I
The Divine Trinity rationally deduced from the idea of Being
HE true Church — the Temple, Body and mystical Spouse of God — is, like God Himself, one. But there is unity and unity. There is a negative, solitary and barren unity, which is limited to the exclusion of all plurality.
This unity is mere negation, which logically presupposes what it denies and appears as the beginning, arbitrarily arrested, of an indeterminate number. For there is nothing to prevent the reason from admitting several simple and equal unities and then multiplying them to infinity. And if the Germans are right in naming such a process “evil infinity” (die schlechte Unendlichkeit),1 the simple unity which is its opposite is not opposed to plurality and does not exclude it, but in the serene enjoyment of its own superiority dominates its opposite and subjects it to its own laws. Evil unity is void and nothingness; true unity is that of the one being which contains all in itself. This positive and pregnant unity principle may well be described as “evil unity.” But there is a true unity which,while always remaining itself above all limited and manifold reality, includes, determines and reveals the living powers, the uniform reasons and the varied qualities of all that exists. It is with a confession of this perfect unity, producing and embracing all, that the Christian Creed begins: in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem (παντοκράτορα).
This characteristic of positive unity (uni-totality or uni-plenitude) belongs to all that is, or must be, absolute of its kind. Such is, in Himself, God Almighty; such, ideally, is the human reason which is able to comprehend everything; such, lastly, must be the true Church which is essentially universal, that is to say, embraces mankind and the whole world in its living unity.
Truth is one and unique in the sense that there cannot be two truths absolutely independent of one another, still less contrary to one another. But in virtue of this very unity, the one truth, incapable of containing within itself anything limited, arbitrary or exclusive, or of being partial or incomplete, must comprise within a logical system the reasons of all that exists and must suffice to explain everything.
So, too, is the true Church one and unique in the sense that there cannot be two true Churches independent of one another, still less in conflict with one another. But for
1 In German, schlecht (evil) and schlicht (simple) are really one and the same word, a fact which gave Hegel his opportunity for the pun which has had such a success in Germanic philosophy. Aristotle had indeed already expounded the same idea, without the play upon words.
T
that very reason the true Church, as the unique organization of the divine-human life, must embrace in an actual system all the fullness of our existence and must define all the duties of man, meet all his true needs and answer to all his aspirations.
The actual unity of the Church is represented and secured by the ecclesiastical monarchy. But since the Church, being one, must therefore be universal, that is to say, must embrace all in a determinate order, the ecclesiastical monarchy cannot remain barren but must engender all the powers that go to make up human society in its fullness. And if the monarchy of Peter, considered as such, affords us a reflection of the divine unity and at the same time a real and indispensable basis for the progressive unification of mankind, we shall see also in the further development of the social powers of Christendom not only a reflection of the immanent fecundity of the Godhead, but also a real means of linking the totality of human existence to the fullness of the divine life.
In saying that a living being is, we inevitably ascribe to it at once unity, duality and trinity. There is unity because we are dealing with a single being. There is duality because we cannot affirm that a being is, without at the same time affirming that it is something, that it has a determinate objectivity. The two fundamental categories of all being are therefore (1) its existence as a real subject, and (2) its objective essence or its idea (its raison d’être). Finally, there is trinity:
the subject of the living being is linked in three different ways to its essential objectivity; it possesses it in the first place by the very fact of its existence, as its own intimate nature or actuality; it possesses it in the second place in its activity which is necessarily the manifestation of this substance; finally, it possesses it in the awareness or enjoyment of its own being and activity, in that return upon itself which proceeds from existence manifested in activity. The presence of these three modes of existence, successively if not simultaneously, is absolutely essential to the constitution of a living being. For if it goes without saying that activity and awareness imply the real existence of a given subject, it is no less certain that a reality entirely incapable of either would be, not a living being, but an inert and lifeless thing.
There can be no question that, considered in themselves, the three modes of being just indicated have a quite positive character. As a really existing subject is more than a logical abstraction, so an acting and conscious subject is more than inert matter or blind force. But in the natural order, among all created beings, the constituent modes of complete existence are never found in their pure form; they are inseparable from certain limitations and negations which profoundly modify their positive character. Indeed, if the created living being enjoys real existence, it never possesses it as an absolute and primary fact; its reality derives from an external cause, it is not self-contained. So, too, the proper activity of a created
being is never purely, simply and solely the manifestation of its inner being, but it is necessarily determined by the concurrence of circumstances and the influence of external stimuli, or at least complicated by the logical possibility of an alternative manifestation. Finally, the self-consciousness of the created being, proceeding from a contingent existence and an externally determined activity, does not depend on the being itself in either its quality, quantity or duration. Thus the finite being, neither existing primarily in itself, nor acting solely by itself, cannot return completely upon itself, but always needs some external complement.
In other words, finite existence never contains within itself its own raison d’être; and in order, finally, to justify or explain the fact of this existence, it must be linked to absolute Being, or God. In asserting that He exists, we must necessarily attribute to Him the three constituent modes of complete being. Since real existence, action and enjoyment are in themselves purely positive attributes, they cannot be lacking in absolute Being. If He exists, He exists not merely in the mind, but in reality; if He is a reality, He is no dead or inert reality, but a being manifesting itself by its own activity; if He acts, it is not as a blind force, but as consciously aware of His being and taking pleasure in its manifestation. Deprived of these attributes, He would not be God, but a lower nature, less than man. But for the very reason that God is God, that is to say, absolute and supreme Being, the three constituent modes of complete being can only be attributed to Him in their essential and positive character, apart from any idea that is not bound up with the notion of Being itself, but relates only to the mode of contingent being. Thus, the real existence which belongs to God cannot accrue to Him from any external cause, but is a primary and irreducible fact. God exists in Himself and by Himself.
The reality He possesses is, in the first place, altogether from within; it is an absolute substance. So, too, the proper action or essential manifestation of God cannot be either determined or modified by any external cause, but is simply the pure and perfect (that is, completely adequate) reproduction of His own being, His unique substance. This reproduction cannot be either a new creation or a division of the divine substance; it cannot be created, because it exists from all eternity; it cannot be divided, because it is not a material thing, but pure actuality. God, possessing it in Himself, manifests it for Himself, and reproduces Himself in a purely interior act. By this act He arrives at the enjoyment of Himself, that is, of His absolute substance, not only as existing, but also as manifested. Thus, the complete existence of God does not require Him to go outside Himself, nor does it set Him in any external relationship; it is perfect in itself, and does not involve the existence of anything outside itself.
In the three constituent modes of His being, God is in unique relation to His own substance: (1) He possesses it in Himself in His “first act” (absolute fact). (2) He possesses it for Himself, in manifesting or producing it from Himself in His
“second act” (absolute action). (3) He possesses it in returning upon Himself, in rediscovering in it, in a “third act,” the perfect unity of His being and His manifestation (absolute enjoyment). He cannot enjoy it without having manifested it, and He cannot manifest it without having it in Himself. Thus, these three acts, states or relationships — here the terms coincide — indissolubly bound together, are different but equal expressions of the entire Godhead. In manifesting His intimate nature or in reproducing Himself by Himself, God has no intermediary and submits to no external action which might modify His reproduction or render it incomplete; that which is produced is therefore completely equal to that which produces, in every respect, except in so far as one produces and the other is produced. And as the whole Godhead is contained in its reproduction, so is it wholly contained in the enjoyment proceeding from that reproduction. This enjoyment, being contingent upon no external condition, cannot be an accidental state inadequate to the absolute being of God; it is the direct and complete outcome of the divine existence and action. God, as enjoying, proceeds from Himself as producing and produced. And as the third term, that which proceeds, is determined only by the two first, which are entirely equal to one another, it must also be equal to them in every respect except in so far as it proceeds from them and not vice versa.
These three acts are not separate parts of the divine substance; no more can they be successive phases of the divine existence. If the idea of a “part” implies space, that of a “phase” implies time. In excluding these two forms of created existence, we must affirm that the absolute substance is contained in the three modes of divine existence, not only without division, but without succession. This implies three relative subjects or hypostases in the absolute unity of the divine substance.
Indeed, if the three modes of absolute existence could be successive, then a single subject would suffice, a single hypostasis might be found successively in three different relationships to its substance. But absolute Being, being unable to change in time, is not susceptible of a successive evolution; the three constituent modes of its complete existence must be in it simultaneous or co-eternal. On the other hand, it is clear that one and the same subject or hypostasis cannot affirm itself simultaneously as not manifested, as manifested, and as proceeding by its manifestation. It is, therefore, necessary to admit that each of the modes of divine existence is always represented by a relatively distinct subject; that it is eternally hypostatized and that consequently there are in God three co-eternal hypostases.
This necessity can be presented from another point of view. Since God in the first mode of His existence, as neither produced nor manifested but reproducing and manifesting Himself, is necessarily a genuine subject or hypostasis, and since the second mode of divine existence, God as reproduced or manifested, is completely equal to the first in every respect except the specific difference in their mutual
relationship, it follows that if the first is an hypostasis, the second must also be an hypostasis. For the only relative difference that distinguishes them does not refer to the notion of an hypostasis, but to that of producing or being produced. Thus, if the one is an hypostasis that produces, the other is an hypostasis that is produced. The same reasoning applies completely to the third mode of Divine existence, which proceeds from the two former, inasmuch as God through the accomplishment of His manifestation returns upon Himself in the absolute enjoyment of His manifested being. In removing from this last relationship all notion of time or of a successive process, we are led inevitably to admit a third hypostasis, co-eternal with the other two and proceeding from both as their unity and final synthesis, thus closing the circle of the Divine life. Enjoyment in God (God as enjoying) cannot be unequal to His action or His primordial reality; if, then, the latter are distinct hypostases, the former must be also.
The trinity of hypostases or subjects in the unity of absolute substance is a truth given us by Divine Revelation and the infallible teaching of the Church. We have seen that this truth imposes itself upon the reason and can be logically deduced from the admission that God is, in the positive and complete sense of this term.
Divine Revelation has not only taught us that there are three hypostases in God, but it has also designated them by specific names. We shall complete the foregoing argument by showing that these names are not arbitrary, but that they correspond perfectly to the trinitary idea itself.
II
The three Divine Hypostases and the proper signification of their names.
OD possesses positive and complete existence. He is the living God. Life means reproduction. Reproduction or generation is supreme causality, the proper action of a complete and living being. In this perfect causality, the productive cause must, in the first place, contain in itself its product or effect, for otherwise it could only be an occasional cause, and not the true cause of the product. This first phase of absolute life, in which the living effect seems absorbed in the unity of the primordial cause, is only a necessary supposition of the second, that of actual production, in which that which produces distinguishes itself in act (actu) from its product, and effectively engenders the latter. But we have already established the fact that since absolute Being can of necessity have no other secondary cause associated with it and limiting its productive action, its immediate product must be strictly adequate to it. Thus, the eternal process of the divine life cannot stop at the second term, the differentiation or reduplication of absolute Being as producer and produced. Their equality and their substantial identity mean that the manifestation of their actual and relative difference (in the act of generation) must inevitably issue in a new manifestation of their unity. And this unity is no mere repetition of that primordial unity in which the absolute cause includes and absorbs its effect in itself. Since the latter, as actually manifested, appears as the equal of that which produced it, they must of necessity enter into a reciprocal relationship. As this reciprocity is not to be found in the act of generation (in which the generator is not in turn generated, and vice versa) it necessarily demands a new act determined at one and the same time by the first cause and by its consubstantial product. And since it concerns a relationship which is essential to the Divine Being, this new act cannot be an accident or a transient state, but is eternally substantive or hypostatic in a third subject proceeding from the two first and representing their actual, living unity in the same absolute substance.
After this explanation, it will be easily seen that the names, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, given to the three hypostases of absolute Being, far from being metaphorical, find in the Divine Trinity their proper and complete application,
G
whereas in the natural order these terms can only be used in an imperfect and approximate sense. And first, as regards the two former terms, when we speak of
“father” and “son” we mean to convey no other idea but that of an absolutely intimate relationship between two hypostases of one and the same nature, which are essentially equal to one another, but of which the former gives, without receiving, existence, while the latter receives, without giving, it. The father, qua father, is distinct from the son only by having produced him, while the son, qua son, is distinct from the father only by being produced by him.
This is all that is contained in the idea of paternity as such. But it is clear that this determinate idea, so clear and distinct, cannot be applied in its purity and entirety to any class of created beings that we know: not in its entirety, for in the natural order the father is only a partial cause of the existence of the son, and the son derives his existence only partly from the father; not in its purity, because besides the specific distinction of having given and received existence, there are between fathers and sons in the natural order countless individual differences, quite foreign to the mere idea of paternity and filiation. To discover the true application of this idea we must rise to the level of absolute Being. There we have seen the relation of paternity and filiation in its purity, for the Father is the sole and unique cause of the Son; in its entirety, for the Father gives all existence to the Son, and the Son has in Himself nothing but what He receives from the Father. There is between them an absolute distinction as regards the act of existence, and an absolute unity in all the rest. Being two, they can unite in an actual relationship and in common produce a new manifestation of absolute substance; but since this substance belongs to them in common and without division, the product of their reciprocal action can only be the explicit affirmation of their unity emerging from and overcoming their actual difference. And as this synthetic unity of the Father and the Son, manifested as such, cannot be represented either by the Father as such or by the Son as such, it must necessarily be substantiated in a third hypostasis to
This is all that is contained in the idea of paternity as such. But it is clear that this determinate idea, so clear and distinct, cannot be applied in its purity and entirety to any class of created beings that we know: not in its entirety, for in the natural order the father is only a partial cause of the existence of the son, and the son derives his existence only partly from the father; not in its purity, because besides the specific distinction of having given and received existence, there are between fathers and sons in the natural order countless individual differences, quite foreign to the mere idea of paternity and filiation. To discover the true application of this idea we must rise to the level of absolute Being. There we have seen the relation of paternity and filiation in its purity, for the Father is the sole and unique cause of the Son; in its entirety, for the Father gives all existence to the Son, and the Son has in Himself nothing but what He receives from the Father. There is between them an absolute distinction as regards the act of existence, and an absolute unity in all the rest. Being two, they can unite in an actual relationship and in common produce a new manifestation of absolute substance; but since this substance belongs to them in common and without division, the product of their reciprocal action can only be the explicit affirmation of their unity emerging from and overcoming their actual difference. And as this synthetic unity of the Father and the Son, manifested as such, cannot be represented either by the Father as such or by the Son as such, it must necessarily be substantiated in a third hypostasis to