129. Exclusive Diction and Natural Reason's Limits Regarding the Trinity
Summary
Listen to Lecture
Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript
Lecture Notes
Main Topics #
Exclusive Diction Applied to Divine Persons #
- Question: Can exclusive diction be joined to personal terms, even when the predicate is common to all three persons?
- Central Problem: Scripture seems to say “the Father alone is God” and “no one knows the Son except the Father,” yet the Son and Holy Spirit are also God and also know.
- Distinction between categorical and syncategorematic usage:
- Categorimatice: The exclusive term directly predicates something of the subject (e.g., “the Father is alone”) — this would be false in the Trinity
- Sincategorimatice: The exclusive term modifies how a predicate relates to a subject without itself being predicated (e.g., “the Father alone is God”) — this can be true
- Key principle: Exclusive diction does not exclude what belongs to the understanding of the term to which it is joined (e.g., “Socrates alone is white” does not exclude his hand or his species from being white)
- Application to Trinity: Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one essence by identity, saying “the Father alone is God” excludes creatures (alliud) from being God, not the Son (alius) who is a different person but the same substance
Natural Reason and Knowledge of the Trinity #
- Central question: Can the Trinity of divine persons be known by natural reason?
- Thomas’s answer: No; natural reason cannot arrive at full knowledge of the Trinity
- Reason for impossibility: Natural reason knows God only through creatures as effects; creatures are produced by God’s common power, which belongs to the unity of essence and essence, not to the distinction of persons
- What natural reason can know: Only what pertains to the unity of God’s essence and nature (power, wisdom, goodness) — not what pertains to the distinction of persons
- What philosophers knew and did not know:
- Knew: God’s essential attributes (power, wisdom, goodness)
- Did not know: The Trinity of persons, the generation of the Son, the procession of the Holy Spirit
- Exception: Platonists approached closer knowledge through ideas of the “Word” as ideal form, but understood this as a pattern, not as a divine person
Why Attempting to Prove the Trinity by Natural Reason Is Problematic #
- Two major reasons:
- Lowers the dignity of faith: Faith concerns things above reason and unseen things (Hebrews 11:1); attempting to prove the Trinity makes it seem accessible to reason like natural truths
- Gives occasion for mockery: Weak or non-cogent arguments invite the world to ridicule faith; a bad defense is worse than a good attack
- Proper use of reason regarding the Trinity: Reason can show the Trinity is not impossible (defensive); reason can show the congruence of Trinity with other revealed truths; reason cannot prove the Trinity is necessary
- Principle: Things of faith should be proven only through authorities (Scripture and Tradition), not through natural reason
Apparent Support from Pagan Philosophers #
- Aristotle on the number three: Used in praise of God and seems to represent completeness (beginning, middle, end); used in natural philosophy to show that three is sufficient for explaining reality (three dimensions, three movements in music)
- Platonists and the Word: Augustine found in Platonic books language resembling John 1:1 (“In the beginning was the Word”), but the Platonists understood the Word as an ideal form or pattern, not as a divine person
- Triad concepts in Neoplatonism: The Platonists posited a first being (father), a paternal intellect, but failed to posit a third substance corresponding to the Holy Spirit
- What these show: Only that philosophers recognized a certain perfection in the number three and acknowledged divine goodness and causality, not that they knew the Trinity of persons
Key Arguments #
On Exclusive Diction and the Trinity #
Objection 1: Scripture says “that they might know you, the only true God” (John 17:3), which seems to exclude the Son and Holy Spirit from being the true God.
Response: This text must be understood as spoken about the whole Trinity (as Augustine explains), not just the Father. If understood of the Father personally, the exclusive diction excludes creatures (alliud) but not the Son (alius), who is a different person but identical in substance by reason of the unity of essence.
Objection 2: “No one knows the Son except the Father” (Matthew 11:27) seems to exclude all others, including the Son himself.
Response: When an essential action is said of the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit are not excluded because of the unity of essence. The word “no one” (nemo) is used distributively among creatures, not to exclude divine persons from the same act.
Key distinction: Exclusive diction properly regards the subject (excluding other subjects of the same type) more than the predicate; thus “the Father alone is God” most properly means “no creature is God” rather than “the Son is not God.”
On Natural Reason’s Inability to Know the Trinity #
Objection 1: Pagan philosophers knew certain truths about God, and some of them speak of three principles or use the number three in a way that suggests the Trinity.
Response: Philosophers knew essential attributes of God (appropriated to the three persons) but did not know the Trinity of persons itself. Aristotle’s use of the number three reflects a natural recognition of perfection in three, not knowledge of the Trinity. The Platonists’ concept of emanation resembles generation and procession but does not constitute knowledge of distinct divine persons.
Objection 2: Richard of St. Victor claims that necessary arguments can be given for the Trinity; Augustine showed the Trinity reflected in the soul’s operations (understanding, willing).
Response: These are not strictly necessary proofs. They show the congruence of the Trinity with other truths already laid down, not that the Trinity must necessarily exist. Such arguments work only after revelation; they do not prove the Trinity from natural reason alone.
Objection 3: God would not command us to believe in the Trinity if it were entirely inaccessible to reason.
Response: God reveals the Trinity through authorities (Scripture); reason’s role is to defend it as not impossible and to show its congruence with other truths, not to prove it as necessary.
Core argument: Natural reason can know God only as an effect knows its cause. All creatures are produced by God’s common power (the divine substance and will), which pertains to the unity of essence. Therefore, from creatures we can know only what pertains to God’s unity, not the distinction of persons. The relations of origin (generation, procession) that distinguish the persons exceed the grasp of human reason.
Important Definitions #
Categorimatice (categorical): A use of a word that directly predicates something of a subject; an absolute predication. Example: “The Father is God” or “The Father is alone.” When “alone” is used this way, it seems to predicate solitude of the Father.
Sincategorimatice (syncategorematic): A use of a word that modifies how a predicate relates to a subject without itself being directly predicated. Example: “The Father alone is God.” The word “alone” indicates that the predicate “God” belongs to the Father exclusively (excluding creatures), not that the Father possesses the quality of solitude.
Allius/Aliud (masculine/neuter): In Latin, these words express “other” in different genders. The Son is alius (other as a person—masculine) from the Father, but not aliud (other as a thing—neuter). This distinction is crucial: the Son differs from the Father as a distinct person, not as a distinct substance or nature.
Notio (notion): An abstract property or relation by which a divine person is distinguished and known (e.g., fatherhood, sonhood). Notions are not things in God but reasons for understanding the persons.
Examples & Illustrations #
On Exclusive Diction #
Example 1: Socrates Alone is White
- Does not mean Socrates is alone in the world or separated from others
- Means that among those speaking of whiteness, it belongs to Socrates exclusively (syncategorematic sense)
- Does not exclude Socrates’s hand from being white or the species “man” from being white, because these are parts of or universals that include Socrates
Example 2: “I Alone Am a Man” vs. “I Am Only a Man”
- “I alone am a man” (categorical) is false—many people are men
- “I am only a man” (sincategorematic) is acceptable—it means I have no higher nature beyond humanity
- The difference shows how exclusive diction properly functions through modification, not direct predication
Example 3: “The Father Alone is God”
- False if taken categorically: would exclude the Son and Holy Spirit from being God
- True if taken sincategorematically: excludes creatures from being God; does not exclude the Son and Holy Spirit by reason of the unity of essence
- Augustine’s interpretation: The Father alone is God means “one who is not the Father, together with him, is not the Father”—an awkward formulation showing the difficulty of the expression
On Natural Reason and the Trinity #
Example 1: Aristotle’s Use of the Number Three
- In De Caelo (On the Universe), Aristotle notes that the ancients used the number three in sacrifices and prayers to honor God
- He observes that three represents completeness: beginning, middle, and end
- This does not constitute knowledge of the Trinity of persons; it reflects a natural recognition of perfection in the number three
Example 2: The Platonists and the Word
- Augustine found in Platonic writings: “In the beginning was the Word” (resembling John 1:1)
- However, the Platonists understood the Word as an ideal form or pattern by which the Demiurge makes all things
- They did not understand the Word as a divine person generated by the Father
- They failed in the “third sign,” knowledge of the third person (Holy Spirit)
Example 3: Image of the Trinity in the Soul
- When reason thinks about itself, it forms a thought of itself
- This thought of reason proceeds from reason
- When reason understands what it is, it loves itself greatly
- This love of reason proceeds from the knowledge of reason
- This resembles the Trinity: mind, word (thought), and love
- But this is only an analogy; it does not prove the Trinity of persons must exist in God
Example 4: Monad Returning Upon Itself
- Plotinus (via Porphyry) speaks of the monad (the One) as generating the One and returning upon itself with heat and love
- This does not refer to the generation of the Son or procession of the Holy Spirit
- Rather, it describes the production of the world: the One God produces the one world and brings it back to itself through love
- This was intelligible to philosophers (God as beginning and end of all things) but does not constitute knowledge of the Trinity of persons
On Two Types of Reasoning About Divine Matters #
Type 1: Sufficient Reason
- Proves the root sufficiently; forces the mind to a necessary conclusion
- Example: In natural science, sufficient reasons prove that heavenly motion is of uniform velocity
- Concerning the Trinity: One cannot give a sufficient reason that proves the Trinity from natural principles
Type 2: Congruent Reason
- Does not prove the root but shows that effects are congruent with a position laid down
- Example: Ptolemy’s model of eccentric and epicycles explains sensible appearances in celestial motions but does not prove this is the actual mechanism (other models might work)
- Example: Like a clock mechanism—one can imagine a configuration that would produce observed motions, but this does not prove it is the actual configuration
- Concerning the Trinity: Once the Trinity is laid down by revelation, reasons can be given to show its congruence with other truths (e.g., the infinity of God’s goodness, the nature of joy, the image of understanding and will in the soul)
Notable Quotes #
On the difficulty of speaking about the Trinity: “From words put forth in a disordered way, heresy is incurred.” — Jerome (cited by Aquinas)
On Augustine’s interpretation of exclusive diction: “The Father alone, we say, not because he is separated from the Son and the Holy Spirit, but saying this would signify that they, together with him, are not the Father.” — Augustine, On the Trinity, Book 6 (cited by Aquinas)
On the limits of human reason regarding the Trinity: “Man should not think that by his intelligence he can follow the secret of the generation of the Word.” — Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 2 (cited by Aquinas)
On the impossibility of natural knowledge of the Trinity: “It is impossible by natural reason to arrive at a knowledge, in the full sense, of the Trinity of the divine Persons.” — Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, Q. 32, Art. 1
Questions Addressed #
Article 4: Can Exclusive Diction Be Joined to Personal Terms? #
Question: Can we say “the Father alone is God” or “no one knows the Son except the Father” when both the predicate and the knowledge belong to all three persons?
Resolution:
- “The Father alone is God” is false if taken categorically (as if predicting solitude of the Father)
- It can be true if taken syncategorematically, meaning “no creature is God”—it excludes creatures (alliud) but not the Son as a different person (alius) who shares the same divine nature by reason of the unity of essence
- “No one knows the Son except the Father” must be understood with the caveat that creatures are excluded by this statement; the Son himself knows himself, and by reason of the unity of essence, the Holy Spirit also knows
- Such expressions are found in authentic Scripture but must be expounded piously; one ought not extend such language carelessly
Question 31 (First of Four on Knowledge of Divine Persons): Can Natural Reason Know the Trinity of Divine Persons? #
Question: Since philosophers arrived at knowledge of God by natural reason, and some of their writings contain ideas about three principles, can the Trinity of divine persons be known by natural reason?
Resolution:
- No; natural reason cannot arrive at full knowledge of the Trinity of divine persons
- Natural reason knows God only through creatures as effects; creatures proceed from God’s common power (divine substance), which pertains to the unity of essence
- Therefore, natural reason can know only what pertains to God’s unity of essence and nature (essential attributes like power, wisdom, goodness), not what pertains to the distinction of persons (generation, procession, and the relations of origin)
- Philosophers knew certain divine attributes appropriated to the persons but did not know the persons themselves
- Those who attempt to prove the Trinity by natural reason make two errors: (1) they lower the dignity of faith by making it seem subject to reason, and (2) they give occasion for mockery when their arguments are weak, which reflects poorly on faith itself
- The proper role of reason is to show the Trinity is not impossible and to manifest its congruence with other truths, not to prove it as necessary
Structure of Questions About Divine Persons #
Berquist notes that there are ten questions about the persons:
- Four questions about persons in general (of which this question on knowledge is the third)
- Six questions about persons in particular
The four general questions divide into:
- One question on what person means in general and in God
- Two questions on the multiplicity (plurality) of persons
- Four questions on the knowledge of divine persons (of which this is the first)
- Whether natural reason can know them
- Whether notions should be attributed to divine persons
- The number of notions
- Whether diverse understanding of notions is licit
Following this will be five questions on the comparative consideration of persons.