ARTICLE VI

IN SPEAKING OF GOD CAN THE WORD 'PERSON' BE RIGHTLY PREDICATED IN THE PLURAL?

Sum. Th. I, Q. xxx, A. 4

THE sixth point of inquiry is whether when we speak of God we may rightly use the word person in the plural: and seemingly not.

             1. A person is a substance, as appears from the definition of Boethius. But substance in God is not predicated in the plural. Neither therefore is person.

             2. Other absolute names in God are only predicated in the singular, for instance wise, good and so forth. Now the word person is an absolute term. Therefore in God it should not be predicated in the plural.

             3. The word person apparently is taken from subsistence, inasmuch as it denotes an individual in the genus substance, and is so to speak one by itself (per se una). Now subsistence would seem to pertain to the essence, and this is not multiplied in God. Therefore the word person should not be predicated in the plural.

             4. To this it will be replied that even if subsistence be derived from essence, we can still say that there are three subsistents in God, and likewise three persons.

             On the contrary terms that signify the divine essence cannot be predicated in the plural unless they be adjectives which do not take their number from the form signified but from the supposits, whereas the contrary obtains in substantives. Hence we may say that in God there are three eternal, if eternal be an adjective, whereas if it be a substantive then the words of Athanasius are true: Not three eternals but one eternal. Now person is a substantive and not an adjective. Therefore it should not be predicated in the plural.

             5. Although essential adjectives are predicated of God in the plural, the forms signified by them are not predicated in the plural but only in the singular. Thus although in a certain sense we may use the plural in predicating eternalof God, in no way do we speak of three eternities. Therefore although in a sense we may speak of three persons in God, by no means may we say that there are three personalities.

             6. Just as God signifies one who has Godhead, so a divine Person denotes one who subsists in the Godhead. Now just as we speak of three subsisting in the Godhead so do we speak of three having the Godhead. If then this suffices for us to say that there are three Persons in God, we may also say that there are three Gods, which is heretical.

             7. Boethius (De Trin.) says that there are not three Gods because God does not differ from God in the Godhead. But in like manner seemingly one divine Person does not differ from another by a personal difference, since it is common to them to be a person. Therefore person cannot be predicated of God in the plural.

             On the contrary Augustine says (De Trin. vii. 4) that when we ask, what are these three, Father, Son and Holy Ghost? the reply is: Three persons. Therefore person is predicated of God in the plural.

             Again Athanasius says (loc. cit.) that one is the person of the Father, another that of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost. Now otherness is the cause of number, therefore person must be predicated of God in the plural.

             I answer that substantives, as stated above, take their number from the form signified, and adjectives from the supposits: and the reason of this is that substantives signify after the manner of a substance, while adjectives signify after the manner of an accident which is individualized and multiplied by its subject, but a substance by itself. Accordingly seeing that person is a substantive the possibility of its being predicated in the plural depends on the form signified thereby. Now the form signified by the word person is not the nature absolutely, for in that case man and human person would mean the same thing which is clearly false: but person formally signifies incommunicability or individuality of one subsisting in a nature, as we have clearly explained. Since then there are several properties which cause a distinct and incommunicable being in God, it follows that person is predicated of God in the plural, even as it is predicated of man on account of the manifold individualizing principles.

             Reply to the First Objection. A person is an individual substance which is a hypostasis: and this is predicated in the plural as is evident from its use in Greek.

             Reply to the Second Objection. Person is an absolute term from its mode of signification: and yet it signifies a relation, as stated above.

             Reply to the Third Objection. The word person indicates not only subsistence which apparently belongs to the essence, but also distinction and incommunicability, which are due to the relative properties in God.

             Reply to the Fourth Objection. The form signified by the word person is not the essence taken absolutely, but is that which is the principle of incommunicability or individuation. For this reason is it predicated in the plural, although it is a substantive. And for this reason also, since there are several distinctive properties in God there are said to be several personalities. Wherefore the Reply to the Fifth Objection is clear.

             Reply to the Sixth Objection. The word person signifies one that subsists in the divine nature distinctly and incommunicably: whereas the word God signifies one who has the divine nature without reference to distinction or incommunicability: hence the comparison fails.

             Reply to the Seventh Objection. Although God differs not from God by a difference in the Godhead, for there is only one Godhead: yet divine Person differs from divine Person by a difference of personality, since in God personality includes also the property that distinguishes the persons.