Chapter VIII
RICHARD OF ST. VICTOR
burn otherwise than supreme wisdom prescribes, so it also does not burn more intensely. And so it is necessary that one who should be loved supremely according to that supreme abundance of charity without doubt should love according to that supreme rule of discretion. But the particular nature of love itself shows clearly that it is not sufficient for the one loving supremely if the one being loved supremely does not return supreme love. And so in mutual love, fullness of charity demands that each be supremely loved by the other and consequently, according to the previously mentioned norm of discretion, that each ought to be loved supremely. However where each ought to be loved equally, it is necessary that each be equally perfect. And so it is necessary that each one be equally powerful, equally wise, equally good, equally blessed. So supreme fullness of love demands supreme equality of perfection in those loved mutually. And so in true Divinity, as the particular nature of charity requires a plurality of persons, so the integrity of the same charity requires supreme equality of persons in true plurality.
However, so that the persons may be equal in everything, it is necessary that they be similar in everything. For similitude can be possessed without equality, while equality is never possessed without mutual similitude. How are those persons able to be companions in wisdom who have no similitude in wisdom? However, what I say concerning wisdom, I say concerning power. Indeed, you will find the same in all the others, if you go through them individually.
Chapter VIII According to a marvelous reasoning there is a substantial unity in that plurality and a personal plurality in that true unity of substance
We have sought and discovered that in the above-mentioned mutually loved and mutually loving persons, in order that supreme love might exist worthily, there must be in each both supreme perfection and the fullness of all perfection. And so in each there will be fullness of power, fullness of wisdom, fullness of goodness, fullness of Divinity. Behold, far above we made mention but did
BOOK THRE OF THE TRINITY
not define something: namely that the Divinity which we discovered could not be common to a plurality of substances; now here it clearly appears to be common to a plurality of persons. But if, as has been said, every perfection is common to those mutually loved, it is clear that if one is omnipotent, the other also will be omnipotent; if one is immeasurable, the other also will be immeasurable; if one is God, the other also will be God.
But as we have demonstrated with sufficient clarity in the above, only one can be omnipotent; only one can be immeasurable; only one can be God. What then? Certainly without any doubt each will be omnipotent in such a way that both together will be only one omnipotent; and each will be immeasurable in such a way that both together will be only one immeasurable; and without doubt each of them will be God in such a way that both together will be only one God.* "And who is fit for this?" (2 Cor. 2:16). But if Divinity itself, as we have said, is certainly common to both, certainly then divine substance will also be common to both; for as has been proved above, divine substance is nothing other than Divinity itself. And so it is shown clearly that each possesses one and the same substance in common—or if this sounds better:
It is shown clearly that both are one and the same substance at the same time. And so why marvel if at the same time both are only one omnipotent, one eternal, one immense, only one God and Lord, when certainly both are only one in substance at the same time?
Therefore, see how by what a wonderful reasoning there is substantial unity in that plurality of persons and a personal plurality in a true unity of substance, so that there is also "individuality in persons and unity in substance and equality in majesty. "t
* Richard is here reflecting the formulation of the Athanasian Creed.
^Athanasian Creed.
RICHARD OF ST. VICTOR
Chapter IX That in the divine nature there is plurality ofpersons in a unity of substance; and in human nature there is plurality of substances in a unity ofperson Perhaps you who hear or read this marvel; you marvel,
I say, how there can be more than one person where there is only one substance. But why marvel, why marvel, I say, if He who is marvelous in so many of His works is marvelous in Himself above everything? You marvel at how there is more than one person in the divine nature where there is not more than one substance. Yet you do not marvel equally at how there is more than one substance in human nature where there is not more than one person. For man consists of body and soul, and together these two are only one person. So a person has a basis in himself for how to observe and learn what he should, by way of contrast, think concerning his God.
If it is agreeable, let us gather in one place what reason discovers in the divine nature by reasoning and those things which experience finds in human nature. In both there is unity; in both, plurality.
In the divine nature there is unity of substance; in human nature, unity of person. In the former there is plurality of persons; in the latter, plurality of substances. In the former, certainly, plurality of persons in unity of substance' but in the latter, plurality of substances in unity of person. Behold how human nature and divine nature seem to be related mutually yet as opposites, and the one seems to be oriented to the other in a contrasting way. So they are mutually related and should be mutually contrasted: created nature and uncreated nature; time and eternity; corruptible and incorruptible; changeable and unchangeable; the small and the immense; the bounded and the infinite.
BOOK THREE OF THE TRINITY
Chapter X How from the plurality and unity that he discovers in himself a man is taught what he ought to think, by way of opposites as it were, concerning those things which are proposed to him for believing with respect to his God
Let us add that in the plurality of persons in the divine nature there is full similitude and supreme equality. However, in the plurality of substance in human nature there is much dissimilitude and great inequality.
For in the former plurality of persons, one is incorruptible and the other is incorruptible; one is unchangeable and the other is unchangeable; one is unbounded and the other is unbounded; the one and the other are equally powerful; the one and the other are equally wise, equally good, equally blessed.
In the latter plurality of substances of which the human person is composed, one is corporeal, the other is incorporeal; one is visible, the other is invisible; one is mortal, the other is immortal; one is destructible, the other is indestructible; one is perishable, the other is imperishable. Nevertheless in the individual person they have been so joined into one that in experiencing and in being delighted with something, they cannot be severed (I do not say separated).
Behold, you have seen how great a dissimilitude and diversity of substances there are in human nature. You have seen, no less, how great a similitude and equality of persons there are in the divine nature. Explain to me, I implore you, how there is personal unity in so great a dissimilitude and diversity of substances, and I will tell you how there is a substantial unity in so great a similitude and equality of persons. You say, "I do not grasp it; I do not understand; but even if the understanding does not grasp it, nevertheless experience itself persuades me." Well said indeed and rightly too! But if experience teaches you that something exists in human nature that is above understanding, should it not also have taught you that something exists above your understanding in divine nature? And so a person can learn from himself, by way of opposites as it were, what he ought to think concerning those things which are proposed to him for believing concerning his God.
These things have been said on account of those who strive to define and determine the depth of divine secrets according to the
RICHARD OF ST. VICTOR
mode of their own capacity— not according to the tradition of the holy Fathers, who, as it is known, have learned from and been taught by the Holy Spirit.
Chapter XI How it is shown clearlyfrom the integrity of charity that true Trinity is in true unity and true unity is in true Trinity Now let us order what we have grasped; let us follow the mode of our reasoning. A plurality of divine persons has been established but not yet a Trinity of persons. For plurality can exist even where there is no Trinity. Indeed duality itself is plurality. And so, concerning the assertion of Trinity, let us question the same witnesses we brought forth above to testify for plurality.
If it is agreeable, first of all let supreme charity be asked what it testifies about this matter. Now, it is necessary that supreme charity be altogether perfect. Yet in order that it may be supremely perfect, just as it is necessary that it be so great that nothing greater can exist, so it is necessary that it be such that nothing better can exist. For just as in supreme charity what is greatest cannot be lacking, so what is clearly excellent cannot be lacking either. But in true charity, it seems excellent to wish another to be loved as one's self. Certainly in mutual and very fervent love nothing is rarer or more magnificent than to wish that another be loved equally by the one whom you love supremely and by whom you are supremely loved. And so the proof of perfected charity is a willing sharing of the love that has been shown to you. For the one loving supremely and longing to be loved supremely, surely the most excellent joy lies in the fulfillment of his own longing, namely in the attainment of longed-for love. So a person proves that he is not perfect in charity if he cannot yet take pleasure in sharing his excellent joy.
And so it is a sign of a great weakness not to be able to allow a sharing of love, while to be able to is a sign of great perfection. If it is great to be able to allow it, it will be greater to undertake it with rejoicing; it will be greatest, however, to search for it with longing.
The first is a great good; the second, a better one; but the third, the
BOOK THREE OF THE TRINITY
best. Therefore, let us offer to the supreme what is excellent; to the best, what is best. And in those who are mutually loved, who were earlier treated above, the perfection of each, in order to be completed, requires with equal reason a sharer of the love that has been shown to them.
For if he does not will what perfect goodness demands, where will the fullness of goodness be? If he wills what cannot be done, where will fullness of power be?
Hence we gathered by clear reasoning that the most excellent level of charity, and therefore the fullness of goodness, cannot exist where a defect of will or a defect of a faculty excludes a sharer of love and a sharing of most excellent joy. Therefore it is necessary that each of those loved supremely and loving supremely should search with equal desire for someone who would be mutually loved and with equal concord willingly possess him. Thus you see how the perfection of charity requires a Trinity of persons, without which it is wholly unable to subsist in the integrity of its fullness.
Thus, just as integral charity cannot be lacking, so also true Trinity cannot be lacking where everything that is, is altogether perfect.
Therefore there is not only a plurality but also true Trinity in true unity and true unity in true Trinity.
Chapter XII How supreme goodness and supreme happiness harmoniously proclaim the Trinity and confirm it by mutual witness If anyone forcefully affirms that in true Divinity there exist only those whom reason discovered above who are loved mutually, what reason, I ask, will he be able to give for his claim? Will not each of them, I ask, be lacking a sharer in excellent joy? Will this be perhaps because both do not wish to have one, or because one wishes and the other does not? But if one does not wish what the other wishes, where will be that quality which is always found in true and perfect friends—and must always be present? Where,
I ask, will be that unique sign of intimate love, namely the unanimity and intimate harmony of souls? And certainly, if anyone says that one wishes and another does not wish, then whoever concedes that
RICHARD OF ST. VICTOR
in His will He is not able to prevail denies that He is supremely powerful. But if someone should say that neither is able to find repose in the sharing of the love that has been shown to them, how,
I ask, will that person be able to excuse them of the defect of love mentioned above? Now we know that nothing can be hidden from those who are supremely wise. And so if they love each other truly and supremely, how will one of them be able to see a defect in the other and not grieve? For if one of the two sees a defect in the other and does not grieve, where will fullness of love be? If He sees and grieves, where will fullness of happiness be? However, it is the case that where a cause for grieving is never lacking, fullness of happiness cannot exist.
From this, therefore, we gather and grasp by indubitable reasoning that fullness of happiness excludes every defect of charity, whose perfection demands a Trinity of persons, as has been said, and furthermore shows clearly that it cannot be lacking. Behold how supreme goodness and supreme happiness harmoniously proclaim the assertion of Trinity and confirm it with mutual witness.
Chapter XIII That the fullness of divine glory seems to shout out in conclusive witness of supreme goodness and happiness No doubt, it is a great defect of mature charity to be unable to experience the fellowship of love. Who does not know this or who can cover it over? And so, if this defect mutually exists in those lovers often mentioned before, each not only has something to grieve over in the other, but at the same time something to be ashamed of in himself. For just as a true and intimate friend cannot see the defect of one who is loved intimately and not grieve, so surely in the presence of a friend he cannot fail to be ashamed over his own defect. But if there exists in that plurality of persons something of which one should rightly be ashamed, where,
I beg you, will the fullness of glory be, which it is completely impossible to be without in true Divinity? But just as in supreme happiness there
BOOK THREE OF THE TRINITY
cannot be a cause of grieving, so in the fullness of supreme glory there cannot be matter for embarrassment. Indeed, who does not see what extreme madness it would be to suspect even weakly that there could be something in that supremely happy majesty which could overcloud even in the least the splendor of so much glory?
Behold how the fullness of divine goodness and the fullness of happiness and glory come together in one witness to truth. They clearly demonstrate what ought to be thought concerning the fullness of divine charity in that plurality of persons. Together, they condemn suspicion of any defect in that supreme charity; in accord they proclaim the fullness of all perfection. In order for charity to be true, it demands a plurality of persons; in order for charity to be perfected, it requires a Trinity of persons.
Chapter XIV That a sharing of love cannot exist at all among less than three persons
However, if we concede that we cannot doubt after so many reasons have been set before us; if, I say, we concede that there exists in true Divinity some one person of such great benevolence that He wishes to have no riches or delights that He does not wish to share; of such great power that nothing is impossible for Him; of such great happiness that nothing is difficult for Him— it follows that it is necessary to acknowledge that a Trinity of divine persons cannot fail to exist. But so that this may be more apparent, let us gather into a unity what we have said more diffusely.
Certainly if there were only one person in Divinity, He would not have anyone with whom He might share the riches of His greatness. But conversely that abundance of delights and sweetness, which would have been able to increase for him on account of intimate love, would be lacking in eternity. But fullness of goodness does not allow the supremely good One to retain those riches greedily, nor does fullness of beatitude permit the supremely blessed
One to fail to possess an abundance of delights and sweetness. And for the magnificence of His honor, He rejoices over sharing the riches as much as He glories over enjoying the abundance of de-
RICHARD OF ST. VICTOR
lights and sweetness. On the basis of these things, consider how impossible it is for some one person in Divinity to lack the fellowship of association.
If He were to have only one partner, certainly He would not lack one with whom He might share the riches of His greatness. But He would not have anyone with whom He might share the delights of charity. Nothing can be discovered that gives more pleasure than the sweetness of loving; there is nothing by which the soul is more delighted. He alone possesses the sweetness of such delights who has a partner and a loved one in the love that has been shown to Him.
And so sharing of love cannot exist among any less than three persons. Now, as has been said, nothing is more glorious, nothing more magnificent, than to share in common whatever you have that is useful and pleasant. But this cannot be hidden from supreme wisdom, nor can it fail to be pleasing to supreme benevolence. And as the happiness of the supremely powerful One and the power of supremely happy One cannot be lacking in what pleases Him, so in Divinity it is impossible for two persons not to be united to a third.
Chapter XV That it is necessary for a pair ofpersons in the divinity to seek out a third person with equal desire and for a similar reason
Surely it ought to be noted in the divine persons that the perfection of one demands the addition of another and consequently in a pair of persons the perfection of each requires union with a third.
For in a pair of persons, just as we have said elsewhere, in order that each may properly be supremely loved by the other, it is necessary that each be supremely perfect. And so, just as there is one wisdom and one power for both, so it is surely necessary that there be one supreme benevolence for both. Now it is a special characteristic of supreme and totally perfect benevolence that it shares in common the entire abundance of its fullness for everyone. However, where equal benevolence exists in either person it is necessary that each with equal desire and for a similar reason should seek out a sharer of his excellent joy. For when two