| 49. QUOD SUMMUS SPIRITUS SE AMET.
| 49. The Supreme Spirit loves itself.
|
| Sed ecce, dum huius patris filiique proprietates communionemque delectabiliter intueor, nihil delectabilius in illis contemplandum invenio quam mutui amoris affectum. Quam enim absurde negetur summus spiritus se amare, sicut sui memor est et se intelligit, cum et mens rationalis se et illum am are posse convincatur, ex eo quia sui et illius memor esse et se et illum intelligere potest? Otiosa namque et penitus inutilis est memoria et intelligentia cuiuslibet rei, nisi prout ratio exigit res ipsa ametur aut reprobe tur. Amat ergo seip sum summ us spiritus, sicut sui meminit et se intelligit. /65/
| But, while I am here considering with interest the individual properties and the common attributes of Father and Son, I find none in them more pleasurable to contemplate than the feeling of mutual love. For how absurd it would be to deny that the supreme Spirit loves himself, just as he remembers himself, and conceives of himself! since even the rational human mind is convinced that it can love both itself and him, because it can remember itself and him, and can conceive of itself and of him; for idle and almost useless is the memory and conception of any object, unless, so far as reason requires, the object itself is loved or condemned. The supreme Spirit, then, loves himself, just as he remembers himself and conceives of himself.
|
| 50. QUOD IDEM AMOR PARITER PROCEDAT A PATRE ET FILIO.
| 50. This love proceeds equally from the Father and the Son.
|
| Palam certe est rationem habenti eum non idcirco sui memorem esse aut se intelligere quia se amat sed ideo se amare quia sui meminit et se intelligit; nec eum se posse amare, si sui non sit memor aut se non intelligat. Nulla enim res amatur sine eius memoria aut intelligentia, et multa tenentur memoria et intelliguntur, quae non amantur.
| It is, at any rate, clear to the rational man that he does not remember himself or conceive of himself because he loves himself, but he loves himself because he remembers himself and conceives of himself; and that he could not love himself if he did not remember and conceive of himself. For no object is loved without remembrance or conception of it; while many things are retained in memory and conceived of that are not loved.
|
| Patet igitur amorem summi spiritus ex eo procedere, quia sui memor est et se intelligit. Quod si in memoria summi spiritus intelligitur pater, in intelligentia filius: manifestum est quia a patre pariter et filio summi spiritus amor procedit.
| It is evident, then, that the love of the supreme Spirit proceeds from the fact that he remember himself and conceives of himself (se intelligit). But if, by the memory of the supreme Spirit, we understand the Father, and by his intelligence by which he conceives of anything, the Son, it is manifest that the love of the supreme Spirit proceeds equally from Father and Son.
|
| 51. QUOD UTERQUE PARI AMORE DILIGAT SE ET ALTERUM.
| 51. The Father and the Son love themselves and each other in equal degree.
|
| Sed si se amat summus spiritus, procul dubio amat se pater, amat se filius, et alter alterum; quia singulus pater est summus spiritus, et singulus filius summus spiritus, et ambo simul unus spiritus; et quia uterque pariter sui et alterius meminit, et se et alterum intelligit. Et quoniam omnino idipsum est quod amat vel amatur in patre, et quod in filio: necesse est ut pari amore uterque diligat se et alterum.
| But if the supreme Spirit loves himself, no doubt the Father loves himself, the Son loves himself, and the one the other; since the Father separately is the supreme Spirit, and the Son separately is the supreme Spirit, and both at once one Spirit. And, since each equally remembers himself and the other, and conceives equally of himself and the other; and since what is loved, or loves in the Father, or in the Son, is altogether the same, necessarily each loves himself and the other with an equal love.
|
| 52. QUOD TANTUS SIT IPSE AMOR, QUANTUS EST SUMMUS SPIRITUS.
| 52. This Love is as great as the Supreme Spirit.
|
| Quantus ergo est amor iste summi spiritus sic communis patri et filio? Sed si tantum se diligit, quantum sui meminit et se intelligit, tantum autem sui memor est et intelligit se, quanta est eius essentia, quod aliter esse non potest: profecto tantus est amor eius, quantus ipse est. /66/
| How great, then, is this love of the supreme Spirit, common as it is to Father and Son! But, if he loves himself as much as he remembers and conceives of himself; and, moreover, remembers and conceives of himself in as great a degree as that in which his essence exists, since otherwise it cannot exist; undoubtedly his love is as great as he himself is.
|
| 53. QUOD IDEM AMOR SIT IDIPSUM, QUOD EST SUMMUS SPIRITUS, ET TAMEN IPSE CUM PATRE ET FILIO UNUS SPIRITUS.
| 53. This Love is the same thing as the Supreme Spirit is; and yet, this Love is one spirit with the Father and the Son.
|
| Verum quid potest esse par summo spiritui nisi summus spiritus? Iste itaque amor est summus spiritus. Denique si nulla umquam creatura, id est si nihi1 umquam aliud esset quam summus spiritus pater et filius: nihilominus seipsos et invicem pater et filius diligerent.
| But, what can be equal to the supreme Spirit, except the supreme Spirit? That love is, then, the supreme Spirit. Hence, if no creature, that is, if nothing other than the supreme Spirit, the Father and the Son, ever existed; nevertheless, Father and Son would love themselves and one another.
|
| Consequitur itaque hunc amorem non esse aliud quam quod est pater et filius, quod est summa essentia. At quoniam summee essentiae plures esse non possunt: quid magis necessarium, quam patrem et filium et utriusque amorem unam esse summam essentiam? Est igitur idem amor summa sapientia, summa veritas, summum bonum, et quidquid de summi spiritus substantia dici potest.
| It therefore follows that this love is nothing else than what the Father and the Son are, which is the supreme Being. But, since there cannot be more than one supreme Being, what inference can be more necessary than that Father and Son and the love of both are one supreme Being? Therefore, this love is supreme Wisdom, supreme Truth, the supreme Good, and whatsoever can be attributed to the substance of the supreme Spirit.
|
| 54. QUOD TOTUS PROCEDAT A PATRE, TOTUS A FILIO, ET TAMEN NON SIT NISI UNUS AMOR.
| 54. [This Love] proceeds as a whole from the Father and as a whole from the Son. Nevertheless, there is only one love.
|
| Intuendum est diligenter utrum sint duo amores, unus a patre procedens, alter a filio; an unus non totus ab uno procedens sed partim a patre, partim a filio; an nec plures nec unus partim procedens a singulis sed unus totus a singulis et idem totus a duobus simul.
| It should be carefully considered whether there are two loves, one proceeding from the Father, the other from the Son; or one, not proceeding as a whole from one, but in part from the Father, in part from the Son; or neither more than one, nor one proceeding in part from each separately, but one proceeding as a whole from each separately, and likewise as a whole from the two at once.
|
| Sed huius dubitationis certitudo hinc indubitanter cognoscitur, quia non ex eo procedit in quo plures sunt pater et filius sed ex eo in quo unum sunt. Nam non ex relationibus suis quae plures sunt -- alia est enim relatio patris, alia filii -- sed ex ipsa sua essentia quae pluralitatem non admittit, emittunt pater et filius pariter tantum bonum.
| But the solution of such a question can, without doubt, be apprehended from the fact that this love proceeds not from that in which Father and Son are more than one, but from that in which they are one. For, not from their relations, which are more than one, but from their essence itself, which does not admit of plurality, do Father and Son equally produce so great a good.
|
| Sicut ergo singulus pater est summus spiritus, et singulus fflius est summus spiritus, et simul pater et filius non duo sed unus spiritus: ita a singulo patre manat totus amor summi spiritus, et a singulo filio totus, et simul a patre et filio non duo toti sed unus idemque totus. /67/
| Therefore, as the Father separately is the supreme Spirit, and the Son separately is the supreme Spirit, and Father and Son at once are not two, but one Spirit; so from the Father separately the love of the supreme Spirit emanates as a whole, and from the Son as a whole, and at once from Father and Son, not as two, but as one and the same whole.
|
| 55. QUOD NON SIT EORUM FILIUS.
| 55. [This Love] is not the son of the Father and of the Son.
|
| Quid ergo? Cum hic amor pariter habeat esse a patre et filio, et sic similis sit ambobus ut nullatenus dissimilis sit illis sed omnino idem sit quod illi: numquid filius eorum aut proles aestimandus est? Sed sicut verbum mox consideratur, se prolem eius esse a quo est, evidentissime probat, promptam praeferendo parentis imaginem: sic amor aperte se prolem negat, quia dum a patre et filio procedere intelligitur, non statim tam perspicuam exhibet se contemplanti eius ex quo est similitudinem; quamvis ipsum considerata ratio doceat omnino idipsum esse quod est pater et filius.
| Since this love, then, has its being equally from Father and Son, and is so like both that it is in no wise unlike them, but is altogether identical with them; is it to be regarded as their Son or offspring? But, as the Word, so soon as it is examined, declares itself to be the offspring of him from whom it derives existence, by displaying a manifold likeness to its parent; so love plainly denies that it sustains such a relation, since, so long as it is conceived to proceed from Father and Son, it does not at once show to one who contemplates it so evident a likeness to him from whom it derives existence, although deliberate reasoning teaches us that it is altogether identical with Father and Son.
|
| Denique si proles eorum est: aut alter eorum erit pater eius, alter mater, aut uterque pater sive mater est; quae omnia veritati repugnare videntur. Quoniam namque nullatenus aliter a patre procedit quam a fflio, nulla veritas patitur ut dissimili vocabulo ad illum pater et filius referantur. Non est igitur alter pater eius, alter mater. Ut autem duo aliqua sint, quae singula perfectam et nulla consideratione differentem habeant pariter ad aliquid unum patris aut matris habitudinem: nulla natura aliquo monstrari concedit exemplo.
| Therefore, if it is their offspring, either one of them is its father and the other its mother, or each is its father, or mother,—suppositions which apparently contradict all truth. For, since it proceeds in precisely the same way from the Father as from the Son, regard for truth does not allow the relations of Father and Son to it to be described by different words; therefore, the one is not its father, the other its mother. But that there are two beings which, taken separately, bear each the perfect relation of father or mother, differing in no respect, to some one being—of this no existing nature allows proof by any example.
|
| Ergo non est uterque, scilicet pater et filius, pater aut mater amoris a se manantis. Nequaquam itaque videtur veritati convenire, ut idem amor eorum filius sit aut proles.
| Hence, both, that is, Father and Son, are not father and mother of the love emanating from them. It therefore is apparently most inconsistent with truth that their identical love should be their son or offspring.
|
| 56. QUOD SOLUS PATER SIT GENITOR ET INGENITUS, SOLUS FILIUS GENITUS, SOLUS AMOR NEC GENITUS NEC INGENITUS.
| 56. Only the Father is begetter and unbegotten. Only the Son is begotten. Only their Love is neither begotten nor unbegotten.
|
| Sed videtur tamen amor idem nec omnino secundum communis locutionis usum dici posse ingenitus, nec ita proprie sicut verbum genitus. Solemus enim saepe dicere aliquid gigni ex ea re de qua existit; ut cum dicimus calorem aut splendorem gigni ab igne, seu aliquod effectum ex /68/ causa sua.
| Still, it is apparent that this love can neither be said, in accordance with the usage of common speech, to be unbegotten, nor can it so properly be said to be begotten, as the Word is said to be begotten. For we often say of a thing that it is begotten of that from which it derives existence, as when we say that light or heat is begotten of fire, or any effect of its cause.
|
| Secundum hanc igitur rationem amor a summo spiritu exiens non omnino asseri potest ingenitus. Ita vero proprie sicut verbum dici genitus non potest, quia verbum verissimam esse prolem et verissimum filium, amorem vero nullatenus filium aut prolem esse manifestum est.
| On this ground, then, love, proceeding from supreme Spirit, cannot be declared to be wholly unbegotten, but it cannot so properly be said to be begotten as can the Word; since the Word is the most true offspring and most true Son, while it is manifest that love is by no means offspring or son.
|
| Potest itaque immo debet dici solus ille cuius verbum est genitor et ingenitus, quia solus est pater et parens, et nullo modo ab alio est. Solum autem verbum genitum, quia solum filius et proles est. Solus vero amor utriusque nec genitus nec ingenitus, quia nec filius est nec proles est, nec omnino non est ab alio.
| He alone, therefore, may, or rather should, be called begetter and unbegotten, whose is the Word; since he alone is Father and parent, and in no wise derives existence from another; and the Word alone should be called begotten, which alone is Son and offspring. But only the love of both is neither begotten nor unbegotten, because it is neither son nor offspring, and yet does in some sort derive existence from another
|
| 57. QUOD AMOR IDEM SIC SIT INCREATUS ET CREATOR SICUT PATER ET FILIUS, ET TAMEN IPSE CUM ILLIS NON TRES SED UNUS INCREATUS ET UNUS CREATOR; ET QUOD IDEM POSSIT DICI SPIRITUS PATRIS ET FILLI.
| 57. This Love is uncreated and creator, even as are the Father and the Son. Nevertheless, they are together one uncreated creator and not three [uncreated creators]. This Love can be called the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.
|
| Quoniam autem idem amor singulus est summa essentia sicut pater et filius, et tamen simul pater et filius et utriusque amor non plures sed una summa essentia, quae sola a nullo facta non per aliud quam per se omnia fecit: necesse est ut, quemadmodum singulus pater et singulus filius est increatus et creator, ita et amor singulus sit increatus et creator, et tamen omnes tres simul non plures sed unus increatus et unus creator.
| But, since this love separately is the supreme Being, as are Father and Son, and yet at once Father and Son, and the love of both are not more than one, but one supreme Being, which alone was created by none, and created all things through no other than itself; since this is true, necessarily, as the Father separately, and the Son separately, are each uncreated and creator, so, too, love separately is uncreated and creator, and yet all three at once are not more than one, but one uncreated and creative being.
|
| Patrem itaque nullus facit sive creat aut gignit. Filium vero pater solus non facit sed gignit. Pater autem pariter et filius non faciunt neque gignunt sed quodam modo si sic dici potest spirant suum amorem. Quamvis enim non nostro modo spiret summe incommutabilis essentia, tamen ipsum suum amorem a se ineffabiliter procedentem non discedendo ab illa sed existendo ex illa, forsan non alio modo videtur posse dici aptius ex se emittere quam spirando. /69/
| None, therefore, makes or begets or creates the Father, but the Father alone begets, but does not create, the Son; while Father and Son alike do not create or beget, but somehow, if such an expression may be used, breathetheir love: for, although the supremely immutable Being does not breathe after our fashion, yet the truth that this Being sends forth this, its love, which proceeds from it, not by departing from it, but by deriving existence from it, can perhaps be no better expressed than by saying that this Being breathes its love.
|
| Quod si dici potest: sicut verbum summae essentiae filius est eius, ita eiusdem amor satis convenienter appellari potest spiritus eius. Ut cum essentialiter ipse sit spiritus sicut pater et filius, illi non putentur alicuius spiritus, quia nec pater ab ullo alio est, nec filius a patre quasi spirante nascitur, iste autem aestimetur spiritus utriusque, quia ab utroque suo quodam inenarrabili modo spirante mirabiliter procedit.
| But, if this expression is admissible, as the Word of the supreme Being is its Son, so its love may fittingly enough be called its breath (Spiritus). So that, though it is itself essentially spirit, as are Father and Son, they are not regarded as the spirits of anything, since neither is the Father born of any other nor the Son of the Father, as it were, by breathing; while that love is regarded as the Breath or Spirit of both since from both breathing in their transcendent way it mysteriously proceeds.
|
| Qui etiam ex eo quia est communio patris et filii, non absque ratione quasi proprium assumere posse videtur aliquod nomen, quod patri filioque commune sit, si proprii nominis exigit indigentia. Quod quidem, si fiat, scilicet ut ipse amor nomine 'spiritus', quod substantiam pariter patris et filii significat, quasi proprio designetur: ad hoc quoque non inutiliter valebit, ut per hoc idipsum esse quod est pater et filius, quamvis ab illis esse suum habeat, intimetur.
| And this love, too, it seems, from the fact there is community of being between Father and Son, may, not unreasonably, take, as it were its own, some name which is common to Father and Son; if there is any exigency demanding that it should have a name proper to itself. And, indeed, if this love is actually designated by the name Spirit, as by its own name, since this name equally describes the Father and the Son: it will be useful to this effect also, that through this name it shall be signified that this love is identical with Father and Son, although it has its being from them.
|
| 58. QUOD, SICUT FILIUS EST ESSENTIA VEL SAPIENTIA PATRIS EO SENSU QUIA HABET EANDEM ESSENTIAM vel SAPIENTIAM QUAM PATER, SIC IDEM SPIRITUS SIT PATRIS ET FILLI ESSENTIA ET SAPIENTIA ET SIMILIA.
| 58. Just as the Son is the essence and wisdom of the Father in the sense that He has the same essence and wisdom as the Father, so their Spirit is the essence, wisdom, and the like, of the Father and of the Son.
|
| Potest quoque, quemadmodum filius est substantia et sapientia et uirtus patris eo sensu quia habet eandem essentiam et sapientiam et uirtutem quam pater: ita utriusque spiritus intelligi essentia vel sapientia vel virtus patris et filii, quia habet omnino eandem quam habent illi. 70/
| Also, just as the Son is the substance and wisdom and virtue of the Father, in the sense that he has the same essence and wisdom and virtue with the Father; so it may be conceived that the Spirit of both is the essence or wisdom or virtue of Father and Son, since it has altogether the same essence, wisdom, and virtue with these.
|