ARTICLE II

WHAT IS MEANT BY A PERSON?

Sum. Th. I, Q. xxix, AA. 1, 3

THE second point of inquiry is the meaning of the word person. Boethius (De Duab. Nat.) defines it as an individual substance of rational nature: and it would seem that this definition is incorrect.

             1. According to the Philosopher (Metaph. vii) no singular thing can be defined. Now a person is an individual in the genus of substance as already stated. Therefore it cannot be defined.

             2. To this it will be replied that although that which is a person is singular, the idea of a person is something common, and this suffices to make it possible to define it.

             On the contrary, that which is common to all individual substances of rational nature, is the 'intention' of singularity, which is not in the genus of substance. Therefore in the definition of person we should not give substance the place of the genus.

             3. But it will be replied that this word person does not denote a mere intention, but an intention together with its subject.

             On the contrary, the Philosopher (Metaph. vii) proves that a compound of subject and accident cannot be defined: because such a definition would be nugatory. For seeing that the definition of an accident includes the subject, e.g. nose in the definition of Simous, it will be necessary in defining a compound of subject and accident to express the subject twice; once for itself and once for the accident. If, then, person signifies the intention together with the subject it will be futile to define it.

             4. The subject of this common intention is an individual. If then person denotes the intention together with its subject, it will still follow that in defining person the individual will be defined, which cannot be done.

             5. An intention is not included in the definition of a thing, nor accident in the definition of a substance. Now person denominates a thing and a substance. Therefore it is unfitting to include individual in the definition of person, since it denotes both an intention and an accident.

             6. A thing in whose definition substance is expressed as the genus must be itself a species of substance. Now person is not a species of substance, for then it would be condivided with other species of substance. Therefore it is unfitting in defining person to express substance as the genus.

             7. Substance is divided into first and second. Now second substance cannot have a place in the definition of person: since a contradiction of terms would be involved in saying individual substance, inasmuch as 'second substance' is a universal substance. Likewise it cannot denote a 'first substance,' for a 'first substance' is an individual substance, so that it would be futile to add individual to substance in defining person. Therefore it is unfitting to include substance in the definition of person.

             8. The term subsistence is seemingly more akin than substance to person: thus we say that there are three subsistences in God, as likewise three Persons: whereas we do not say there are three substances, but one. Therefore it were better to define person as a subsistence than as a substance.

             9. If you multiply the thing defined you multiply the genus included in the definition: thus many men are many animals. Now there are three persons and not three substances in God. Therefore substance should not be expressed as the genus in the definition of person.

             10. Rational is a difference of animal. Now person is to be found in things that are not animals, viz. in the angels and in God. Therefore rational should not be expressed as the difference in defining person.

             11. Nature is only in movable things, since it is the principle of movement (Phys. ii, 1). Now essence is in things both movable and immovable. Therefore it were better in defining person to include essence rather than nature, seeing that person is found to be both in movable and immovable things, since there are persons in men, angels and God.

             12. The definition should be convertible with the thing defined. Now not every individual substance of rational nature is a person. For the divine essence quâ essence is not a person, else in God there would be one Person even as there is one essence. Therefore the aforesaid definition of person is unsuitable.

             13. Human nature in Christ is an individual substance of rational nature: for it is neither an accident nor a universal substance, nor is it of irrational nature: and yet in Christ it is not a person, since it would follow that the divine Person in assuming human nature assumed a human person. Thus there would be two persons in Christ, the divine Person assuming and the human person assumed, which is the heresy of Nestorius. Therefore not every individual substance of rational nature is a person.

             14. The soul separated by death from the body is not said to be a person; yet it is an individual substance of rational nature. Therefore this is not a suitable definition of person.

             I answer that as explained above it is reasonable that the individual in the genus of substance should have a special name: because a substance is individualized by its proper principles, and not by something extraneous as an accident is by its subject. Again it is reasonable that among individual substances the individual of rational nature should have a special name, because as stated above it belongs to it properly and truly to act by itself. Wherefore just as the word hypostasis according to the Greeks, or 'first substance' according to the Latins is the special name of an individual in the genus of substance, even so the word person is the special name of an individual of rational nature: so that person is a special name under both these heads. Hence to indicate that it is in a special manner an individual in the genus of substance, it is stated that it is an individual substance; and to indicate that it is in a special manner (an individual) of rational nature it is added of rational nature. Accordingly by describing it as a substance we exclude accidents from the notion of person, for no accident can be a person, and by adding individualwe exclude genera and species in the genus of substance, since they cannot be called persons: and by adding of rational nature we exclude inanimate bodies, plants and dumb animals which are not persons.

             Reply to the First Objection. Three points are to be noted in an individual substance: first, the generic and specific nature existing in the individual: second, such a nature's mode of existence, inasmuch as the generic and specific nature in the individual substance exists as proper to that individual and not as common to many: third, the principle whence arises this mode of existence. Now just as a nature considered in itself is common, so also is that nature's mode of existence: for we do not find human nature existing in things except as individualized in this or that man: since there is not a man that is not a particular man, except in the opinion of Plato who posited separate universals. But the principle of that mode of existence, namely the principle of individuation, is not common, but differs in each individual: for this particular thing is individualized by this matter, and that one by that matter. Accordingly just as the term denoting the nature is common and definable, e.g. man or animal, so too is the term denoting the nature together with such a mode of existence, e.g. hypostasis or person. On the other hand the term that includes in its signification a determinate principle of individuality, is neither common nor definable, e.g. Socrates or Plato.

             Reply to the Second Objection. Not only is the intention of singularity common to all individual substances, but also the generic nature together with that particular mode of existence. In this way the term hypostasis denotes a nature of the genus substance as individualized; while the term person denotes only a rational nature with that particular mode of existence. For this reason neither hypostasis nor person is a term of intention, like singular and individual, but denotes a thing only, and not a thing together with an intention.

             This suffices for the Replies to the Third and Fourth Objections.

             Reply to the Fifth Objection. Whereas the essential differences of things are often unknown and unnamed, we are sometimes under the necessity of employing accidental differences to denote substantial distinctions, as the Philosopher teaches (Metaph. viii). Thus it is that individual is included in the definition of person, in order to indicate an individual mode of existence.

             Reply to the Sixth Objection. The division of substance into 'first' and 'second' is not a division into genus and species, since 'second' substance covers nothing that is not covered by 'first' substance: but it is a division of a genus according to different modes of existence. Thus 'second' substance denotes the generic nature in itself absolutely, while 'first' substance signifies that nature as individually subsistent: wherefore the division is analogous rather than specific. Accordingly person is contained in the genus substance, although not as a species, but as defining a specific mode of existence.

             Reply to the Seventh Objection. Some hold that substance is included in the definition of person, inasmuch as it signifies a hypostasis; but since the definition of hypostasis includes individual as opposed to community of universality and to part (for no universal or part of a thing, e.g. a hand or a foot, can be called a hypostasis) they say that individual is added in the definition of person, inasmuch as individual excludes the community of assumability: for they hold that human nature in Christ is a hypostasis but not a person. Wherefore, say they, to exclude assumability, individual is added in the definition of person. This, however, would seem contrary to the intention of Boethius who (De Duab. Nat.) by the term individual excludes universals from the definition of person. Hence it is better to say that in the definition of person substance does not stand for hypostasis but for that which is common to 'first' substance, i.e. hypostasis and 'second' substance, and is divided into both: so that this common (substance) by the addition of individual is narrowed down to the hypostasis, and thus to say: An individual substance of rational nature, is the same as to say: A hypostasis of rational nature.

             Reply to the Eighth Objection. In view of what we have just said, this argument does not prove. Substance does not stand for hypostasis, but for that which is common to all substance in whatever sense it be taken. If, however, substance were to stand for hypostasis the objection would remain inconclusive: because the substance that is a hypostasis, is more akin to person than is subsistence, since person conveys the idea of subject like a 'first' substance, and not merely the idea of subsistence, as subsistence does. But seeing that the term substance is employed even by the Latins to denote the essence, therefore in order to avoid error we do not speak of three substances, as we do of three subsistences. The Greeks, however, who have the word hypostasis as distinct from {ousia} do not hesitate to acknowledge three hypostases in God.

             Reply to the Ninth Objection. Just as we speak of three Persons in God so may we speak of three individual substances: but of only one substance that is the essence.

             Reply to the Tenth Objection. Rational is the difference of animal, inasmuch as reason whence it is taken denotes discursive knowledge, such as is in angels but not in man nor in God. But Boethius takes rational in a broad sense for intellectual, and this is common to man, angels and God.

             Reply to the Eleventh Objection. In the definition of person nature is not to be taken according as it is the principle of movement, in which sense it is defined by the Philosopher (Phys. ii, 1) but as defined by Boethius (De Duab. Nat.) according as it is the specific difference giving each thing its form. And since the difference completes the definition and confines the thing defined to its species, it follows that the term nature is more suitable in the definition of person which is special to certain substances, than the term essence which is most common.

             Reply to the Twelfth Objection. In the definition of person individual signifies that which is not predicated of several; and in this sense the divine essence is not an individual substance by predication, inasmuch as it is predicated of several persons, although it is individual in itself. However, Richard of S. Victor (De Trin. iv, 18, 23) amends the definition of Boethius as applied to the divine Persons; and says that a person is the incommunicable existence of the divine nature, so as to indicate by the term incommunicablethat the divine essence is not a Person.

             Reply to the Thirteenth Objection. Seeing that an individual substance is something complete existing by itself, human nature in Christ, inasmuch as it was assumed into the divine Person, cannot be called an individual substance such as is a hypostasis, any more than a hand, a foot or anything that does not subsist by itself apart from anything else: and for this reason it does not follow that it is a person.

             Reply to the Fourteenth Objection. The separated soul is a part of rational nature and not a whole rational human nature: wherefore it is not a person.