Chapter 12.—Why Love is Not the Offspring of the Mind, as Knowledge is So. The Solution of the Question. The Mind with the Knowledge of Itself and the Love of Itself is the Image of the Trinity.

17. What then is love? Will it not be an image? Will it not be a word? Will it not be begotten? For why does the mind beget its knowledge when it knows itself, and not beget its love when it loves itself? For if it is the cause of its own knowing, for the reason that it is knowable, it is also the cause of its own love because it is lovable. It is hard, then, to say why it does not beget both. For there is a further question also respecting the supreme Trinity itself, the omnipotent God the Creator, after whose image man is made, which troubles men, whom the truth of God invites to the faith by human speech; viz. why the Holy Spirit is not also to be either believed or understood to be begotten by God the Father, so that He also may be called a Son. And this question we are endeavoring in some way to investigate in the human mind, in order that from a lower image, in which our own nature itself as it were answers, upon being questioned, in a way more familiar to ourselves, we may be able to direct a more practised mental vision from the enlightened creature to the unchangeable light; assuming, however, that the truth itself has persuaded us, that as no Christian doubts the Word of God to be the Son, so that the Holy Spirit is love. Let us return, then, to a more careful questioning and consideration upon this subject of that image which is the creature, that is, of the rational mind; wherein the knowledge of some things coming into existence in time, but which did not exist before, and the love of some things which were not loved before, opens to us more clearly what to say: because to speech also itself, which must be disposed in time, that thing is easier of explanation which is comprehended in the order of time.

18. First, therefore, it is clear that a thing may possibly be knowable, that is, such as can be known, and yet that it may be unknown; but that it is not possible for that to be known which is not knowable. Wherefore it must be clearly held that everything whatsoever that we know begets at the same time in us the knowledge of itself; for knowledge is brought forth from both, from the knower and from the thing known. When, therefore, the mind knows itself, it alone is the parent of its own knowledge; for it is itself both the thing known and the knower of it. But it was knowable to itself also before it knew itself, only the knowledge of itself was not in itself so long as it did not know itself. In knowing itself, then, it begets a knowledge of itself equal to itself; since it does not know itself as less than itself is, nor is its knowledge the knowledge of the essence of some one else, not only because itself knows, but also because it knows itself, as we have said above. What then is to be said of love; why, when the mind loves itself, it should not seem also to have begotten the love of itself? For it was lovable to itself even before it loved itself since it could love itself; just as it was knowable to itself even before it knew itself, since it could know itself. For if it were not knowable to itself, it never could have known itself; and so, if it were not lovable to itself, it never could have loved itself. Why therefore may it not be said by loving itself to have begotten its own love, as by knowing itself it has begotten its own knowledge? Is it because it is thereby indeed plainly shown that this is the principle of love, whence it proceeds? for it proceeds from the mind itself, which is lovable to itself before it loves itself, and so is the principle of its own love by which it loves itself: but that this love is not therefore rightly said to be begotten by the mind, as is the knowledge of itself by which the mind knows itself, because in the case of knowledge the thing has been found already, which is what we call brought forth or discovered;712    “Partum” or “repertum.” and this is commonly preceded by an inquiry such as to find rest when that end is attained. For inquiry is the desire of finding, or, what is the same thing, of discovering.713    “Reperiendi.” But those things which are discovered are as it were brought forth, whence they are like offspring; but wherein, except in the case itself of knowledge? For in that case they are as it were uttered and fashioned. For although the things existed already which we found by seeking, yet the knowledge of them did not exist, which knowledge we regard as an offspring that is born. Further, the desire (appetitus) which there is in seeking proceeds from him who seeks, and is in some way in suspense, and does not rest in the end whither it is directed, except that which is sought be found and conjoined with him who seeks. And this desire, that is, inquiry,—although it does not seem to be love, by which that which is known is loved, for in this case we are still striving to know,—yet it is something of the same kind. For it can be called will (voluntas), since every one who seeks wills (vult) to find; and if that is sought which belongs to knowledge, every one who seeks wills to know. But if he wills ardently and earnestly, he is said to study (studere): a word that is most commonly employed in the case of pursuing and obtaining any branches of learning. Therefore, the bringing forth of the mind is preceded by some desire, by which, through seeking and finding what we wish to know, the offspring, viz. knowledge itself, is born. And for this reason, that desire by which knowledge is conceived and brought forth, cannot rightly be called the bringing forth and the offspring; and the same desire which led us to long for the knowing of the thing, becomes the love of the thing when known, while it holds and embraces its accepted offspring, that is, knowledge, and unites it to its begetter. And so there is a kind of image of the Trinity in the mind itself, and the knowledge of it, which is its offspring and its word concerning itself, and love as a third, and these three are one, and one substance.714    [It is not these three together that constitute the one substance. The mind alone is the substance—the knowledge and the love being only two activities of it. When the mind is not cognizing or loving, it is still an entire mind. As previously remarked in the annotation on IX. ii. this ternary will completely illustrate a trinality of a certain kind, but not that of the Trinity; in which the “tria quædam” are three subsistences, each of which is so substantial as to be the subject of attributes, and to be able to employ them. The human mind is substantial enough to possess and employ the attributes of knowledge and love. We say that the mind knows and loves. But an activity of the mind is not substantial enough to possess and employ the attributes of knowledge and love. We cannot say that the loving loves; or the loving knows; or the knowing loves, etc.—W.G.T.S.] Neither is the offspring less, since the mind knows itself according to the measure of its own being; nor is the love less, since it loves itself according to the measure both of its own knowledge and of its own being.

CAPUT XII.

17. Cur sicut notitia mentis est proles, non etiam amor partus ejusdem sit. Solutio quaestionis. Trinitatis imago, mens cum sua ipsius notitia et amore. Quid ergo amor? non erit imago? non verbum? non genitus? Cur enim mens notitiam suam gignit, cum se novit; et amorem suum non gignit, cum se amat? Nam si propterea est notionis suae causa, quia noscibilis. est; amoris etiam sui causa est, quia est amabilis. Cur utrumque itaque non genuerit, difficile est dicere. Haec enim quaestio etiam de ipsa summa Trinitate, omnipotentissimo creatore Deo, ad cujus imaginem homo factus est, solet movere homines, quos veritas Dei per humanam locutionem invitat ad fidem, cur non Spiritus quoque sanctus a Patre Deo genitus vel creditur vel intelligitur, ut filius etiam ipse dicatur? Quod nunc in mente humana utcumque investigare conamur, ut ex inferiore imagine, in qua nobis familiarius natura ipsa nostra, quasi interrogata respondet, exercitationem mentis aciem ab illuminata creatura ad lumen incommutabile dirigamus: si tamen veritas ipsa persuaserit, sicut Dei Verbum Filium esse nullus christianus dubitat, ita charitatem esse Spiritum sanctum. Ergo ad imaginem illam, quae creatura est, hoc est, ad rationalem mentem diligentius de hac re interrogandam considerandamque redeamus, ubi temporaliter existens nonnullarum rerum notitia, quae antea non erat, et aliquarum rerum amor, quae antea non amabantur, distinctius nobis aperit quid dicamus: quia et ipsi locutioni temporaliter dirigendae , facilior est ad explicandum res quae in ordine temporum comprehenditur.

18. Primo itaque manifestum sit, posse fieri ut sit aliquid scibile, id est, quod sciri possit, et tamen nesciatur: illud autem fieri non posse, ut sciatur quod scibile non fuerit. Unde liquido tenendum est quod omnis res quamcumque cognoscimus, congenerat in nobis notitiam sui. Ab utroque enim notitia paritur, a cognoscente et cognito. Itaque mens cum se ipsam cognoscit, sola parens est notitiae suae: et cognitum enim et cognitor ipsa est. Erat autem sibi ipsa noscibilis, et antequam se nosset: sed notitia sui non erat in ea, cum se ipsa non noverat. Quod ergo cognoscit se, parem sibi notitiam sui gignit: quia non minus se novit quam est, nec alterius essentiae est notitia ejus, non solum quia ipsa novit, sed etiam quia se ipsam, 0971 sicut supra diximus. Quid ergo de amore dicendum est, cur non etiam cum se amat, ipsum quoque amorem sui genuisse videatur? Erat enim amabilis sibi, et antequam se amaret, quia poterat se amare: sicut erat sibi noscibilis, et antequam se nosset, quia poterat se nosse. Nam si non sibi esset noscibilis, nunquam se nosse potuisset: ita si non sibi esset amabilis, nunquam se amare potuisset. Cur itaque amando se non genuisse dicatur amorem suum; sicut cognoscendo se genuit notitiam suam? An eo quidem manifeste ostenditur hoc amoris esse principium, unde procedit: ab ipsa quippe mente procedit: quae sibi est amabilis antequam se amet; atque ita principium est amoris sui, quo se amat: sed ideo non recte dicitur genitus ab ea, sicut notitia sui qua se novit, quia notitia jam inventum est, quod partum vel repertum dicitur, quod saepe praecedit inquisitio eo fine quietura? Nam inquisitio est appetitus inveniendi, quod idem valet si dicas, reperiendi. Quae autem reperiuntur, quasi pariuntur: unde proli similia sunt; ubi, nisi in ipsa notitia? Ibi enim quasi expressa formantur. Nam etsi jam erant res quas quaerendo invenimus, notitia tamen ipsa non erat, quam sicut prolem nascentem deputamus. Porro appetitus ille, qui est in quaerendo, procedit a quaerente, et pendet quodam modo, neque 0972 requiescit fine quo inteditur, nisi id quod quaeritur inventum quaerenti copuletur. Qui appetitus, id est, inquisitio, quamvis amor esse non videatur, quo id quod notum est , amatur; hoc enim adhuc ut cognoscatur agitur: tamen ex eodem genere quiddam est. Nam voluntas jam dici potest, quia omnis qui quaerit invenire vult; et si id quaeritur quod ad notitiam pertineat, omnis qui quaerit nosse vult. Quod si ardenter atque instanter vult, studere dicitur: quod maxime in assequendis atque adipiscendis quibusque doctrinis dici solet. Partum ergo mentis antecedit appetitus quidam, quo id quod nosse volumus quaerendo et inveniendo, nascitur proles ipsa notitia: ac per hoc appetitus ille quo concipitur pariturque notitia, partus et proles recte dici non potest; idemque appetitus quo inhiatur rei cognoscendae, fit amor cognitae, dum tenet atque amplectitur placitam prolem, id est, notitiam, gignentique conjungit. Et est quaedam imago Trinitatis, ipsa mens, et notitia ejus, quod est proles ejus ac de se ipsa verbum ejus, et amor tertius, et haec tria unum atque una substantia. Nec minor proles, dum tantam se novit mens quanta est: nec minor amor, dum tantum se diligit quantum novit et quanta est.