THou hast shown Thyself unto me, Lord, as in the highest degree loveable, for Thou art infinitely loveable, my God! Hence Thou couldst never be loved by any in the degree that Thou art loveable, save by an infinite lover. Unless there were an infinite lover, Thou wert not infinitely loveable, for Thy loveableness, to wit, the power of being infinitely loved, existeth because there is a power of loving infinitely. And from these two powers ariseth an infinite bond of love, between the infinite lover and the infinitely loveable, and this bond may not be multiplied. Wherefore, Thou, my God, who art Love, art Love that loveth, and Love that is loveable, and Love that is the bond between these twain. I perceive in Thee, my God, love that loveth and love that is loveable; and by the very fact that I perceive in Thee these twain, I perceive the bond
between them. And this is naught other than
that which I behold in Thine absolute unity, wherein I perceive unity that uniteth, unity that may be united, and the union of those twain. But whatsoever I perceive in Thee, that Thou art, my God.
Thou art, then, that infinite love, which cannot seem to me natural and perfect love without a lover, and one loveable, and a bond between them. For how can I conceive an entirely perfect and natural love without a lover, one loveable, and the union of both? ° For from limited love I learn that ’tis of the essence of perfect love that love be loving, and loveable, and the union of both; now that which is of the essence of a perfect love in limitation cannot be lacking in absolute love, whence limited love draweth whatsoever it hath of perfection. The simpler love is, the more perfect it is, and Thou, my God, art love the most entirely perfect and simple. ‘Thus Thou art the very essence, most perfect, most simple, most natural, of love. Hence in Thee, who art love, the lover is not one thing, and the loveable another, and the bond between them a third, but they are one and the same, » even Thou Thyself, my God. Since, then, in Thee the loveable is one with the lover, and being loved with loving, this bond of
coincidence is an essential bond. For there is naught in Thee that is not Thy very essence. Those constituents, then, which appear unto me to be three, to wit, the lover, the loveable, and the bond, are that absolute and most simple essence itself. ‘Thus they are not three, but one.
That Thine essence, my God, which seemeth to me to be most simple and, so to speak, most one, is not most natural and most perfect without these three constituents aforenamed. Thus the essence is triune, and yet there are not three essences therein, since it is most simple. Wherefore the plurality of these three aforenamed is alike plurality and unity, and their unity is alike unity and plurality. Their plurality is plurality without a plural number, for a plural number cannot be unity pure and simple, because it is a plural number. There is no numerical distinction between the three, for plural number is essential to distinction, one number being essentially distinct from another. And because this unity is triune, *tis not the unity of a singular number, for the unity of a singular number is not triune. O most wondrous God, Thou art neither of singular _ Aumber not yet of plural, but art above all plurality or singularity, One in Three and Three in One! I perceive, then, that in
a ae 7
the wall of Paradise, where Thou, my God, dwellest, plurality is one with singularity, and that Thine abode is very far removed beyond them.
_ Teach me, Lord, how I can conceive that to be possible which I perceive to be necessary! For I am met by the impossibility that the plurality of three elements, without which I cannot conceive Thee as perfect and natural love, should be a plurality without number. When any saith one, one, one, he saith one thrice; he saith not three, but one, and that one thrice. Yet he cannot say it thrice without the number three, although he name not three. When he saith one thrice, he repeateth the same without numbering it, for to number is to make the one other, but to repeat one and the same thing thrice over is to make plural without number. Whence the plurality that I behold in Thee, my God, is an otherness without otherness, because it is an otherness which is identity. For, although I perceive that the lover is not the loveable, and that the bond between them is neither the one nor the other, I do not perceive it in the sense that the lover is one thing and the loveable another; but I perceive that the distinction between lover and
loveable is beyond the wall of the coincidence H
of unity and otherness. This distinction, which is beyond the wall where distinguishable and indistinguishable are one, precedeth all otherness and diversity that can be understood. The wall is a barrier to the power of every intellect, albeit the eye penetrate beyond it into Paradise. But what it there seeth it cannot tell nor understand, for its love is a treasure, secret and hidden, which, when found, remaineth hidden, since *tis found within the wall of the coincidence of the hidden and the manifest.
But I cannot withdraw me from the sweetness of the vision before that I have in some manner brought home to myself the revelation of the distinction between the lover, the loveable, and the bond between them. For one may, it seemeth, by a figure, win some slight foretaste of that sweetest food. Thou, Lord, grantest me to see in Thee love, because I see myself as lover. And seeing that I love myself I see myself as loveable, and myself to be the most natural bond between the twain: I am lover, am loveable, I am bond. Accordingly, that love without which none of these three constituents could exist, is one. “Tis the same, one I who am lover, and who am loveable, and who am the bond arising from the love wherewith I love myself: I am one, and not
——— ea
three. Suppose, then, that my love were my essence, as “tis in my God—then in the unity of my essence there would exist the unity of the three constituents aforesaid, and in their trinity, the unity of my essence: all would exist in limitation in my essence, after the manner in which I perceive them to exist truly and absolutely in Thee. Yet the love that loveth would not be the love that is loveable, nor the bond between them: this I learn by the following practice.
The active love which I extend to an object outside myself, as to something loveable outside my own essence, is followed by a bond whereby I am attached to that object, as far as in me lieth: the object is not attached to me by the same bond, since perchance it loveth me not. Whence, albeit I so love it that my active love overfloweth itself, that active love of mine doth yet not draw out the love of me as loveable; for I do not become loveable in the other’s sight, he careth not for me, albeit I love him much: ’tis as when a son sometimes careth not for his mother who loveth him most tenderly. And so I learn by experience that love that loveth is not love that is loveable, nor their bond, but I see that the lover is to be distinguished from the loveable and from
their bond. This distinction, howbeit, is not of the essence of love, since I cannot love either myself or any being other than myself without love: thus love is of the essence of the three. Thus I perceive that the essence of these three constituents aforesaid is entirely onefold, albeit they are distinct one from the other.
I have set forth, Lord, by a comparison some kind of foretaste of Thy nature. Yet in mercy forgive me that I strive to image forth the unimaginable savour of Thy sweetness. If the sweetness of some fruit unknown may not be pictured through any painting or image, or described in any words, who am I, a miserable sinner, who strive to show Thee, that art beyond showing, and to image Thee, the invisible, as visible, and who make bold to
render delectable that Thine infinite and all—
ineffable sweetness? Never yet have I merited to taste thereof, and the words whereby I set it forth do rather minish than magnify it. But so great is Thy goodness, my God, that Thou permittest even the blind to speak of the light, and to herald the praises of Him of whom they neither know nor can know aught save it be revealed unto them.
Revelation, howbeit, reacheth not unto taste, the ear of faith reacheth not unto the sweetness
ed
ee a ee
of this foretaste. Yet, Lord, Thou hast revealed unto me that ear hath not heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man, that infinity of Thy sweetness, which Thou hast prepared for them that love Thee. This Thy great Apostle Paul revealed unto us, who was rapt, beyond the wall of coincidence, into Paradise, where alone Thou mayest be seen unveiled, O Thou Fount of delights! I have endeavoured to submit me to be rapt, trusting in Thine infinite goodness, that I might behold Thee to be invisible, and the vision revealed to be beyond revealing. Thou knowest how far I have come, I know not: but Thy grace is sufficient for me, whereby Thou assurest me that Thou art incomprehensible, and dost _ uplift me to a firm hope that, with Thee for guide, I shall come to the fruition of Thee.
← Chapter 16. How that, Unless God Were Infinite, He Would Not be the End of · Contents · Chapter 18. How God, Unless He Were a Trinity, Could Not be Bliss →