Part I (Prima Pars) Part 60 (1/2)

(3) Whether essential names should be predicated of the persons in the plural, or in the singular?

(4) Whether notional adjectives, or verbs, or participles, can be predicated of the essential names taken in a concrete sense?

(5) Whether the same can be predicated of essential names taken in the abstract?

(6) Whether the names of the persons can be predicated of concrete essential names?

(7) Whether essential attributes can be appropriated to the persons?

(8) Which attributes should be appropriated to each person?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 39, Art. 1]

Whether in G.o.d the Essence Is the Same As the Person?

Objection 1: It would seem that in G.o.d the essence is not the same as person. For whenever essence is the same as person or _suppositum,_ there can be only one _suppositum_ of one nature, as is clear in the case of all separate substances. For in those things which are really one and the same, one cannot be multiplied apart from the other. But in G.o.d there is one essence and three persons, as is clear from what is above expounded (Q. 28, A. 3; Q. 30, A. 2). Therefore essence is not the same as person.

Obj. 2: Further, simultaneous affirmation and negation of the same things in the same respect cannot be true. But affirmation and negation are true of essence and of person. For person is distinct, whereas essence is not. Therefore person and essence are not the same.

Obj. 3: Further, nothing can be subject to itself. But person is subject to essence; whence it is called _suppositum_ or ”hypostasis.”

Therefore person is not the same as essence.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 7): ”When we say the person of the Father we mean nothing else but the substance of the Father.”

_I answer that,_ The truth of this question is quite clear if we consider the divine simplicity. For it was shown above (Q. 3, A. 3) that the divine simplicity requires that in G.o.d essence is the same as _suppositum,_ which in intellectual substances is nothing else than person. But a difficulty seems to arise from the fact that while the divine persons are multiplied, the essence nevertheless retains its unity. And because, as Boethius says (De Trin. i), ”relation multiplies the Trinity of persons,” some have thought that in G.o.d essence and person differ, forasmuch as they held the relations to be ”adjacent”; considering only in the relations the idea of ”reference to another,” and not the relations as realities. But as it was shown above (Q. 28, A. 2) in creatures relations are accidental, whereas in G.o.d they are the divine essence itself. Thence it follows that in G.o.d essence is not really distinct from person; and yet that the persons are really distinguished from each other. For person, as above stated (Q. 29, A. 4), signifies relation as subsisting in the divine nature.

But relation as referred to the essence does not differ therefrom really, but only in our way of thinking; while as referred to an opposite relation, it has a real distinction by virtue of that opposition. Thus there are one essence and three persons.

Reply Obj. 1: There cannot be a distinction of _suppositum_ in creatures by means of relations, but only by essential principles; because in creatures relations are not subsistent. But in G.o.d relations are subsistent, and so by reason of the opposition between them they distinguish the _supposita_; and yet the essence is not distinguished, because the relations themselves are not distinguished from each other so far as they are identified with the essence.

Reply Obj. 2: As essence and person in G.o.d differ in our way of thinking, it follows that something can be denied of the one and affirmed of the other; and therefore, when we suppose the one, we need not suppose the other.

Reply Obj. 3: Divine things are named by us after the way of created things, as above explained (Q. 13, AA. 1, 3). And since created natures are individualized by matter which is the subject of the specific nature, it follows that individuals are called ”subjects,” _supposita,_ or ”hypostases.” So the divine persons are named _supposita_ or ”hypostases,” but not as if there really existed any real ”supposition” or ”subjection.”

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 39, Art. 2]

Whether It Must Be Said That the Three Persons Are of One Essence?

Objection 1: It would seem not right to say that the three persons are of one essence. For Hilary says (De Synod.) that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost ”are indeed three by substance, but one in harmony.” But the substance of G.o.d is His essence. Therefore the three persons are not of one essence.

Obj. 2: Further, nothing is to be affirmed of G.o.d except what can be confirmed by the authority of Holy Writ, as appears from Dionysius (Div. Nom. i). Now Holy Writ never says that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are of one essence. Therefore this should not be a.s.serted.

Obj. 3: Further, the divine nature is the same as the divine essence.

It suffices therefore to say that the three persons are of one nature.

Obj. 4: Further, it is not usual to say that the person is of the essence; but rather that the essence is of the person. Therefore it does not seem fitting to say that the three persons are of one essence.

Obj. 5: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 6) that we do not say that the three persons are ”from one essence [ex una essentia],” lest we should seem to indicate a distinction between the essence and the persons in G.o.d. But prepositions which imply transition, denote the oblique case. Therefore it is equally wrong to say that the three persons are ”of one essence [unius essentiae].”

Obj. 6: Further, nothing should be said of G.o.d which can be occasion of error. Now, to say that the three persons are of one essence or substance, furnishes occasion of error. For, as Hilary says (De Synod.): ”One substance predicated of the Father and the Son signifies either one subsistent, with two denominations; or one substance divided into two imperfect substances; or a third prior substance taken and a.s.sumed by the other two.” Therefore it must not be said that the three persons are of one substance.