Sermons on the Song of Songs

This distinction of unions is indicated to us by the diversity of gender in unus, the masculine, and unum, the neuter. For the Father and the Word are not so one that they can be called unus, nor are God and man so one as that we may speak of them as unum. “Give occasion to a wise man and wisdom shall be added to him”; and so you, if you be wise, will take this occasion to increase in wisdom. For you may prudently observe that in the first comparison the neuter unum signifies a unity of substance or nature, whilst in the second the masculine form unus, still expresses unity, but only a unity of spirit, entirely different from the other. That is to say, God and man, although “one spirit,” have nevertheless their own distinct natures and essences, whereas the Father and the Son, as you know, are in nature absolutely identified. You see, then, my brethren, that the relation between Creator and creature does not even deserve the name of unity when compared with the unique and sovereign unity between the Divine Persons. For how can you have unity there, where there is plurality of natures, distinction of substances? Nevertheless, the soul that is “joined to the Lord” is called and is truly “one spirit” with Him. Distinction of substances is no obstacle to unity of this kind, which results, not from a confusion of natures, but rather from a conformity of wills. It is in the same sense that many hearts are said to be one heart, and many souls one soul, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, “The multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul.” Therefore we have unity of spirit where we have conformity of wills.

But what shall I say of that substantial or essential unity of one Divine Person with Another, which does not arise from the coalescence of distinct elements, but has subsisted from all eternity? It is evidently not the effect of any kind of mutual manducation, like the spiritual oneness of God with the soul, because it is not an effect at all. It simply is. It is neither a unity of aggregation, nor a unity of composition, nor any other species of unity which cannot be called simply and absolutely one. And not alone have the Father and Son the same Existence, the same Nature, and the same Will, but it is equally true that in Them Existence, Nature, and Will are one and the same thing. For as regards the Divine Persons, there is no distinction whatever between existence and nature, or between will or volition and existence and nature. Therefore we may not say that the unity whereby the Father and the Word are one, results from a confusion of natures, or existences, or wills, because there is no such plurality of elements. Indeed we must not represent it as a product at all, for it simply and eternally is. It is not a result in the Nature of God, but belongs to that Nature essentially. The Father and the Son abide Each in the Other in an ineffable, yea, in an incomprehensible manner, as reciprocally Contained and Container. Nevertheless, They contain without dividing, just as, conversely, They are contained without division. Accordingly the Church sings in her Office, “The Father holds the Word entire

As whole the Son contains His Sire.”

The Father is in the Son, in Whom He is always well pleased. The Son is in the Father, from Whom He can never be separated, as He can never cease to be generated. Moreover, it is by charity that God is in man and man in God, according to the testimony of St. John, who says, “He that abideth in charity, abideth in God and God in him.” This union is a union of conformity, uniting God and man in one spirit, or rather making them one spirit. But do you not recognise the distinction between it and the substantial unity of the Divine Persons? Surely unity of essence cannot be the same thing as unity or conformity of wills. I have already called your attention to the manner in which this diversity of unity is signified by the grammatical distinction between unus and unum, how the unity of Father with Son cannot be expressed by the masculine form, unus, nor the unity of God and the soul by the neuter, unum. The Father and the Word are not so one that They can be called unus, because the Father and the Son are not one but two really distinct Persons. Yet They can be called and truly are unum, inasmuch as They have not Each His own but one common Nature or Substance. The case is quite contrary as between God and the soul. For their union is not a unity of nature but of will. Therefore they may not be described as one thing (unum), although they can be said with truth to be one spirit (unus), that is to say, if they are really bound to each other by the bonds of love. But such a unity is produced, as observed before, by conformity of wills, not by any confusion of essences.

From what I have said you understand, I think, not only the distinction but also the inequality of these unities, one of which is the unity of a single simple Essence, the other the aggregative unity of many distinct essences. What indeed can be more unequal than the unity of one and the unity of many? The different forms of the numeral, unus and unum, as I have said more than once, enable us to mark this diversity; because whilst unum expresses the identity of Essence in the Father and the Son, unus designates a unity, not of nature, but of will and affection, between God and His creature. Nevertheless, the Father and the Son may also be called unus consistently with truth, provided the numeral is used with a substantive. For instance, we may say that the Persons are one (unus) God, one Lord, and so with every other attribute which is absolute and common to all Three, not relative and proper to One. The reason of this is, because They have not Each His own Divinity, or Each His own Majesty, any more than They have Each His own Nature or Essence. For all such things are not distinct or divided, but one and the same in Them, I should rather have said one and the same with Them. What is that unity, my brethren, according to which many hearts, as we read, become one heart, and many souls one soul? To my mind it appears even unworthy of the name of unity, as compared with this, which, instead of combining distinct entities, singularly seals the indistinction of one. Singular therefore and sovereign is the unity of the Divine Persons, since it is not constituted by any combination of distinct elements, but has subsisted from everlasting. It has not been formed by the mutual spiritual feeding on Each Other of Father and Son, because it never had a beginning. It is something self-subsisting. Much less is it to be considered a conjunction of different essences or a harmony of different wills, since there is no such plurality of essences or wills. The Divine Persons, as already remarked, have but one Essence and but one Will. And surely there can be no question of harmony, or conjunction, or composition, or of any other kind of unity presupposing a distinction of parts, where you have only a single object. For conformity of wills at least two wills are required. Similarly, there must be at least two distinct essences for an essential conjunction or coalition. Therefore we must look for neither of these modes of unity in the Father and the Son, because They have one and the same Essence, one and the same Will. Both Essence and Will are one in Them, or rather—to repeat myself—Essence and Will are not only one thing in the Persons, but they are also one thing with the Persons. Consequently the Father and the Son are really and absolutely one, abiding Each in the Other as incomprehensibly as unchangeably. Nevertheless, if anyone thinks proper to maintain that there is a conformity between the Father and the Son, I will not contradict him, provided he means by this conformity, not a union of distinct wills, but the unity of a single Will.