Edition
Hide
De Trinitate
II.
[II 2] Quae cum ita sint attendamus ista tria quae invenisse nobis videmur. Nondum de supernis loquimur, nondum de deo patre et filio et spiritu sancto, sed de hac impari imagine attamen imagine, id est homine; familiarius enim eam et facilius fortassis intuetur nostrae mentis infirmitas.
Ecce ego qui hoc quaero cum aliquid amo tria sunt, ego et quod amo et ipse amor. Non enim amo amorem nisi amantem amem, nam non est amor ubi nihil amatur. Tria ergo sunt, amans et quod amatur et amor. Quid si non amem nisi me ipsum, nonne duo erunt, quod amo et amor? Amans enim et quod amatur hoc idem est quando se ipse amat, sicut amare et amari eodem modo id ipsum est cum se quisque amat. Eadem quippe res bis dicitur cum dicitur, amat se, et, amatur a se. Tunc non est aliud atque aliud amare et amari, sicut non est alius atque alius amans et amatus. At vero amor et quod amatur etiam sic duo sunt. Non enim quisquis se amat amor est nisi cum amatur ipse amor. Aliud est autem amare se, aliud amare amorem suum. Non enim amatur amor nisi iam aliquid amans quia ubi nihil amatur, nullus est amor. Duo ergo sunt cum se quisque amat, amor et quod amatur; tunc enim amans et quod amatur unum est. Unde videtur non esse consequens ut ubicumque amor fuerit iam tria intellegantur.
Auferamus enim ab hac consideratione cetera quae multa sunt quibus homo constat, atque ut haec quae nunc requirimus quantum in his rebus possumus liquido reperiamus, de sola mente tractemus. Mens igitur cum amat se ipsam duo quaedam ostendit, mentem et amorem. Quid est autem amare se nisi praesto sibi esse velle ad fruendum se? Et cum tantum se vult esse quantum est, par menti voluntas est et amanti amor aequalis. Et si aliqua substantia est amor, non est utique corpus sed spiritus, nec mens corpus sed spiritus est. Neque tamen amor et mens duo spiritus sed unus spiritus, nec essentiae duae sed una; et tamen duo quaedam unum sunt, amans et amor, sive sic dicas, quod amatur et amor. Et haec quidem duo relative ad invicem dicuntur. Amans quippe ad amorem refertur et amor ad amantem; amans enim aliquo amore amat, et amor alicuius amantis est. Mens vero et spiritus non relative dicuntur sed essentiam demonstrant. Non enim quia mens et spiritus alicuius hominis est, ideo mens et spiritus est. Retracto enim eo quod homo est, quod adiuncto corpore dicitur, retracto ergo corpore mens et spiritus manet. Retracto autem amante nullus est amor, et retracto amore nullus est amans. Ideoque quantum ad invicem referuntur duo sunt; quod autem ad se ipsa dicuntur, et singula spiritus et simul utrumque unus spiritus, et singula mens et simul utrumque una mens. Ubi ergo trinitas? Attendamus quantum possumus et invocemus lucem sempiternam ut inluminet tenebras nostras et videamus in nobis quantum sinimur imaginem dei.
Translation
Hide
The Fifteen Books of Aurelius Augustinus, Bishop of Hippo, on the Trinity
Chapter 2.--The Three Things Which are Found in Love Must Be Considered. 1
2. And this being so, let us direct our attention to those three things which we fancy we have found. We are not yet speaking of heavenly things, nor yet of God the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, but of that inadequate image, which yet is an image, that is, man; for our feeble mind perhaps can gaze upon this more familiarly and more easily. Well then, when I, who make this inquiry, love anything, there are three things concerned--myself, and that which I love, and love itself. For I do not love love, except I love a lover; for there is no love where nothing is loved. Therefore there are three things--he who loves, and that which is loved, and love. But what if I love none except myself? Will there not then be two things--that which I love, and love? For he who loves and that which is loved are the same when any one loves himself; just as to love and to be loved, in the same way, is the very same thing when any one loves himself. Since the same thing is said, when it is said, he loves himself, and he is loved by himself. For in that case to love and to be loved are not two different things: just as he who loves and he who is loved are not two different persons. But yet, even so, love and what is loved are still two things. For there is no love when any one loves himself, except when love itself is loved. But it is one thing to love one's self, another to love one's own love. For love is not loved, unless as already loving something; since where nothing is loved there is no love. Therefore there are two things when any one loves himself--love, and that which is loved. For then he that loves and that which is loved are one. Whence it seems that it does not follow that three things are to be understood wherever love is. For let us put aside from the inquiry all the other many things of which a man consists; and in order that we may discover clearly what we are now seeking, as far as in such a subject is possible, let us treat of the mind alone. The mind, then, when it loves itself, discloses two things--mind and love. But what is to love one's self, except to wish to help one's self to the enjoyment of self? And when any one wishes himself to be just as much as he is, then the will is on a par with the mind, and the love is equal to him who loves. And if love is a substance, it is certainly not body, but spirit; and the mind also is not body, but spirit. Yet love and mind are not two spirits, but one spirit; nor yet two essences, but one: and yet here are two things that are one, he that loves and love; or, if you like so to put it, that which is loved and love. And these two, indeed, are mutually said relatively. Since he who loves is referred to love, and love to him who loves. For he who loves, loves with some love, and love is the love of some one who loves. But mind and spirit are not said relatively, but express essence. For mind and spirit do not exist because the mind and spirit of some particular man exists. For if we subtract the body from that which is man, which is so called with the conjunction of body, the mind and spirit remain. But if we subtract him that loves, then there is no love; and if we subtract love, then there is no one that loves. And therefore, in so far as they are mutually referred to one another, they are two; but whereas they are spoken in respect to themselves, each are spirit, and both together also are one spirit; and each are mind, and both together one mind. Where, then, is the trinity? Let us attend as much as we can, and let us invoke the everlasting light, that He may illuminate our darkness, and that we may see in ourselves, as much as we are permitted, the image of God.
-
[Augustin here begins his discussion of some ternaries that are found in the Finite, that illustrate the trinality of the Infinite. Like all finite analogies, they fail at certain points. In the case chosen--namely, the lover, the loved, and love--the first two are substances, the last is not. The mind is a substance, but its activity in loving is not. In chapter iv. 5, Augustin asserts that "love and knowledge exist substantially, as the mind itself does." But no psychology, ancient or modern, has ever maintained that the agencies of a spiritual entity or substance are themselves spiritual entity or substances. The activities of the human mind in cognizing, loving, etc., are only its energizing, not its substance. The ambiguity of the Latin contributes to this error. The mind and its loving, and also the mind and its cognizing, are denominated "duo quaedam" the mind, love, and knowledge, are denominated "tria quaedem." By bringing the mind and its love and knowledge under the one term "quaedam," and then giving the meaning of "substance" to "thing," in "something," the result follows that all three are alike and equally "substantial." This analogy taken from the mind and its activities illustrates the trinality of the Divine essence, but fails to illustrate the substantiality of the three persons. The three Divine persons are not the Divine essence together with two of its activities (such, e.g., as creation and redemption), but the essence in three modes, or "forms," as St. Paul denominates them in Phil. iii. 6 If Augustin could prove his assertion that the activities of the human spirit in knowing and loving are strictly "substantial," then this ternary would illustrate not only the trinality of the essence, but the essentiality and objectivity of the persons. The fact which he mentions, that knowledge and love are inseparable from the knowing and loving mind, does not prove their equal substantiality with the mind.--W.G.T.S.] ↩