Liber Quintus, Caput VII. Deum et simplicem et trinum esse.
Nothing Better Than God
Bernard opens by asking what God is and argues that nothing better can be conceived than God, so God's nature is simply God himself.
What is God? Than which nothing better can be conceived. If you agree, it's not right to say there's something by which God exists, and that this is not God. For that is undoubtedly better. How could anything be better than God, if God is not that which gives God existence? But we acknowledge that this divine nature, by which they say God exists, is nothing other than God. Therefore, there is nothing in God except God. What?
One God, Not a Quaternity
Bernard answers objectors who distinguish God from God's divinity, insisting that adding a fourth thing to the Trinity would divide rather than honor the deity.
They say: Do you deny that God has divinity? No, but what he has, that is. Do you deny that God is divinity? No, but not another than that which he himself is. Or if you have found another, may the Trinity God help me against it, with all my stubbornness I raise myself. The quaternity divides the world, but does not mark the deity. The Trinity is God, God of the three individual persons. If it pleases you to add a fourth divinity; meanwhile, I have persuaded myself that this, which is not God, is least to be adored.
All in God Is One
Bernard warns against introducing a fourth divine thing and argues that the many attributes said of God are truly one in God.
I think you too. You will surely worship the Lord your God, and you will serve him alone.✦✦✦1 How glorious is the divinity, which would not dare to claim divine honor for itself.2 But we would do better to reject this fourth thing altogether than to accept it without honor.3 Many things are said to be in God — and indeed, truly and in line with catholic teaching — but many things are one.4 Otherwise, if we should think of diverse things in God, we would have not a quaternity but a hundredfold number.5 For example, we say great, good, just, and countless such things — but unless you consider all things as one in God and with God, you will have a manifold God.6
Pure Simplicity Preferred
Bernard presses beyond a merely single-form God to pure simplicity, showing that even a twofold God falls short of what is truly simple.
I don't lack for ways to think of your God as something better than that. You ask what I mean? Pure simplicity. Truly, by the judgment of nature, the simple is preferred to the multiple. I know that people usually have an answer ready for this. They say there are not many things in God, but only one divinity, which is all those things, and we claim that this one divinity is what makes God what he is. So you claim a God who is twofold, even if not manyfold; and you have not arrived at what is purely simple, nor at that than which nothing better can be thought. A thing is no more simple for being subject to a single form than a virgin is for being known to a single man.
The God Who Is Who He Is
Bernard confesses his own God as utterly simple, whole, and steadfast, echoing Exodus 3:14: God is who he is, not a collection of attributes.
I'll speak freely: even someone who is twofold, let alone someone divided, will never be my God. For I have a better one. Granted, I may set this numerous and manifold one above others; but compared to the simple one, I plainly scorn him. My God is himself catholic through and through. He has no more of this and that than he has of these and those. He is who he is, not a collection of attributes.✦ Pure, simple, whole, perfect, steadfast in himself — drawing nothing from times, nothing from places, nothing from things into himself, and laying nothing of himself down in them; he has no element that could split him into number, no tie that could bind him to a single instance. He is indeed one, but not a unity composed of parts.
God Owes His Being to None
Bernard argues that God is not composed of parts, affections, or forms, and that it would be blasphemy to say God owes being to anything other than himself.
He doesn't consist of parts, as a body does; he isn't divided by affections, as a soul is; he doesn't underlie forms, as everything that is made does; but neither is he forms, as it seemed to those people.7 Great praise, clearly, to God—that he should vindicate himself from formlessness, content to be by a single form.8 That is to say, other things owe what they are to many, but God owes what he is to none but one. What? By whose gift do the things that exist have their being—will he incline his own being as a gift to another?9 That praise, as it's commonly said, amounts to blasphemy. Or isn't it worth more to need nothing at all than to need one thing? Have reverence toward God, so that you may attribute to him what is of greater worth.
Seeking God Beyond Thought
Bernard exhorts the reader to climb higher in the heart, warning that God must always be sought beyond what thought can fix or contain.
If your heart was able to climb this far, how will you place your God below? He himself is form for himself; he himself is essence for himself. At this level I suspect him of being one thing; and if another, preferable one were to appear, I would rather give him that one. Should I be afraid that thought might carry him off? However far it may advance into the heights, there is always more beyond. To seek the Most High below what a human being can think — that's ridiculous; to try to fix him there is impious. He is to be sought beyond, not on this side.
God Is Form Itself
Bernard declares that God is not a formed thing but form itself, not composite but utter simplicity, and that simple and one mean the same.
Go higher still, if you can, into a deeper place in your heart, and God will be exalted. God is not a formed thing: he is form itself. God is not a thing disposed or affected: he is pure disposition itself. God is not a composite thing: he is utter simplicity. And so that you may clearly understand what I mean by 'simple': it is the same thing as 'one.' God is as simple as he is one. And he is one, and in such a way that there is nothing other in him. If such a thing could be said, he is most uniquely one.
One Even to Himself
Bernard contrasts the unique oneness of God with the oneness of the sun and moon, showing that God is one even to and in himself.
There is one sun, because there is no other; one moon, because equally there is no other. And this is indeed God, but more. What more? He is one even to himself. And do you want this made clear to you? He is always the same, and in one way — not so the one sun, not so the one moon. Each cries out that it is not one to itself: the sun by its motions, the moon also by its eclipses. God, however, is not only one to himself: he is one in himself.
Trinity and Unity Together
Bernard affirms that the Trinity is God and that naming Father, Son, and Holy Spirit does not overthrow unity but affirms one God.
It has nothing in itself except itself. It has no alteration from time, no otherness in substance. Hence Boethius says of it: 'This is truly one, in which there is no number, nothing in it except that which is; for it cannot be made a subject, because it is form.' Compare to this one everything that can be called one, and it will not be one. And yet the Trinity is God. What then? Do we overthrow what was said about unity because we bring in the Trinity? No, but we affirm unity. We say Father, we say Son, we say Holy Spirit — yet not three Gods, but one.
A Number Without Number
Bernard puzzles over how the Trinity can be both three and one, proposing that persons are numbered while substance is not.
What does this 'number' mean (if I may put it this way) — a number without number? If there are three, how is it not a number? If one, where is number? But I have, you say, something to count and something not to count. There is one substance; there are three persons. What's so astonishing about that? What's obscure about it? Nothing — if you think of the persons apart from the substance.
Three Persons, One Substance
Bernard presses the paradox further: the three persons are the one substance, and yet natures, essences, and substances are each one.
Now then, since those three persons are that substance, and that one substance is those three persons, who would deny they are a number? For truly they are three. Then who would count them? For truly they are one. Or if you think this is easy to explain, when you say "three," tell me what you counted. Natures? There's one. Essences?
Numbered by Person Alone
Bernard concludes that only persons are numbered, while nature, essence, substance, and divinity remain one, and a Catholic will not grant otherwise.
There is one. Substances? There is one. Deities? There is one. Not these, but persons by number, you say. What things wouldn't be that one nature, that one essence, that one substance, that one divinity? You're Catholic: you'll by no means grant this.
Read the original Latin
Quid est Deus? Quo nihil melius cogitari potest. Si approbas, non oportet assentiaris esse aliquid, quo Deus sit, et quod Deus non sit. Hoc enim sine dubio melius. Quomodo non melius Deo, si Deus non est, quod dat Deo ut sit? At melius illam divinitatem, qua dicunt Deum esse, non aliud quam Deum esse fatemur. Non est ergo in Deo nisi Deus. Quid?
inquiunt: negas Deum habere divinitatem? Non, sed quod habet, hoc est. Negas divinitate Deum esse? Non, sed non alia, quam quae ipse est. Aut si tu aliam invenisti, adjuvet me Trinitas Deus, adversus illam tota me contumacia erigo. Quaternitas orbem disterminat, non signat deitatem. Deus Trinitas est, Deus trium singula personarum. Si quartam divinitatem adjicere placet; interim ego hanc, quae Deus non est, persuasi mihi minime adorandam.
Puto quod et tu. Nempe Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et illi soli servies. Gloriosa vero divinitas, quae sibi honorem non audeat arrogare divinum. At melius quartum hoc omnino respuimus, quam sine honore recipimus. Multa dicuntur esse in Deo, et quidem sane catholiceque, sed multa unum. Alioquin si diversa putemus, non quaternitatem habemus, sed centenitatem. Verbi causa, dicimus magnum, bonum, justum, et innumera talia: sed nisi omnia unum in Deo, et cum Deo consideres, habebis multiplicem Deum.
Mihi vero non deest quot cogitem melius ejusmodi Deo tuo. Quaeris quid? Mera simplicitas. Vero judicio, natura simplex multiplici antefertur. Scio quod ad haec respondere solent. Non multa, inquiunt, sed unam tantum divinitatem, quae omnia illa sunt, Deo ut sit conferre asserimus. Asseritis ergo, etsi non multiplicem, duplicem Deum; et non ad merum simplex pervenistis, neque ad id, quo melius cogitari non potest. Tam non est simplex, quod vel uni fuerit obnoxium formae, quam nec virgo vel uni cognita viro.
Securus loquor, ne is quidem qui vel duplex est, erit meus. Habeo enim meliorem. Esto quod hunc numeroso et multiplici anteponam: sed plane prae simplici sperno. Meus Deus ipse catholice est. Tam non habet hoc et illud, quam non haec et illa. Est qui est, non quae est. Purus, simplex, integer, perfectus, constans sibi, nihil de temporibus, nihil de locis, nihil de rebus trahens in se, nihil ex se deponens in eis; non habens quod ad numerum dividat, non quae colligat ad unum. Unum quippe est, sed non unitum.
Non partibus constat, ut corpus; non affectibus distat, ut anima: non formis substat, ut omne quod factum est; sed neque formae, ut istis visum est. Magna laus videlicet Deo, ut se ab informitate vindicet, forma una esse contentum. Hoc est dicere, caetera pluribus, Deum nonnisi uni debere quod est. Quid? Cujus beneficio sunt quae sunt, ipse pro suo esse alteri beneficio inclinabit? Laus ista, ut vulgo dicitur, blasphemiam valet. An non pluris est nullo indigere quam uno? Habe reverentiam Deo, ut quod pluris est, illi tribuas.
Si cor tuum usque huc ascendere potuit, Deum tuum infra quomodo collocabis? Ipse sibi forma, ipse sibi essentia est. In hoc interim gradu suspicio illum: et si alter potior appareret, illum potius darem. Nunquid verendum, ne cogitatio transvolet illum? Quantumcunque in altum proficiat, ultra est. Infra quod homo cogitare possit, altissimum quaerere, ridiculum est; statuere, impium. Ultra, non citra quaerendus est.
Ascende adhuc, si potes, ad cor altius, et exaltabitur Deus. Non est formatus Deus: forma est. Non est affectus Deus: affectio est. Non est compositus Deus: merum simplex est. Et ut liquido noveris, quid simplex dicam: idem quod unum. Tam simplex Deus, quam unus est. Est autem unus, et quo modo aliud nihil. Si dici possit, unissimus est.
Unus est sol, quod non sit alter: una luna, quod aeque altera non sit. Atque id quidem Deus, sed plus. Quid plus? Unus est etiam sibi. Et hoc vis tibi declarari? Idem est semper, et uno modo, Non sic unus sol, non sic una luna. Clamat uterque non esse unum sibi; ille motibus, illa et defectibus suis. Deus autem non modo unus sibi: et in se unus est.
Nihil in se nisi se habet. Non ex tempore alterationem habet, non in substantia alteritatem hinc de eo Boetius: "Hoc vere unum, in quo nullus est numerus, nullum in eo aliud praeter id quod est: Neque enim subjectum fieri potest: forma enim est." Compara huic uni omne quod unum dici potest; et unum non erit. Trinitas est tamen Deus. Quid ergo? Destruimus quod dictum est de unitate, quia inducimus trinitatem? Non; sed statuimus unitatem. Dicimus Patrem, dicimus Filium, dicimus Spiritum sanctum; non tamen tres Deos, sed unum.
Quid sibi vult iste (ut sic loquar) absque numero numerus? Si tria, quomodo non numerus? si unum, ubi numerus? Sed habeo, inquis, quid numerem, et quid non numerem. Substantia una est: personae tres sunt. Quid mirum? quid vel obscurum in hoc? Nihil, si personae seorsum a substantia cogitentur.
Nunc vero cum tres illae personae illa substantia sint, et illa una substantia tres illae personae; quis numerum neget? Nam vere tres sunt. Quis numeret tamen? Nam vere unum sunt. Aut si tu facile explicatu id putas, dicendo tres, dicito quid numerasti? Naturas? Una est. Essentias?
Una est. Substantias? Una est. Deitates? Una est. Non haec, sed personas numero, inquis. Quae non sint illa una natura, illa una essentia, illa una substantia, illa una divinitas? Catholicus es: minime hoc dabis.
Scripture echoes
- ↩Deut.6.13 — You shall fear the LORD your God, and serve him, and swear by his name.
- ↩Matt.4.10 — Then Jesus said to him, 'Go away, Satan! For it is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him alone shall you serve."'
- ↩Luke.4.8 — And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him alone shall you serve.'"
- ↩Exod.3.14 — And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.' And he said, 'Say this to the people of Israel: I AM has sent me to you.'
Notes
- 1 ↩Direct quotation of Deut 6:13 / Matt 4:10 / Luke 4:8: 'Dominum Deum tuum adorabis et illi soli servies.'
- 2 ↩The relative clause of characteristic (quae...non audeat arrogare) describes the true divinity as one that refuses to arrogate divine honor to itself — a polemic against any supposed 'fourth' divine principle or self-asserting quasi-divinity.
- 3 ↩quartum hoc ('this fourth thing') refers to the hypothetical fourth divine principle rejected in the surrounding argument against quaternity. melius...respuimus quam...recipimus = 'we reject X rather than accept Y'.
- 4 ↩The paradox: many predicates are truly and cathically affirmed of God (great, good, just, etc.), yet in God all these are one simple reality. sed multa unum = 'but the many [things] are one.'
- 5 ↩centenitas is a rhetorical coinage: if divine attributes are conceived as genuinely diverse realities rather than one simple essence, the result is not merely four principles but an unmanageable multiplicity.
- 6 ↩The argument: predicating many attributes of God is legitimate only if the reader recognizes their unity in God's simple essence. Otherwise, one ends up with a 'manifold God' (multiplicem Deum) — a composite, not the simple God of faith.
- 7 ↩The verb substat is rendered as 'underlies' to capture the philosophical sense of a substance standing under accidental forms, contrasting God's simplicity with created beings.
- 8 ↩The rare term informitate (formlessness/shapelessness) refers to the lack of determinate form; God 'vindicates' himself from it by possessing a singular, simple form (his own essence).
- 9 ↩The dative 'alteri beneficio' is read as a double dative construction (inclining his being *as a benefit* to another), preserving the parallel with 'cujus beneficio' (by whose gift/benefit).
De consideratione (On Consideration) companion
Make consideration a daily appointment
Bernard told Eugene to set aside time every day. Chosen Portion holds that time for you, free.
Bernard's core prescription — a fixed daily time reserved for examining the soul — is exactly the habit Chosen Portion installs with its daily devotional portion.
- One 10-minute daily portion for self-examination and prayer
- Reflection prompts drawn from historic texts, not improvised journaling
- A visible streak that protects the daily interval Bernard insisted on