Monologium, on the Being of God32 Chapter XXXII. The supreme Spirit expresses himself by a coeternal Word.
Chapter XXXII. The supreme Spirit expresses himself by a coeternal Word.
But since this is true, how can what is simple Truth be the Word corresponding to those objects, of which it is not the likeness? Since every word by which an object is thus mentally expressed is the likeness of that object, if this is not the word corresponding to the objects that have been created through it, how shall we be sure that it is the Word? For every word is a word corresponding to some object. Therefore, if there were no creature, there would be no word.
Are we to conclude, then, that if there were no creature, that Word would not exist at all, which is the supreme self-sufficient Essence? Or, would the supreme Being itself, perhaps, which is the Word still be the eternal Being, but not the Word, if nothing were ever created through that Being? For, to what has not been, and is not, and will not be, then can be no word corresponding.
But, according to this reasoning, if there were never any being but the supreme Spirit, there would be no word at all in him. If there were no word in him, he would express nothing to himself; if he expressed nothing to himself, since, for him, expressing anything is the same with understanding or conceiving of it (intelligere), he would not understand or conceive of anything; if he understood or conceived of nothing, then the supreme Wisdom, which is nothing else than this Spirit, would understand or conceive of nothing; which is most absurd.
What is to be inferred? For, if it conceived of nothing, how would it be the supreme Wisdom? Or, if there were in no wise anything but it, of what would it conceive? Would it not conceive of itself? But how can it be even imagined that the supreme Wisdom, at any time does not conceive of itself; since a rational mind can remember not only itself, but that supreme Wisdom, and conceive of that Wisdom and of itself? For, if the human mind could have no memory or concept of that Wisdom or of itself, it would not distinguish itself at all from irrational creatures, and that Wisdom from the whole created world, in silent meditation by itself, as my mind does now.
Hence, that Spirit, supreme as he is eternal, is thus eternally mindful of himself, and conceives of himself after the likeness of a rational mind; nay, not after the likeness of anything; but in the first place that Spirit, and the rational mind after its likeness. But, if he conceives of himself eternally, he expresses himself eternally. If he expresses himself eternally, his Word is eternally with him. Whether, therefore, it be thought of in connection with no other existing being, or with other existing beings, the Word of that Spirit must be coeternal with him.
Sed cum ita sit, quomodo illud quod simplex est veritas potest esse Verbum eorum quorum non est similitudo? cum omne verbum quo aliqua res sic mente dicitur, similitudo sit rei ejusdem; et, si non est verbum eorum quae facta sunt per ipsum, quomodo constabit quia sit Verbum? Nempe omne verbum alicujus rei verbum est. Denique si nunquam creatura esset, nullum ejus esset verbum. Quid igitur? An concludendum est quia si nullo modo esset creatura, nequaquam esset Verbum illud, quod est summa et nullius indigens essentia; aut fortasse ipsa summa essentia, quae Verbum est, essentia quidem esset aeterna, sed Verbum non esset, si nihil unquam per illam fieret? Ejus enim quod non fuit, nec est, nec futurum est, nullum verbum esse potest. Verum secundum hanc rationem, si nunquam ulla praeter summum spiritum esset essentia, nullum omnino esset verbum in illo. Si nullum in illo verbum esset, nihil apud se diceret, si nihil apud se diceret, cum idem sit illi, sic dicere aliquid quod est intelligere, non aliquid intelligeret; si nihil intelligeret, ergo summa sapientia, quae non est aliud quam idem spiritus, nihil intelligeret: quod absurdissimum est. Quid igitur? Si enim nihil intelligeret, quomodo esset summa sapientia? Aut si nullo modo esset aliquid praeter illam, quid illa intelligeret? Sed nunquid seipsam non intelligeret? At quomodo vel cogitari potest quod summa sapientia se aliquando non intelligat; cum mens rationalis possit non solum suimet, sed et illius summae sapientiae reminisci; et illam, et se intelligere? Si enim mens humana nullam ejus aut sui habere memoriam aut intelligentiam posset, nequaquam se ab irrationalibus creaturis, et illam ab omni creatura, secum sola tacite disputando, sicut nunc mens mea facit, discerneret. Ergo summus ille spiritus, sicut est aeternus; ita aeterne sui memor est, et intelligit se ad similitudinem mentis rationalis; imo non ad ullius similitudinem, sed ille principaliter, et mens rationalis ad ejus similitudinem. At si aeterne se intelligit, aeterne se dicit. Si aeterne se dicit, aeterne est Verbum ejus apud ipsum. Sive igitur ille cogitetur nulla alia existente essentia, sive aliis existentibus, necesse est Verbum illius coaeternum illi esse cum ipso.