Introductory Remarks

1.

It belongs to the first treatise of Dogmatic Theology (De Deo Uno) to show that God is one and personal. The pantheistic fiction of an impersonal God is sufficiently exploded by the Almighty’s own solemn declaration (Gen. III, 14): “I am Who am.”¹

Whether the infinite personality of God must be conceived as simple or multiplex, is a matter which human reason cannot determine unaided. On the strength of the inductive axiom, “Quot sunt naturae, tot sunt personae,” we should rather be tempted to attribute but one personality to the one Divine Nature. Positive Revelation tells us, however, that there are in God three really distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This fundamental dogma, which essentially differentiates the Christian from the Pagan, from the Jewish, and from the Mohammedan conceptions of God, is designated in the technical Latin of the Church as “Trinitas,” a term first used, so far as we know, by Theophilus of Antioch² and Tertullian,³ and which later became current in ecclesiastical usage and was embodied in the Creeds.⁴ In the private symbolum of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus mention is made of a “perfect Triad” (τριὰς τελεία). Didymus the Blind, Cyril of Alexandria, Hilary, Ambrose, and Augustine have written separate treatises “On the Trinity.”

2.

Unity, simplicity, and unicity are as essential to the mystery of the Blessed Trinity as the concept of triunity itself. Hence it is not surprising that all these momenta were equally emphasized by the early Fathers.

Thus we read in the Athanasian Creed:⁵ “Ita ut per omnia … et unitas in Trinitate, et Trinitas in unitate veneranda sit” — So that in all things the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.” The first canon of the Lateran Council held under Pope Martin the First⁶ reads thus: “Si quis secundum sanctos Patres non confitetur proprie et veraciter Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum, Trinitatem in unitate et unitatem in Trinitate … condemnatus sit” — If any one does not with the Holy Fathers profess properly and truly the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity, let him be anathema.”⁷ If we pay special regard to the note of threeness, the Trinity presents itself mainly as a threefold personality in one Divine Nature. If, on the other hand, we accentuate the note of unity, the Trinity presents itself as Triunity (triunitas),⁸ a term which expresses the numeric unity of the Godhead common to all three Divine Hypostases. Both points of view are not only legitimate in themselves, but demanded by the nature of the mystery and the heretical distortions to which it has been subjected. As against those Antitrinitarians who (like the Monarchians, the Sabellians, and the Subordinationists) exaggerate the notion of unity so as to deny a true and immanent Trinity in the Godhead, Dogmatic Theology has to prove the existence of three really distinct Persons. In refuting the opposite heresy of Tritheism, which exaggerates the notion of threeness and postulates three separate divine natures, substances, or essences, it is necessary to show that the Divine Trinity is a Triunity.

3.

Antitrinitarianism in both of its antithetical forms is by no means a thing of the past, but under various guises still has numerous adherents.

Whilst the few remaining partisans of Günther’s theological system continue to teach a sort of veiled Tritheism, present-day Socinians, Unitarians, and Rationalists move entirely within the circle of the heretical notions of Sabellius. Kantian Rationalism debases the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity by treating it as a mere symbol indicative of the power, wisdom, and love of God. The school of Hegel pantheistically explains the Father as “das Ansichsein des Absoluten,” the Son as “das Anderssein des Absoluten in der Welt,” and the Holy Ghost as “die Rückkehr des Absoluten zu sich selber im menschlichen Selbstbewusstsein” — for the meaning of which obscure phrases we must refer the reader to the learned author of The Secret of Hegel. Schleiermacher does not deny the Trinity, but according to him it is such an unessential “mode of existence of the Divine Being” that he has acted wisely in relegating it to the appendix of his Glaubenslehre. The position of liberal Protestant theology at the present day is well stated by Adolph Harnack when he says:⁹ “Already in the second century Christ’s [natural] birth into this world assumed the rank of a supernatural, and later on that of an eternal generation, and the fact of being begotten, or passive generation itself, became the characteristic note of the second Person [in the Blessed Trinity]. Similarly, in the fourth century the promised [temporal] ‘mission’ of the Holy Ghost assumed the character of an ‘eternal mission’ and became the discriminating badge of the third Person within the Holy Triad. Nowhere have we a more characteristic example of what the imagination is capable of doing when it undertakes to evolve ideas.” With the exception of the relatively few champions of Lutheran orthodoxy, whose number is, moreover, constantly dwindling, modern Protestantism no longer holds the Christian idea of the Blessed Trinity. Liberal theology is everywhere triumphing over orthodoxy. The demand, which is constantly growing louder and more widespread, even in this country, that no specific creed be imposed upon the members of any denomination, ultimately strikes at the dogma of the Holy Trinity and that of the Divinity of Christ. Among German divines Krüger confesses this quite openly.¹⁰ Catholic theology, which alone upholds the banner of true Christian belief, in asserting and defending the dogma of the Trinity finds it necessary above all to demonstrate by the modern scientific method that this dogma is truly and clearly revealed by God, that it is solidly founded in Christian Tradition, and that it does not, as unbelievers allege, involve a contradiction.

4.

Since theistic philosophy is unable to establish this dogma on the basis of unaided human reason, the Catholic theologian is compelled to adhere closely to the teaching of the Church. He must first believe; then he may inquire.

The most perfect and complete Trinitarian formula that has come down to us from Patristic times is that composed by the Eleventh Council of Toledo, A. D. 675.¹¹ We prefer to base our exposition on the briefer and more perspicuous formula contained in the Athanasian Creed, which has the additional advantage of being vested with the primary authority due to an ancient Christian symbol. The dogma of the Most Holy Trinity is there set forth in the following terms:¹² “Fides catholica haec est, ut unum Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur; neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam separantes; alia est enim persona Patris, alia Filii, alia (et) Spiritus Sancti; sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas, aequalis gloria, coaeterna maiestas… . Pater a nullo est factus nec creatus nec genitus. Filius a Patre solo est, non factus nec creatus, sed genitus. Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio, non factus nec creatus nec genitus, sed procedens” — The Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal… . The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.¹³

The chief points of our dogma may therefore be summarized thus: In essence, substance, and nature there is but one God. However, the Divine Nature does not subsist in one single Person or Hypostasis, but in three distinct Persons, i. e., Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who do not coalesce after the manner of mere logical momenta, but are really distinct from one another, so much so that the one is not the other. They are not distinct in virtue of their nature, which is numerically the same in all three, but solely in virtue of the relative opposition by which the Son is begotten by the Father, while the Holy Ghost proceeds alike from the Father and the Son. The mystery peculiar to this sublime dogma arises from the mutual relations of the two principal concepts — “Nature” and “Person.” Within the domain of human experience every complete nature is at the same time a separate hypostasis; in other words, every rational nature is eo ipso a distinct person. Hence the axiom, “Tot sunt hypostases, quot sunt naturae.” But this axiom has no metaphysical value, and cannot be applied to God, since Revelation expressly teaches that “Nature” and “Person” do not coincide either in reality or in conception. As we acknowledge three Persons in the one Divine Nature, so conversely we believe that there are in Christ two complete natures, the one divine, the other human, both subsisting in one and the same person, i. e., the Divine Person of the Logos-Son. This revealed truth compels Catholic philosophy to draw a sharp distinction between “Nature” and “Person,” as we shall show more fully further down.

Since the essence of the mystery consists in this that “we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity,” we may consider the Blessed Trinity first as Trinity in Unity (Trinitas in Unitate), or threefold personality; and, secondly, as Unity in Trinity (Unitas in Trinitate) or Triunity. We shall accordingly divide the subject-matter of this treatise into two parts.

General Readings

Above all St. Aug., De Trinit., ll. XV (translated into English by A. W. Haddan in Dods’s Works of Aurelius Augustine, Vol. VII, Edinburgh 1873); and, by way of commentary, Th. Gangauf, Des hl. Augustinus spekulative Lehre von Gott dem Dreieinigen, 2nd ed., Ratisbon 1883. The Monologium S. Anselmi and Petr. Lomb., Sent., I, dist. 1 sqq. — Rich. a S. Victore, De Trinitate, ll. VI, takes a rather independent attitude. — Besides St. Bonaventure (Comment. in Libros Sent., I) cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., Ia, qu. 27–43 (Bonjoannes-Lescher, Compendium, pp. 71 sqq.) and Contr. Gent., IV, 1–26, together with the various commentaries on these great works. — A very good treatise is Ruiz, De Trinit., Lugduni 1625. — The student will also find it profitable to consult Greg. de Valentia, De Trinit., ll. V; and Ysambert, De Mysterio Trinitatis; Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology Based on Scheeben’s “Dogmatik,” Vol. I, pp. 257–354, 2nd ed., London 1899; S. J. Hunter, S. J., Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 145–215, 2nd ed., London and New York s.a.; F. J. Hall (Anglican), The Trinity, New York 1910.

The teaching of the Fathers can be studied in the copious quotations extracted from their works by Petavius, Dogm., t. II, and Thomassin, Dogm., t. III.

In addition to the various manuals of special dogmatic theology, consult particularly Kuhn, Christliche Lehre von der göttlichen Dreieinigkeit, Tübingen 1857; Franzelin, De Deo Trino, ed. 3, Romae 1883; Regnon, Études sur la Ste Trinité, 4 vols., Paris 1872–1898; L. Janssens, De Deo Trino, Friburgi 1900; Stentrup, De SS. Trinitatis Mysterio, Oeniponte 1898; Lepicier, De SS. Trinitate, Parisiis 1902; Souben [name uncertain — OCR unclear, needs spot-check against scan], Théologie Dogmatique, II: “Les Personnes Divines,” Paris 1903; Newman, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, Vol. II, pp. 315 sqq. — Further references in the text. — For the history of the dogma, see Newman, “Causes of the Rise and Successes of Arianism” (Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical, new ed., London 1895, pp. 139–299); Adrian Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church, pp. 110, 135 sqq., London 1907; Idem, The Greek Fathers, passim, London 1908. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 66, 65, 185, 210, 259, 281, 291, 300, 308. — J. Lebreton, S. J., Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinité, Vol. I, Paris 1910; J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas (English tr.), Vol. I, pp. 33, 68, 83, 92, 107, 115 sqq., 122, 134, 175, 215, 221, 233, 247, 263, 303, 310 sqq., 327 sqq., 381 sq., 383, 389, 416 sq., 421, St. Louis 1910.

The asterisk before an author’s name indicates that his exposition of the subject is especially clear and thorough. As St. Thomas is invariably the best guide, the omission of the asterisk before his name never means that we consider his work in any way inferior to that of others. There are vast stretches of dogmatic theology which he scarcely touched.