ARTICLE V

ARE THERE SEVERAL PERSONS IN GOD?

Sum. Th. I, Q. xxx, A. 1

THE fifth point of inquiry is whether there are several persons in God: and seemingly there are not.

             1. Boethius says (De Trin.): That is truly one in which there is no number. But God is most truly one. Therefore number is not in him.

             2. It will be replied that in God there is not number simply but a number of Persons.

             On the contrary, from a qualified statement we may always infer a simple statement provided the qualification has not the effect of diminishing: thus from the proposition, There is a white man, it follows that there is a man, but from the proposition, There is a dead man, it does not follow that there is a man. Now when we say a number of persons the qualification does not diminish since person is something most complete. Therefore if in God there is a number of persons, it follows that there is number simply.

             3. Unity is opposed to number according to the Philosopher (Metaph. x, text 20). But opposite things are not in the same subject. Since then in God there is supreme unity there cannot be number or plurality in him.

             4. Wherever there is number there is plurality of units: and where there are several units there is manifold being, because the being of one unit is distinct from the being of another unit. If then there be number in God there must be manifold being and manifold essence; which is clearly false.

             5. Just as unity is undivided so is there division in number. But there cannot be division in God since there is no composition in him. Therefore there cannot be number in God.

             6. Every number has parts, for it is composed of units. But there are no parts in God, since there is no composition in him. Therefore number is not in God.

             7. We should not attribute to God anything wherein the creature differs from him. Now the creature differs from God in that it is produced in a certain number, according to Wisdom xi, 21: Thou hast ordered all things in measure and number and weight. Therefore we should not ascribe number to God.

             8. Number is a species of quantity. But there is no quantity in God, inasmuch as if any quantitative expression were predicated of God he would be substantially changed, as says Boethius (De Trin.). Therefore either there is no number in God, or it belongs to his substance; which is contrary to the faith.

             9. Wheresoever is number there are those things to which number is liable, such as addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, and the like which result from number. But these cannot be in God. Therefore number cannot be in God.

             10. Every number is finite. Therefore the infinite cannot be numbered. Since then God is infinite there cannot be number in him.

             11. To this it might be replied that God though infinite to us is finite to himself.

             On the contrary, that which belongs to God in himself is truer than that which belongs to him as compared to us. If then God is finite to himself and infinite to us he is more truly finite than infinite: and this is clearly false.

             12. According to the Philosopher (Metaph. x) number is multitude measured by unity. But God is a measure, himself unmeasured. Therefore no number is in God.

             13. In a nature that differs not from its supposit, it is impossible to have several supposits of that nature: since for this reason is it possible to have several men in the one human nature, that the individual man is not his own humanity: wherefore the multiplication of individuals in the one human nature is consequent to the diversity of individual principles, which are not part of the common nature. Whereas in immaterial substances wherein the very nature of the species is the subsisting supposit, there cannot be several individuals of one species. Now in God there is the most complete identity of nature and supposit, because the divine being itself which is the divine nature, is subsistent. Therefore there cannot be in God several supposits or persons.

             14. Person is the name of a thing: hence where there is not a number of things there is not a number of persons. Now there is not a number of things in God: for Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, xi) that in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are really one thing, though logically and in our way of thinking they are distinct. Therefore in God there is not a number of persons.

             15. There cannot be a number of things in one without composition. Now God is one: wherefore if in God there are several persons which is the same as several things, it follows that there is composition in him, and this is incompatible with his simplicity.

             16. The absolute is more perfect than the relative. Now the absolute properties, namely the essential attributes such as wisdom, justice and so on, do not constitute so many persons in God. Neither therefore do the relative properties such as paternity and filiation.

             17. That which differentiates things from one another stands in relation to them as their constituent difference. If then the divine Persons are distinguished by their relations, these latter must be the constituent differences of the Persons; and consequently there will be composition in the divine Persons, inasmuch as the difference constitutes the species by being added to the genus.

             18. Things that are distinguished by specifically different forms must themselves differ specifically: thus man and horse differ specifically as being rational and irrational. Now paternity and filiation are specifically different relations. If then the divine Persons are distinguished by the relations only, they must differ specifically, and consequently will not be of one nature; which is against the faith.

             19. It is inconceivable that several supposits have one being. Now in God there is but one being. Therefore there cannot be several supposits or persons in him.

             20. Since creation is the proper act of God alone, it must proceed from each supposit of the divine nature. Now it is impossible that this action, inasmuch as it is one, proceed from several supposits, because one action is from but one agent. Therefore there cannot be several supposits or persons in the divine nature.

             21. Here below, difference in properties does not make a difference in supposits: thus one supposit of human nature is not distinct from another through the one being white and the other black; but through the diversity of individual matter which is the substance of each individual. If then in God there is no distinction save that which arises from relative properties, there cannot be in him a number of supposits or persons.

             22. The highest creatures are more like God than the lowest. Now in the lowest creatures there are several supposits in one nature, whereas in the highest creatures, which are the heavenly bodies, there are not. Therefore in God there are not several persons in one nature.

             23. The Philosopher (De Coelo et Mun. i) says that when the whole perfection of a species is in one supposit there are not several supposits of that nature, and that for this reason there is but one world because it consists of its whole matter. Now the whole perfection of the divine nature is in one supposit. Therefore in the one nature there are not several supposits or persons.

             24. To this it may be replied that the fullness of joy requires the companionship of several in the divine nature, because there is no pleasure in possessing a thing unless we share it with a companion, according to Boethius. Moreover perfect love is to love another as oneself.--On the contrary, to depend on another for the fullness of one's joy and love is an indication of insufficient goodness in oneself. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 4) that the wicked through finding no pleasure in their own company seek the companionship of others: whereas the good seek to commune with themselves through finding pleasure in so doing. Now the divine nature cannot lack a sufficiency of goodness. Wherefore since one supposit of the divine nature has in himself all fullness of joy and love, there is no need to put several supposits or persons in God.

             On the contrary it is written (I Jo. v 7): There are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost.

             Again Athanasius says in the Creed: All the three Persons are co-eternal and co-equal with one another. Therefore in God there is a number of Persons.

             I answer that the plurality of Persons in God is an article of faith, and natural reason is unable to discuss and adequately understand it though we hope to understand it in heaven when we shall see God in his essence, and faith will be succeeded by vision. The holy fathers, however, being pressed by those who gainsaid the faith, were compelled to discuss this and other matters of belief, yet humbly and reverently withal, and avoiding any pretence to comprehension. Nor is such a discussion without its use since it enables the mind to perceive some glimpse of the truth sufficient to steer clear of error. Wherefore Hilary (De Trin. ii) says: Believing this, namely the plurality of Persons in God, set forth, run, persevere, and though I may know that you will not reach, I shall acclaim your progress. He who religiously pursues the infinite, although he will never catch up with it, will progress so long as he continues.

             In order then to throw some light on this question and especially in accordance with the elucidations of Augustine, we must observe that we must attribute to God every perfection that is in creatures, as regards the essence of the perfection absolutely but not as regards the way in which it is in this or that one. Thus goodness or wisdom is not in God as an accident as it is in us, although in him is supreme goodness and perfect wisdom. Now in creatures nothing is more excellent or more perfect than to understand: a sign of which is that of all creatures intellectual substances are the highest and are said to be made to God's image in respect of their intelligence. It follows then that understanding is in God as well as whatsoever is essential thereto, although it belongs to God in one way and to creatures in another. Now for the act of understanding it is essential that there be one who understands and something understood. And that which is understood in itself is not the thing that is known by the intellect, since this thing is at one time only potentially understood and is outside the person who understands, as when a man understands a material thing, for instance a stone, an animal or something of the kind: whereas the thing understood must be in the person who understands and must be one with him. Now the intelligible species is the likeness of the thing understood, which likeness informs the intellect for the purpose of understanding. For the intellect cannot understand except in so far as it is actuated by this likeness, just as nothing else can act as being in potentiality but only as actuated by a form. Accordingly this likeness is as the principle in the act of understanding, just as heat is the principle of calefaction, and not as the term of understanding. Consequently that which is the first and direct object in the act of understanding is something that the intellect conceives within itself about the thing understood, whether it be a definition or proposition according to the two operations of the intellect mentioned in De Anima, iii. Now this concept of the intellect is called the interior word and is signified by means of speech: for the spoken word does not signify merely the thing understood, or the intelligible form thereof or the act of understanding, but the concept of the intellect through which it signifies the thing: as when I say, Man, or, Man is an animal. And in this respect it matters not whether the intellect understands itself, or something else: since just as when it understands another thing from itself it forms a concept of that thing which is expressed orally, so also when it understands itself it forms a concept of itself which also can be expressed by word of mouth. Since then in God there is the act of understanding, and since in understanding himself he understands all other things, it follows that there must be in him an intellectual concept which is absolutely essential to the act of understanding. And if we were able to comprehend the divine act of understanding so as to grasp what it is and how it takes place, just as we grasp our own act of understanding, the conception of the divine Word would not surpass reason as neither does the conception of the human word. We can, however, know what it is not and understand how it is not: and thus we are able to know the difference between the Word conceived by God and the word conceived by us. Thus first of all we know that in God there is but one act of understanding and not many as in us: for our act of understanding a stone is distinct from our act of understanding a plant: whereas God by one act understands himself and all else. Hence our intellect conceives many words, but the Word conceived by God is but one. Again our intellect frequently understands both itself and other things imperfectly; whereas God's act of understanding cannot be imperfect. Hence God's Word is perfect, representing all things perfectly, while our word is often imperfect. Again, in our intellect, understanding and being are distinct, wherefore the word conceived in our intellect, since it proceeds from our intellect as such, is not united to it in nature but in the act of understanding. Whereas God's act of understanding is his being, so that the Word which proceeds from God as understanding proceeds from him as existing: and for this reason the conceived Word has the same essence and nature as the conceiving intellect. And because that which in living things is the recipient of nature, is said to be begotten and is called a son, the Word of God is said to be begotten and is called the Son. Whereas our word cannot be described as begotten of our intellect or as its son, except metaphorically.

             Accordingly since the word of our intellect is distinct from our intellect in two respects, namely in that it proceeds from it, and is of a different nature, and seeing that difference of nature must be removed from the divine Word (Q. viii, A. 1), the only remaining distinction is that it proceeds from another. And whereas difference causes number it follows that the only number in God is that of relations. Now in God relations are not accidents, but each one is the divine essence in reality. Wherefore each of them like the divine essence is subsistent: and just as the Godhead is the same thing as God, so is Paternity the same thing as the Father, and therefore the Father is the same thing as God. Accordingly the number of relations is the number of things subsistent in the divine nature, and these are the three Persons as appears from the preceding Article. For this reason then we place a number of Persons in God.

             Reply to the First Objection. By these words Boethius means to exclude number from the divine essence: for this is the point of his discussion.

             Reply to the Second Objection. Although the Persons considered as subsistent do not detract from the idea of number, they do so considered as relations: because relative distinction is the least of all distinctions just as relation itself of all the genera has the least being.

             Reply to the Third Objection. Unity and number are both attributed to God but not in the same respect: unity in respect of the essence, number in respect of the Persons: or unity in respect of absolutes, number in respect of relations.

             Reply to the Fourth Objection. Since plurality of units is caused by a distinction, if this distinction be one of being the units must differ in being: but where the distinction is one of relation, the units that compose the number must differ only relatively from one another.

             Reply to the Fifth Objection. Any kind of distinction suffices to cause a plurality of like kind. Wherefore as in God there is no distinction in that which is absolute (which distinction is inseparable from composition) but only a distinction of relations, even so in God there is not plurality in respect of what is absolute, but only in respect of relations, as already stated.

             Reply to the Sixth Objection. The parts of a number are always units if we speak of absolute number whereby we count. But if we take number as it is in things, then the idea of whole and part does not apply to number itself but to the things numbered. Now the different relations in God are not parts: thus fatherhood and sonship are not parts of Socrates, although he is father of one and son of another. Wherefore neither are the units of the relations compared as parts to the number of relations.

             Reply to the Seventh Objection. The creature differs from God in that it is produced in a number of essential principles. But this kind of number is not that of the Persons.

             Reply to the Eighth Objection. The number which is a species of quantity is caused by a division of a continuous quantity: wherefore just as continuous quantity relates to mathematics, because it is separated from sensible matter logically and not in reality, so also number which is a species of quantity is the subject-matter of arithmetic the principle whereof is unity that is the first measure of quantity. Hence it is plain that number of this kind cannot be in immaterial things; but in them is multitude that is opposed to the unity that is convertible with being: and this is caused by formal division which is into opposite forms whether absolute or relative: and such is number in God.

             Reply to the Ninth Objection. Number that is a species of quantity is liable to such things: but this kind of number is not in God, as stated above.

             Reply to the Tenth Objection. God is infinite in the perfection of greatness, wisdom and the like, wherefore it is written (Ps. cxlvi, 5) that of his wisdom there is no number: but procession in God, by reason of which there are several divine Persons, does not tend to the indefinite, for as Augustine says (De Trin.) the divine generation is not immoderate: therefore neither is the number of Persons infinite.

             Reply to the Eleventh Objection. God is said to be finite to himself, not that he knows himself to be finite, but because he is compared to himself as we to finite things, in that he comprehends himself.

             Reply to the Twelfth Objection. This is the definition of number as a kind of quantity to which the idea of measure is applicable.

             Reply to the Thirteenth Objection. In created things the principles of individuality exercise two functions. The one is that they are the principle of subsistence (since the common nature does not subsist by itself except in the individual): and the other is that they distinguish the supposits of the common nature from one another. But in God the personal properties only distinguish the supposits of the divine nature from one another, while they are not the principles of subsistence of the divine essence (since the divine essence is subsistent in itself) but on the contrary subsist by the essence; thus Paternity is a subsistent thing because the divine essence with which it is identical is a subsistent thing: so that it follows that as the divine essence is God, so is Paternity the Father. And hence it follows likewise that the divine essence is not numerically multiplied by reason of the multiplicity of its supposits, as happens here below. Because a thing is multiplied on account of that which gives it subsistence: and although the divine essence is so to speak individualized by itself as regards its self-subsistence, yet though it is itself one in number there are several supposits in God mutually distinct by subsistent relations.

             Reply to the Fourteenth Objection. If the Father, Son and Holy Ghost differed from one another logically and not really, there would be no reason why one should not be predicated of the other: even so a shirt and an undergarment may be predicated of each other; and in like manner the Father would be the Son and vice versa: which is the heresy of Sabellius. Hence we must reply that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three things, as Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 5), provided thing be taken for a relative thing: for if it be taken as absolute, then they are but one thing, as again Augustine says. In this sense we must take the words of Damascene where he says that they are really one. And when he says that they differ only logically, this is generally understood to mean relatively. For although a relation as compared with the opposite relation makes a real distinction in God, it does not differ save logically from the divine essence. Moreover relation of all the genera is the least stable in point of reality.

             Reply to the Fifteenth Objection. In God plurality of things is plurality of subsistent opposite relations, and this does not cause composition in God: because relation as compared to the divine essence differs not really but only logically. Hence it does not enter into composition with it, as neither does goodness nor any other of the essential attributes: whereas if we compare it with the opposite relation there are several things, but not composition; because opposite relations as such are distinct from each other: and composition is not of distinct things as such.

             Reply to the Sixteenth Objection. The essential attributes are in no way opposed to one another as the relations are: wherefore although like the relations they subsist, they do not constitute a plurality of mutually distinct supposits, since plurality follows distinction: and formal distinction arises from opposition.

             Reply to the Seventeenth Objection. In God there is no difference between what is signified as a form and what is signified as a supposit: for instance, Godhead and God, Paternity and Father. Hence although the relative properties are by way of constituent differences of the Persons, it does not follow that they enter into composition with the Persons thus constituted.

             Reply to the Eighteenth Objection. Although the Father and the Son are not distinct from each other except by paternity and filiation, it does not follow that because paternity and filiation are specifically different relations in God there is therefore a kind of specific difference between Father and Son: for these relations do not specify the divine Persons, but rather distinguish and constitute the supposits. That which specifies the divine Persons is the divine nature wherein the Son is like the Father. Because the begetter begets his like in species and not in individual properties. Accordingly just as Socrates and Plato, even if the only difference between them as individuals were that one is black and the other white (which are specifically different qualities) would not differ themselves specifically; since that which is a species to white and black is not a species to Socrates and Plato: even so the specific difference between paternity and filiation does not cause a specific difference between Father and Son. And yet in God it cannot be said properly that anything differs specifically, inasmuch as species and genus are not in him.

             Reply to the Nineteenth Objection. It must by no means be granted that there is more than one being in God: seeing that being always refers to essence and especially in God whose being is his essence. But the relations which distinguish the supposits in God do not add another being to the being of the essence, because they do not enter into composition with the essence, as already stated. And every form that adds being to the substantial being enters into composition with the substance, and its being is accidental, for instance, the being of white and black. Accordingly difference in respect of being follows plurality of supposits, just as difference of essence in creatures: but neither of these obtains in God.

             Reply to the Twentieth Objection. Operation issues from the agent in ratio to the form or power that is the principle of the operation: wherefore there is no reason why the one creation should not proceed from the three Persons since they are of one nature and power: thus if three hot things had the same identical heat, one identical heating would issue from them.

             Reply to the Twenty-first Objection. The individualizing forms in creatures are not subsistent as in God: hence the comparison fails.

             Reply to the Twenty-second Objection. In creatures multiplication of essence entails multiplication of supposits: but this is not the case in God; wherefore the conclusion does not follow.

             Reply to the Twenty-third Objection. Although the Godhead is wholly and perfectly in each of the three Persons according to its proper mode of existence, yet it belongs to the perfection of the Godhead that there be several modes of existence in God, namely that there be one from whom another proceeds yet proceeds from no other, and one proceeding from another. For there would not be absolute perfection in God unless there were in him procession of word and love.

             Reply to the Twenty-fourth Objection. This argument takes it for granted that the divine Persons differ in essence. For thus the fullness of delight that the Father has in the Son would be in something extrinsic and the Father would not have it in himself; but because the Son is in the Father as his Word, the Father could not have perfect joy in himself except in the Son; even so a man does not delight in himself except through the concept he has of himself.