Chapter 4.—The Three are One, and Also Equal, Viz The Mind Itself, and the Love, and the Knowledge of It. That the Same Three Exist Substantially, and are Predicated Relatively. That the Same Three are Inseparable. That the Same Three are Not Joined and Commingled Like Parts, But that They are of One Essence, and are Relatives.

4. But as there are two things (duo quædam), the mind and the love of it, when it loves itself; so there are two things, the mind and the knowledge of it, when it knows itself. Therefore the mind itself, and the love of it, and the knowledge of it, are three things (tria quædam), and these three are one; and when they are perfect they are equal. For if one loves himself less than as he is,—as for example, suppose that the mind of a man only loves itself as much as the body of a man ought to be loved, whereas the mind is more than the body,—then it is in fault, and its love is not perfect. Again, if it loves itself more than as it is,—as if, for instance, it loves itself as much as God is to be loved, whereas the mind is incomparably less than God,—here also it is exceedingly in fault, and its love of self is not perfect. But it is in fault more perversely and wrongly still, when it loves the body as much as God is to be loved. Also, if knowledge is less than that thing which is known, and which can be fully known, then knowledge is not perfect; but if it is greater, then the nature which knows is above that which is known, as the knowledge of the body is greater than the body itself, which is known by that knowledge. For knowledge is a kind of life in the reason of the knower, but the body is not life; and any life is greater than any body, not in bulk, but in power. But when the mind knows itself, its own knowledge does not rise above itself, because itself knows, and itself is known. When, therefore, it knows itself entirely, and no other thing with itself, then its knowledge is equal to itself; because its knowledge is not from another nature, since it knows itself. And when it perceives itself entirely, and nothing more, then it is neither less nor greater. We said therefore rightly, that these three things, [mind, love, and knowledge], when they are perfect, are by consequence equal.

5. Similar reasoning suggests to us, if indeed we can any way understand the matter, that these things [i.e. love and knowledge] exist in the soul, and that, being as it were involved in it, they are so evolved from it as to be perceived and reckoned up substantially, or, so to say, essentially. Not as though in a subject; as color, or shape, or any other quality or quantity, are in the body. For anything of this [material] kind does not go beyond the subject in which it is; for the color or shape of this particular body cannot be also those of another body. But the mind can also love something besides itself, with that love with which it loves itself. And further, the mind does not know itself only, but also many other things. Wherefore love and knowledge are not contained in the mind as in a subject, but these also exist substantially, as the mind itself does; because, even if they are mutually predicated relatively, yet they exist each severally in their own substance. Nor are they so mutually predicated relatively as color and the colored subject are; so that color is in the colored subject, but has not any proper substance in itself, since colored body is a substance, but color is in a substance; but as two friends are also two men, which are substances, while they are said to be men not relatively, but friends relatively.

6. But, further, although one who loves or one who knows is a substance, and knowledge is a substance, and love is a substance, but he that loves and love, or, he that knows and knowledge, are spoken of relatively to each other, as are friends: yet mind or spirit are not relatives, as neither are men relatives: nevertheless he that loves and love, or he that knows and knowledge, cannot exist separately from each other, as men can that are friends. Although it would seem that friends, too, can be separated in body, not in mind, in as far as they are friends: nay, it can even happen that a friend may even also begin to hate a friend and on this account cease to be a friend while the other does not know it, and still loves him. But if the love with which the mind loves itself ceases to be, then the mind also will at the same time cease to love. Likewise, if the knowledge by which the mind knows itself ceases to be, then the mind will also at the same time cease to know itself. Just as the head of anything that has a head is certainly a head, and they are predicated relatively to each other, although they are also substances: for both a head is a body, and so is that which has a head; and if there be no head, then neither will there be that which has a head. Only these things can be separated from each other by cutting off, those cannot.

7. And even if there are some bodies which cannot be wholly separated and divided, yet they would not be bodies unless they consisted of their own proper parts. A part then is predicated relatively to a whole, since every part is a part of some whole, and a whole is a whole by having all its parts. But since both part and whole are bodies, these things are not only predicated relatively, but exist also substantially. Perhaps, then, the mind is a whole, and the love with which it loves itself, and the knowledge with which it knows itself, are as it were its parts, of which two parts that whole consists. Or are there three equal parts which make up the one whole? But no part embraces the whole, of which it is a part; whereas, when the mind knows itself as a whole, that is, knows itself perfectly, then the knowledge of it extends through the whole of it; and when it loves itself perfectly, then it loves itself as a whole, and the love of it extends through the whole of it. Is it, then, as one drink is made from wine and water and honey, and each single part extends through the whole, and yet they are three things (for there is no part of the drink which does not contain these three things; for they are not joined as if they were water and oil, but are entirely commingled: and they are all substances, and the whole of that liquor which is composed of the three is one substance),—is it, I say, in some such way as this we are to think these three to be together, mind, love, and knowledge? But water, wine, and honey are not of one substance, although one substance results in the drink made from the commingling of them. And I cannot see how those other three are not of the same substance, since the mind itself loves itself, and itself knows itself; and these three so exist, as that the mind is neither loved nor known by any other thing at all. These three, therefore, must needs be of one and the same essence; and for that reason, if they were confounded together as it were by a commingling, they could not be in any way three, neither could they be mutually referred to each other. Just as if you were to make from one and the same gold three similar rings, although connected with each other, they are mutually referred to each other, because they are similar. For everything similar is similar to something, and there is a trinity of rings, and one gold. But if they are blended with each other, and each mingled with the other through the whole of their own bulk, then that trinity will fall through, and it will not exist at all; and not only will it be called one gold, as it was called in the case of those three rings, but now it will not be called three things of gold at all.

CAPUT IV.

4. Tria unum et aequalia, mens ipsa, et amor, et notitia ejus. Tria eadem substantialiter esse, ac relative dici. Tria eadem esse inseparabilia. Tria eadem non partium instar juncta et commixta esse; sed esse unius essentiae, ac relativa. Sicut autem duo quaedam sunt, mens et amor ejus, cum se amat; ita quaedam duo sunt, mens et notitia ejus, cum se novit. Igitur ipsa mens et amor et notitia ejus, tria quaedam sunt, et haec tria unum sunt; et cum perfecta sunt, aequalia sunt. Si enim minus se amat quam est, ut verbi gratia, tantum se amet hominis mens, quantum amandum est corpus hominis, cum plus sit ipsa quam corpus; peccat, et non est perfectus amor ejus. Item si amplius se amat quam est, velut si tantum se amet, quantum amandus est Deus, cum incomparabiliter minus sit ipsa quam Deus; etiam sic nimium peccat, et non perfectum habet amorem sui. Majore autem perversitate et iniquitate peccat, cum corpus tantum amat, quantum amandus est Deus. Item notitia si minor est, quam est illud quod noscitur, et plene nosci potest, perfecta non est. Si autem major est, jam superior est natura quae novit, quam illa quae nota est: sicut major est notitia corporis, quam ipsum corpus quod ea notitia notum est. Illa enim vita quaedam est in ratione cognoscentis: corpus autem non est vita. Et vita quaelibet quolibet corpore major est, non mole, sed vi. Mens vero cum se ipsam cognoscit; non se superat notitia sua; quia ipsa cognoscit, ipsa cognoscitur. Cum ergo se totam cognoscit, neque secum quidquam aliud, par illi est cognitio sua: quia neque ex alia natura est ejus cognitio, cum se ipsam cognoscit. Et cum se totam nihilque amplius percipit, nec minor nec major est. Recte igitur diximus, haec tria cum perfecta sunt, esse consequenter aequalia.

5. Simul etiam admonemur, si utcumque videre possumus, haec in anima existere, et tanquam involuta evolvi ut sentiantur et dinumerentur substantialiter, vel, ut ita dicam, essentialiter, non tanquam in subjecto, ut color, aut figura in corpore, aut ulla alia qualitas aut quantitas. Quidquid enim tale est, non excedit subjectum in quo est. Non enim color iste aut figura hujus corporis potest esse et alterius corporis. Mens autem amore quo se amat, potest amare et aliud praeter se. Item non se solam cognoscit mens, sed et alia multa. Quamobrem non amor et cognitio tanquam in subjecto insunt menti; sed substantialiter etiam ista sunt, sicut ipsa mens: 0964 quia et si relative dicuntur ad invicem, in sua tamen sunt singula quaeque substantia. Nec sicut color et coloratum relative ita dicuntur ad invicem, ut color in subjecto colorato sit, non habens in se ipso propriam substantiam; quoniam coloratum corpus substantia est, ille autem in substantia: sed sicut duo amici etiam duo sunt homines, quae sunt substantiae; cum homines non relative dicantur, amici autem relative.

6. Sed item quamvis substantia sit amans vel sciens, substantia sit scientia, substantia, sit amor, sed amans et amor, aut sciens et scientia relative ad se dicantur sicut amici; mens vero aut spiritus non sint relativa, sicut nec homines relativa sunt: non tamen sicut amici homines possunt seorsum esse ab invicem, sic amans et amor, aut sciens et scientia. Quanquam et amici corpore videntur separari posse, non animo, in quantum amici sunt: verumtamen fieri potest ut amicus amicum etiam odisse incipiat, et eo ipso amicus esse desinat, nesciente illo, et adhuc amante. Amor autem quo se mens amat, si esse desinat, simul et illa desinet esse amans. Item notitia qua se mens novit, si esse desinat, simul et illa nosse se desinet. Sicut caput capitati alicujus utique caput est, et relative ad se dicuntur, quamvis etiam substantiae sint: nam et caput corpus est, et capitatum; et si non sit caput , nec capitatum erit. Sed haec praecisione ab invicem separari possunt, illa non possunt.

7. Quod si sunt aliqua corpora quae secari omnino et dividi nequeunt; tamen nisi partibus suis constarent, corpora non essent. Pars ergo ad totum relative dicitur; quia omnis pars alicujus totius pars est, et totum omnibus partibus totum est. Sed quoniam et pars corpus est, et totum; non tantum ista relative dicuntur, sed etiam substantialiter sunt. Fortassis ergo mens totum est, et ejus quasi partes amor quo se amat, et scientia qua se novit, quibus duabus partibus illud totum constat? An tres sunt aequales partes, quibus totum unum completur? Sed nulla pars totum, cujus pars est, complectitur: mens vero cum se totam novit, hoc est perfecte novit, per totum ejus est notitia ejus; et cum se perfecte amat, totam se amat, et per totum ejus est amor ejus. Num ergo sicut ex vino et aqua et melle una fit potio, et singula per totum sunt, et tamen tria sunt (nulla enim pars est potionis, quae non habeat haec tria; non enim juncta, velut si aqua et oleum essent, sed omnino commixta sunt; et substantiae sunt omnes, et totus ille liquor una quaedam est ex tribus confecta substantia); tale aliquid arbitrandum est esse simul haec tria, mentem, amorem, notitiam? Sed non unius substantiae sunt, aqua, vinum, et mel, quamvis ex eorum commixtione fiat una substantia potionis. Quomodo autem illa tria non sint ejusdem substantiae, non video; cum mens ipsa se amet, atque ipsa se noverit; atque ita sint haec tria, ut non alteri alicui rerum mens vel amata 0965 vel nota sit. Unius ergo ejusdemque essentiae necesse est haec tria sint: et ideo si tanquam commixtione confusa essent; nullo modo essent tria, nec referri ad invicem possent. Quemadmodum si ex uno eodemque auro tres annulos similes facias, quamvis connexos sibi, referuntur ad invicem, quod similes sunt; omnis enim similis alicui similis est; et trinitas annulorum est, et unum aurum: at si misceantur sibi, et per totam singuli massam suam conspergantur, intercidet illa trinitas, et omnino non erit; ac non solum unum aurunt dicetur, sicut in illis tribus annulis dicebatur, sed jam nulla aurea tria.