1.18 (C. Chr. 39, p. 955).

72. Scale 2, 35, MS H, f. 116r: Oþer men þat stondiþ in þe commine wey of charite, & are not ȝit so fer forþ in grace, bot wirken vnder þe biddynge of resoun, þei strifen & feiȝten al-day ageyn synnes for þe getynge of vertues; & sumtyme þei ben aboue & sumtyme bineþ, as wrestellers arne. þose men don ful wel; þei han vertues in resoun & in wil, not in sauour ne in lufe …

    Bot a soule þat haþ þe gostly siȝt of Ihesu takiþ no grete kepe of strifynge for vertues. he is not bisy aboute hem specially, bot he settiþ al his bisynes for to kepe þat siȝt and þat biholdynge of Ihesu þat hit haþ … And whan it doþ þus, þan is Ihesu soþfastly maister in þe soule …

    For virtue in reason and in affection, cf. Scale 1, 14, MS C, pp. 287b-88a. An antecedent may be found in William of St Thierry, Ep. ad Fratres de Monte Dei, c. 43, p. 178.

73. William of St Thierry, Ep. ad Fratres de Monte Dei, c. 276, pp. 364-6; c. 286, pp. 372-4.

74. Gilbert of Holland, In Cant. 13.3; 39.4-5 (PL 184.65; 205-6).

75. Scale 2, 36, MS H, f. 116r.

76. Gilbert of Holland, In Cant. 15.5 (PL 184, 77).

77. Scale 2, 37, ff. 116v-117r: … þe first is inperfit; þat oþer is perfite. þe first meknes a man feliþ of beholdynge of his owne synnes & of his owne wrecchednes …

    Perfit meknes a soule feliþ of þe siȝt & þe gostly knowynge of Ihesu. For whan þe Holy Gost liȝteneþ þe resoun in-to þe siȝt of soþfastnes, how Ihesu is al & þat he doþ al, þe soule … forgetiþ it-self & fully leneþ to Ihesu with al þe lufe þat it haþ forto beholden him; it takiþ no kepe of vnworþines of it-self, ne of synnes bifore done, bot settiþ at noȝt it-self with al þe synnes & alle þe gode dedis þat euer it did, as if þer wate no-þinge bot Ihesu. þus meke Dauid was whan he seid þus: Et substancia mea tanquam nichilum ante te. (Ps. 38.6).

78. Ibid., f. 117r: Also anentes his euen-Cristen he haþ no rewarde to hem, ne demynge of hem wheþer þei ben better or wers þan him-self is. Cf. Scale 1, 16, MS C, p. 290b, recalling the words of Abbot Pastor to Abbot Joseph in Vitae Patrum 5.9.5. (PL 73.910).

79. Scale 2, 37, MS H, f. 118v.

80. Scale 2, 38-9 passim.

81. Scale 2, 40, MS H, f. 124v.

82. Bernard, De Diligendo Deo 13.36 (Opera, Vol. 3, p. 151).

83. Scale 2, 40, MS H, f. 123v; cf. f. 126r.

84. Scale 2, 40, MS H, f. 126r.

85. Scale 2, 42, MS H, ff. 132v-133r.

86. Scale 2, 46, MS H, f. 139r-v: þan is it opned soþfastly to þe eiȝe of þe soule þe onhed in substance & distinccioun of Persons in þe blissid Trinitee, as it may be seen here, & mikil oþer soþfastnes of þis blissid Trinite pertinente to þis matere, þe whilk is openly declared & schewde bi writynge of holy doctours of Holy Kirk.

87. Scale 2, 11, MS H, f. 73v. On faith and understanding in Hilton, see J. P. H. Clark, ‘Augustine, Anselm and Walter Hilton’, in The Medieval Mystical Tradition in England—Dartington 1982, ed. M. Glasscoe (Exeter 1982) pp. 102-26.