Chapter 8.—That He Who Loves His Brother, Loves God; Because He Loves Love Itself, Which is of God, and is God.

12. Let no one say, I do not know what I love. Let him love his brother, and he will love the same love. For he knows the love with which he loves, more than the brother whom he loves. So now he can know God more than he knows his brother: clearly known more, because more present; known more, because more within him; known more, because more certain. Embrace the love of God, and by love embrace God. That is love itself, which associates together all good angels and all the servants of God by the bond of sanctity, and joins together us and them mutually with ourselves, and joins us subordinately to Himself. In proportion, therefore, as we are healed from the swelling of pride, in such proportion are we more filled with love; and with what is he full, who is full of love, except with God? Well, but you will say, I see love, and, as far as I am able, I gaze upon it with my mind, and I believe the Scripture, saying, that “God is love; and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God;”683    1 John iv. 16    1 Cor. xii. 3 but when I see love, I do not see in it the Trinity. Nay, but thou dost see the Trinity if thou seest love. But if I can I will put you in mind, that thou mayest see that thou seest it; only let itself be present, that we may be moved by love to something good. Since, when we love love, we love one who loves something, and that on account of this very thing, that he does love something; therefore what does love love, that love itself also may be loved? For that is not love which loves nothing. But if it loves itself it must love something, that it may love itself as love. For as a word indicates something, and indicates also itself, but does not indicate itself to be a word, unless it indicates that it does indicate something; so love also loves indeed itself, but except it love itself as loving something, it loves itself not as love. What therefore does love love, except that which we love with love? But this, to begin from that which is nearest to us, is our brother. And listen how greatly the Apostle John commends brotherly love: “He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.”684    1 John ii. 10    Matt. vii. 21 It is manifest that he placed the perfection of righteousness in the love of our brother; for he certainly is perfect in whom “there is no occasion of stumbling.” And yet he seems to have passed by the love of God in silence; which he never would have done, unless because he intends God to be understood in brotherly love itself. For in this same epistle, a little further on, he says most plainly thus: “Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love.” And this passage declares sufficiently and plainly, that this same brotherly love itself (for that is brotherly love by which we love each other) is set forth by so great authority, not only to be from God, but also to be God. When, therefore, we love our brother from love, we love our brother from God; neither can it be that we do not love above all else that same love by which we love our brother: whence it may be gathered that these two commandments cannot exist unless interchangeably. For since “God is love,” he who loves love certainly loves God; but he must needs love love, who loves his brother. And so a little after he says, “For he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen”?685    1 John iv. 7, 8, 20    [The meaning of this obscure chapter seems to be, that only what the mind is pleased with, is the real expression and index of the mind—its true “word.” The true nature of the mind is revealed in its sympathies. But this requires some qualification. For in the case of contrary qualities, like right and wrong, beauty and ugliness, the real nature of the mind is seen also in its antipathy as well as in its sympathy; in its hatred of wrong as well as in its love of right. Each alike is a true index of the mind, because each really implies the other.—W.G.T.S.] because the reason that he does not see God is, that he does not love his brother. For he who does not love his brother, abideth not in love; and he who abideth not in love, abideth not in God, because God is love. Further, he who abideth not in God, abideth not in light; for “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.”686    1 John i. 5 He therefore who abideth not in light, what wonder is it if he does not see light, that is, does not see God, because he is in darkness? But he sees his brother with human sight, with which God cannot be seen. But if he loved with spiritual love him whom he sees with human sight, he would see God, who is love itself, with the inner sight by which He can be seen. Therefore he who does not love his brother whom he sees, how can he love God, whom on that account he does not see, because God is love, which he has not who does not love his brother? Neither let that further question disturb us, how much of love we ought to spend upon our brother, and how much upon God: incomparably more upon God than upon ourselves, but upon our brother as much as upon ourselves; and we love ourselves so much the more, the more we love God. Therefore we love God and our neighbor from one and the same love; but we love God for the sake of God, and ourselves and our neighbors for the sake of God.

CAPUT VIII.

12. Quod qui fratrem diligit, Deum diligat; quia amat ipsam dilectionem quae ex Deo est, et Deus est. Nemo dicat: Non novi quid diligam. Diligat fratrem, et diliget eamdem dilectionem. Magis enim novit dilectionem qua diligit, quam fratrem quem diligit. Ecce jam potest notiorem Deum habere quam fratrem: plane notiorem, quia praesentiorem; notiorem, quia interiorem; notiorem, quia certiorem. Amplectere dilectionem Deum, et dilectione amplectere Deum. Ipsa est dilectio quae omnes bonos Angelos, et omnes Dei servos consociat vinculo sanctitatis, nosque et illos conjungit invicem nobis, et subjungit sibi. Quanto igitur saniores sumus a tumore 0958 superbiae, tanto sumus dilectione pleniores: et quo, nisi Deo plenus est, qui plenus est dilectione? At enim charitatem video, et quantum possum eam mente conspicio, et credo Scripturae dicenti quoniam Deus charitas est, et qui manet in charitate, in Deo manet (I Joan. IV, 16): sed cum illam video, non in ea video Trinitatem. Imo vero vides Trinitatem, si charitatem vides. Sed commonebo, si potero, ut videre te videas: adsit tantum ipsa, ut moveamur charitate ad aliquod bonum. Quia cum diligimus charitatem, aliquid diligentem diligimus, propter hoc ipsum quia diligit aliquid. Ergo quid diligit charitas, ut possit etiam ipsa charitas diligi? Charitas enim non est, quae nihil diligit. Si autem se ipsam diligit, diligat aliquid oportet, ut charitatem se diligat. Sicut enim verbum indicat aliquid, indicat etiam se ipsum, sed non se verbum indicat, nisi se aliquid indicare indicet: sic et charitas diligit quidem se, sed nisi se aliquid diligentem diligat, non charitatem se diligit. Quid ergo diligit charitas, nisi quod charitate diligimus? Id autem, ut a proximo provehamur, frater est. Dilectionem autem fraternam quantum commendet Joannes apostolus, attendamus: Qui diligit, inquit, fratrem suum, in lumine manet, et scandalum in eo non est (Id. II, 10). Manifestum est quod justitiae perfectionem in fratris dilectione posuerit: nam in quo scandalum non est, utique perfectus est. Et tamen videtur dilectionem Dei tacuisse: quod nunquam faceret, nisi quia in ipsa fraterna dilectione vult intelligi Deum. Apertissime enim in eadem Epistola paulo post ita dicit: Dilectissimi, diligamus invicem, quia dilectio ex Deo est; et omnis qui diligit, ex Deo natus est, et cognoscit Deum. Qui non diligit, non cognovit Deum; quia Deus dilectio est. Ista contextio satis aperteque declarat, eamdem ipsam fraternam dilectionem (nam fraterna dilectio est, qua diligimus invicem) non solum ex Deo, sed etiam Deum esse tanta auctoritate praedicari. Cum ergo de dilectione diligimus fratrem, de Deo diligimus fratrem: nec fieri potest ut eamdem dilectionem non praecipue diligamus, qua fratrem diligimus. Unde colligitur, duo illa praecepta non posse esse sine invicem. Quoniam quippe Deus dilectio est; Deum certe diligit, qui diligit dilectionem: dilectionem autem necesse est ut diligat, qui diligit fratrem. Et ideo paulo post ait, Non potest Deum diligere quem non videt, qui fratrem quem videt non diligit (Id. IV, 7, 8, 20): quia haec illi causa est non videndi Deum, quod non diligit fratrem. Qui enim non diligit fratrem, non est in dilectione: et qui non est in dilectione, non est in Deo, quia Deus dilectio est. Porro qui non est in Deo, non est in lumine: quia Deus lumen est, et tenebrae in eo non sunt ullae (Id. I, 5). Qui ergo non est in lumine, quid mirum si non videt lumen, id est, non videt Deum, quia in tenebris est? Fratrem autem videt humano visu, quo videri Deus non potest. Sed si eum quem 0959 videt humano visu, spirituali charitate diligeret, videret Deum, qui est ipsa charitas, visu interiore quo videri potest. Itaque qui fratrem quem videt non diligit, Deum, quem propterea non videt, quia Deus dilectio est, qua caret qui fratrem non diligit, quomodo potest diligere? Nec illa jam quaestio moveat, quantum fratri charitatis debeamus impendere, quantum Deo: incomparabiliter plus quam nobis Deo, fratri autem quantum nobis ipsis: nos autem ipsos tanto magis diligimus, quanto magis diligimus Deum. Ex una igitur eademque charitate Deum proximumque diligimus: sed Deum propter Deum, nos autem et proximum propter Deum.