Chapter 44
Monologion fathers or two sons, but one Father and one Son, since their individual distinguishing characteristics belong to them individu ally, so there are not two spirits but one, even though the Father is a complete spirit and the Son is also a complete spirit. In virtue of their relations they are opposed in such a way that neither takes on the distinguishing characteristic of the other; in virtue of their nature they are harmonious in such a way that each always has the essence of the other. For in virtue of the fact that one is the Father and the other is the Son, they are so different that the Father is never called the Son and the Son is never called the Father; and in virtue of their substance they are so much the same that the essence of the Son always exists in the Father and the essence of the Father always exists in the Son. For there are not different essences, but the same essence, not several* essences, but one essence of both.
Chapter 44 How one is the essence of the other Hence, if we say that one is the essence of the other, we are not straying from the truth but rather emphasizing the supreme unity and simplicity of their common nature. For if we say that the Father is the essence of the Son and the Son is the essence of the Father, we cannot understand this in the same way as when we talk about the wisdom of a man, through which the man is wise. For a man cannot be wise through himself; but we do not mean that the Son exists through the Father and the Father through the Son, as if one could exist only through the other in the same way that a man can be wise only through wisdom.
For just as the supreme wisdom is always wise through him self, so also the supreme essence always exists through himself.
Now the Father is completely the supreme essence, and the Son is also completely the supreme essence. Therefore, the Father exists completely through himself, and the Son also exists com pletely through himself, just as each of them is wise through himself.
For that essence or wisdom which is the Son is no less perfect simply because he is an essence born of the Father's essence and a wisdom born of his wisdom. But he would indeed be a less perfect
Chapter 43
essence or wisdom if he did not exist through himself or were not wise through himself. For it is in no way contradictory that the Son both subsists* through himself and has being from the Father. For just as the Father has essence and wisdom and life in himself, so that it is not through someone else's but through his own essence that he exists, through his own wisdom that he is wise, and through his own life that he lives, so by begetting the Son he grants the Son to have essence and wisdom and life in himself,53 so that it is not through someone else's essence, wis dom, and life but through his own that he subsists, is wise, and lives. Otherwise the being of the Father and the Son would not be the same, nor would the Son be equal to the Father. And we saw above54 quite clearly how false that is.
Therefore, it is not contradictory that the Son both subsists through himself and exists from the Father, since this very power of subsisting through himself is necessarily something he has from the Father. For if some wise man teaches me his wisdom, which I formerly lacked, we would rightly say that he had taught me by means of that very wisdom of his. But although my wisdom would have its being and its wisdom from his wisdom, nonethe less, once it existed it would exist only through its own essence and be wise only through itself. So it is all the more true that the eternal Father's coeternal Son-who has being from the Father in such a way that they are not two essences—subsists, is wise, and lives through himself.
So if we say that the Father is the essence of the Son and the Son is the essence of the Father, this cannot be understood as meaning that either of them can subsist only through the other and not through himself. Rather, in order to indicate that they share the supremely simple and supremely unitary essence, it can be fit tingly said and understood that each is the very same as the other in such a way that each has the essence of the other. Now for each of them there is no difference between having an essence and being an essence. And so by this argument, just as each has the essence of the other, each is the essence of the other; that is, one has the same being as the other.
53. Cf. John 5:26: 'Tor just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself."
54. In chapters 29 and 43.
Monologion Chapter 45 That the Son can more appropriately be called the essence of the Father than the Father can be called the essence of the Son; and that similarly the Son is the power and wisdom of the Father, and so on But although this is true according to the argument we have examined, it is far more fitting to call the Son the essence of the Father than to call the Father the essence of the Son. For since the Father has his essence from no one but himself, it is not com pletely appropriate to say that he has anyone's essence but his own. By contrast, since the Son has his essence from the Father, and indeed the very same essence that the Father has, he can be most appropriately said to have the essence of the Father.
Now neither of them has his essence otherwise than by being that essence. Therefore, just as the Son is much more appro priately understood to have the essence of the Father than the Father to have the essence of the Son, so also the Son can be more fittingly called the essence of the Father than the Father can be called the essence of the Son. For this one expression indicates, with quite pointed brevity, not only that the Son has the same essence as the Father, but also that he has it from the Father. Thus,
"the Son is the essence of the Father" means "the Son is an essence no different from the Father's essence; indeed, he is an essence from the Father." In the same way, therefore, the Son is the power, the wisdom or truth, and the justice of the Father, and whatever else belongs to the essence of the supreme spirit.
Chapter 46 How some of the statements expressed in this way can also be understood in another way Nevertheless, some of the statements that can be expressed and interpreted in this way seem to admit another interpretation-and not an inappropriate one—for the very same statement. For it is clear that the Son is the true Word, that is, the perfect understand ing or perfect cognition, knowledge, and wisdom of the whole substance of the Father; in other words, he is that which under stands and cognizes and knows and is wise concerning the very essence of the Father. Therefore, if one says that the Son is the
Chapter 45
understanding, wisdom, knowledge, and cognition or awareness of the Father, in the sense that he understands, is wise concern ing, knows, and is aware of the Father, one in no way departs from the truth. Also, the Son can be most appropriately called the truth of the Father, not only in the sense that the truth of the Son is the very same truth as that of the Father, as we have already dis cussed, but also in the sense that in him is understood not an imperfect imitation but the unadulterated truth of the Father's substance, since he is nothing other than what the Father is.
Chapter 47 That the Son is the understanding of understanding and the truth of truth, and so on for similar attributes Now if the Father's substance is understanding, knowledge, wis dom, and truth, then, since the Son is the understanding, knowl edge, wisdom, and truth of the Father's substance, it follows that he is the understanding of understanding, the knowledge of knowledge, the wisdom of wisdom, and the truth of truth.
Chapter 48 That 'memory' signifies the Father just as 'understanding' signifies the Son; and how the Son is the understanding or wisdom of memory, as well as the memory of the Father and the memory of memory
But what are we to hold about memory? Are we to judge that the Son is the understanding of memory, or the memory of the Father, or the memory of memory? Indeed, since it cannot be denied that the supreme spirit remembers himself, nothing could be more appropriate than to use 'memory' to signify the Father, just as we use 'Word' to signify the Son; for it seems that a word is born from the memory, as is more clearly seen in the case of our own mind.
For since the human mind is not always thinking of itself, as it always remembers itself, it is clear that when it does think of itself, its word is born from its memory. Hence it is evident that if it were always thinking of itself, its word would always be born from its memory. For to think of a thing we remember is to utter it in our mind; the word of that thing, then, is that very thought, formed
Monologion out of our memory after the likeness of the thing. And so from this we can quite clearly understand that his coeternal Word is born from the eternal memory of the supreme substance, who always utters himself, just as he always remembers himself. Therefore, just as the Word is fittingly understood to be an offspring, so the memory is quite appropriately called a parent.
Therefore, if the offspring that is born entirely from the su preme spirit alone is the offspring of his memory, nothing follows more logically than that he is his own memory. For it is not the case that by remembering himself he exists in his own memory as one thing exists in another, in the way that things in the memory of the human mind are not our memory itself. Rather, he remem bers himself in such a way that he is his own memory.
And so it follows that just as the Son is the understanding or wisdom of the Father, so he is also the understanding or wisdom of the Father's memory. Now whatever the Son is wise about or understands, he likewise also remembers. So the Son is the mem ory of the Father and the memory of memory, that is, the memory that remembers the Father, who is memory; just as he is also the wisdom of the Father and the wisdom of wisdom, that is, the wisdom that is wise concerning the Father, who is wisdom. And the Son is indeed memory born from memory, just as he is wisdom born from wisdom; but the Father is memory or wisdom born from no one.
Chapter 49 That the supreme spirit loves himself But behold! As I consider with delight the distinguishing charac teristics and the common features of the Father and the Son, I find nothing that brings me greater delight to consider than their affection of mutual love. For how absurd it would be to deny that the supreme spirit loves himself, just as he remembers and under stands himself, when even the rational mind can be shown to love itself and him in virtue of the fact that it can remember and understand itself and him! After all, the memory and under standing of a thing is idle and completely useless unless the thing itself is either loved or repudiated as reason requires. There fore, the supreme spirit loves himself, just as he remembers and understands himself.
Chapter 48
Chapter 50 That this love proceeds equally from the Father and the Son Now to anyone who has reason it is perfectly clear that he does not remember or understand himself because he loves himself; rather, he loves himself because he remembers and understands himself. Furthermore, he cannot love himself unless he remem bers and understands himself. For nothing is loved unless it is remembered and understood, and many things are remembered and understood that are not loved. It is therefore evident that the love of the supreme spirit proceeds from him in virtue of the fact that he remembers and understands himself. And since by "the memory of the supreme spirit" we mean the Father and by 'under standing' we mean the Son, it is clear that the love of the supreme spirit proceeds equally from the Father and the Son.
Chapter 51 That each loves himself and the other with an equal love Now if the supreme spirit loves himself, undoubtedly the Father loves himself, the Son loves himself, and each loves the other, because the Father individually is the supreme spirit, and the Son individually is the supreme spirit, and both together are one spirit, and also because each equally remembers and understands himself and the other. And since what loves or is loved in the Father is exactly the same as what loves or is loved in the Son, it must be that each loves himself and the other with an equal love.
Chapter 52 That this love is as great as the supreme spirit How great, then, is this love of the supreme spirit, which is thus common to the Father and the Son? If his love of himself is as great as his memory and understanding of himself, and his mem ory and understanding of himself is as great as his essence (and this cannot be otherwise), then his love is indeed as great as he himself is.
Monologion Chapter 53 That this love is the very same thing that the supreme spirit is, and yet together with the Father ana the Son he is one spirit But what can be equal to the supreme spirit other than the su preme spirit? And so this love is the supreme spirit. Furthermore, even if no creature - that is, nothing other than the supreme spirit, who is the Father and the Son—ever existed, the Father and Son would nonetheless love both themselves and each other. And so it follows that this love is nothing other than what the Father and the Son are, namely, the supreme essence. Now since there cannot be more than one supreme essence, what is more necessary than that the Father and the Son and the love of each is one supreme essence? So this love is the supreme wisdom, the supreme truth, the supreme good, and whatever else can be said of the substance of the supreme spirit.
Chapter 54 That this love proceeds as a whole from the Father and as a whole from the Son, and yet he is only one love
We must carefully examine whether there are two loves, one proceeding from the Father and the other from the Son; whether there is one proceeding not as a whole from one, but partly from the Father and partly from the Son; or whether there is neither more than one love, nor just one proceeding partly from each individually, but rather one and the same proceeding as a whole from each individually and from both at once. Now we can un doubtedly resolve this doubtful issue by noticing that he does not proceed from that in virtue of which the Father and the Son are more than one, but rather from that in virtue of which they are one. For the Father and the Son equally send forth so great a good, not from their relations, which are more than one (for the relation of Father is one thing and the relation of Son is another), but from their essence, which admits no plurality. Therefore, just as the Father individually is the supreme spirit and the Son individually is the supreme spirit, and the Father and the Son together are not two spirits, but one, so also the whole love of the supreme spirit emanates from the Father individually and from
Chapter 53
the Son individually, and what emanates from the Father and the Son together is not two wholes, but one and the same whole.
Chapter 55 That this love is not their son What then? Since this love has being equally from the Father and the Son, and since it is so much like them that it is in no way unlike them but is in every respect the same as they are, should it be considered their son or offspring? Now as soon as the Word is contemplated he gives most compelling proof that he is the off spring of him from whom he exists, for he bears the unmistakable image of his parent; whereas this love just as openly denies that he is an offspring, since when he is understood to proceed from the Father and the Son, he does not immediately exhibit to one who contemplates him his likeness to him from whom he exists, although the argument we have considered shows that he is indeed in every respect the same as the Father and the Son are.
Furthermore, if he is their offspring, either one of them is his father and the other is his mother, or they are both his father or mother. But all these possibilities seem inconsistent with the truth.
For since he does not proceed from the Father any differently than from the Son, the truth will not permit dissimilar words to be used to express the Father's and the Son's relation to him. So it is not the case that one is his father and the other his mother. But no nature provides any example of two things, each of which equally has a complete and altogether identical relationship of father or mother to some one thing. Therefore, it is not the case that both the Father and the Son are the father or mother of the love that emanates from them. And so the claim that this love is their son or offspring does not seem at all consistent with the truth.
Chapter 56 That only the Father is begetter and unbegotten, only the Son is begotten, and only the love is neither begotten nor unbegotten
Nevertheless, it seems that this love cannot absolutely be called 'unbegotten' in our common way of speaking, but neither can he be called 'begotten' as properly as the Son. For we are accustomed
Monologion to say frequently that something is begotten from the thing from which it exists, as when we say that heat or light is begotten from fire, or an effect from its cause.55 So in this sense the love that comes forth from the supreme spirit can in no way be called unbegotten. But on the other hand, he cannot be called 'begotten' as properly as the Word, since the Word is most truly offspring and Son, whereas it is clear that the love is in no way Son or offspring. And so it can be said—indeed, it ought to be said-that only he whose Word exists is begetter and unbegotten, since he alone is Father and parent and in no way exists from another; that only the Word is begotten, since he alone is Son and offspring; and that only the love of both is neither begotten nor unbegotten, since he is neither Son nor offspring, nor is it the case that he in no way exists from another.
Chapter 57 That this love is uncreated and Creator just as the Father and the Son are, and yet he and they together are not three, but one uncreated and one Creator; and that he can be called the Spirit of the Father and the Son
Now this love is individually the supreme essence, just as the Father and the Son are; and yet the Father, the Son, and the love of both are together not several* but one supreme essence, who alone having been made by no one made all things through nothing other than himself. Therefore, it must be that just as the Father individually and the Son individually are uncreated and Creator, so also this love individually is uncreated and Creator, and yet all three together are not many, but one uncreated and one
Creator. And so nothing makes or creates or begets the Father; the Father alone does not make but rather begets the Son; and the Father and the Son equally neither make nor beget, but somehow
(if one can put it this way) breathe out56 their love. For although 55. Of course we do not say things like this in English. The verb 'gigni', which I have translated as "to be begotten" in view of its use in Trinitarian theology, is here being used in its wider sense to mean "come to exist."
56. The Latin is 'spirant'. In Trinitarian theology the Father is said to'beget' the Son; the Father and Son together are said to 'spirate' the Holy Spirit.
Chapter 56 the supremely unchangeable essence does not breathe out in the way we do, nonetheless, it seems there may be no more appropri ate expression for the way in which he sends forth his love - which proceeds from him ineffably, not by departing from him, but by existing from him—than "breathing out."
Now if one can say this, then just as the Word of the supreme essence is his Son, so his love can be most fittingly called his
Spirit.57 Granted, he is essentially a spirit just as the Father and Son are. But they are not thought of as the spirit of some thing, since the Father does not exist from another, and the Son is not born from the Father by a breathing-out, as it were. This love, by contrast, is regarded as the Spirit of both, since he wondrously proceeds from both in his own inexpressible way by being breathed out. And because he is the communion of the Father and Son, it seems not unreasonable for him to take as his own distinctive name one that is common to the Father and the Son, if the need for a distinctive name for him so requires. Indeed, if this is done—that is, if this love is distinctively designated by the word 'spirit', which equally signifies the substance of the Father and the Son—it usefully serves to indicate that he is the very same thing that the Father and the Son are, although he has his being from them.
Chapter 58 That just as the Son is the essence or wisdom of the Father in the sense that he has the same essence or wisdom as the Father, so also the Spirit is the essence and wisdom
(and similar things) of the Father and the Son In the same way that the Son is the substance and wisdom and power of the Father in the sense that he has the same essence and wisdom and power as the Father, so also the Spirit of both can be understood to be the essence or wisdom or power of the Father and the Son, since he has exactly the same essence, wisdom, and power that they have.
57. That is, if one can say that he is "breathed out" (spiratur), he can appropriately be called the "Spirit" (Spiritus).
Monologion Chapter 59 That the Father and the Son and their Spirit exist equally in one another It is joyous to behold how the Father, the Son, and the Spirit of both exist in each other with such equality that none of them exceeds another. For aside from the fact that each of them is perfectly the supreme essence in such a way that all three together are nevertheless only one supreme essence, which cannot be apart from itself or outside itself or greater or less than itself, the same thing can be proved no less for each of them individually.
For the Father exists as a whole in the Son and in their common Spirit, the Son exists in the Father and in that same Spirit, and that Spirit exists in the Father and in the Son, since the memory of the supreme essence exists as a whole in his understanding and in his love, his understanding exists in his memory and in his love, and his love exists in his memory and in his understanding. For indeed the supreme spirit understands and loves his whole memory, remembers and loves his whole understanding, and remembers and understands his whole love. Now by 'memory' we mean the Father, by 'understanding' the Son, and by 'love' the Spirit of both.
Therefore, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit of both embrace one another and exist in one another with such equality that none of them is found to exceed another or exist apart from another.
Chapter 60 That none of them needs another in order to remem ber, understand, or love, since each individually is memory and understanding and love and whatever else is necessarily present in the supreme essence
But as I behold these things, something occurs to me that I think should be most carefully borne in mind. For we must understand the Father as memory, the Son as understanding, and the Spirit as love in such a way that the Father does not need the Son or their common Spirit, the Son does not need the Father or that same
Spirit, and the Spirit does not need the Father or the Son. It is not as if the Father can remember through himself alone but can understand only through the Son and love only through the Spirit of himself and the Son; and the Son through himself can only
Chapter 59
understand, but remembers through the Father and loves through their Spirit; and that Spirit through himself can do nothing but love, but the Father remembers for him and the Son understands for him. For since each of these three is individually the supreme essence and supreme wisdom so completely that each remembers and understands and loves through himself, it must be that none of these three needs another in order to remember or understand or love. For each of them individually is essentially memory and understanding and love, and whatever else is necessarily present in the supreme essence.
Chapter 61 That nevertheless there are not three but one Father, one Son, and one Spirit of both
Here I see a question arise. If the Father is understanding and love just as he is memory, and the Son is memory and love in the same way that he is understanding, and the Spirit of both is no less memory and understanding than he is love, how is it that the Father is not a son and someone's spirit? And why is the Son not a father and someone's spirit? And why is that Spirit not someone's father and someone's son? After all, it was understood that the Father was memory, the Son understanding, and the Spirit of both love.
But this question is not difficult to answer if we consider the truths that reason has already discovered. For the Father is not the son or spirit of another simply because he is understanding and love, since he is not an understanding that is begotten or a love that proceeds from someone; rather, whatever he is, is only the begetter and the one from whom another proceeds. And the Son is not a father or someone's spirit simply because he remembers and loves by himself, since he is not a memory that begets or a love that proceeds from another in the way his own Spirit proceeds; rather, whatever existence he has is only begotten, and it is he from whom the Spirit proceeds. And the fact that he contains his own memory and understanding does not mean that the Spirit is a father or son, since he is not a memory that begets or an under standing that is begotten; rather, whatever he is only proceeds. So what prevents us from concluding that in the supreme essence
Monologion there is only one Father, one Son, and one Spirit, not three fathers or three sons or three spirits?
Chapter 62 How it seems that many sons are born from them But perhaps what I am now realizing contradicts this assertion.
For there should be no doubt that the Father, the Son, and their Spirit each utters both himself and the other two, just as each understands both himself and the other two. Now if this is so, how is it that there are not as many words in the supreme essence as there are ones uttering and ones being uttered? For if several* human beings utter some one thing in their thought, there appear to be as many words of that thing as there are people thinking, since a word of that thing exists in the thoughts of each of them. Similarly, if one human being thinks of several things, there are as many words in the mind of the thinker as there are things being thought.
But in a human being's thought, when he thinks of something that exists outside his mind, the word of the thing that is thought is not born from the thing itself, since that thing is absent from the gaze of his thought; rather, the word is born from some likeness or image of the thing. That likeness or image exists in the memory of the one thinking; or else perhaps a bodily sense is conveying it into his mind from some present object right then as he is think ing. In the supreme essence, by contrast, the Father, the Son, and their Spirit are always present to one another-for, as we have already seen,58 each exists in the others no less than in himself-in such a way that when they utter one another, each one who is uttered seems to beget his own word, just as when he is uttered by himself. How is it, then, that the Son, and the Spirit of him and the Father, beget nothing, if each of them begets his own word when he is uttered by himself or another? Now however many words we can prove are born from the supreme substance, by our earlier argument he must beget that many sons and send forth that many spirits. And so by this argument it seems that there are in him not only many fathers, sons, and [spirits] proceeding, but also other relations.
58. In chapter 59.