By Henry Aloysius Barry
To be sure, reason, from a human point of departure, cannot demonstrate that the Trinity is in collision with reason, yet no one pretends to squarely and snugly comprise within the circuit of its orbit the eternal harmonies, the abysmal perceptions of that stupendous truth—the divine Three-in-One. Here we sniff pure divinity; the aeronaut is above the atmospheric belt. The created mind essentially is outdone. "Founded on infallible truth," says St. Thomas, "the opposite is altogether indemonstrable, and it is transparent that such truths as are marshalled out in the interests of such a view are not a demonstration but soluble arguments." (1. Q. L. A. B.) Faith and reason cannot come into conflict with one another. The rays of the sun would sooner collide. In man the intimate relations and the intrinsic character of his essence are quite understandable. God, however, is mystery-circled, shadow-draped. To the internal character of His being ingress cannot be had by minds merely created. One foot is ever in the eclipse whilst the other is set down in the light. Let us repeat, is it then useful or even reverent to grope in the sacred mist? Most assuredly, as we have remarked previously, when our motive is without blame and one's disposition is of the truly humble sort. Says St. Augustine:— "In so far as one may do so, let us show the Trinity is one and only one true God." (Trinity i. n. 3.)
The Socinians and the Rationalists of to-day would scout the Three-in-One upon a basis of mathematical axiom. They say 1=3 cannot be; so say we. They say A=B, B=C and therefore A=C. No one attacks the axiom. If these axioms were not self-evident there would be no way of understanding what one is to believe. St. Augustine has said "unless one has a soul that could reason one could not believe." By reason we know precisely what is above reason, that is to say, of faith. 1=3 is reasonably incorrect. One essence is not three essences. If we were not sure of this on the basis of reason we should not be sure whether in the Trinity there were not three essences and one person. Veritably, I repeat, one God is not three Gods, one person is not three persons, one Father is not three Fathers, one Son is not three Sons. A=B, B=C, therefore, A=0. Without this evident principle one would not understand the idea of indistinct divinity when it is believed and revealed that there is a Father, Son and Holy Ghost and yet one God. Of course things in one way really one are in the same respect not multiple. Father, Son and Holy Ghost being one in Godhead are one God and not three Gods. Being one in deity, in so far as Godhead is concerned, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not different to one another. "I and the Father are one, there are three who give testimony in Heaven." The substantialness of the Holy Ghost is admirably established by St. Thomas in speaking of the Son of God. "The same essence which, in the Father is Fatherhood, is in the Son Sonship."
A divine person is a divine relation. It is nothing more than the divine essence or substance —not indeed as substance in the absolute sense, but in the formal one of relativity. The most simple, divine entity has the two view points — the absolute, consisting of essence and relationship, which is three in number and distinct. Essence in the sense of a substantial relation is a divine person. Essence (as such) neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds, but (in its formal relative sense) it is the Father Who begets and the Holy Ghost Who proceeds. A divine person is nothing less than a divine, substantial relation or a relationship bound up (identified) with essence or essence under the formal manner of a relationship.
Relationship in the divine nature is the same as a something distinct and subsistent. (St. Thom. Potest. Q. 9. A. 4). I venture to suggest an approximation to the possibility of grasping this ontological phenomenon by the accidents or species of the Holy Eucharist, where, for example, the figure, color and taste of bread are present, yet we find no bread. If we could designate these as substantial accidents we should have a more intelligible likeness to a divine relation. Faith certainly teaches that in God relations are real. The Father really is, the Son really is and the Holy Ghost really is. A person is individual substance ; substantiality and distinctiveness make up, so to speak, personality. Essence, as such, knows no distinction. Relationship is the formal notion of distinctiveness; a divine person is the very divine essence under the formal mode of a relationship, ad intra, in which way there are three mutually distinct, not, however, in the formal sense of the absolute, in which way there is one indistinct essence or nature. The IV. Lateran Council says (Cap. Damnamus):— "There is one thing above all that daunts the comprehension and baffles the tongue, and this is— truly Father, Son and Holy Ghost, three persons taken together and each one singly, and, therefore, there is in God only Trinity, not quaternity, because each one of the three persons is that thing, namely, the substantial essence or divine nature which is alone the principle of all, (universorum) and that thing does not beget, neither is it begotten, but, it is the Father Who begets and the Son Who is begotten and the Holy Ghost Who proceeds, so that there is distinction between persons and unity in nature."
This tells the story. The divine essence is really the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; it is identified with each one of them. Yes, the Holy Ghost is the divine essence as a relation; at the same time there are no parts in God; there is no composition, physical or metaphysical; there is no multiplication of essence; the Holy Ghost is God. All the perfection of Godhead is in Him as in all the divine Persons—"We believe and confess that only God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are eternal and there are none of these things, call them relations or properties or singularities or unities, which are eternal and not God." (Symbol of Coun. of Rheims, delivered to, and approved by, Eugenius 3d. against Gilbert Parretanus) (Franz, P. 251). Divine essence is the fulness of divine being, incapable of decrease or increase, one and the same, now identified with each and again with all the three substantial relations or persons, though the persons are not explicitly conceived but implicitly embraced under the notion of essence. Hence the Three Divine Persons are the very same fulness with the explicit expression of the substantial relationship. Each person is likewise the same fulness with the explicit expression of one relationship; and the embracing of the two remaining persons inasmuch as these are identified with essence, and inasmuch as they therefore belong under the formal manner of relationship, not, to be sure, as constituent, but as inexistent, immanent termini, to the perfection of each and every person." (Franz, p. 251.)
