Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that in God relation is not the same as person. For when things are identical, if one is multiplied the others are multiplied. But in one person there are several relations; as in the person of the Father there is paternity and common spiration. Again, one relation exists in two person, as common spiration in the Father and in the Son. Therefore relation is not the same as person.

Objection 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Phys. iv, text. 24), nothing is contained by itself. But relation is in the person; nor can it be said that this occurs because they are identical, for otherwise relation would be also in the essence. Therefore relation, or property, is not the same as person in God.

Objection 3: Further, when several things are identical, what is predicated of one is predicated of the others. But all that is predicated of a Person is not predicated of His property. For we say that the Father begets; but not that the paternity is begetting. Therefore property is not the same as person in God.

On the contrary, in God "what is" and "whereby it is" are the same, according to Boethius (De Hebdom.). But the Father is Father by paternity. In the same way, the other properties are the same as the persons.

I answer that, Different opinions have been held on this point. Some have said that the properties are not the persons, nor in the persons; and these have thought thus owing to the mode of signification of the relations, which do not indeed signify existence "in" something, but rather existence "towards" something. Whence, they styled the relations "assistant," as above explained (Question 28, Article 2). But since relation, considered as really existing in God, is the divine essence Itself, and the essence is the same as person, as appears from what was said above (Question 39, Article 1), relation must necessarily be the same as person.

Others, therefore, considering this identity, said that the properties were indeed the persons; but not "in" the persons; for, they said, there are no properties in God except in our way of speaking, as stated above (Question 32, Article 2). We must, however, say that there are properties in God; as we have shown (Question 32, Article 2). These are designated by abstract terms, being forms, as it were, of the persons. So, since the nature of a form requires it to be "in" that of which it is the form, we must say that the properties are in the persons, and yet that they are the persons; as we say that the essence is in God, and yet is God.

Reply to Objection 1: Person and property are really the same, but differ in concept. Consequently, it does not follow that if one is multiplied, the other must also be multiplied. We must, however, consider that in God, by reason of the divine simplicity, a twofold real identity exists as regards what in creatures are distinct. For, since the divine simplicity excludes the composition of matter and form, it follows that in God the abstract is the same as the concrete, as "Godhead" and "God." And as the divine simplicity excludes the composition of subject and accident, it follows that whatever is attributed to God, is His essence Itself; and so, wisdom and power are the same in God, because they are both in the divine essence. According to this twofold identity, property in God is the same person. For personal properties are the same as the persons because the abstract and the concrete are the same in God; since they are the subsisting persons themselves, as paternity is the Father Himself, and filiation is the Son, and procession is the Holy Ghost. But the non-personal properties are the same as the persons according to the other reason of identity, whereby whatever is attributed to God is His own essence. Thus, common spiration is the same as the person of the Father, and the person of the Son; not that it is one self-subsisting person; but that as there is one essence in the two persons, so also there is one property in the two persons, as above explained (Question 30, Article 2).

Reply to Objection 2: The properties are said to be in the essence, only by mode of identity; but in the persons they exist by mode of identity, not merely in reality, but also in the mode of signification; as the form exists in its subject. Thus the properties determine and distinguish the persons, but not the essence.

Reply to Objection 3: Notional participles and verbs signify the notional acts: and acts belong to a "suppositum." Now, properties are not designated as "supposita," but as forms of "supposita." And so their mode of signification is against notional participles and verbs being predicated of the properties.

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in divinis non sit idem relatio quod persona. Quaecumque enim sunt idem, multiplicato uno eorum, multiplicatur et aliud. Sed contingit in una persona esse plures relationes, sicut in persona patris est paternitas et communis spiratio, et iterum unam relationem in duabus personis esse, sicut communis spiratio est in patre et filio.

Ergo relatio non est idem quod persona.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, nihil est in seipso, secundum philosophum, in IV physic..

Sed relatio est in persona. Nec potest dici quod ratione identitatis, quia sic esset etiam in essentia. Ergo relatio sive proprietas et persona non sunt idem in divinis.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, quaecumque sunt idem, ita se habent, quod quidquid praedicatur de uno, praedicatur et de alio. Non autem quidquid praedicatur de persona, praedicatur de proprietate.

Dicimus enim quod pater generat, sed non dicimus quod paternitas sit generans. Ergo proprietas non est idem quod persona in divinis.

Sed Contra

Sed contra, in divinis non differt quod est et quo est, ut habetur a boetio in libro de hebd..

Sed pater paternitate est pater. Ergo pater idem est quod paternitas. Et eadem ratione aliae proprietates idem sunt cum personis.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod circa hoc aliqui diversimode opinati sunt. Quidam enim dixerunt proprietates neque esse personas, neque in personis. Qui fuerunt moti ex modo significandi relationum, quae quidem non significant ut in aliquo, sed magis ut ad aliquid. Unde dixerunt relationes esse assistentes, sicut supra expositum est.

Sed quia relatio, secundum quod est quaedam res in divinis, est ipsa essentia; essentia autem idem est quod persona, ut ex dictis patet; oportet quod relatio sit idem quod persona.

Hanc igitur identitatem alii considerantes, dixerunt proprietates quidem esse personas, non autem in personis, quia non ponebant proprietates in divinis nisi secundum modum loquendi, ut supra dictum est.

Necesse est autem ponere proprietates in divinis, ut supra ostendimus.

Quae quidem significantur in abstracto, ut quaedam formae personarum. Unde, cum de ratione formae sit, quod sit in eo cuius est forma, oportet dicere proprietates esse in personis, et eas tamen esse personas; sicut essentiam esse in deo dicimus, quae tamen est deus.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod persona et proprietas sunt idem re, differunt tamen secundum rationem. Unde non oportet quod, multiplicato uno, multiplicetur reliquum. Considerandum tamen est quod, propter divinam simplicitatem, consideratur duplex realis identitas in divinis eorum quae differunt in rebus creatis.

Quia enim divina simplicitas excludit compositionem formae et materiae, sequitur quod in divinis idem est abstractum et concretum, ut deitas et deus. Quia vero divina simplicitas excludit compositionem subiecti et accidentis, sequitur quod quidquid attribuitur deo, est eius essentia, et propter hoc sapientia et virtus idem sunt in deo, quia ambo sunt in divina essentia. Et secundum hanc duplicem rationem identitatis, proprietas in divinis est idem cum persona. Nam proprietates personales sunt idem cum personis, ea ratione qua abstractum est idem cum concreto. Sunt enim ipsae personae subsistentes; ut paternitas est ipse pater, et filiatio filius, et processio spiritus sanctus. Proprietates autem non personales sunt idem cum personis secundum aliam rationem identitatis, qua omne illud quod attribuitur deo, est eius essentia. Sic igitur communis spiratio est idem cum persona patris et cum persona filii, non quod sit una persona per se subsistens; sed, sicut una essentia est in duabus personis, ita et una proprietas, ut supra dictum est.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod proprietates dicuntur esse in essentia, per modum identitatis tantum. In personis autem dicuntur esse per modum identitatis, non quidem secundum rem tantum, sed quantum ad modum significandi, sicut forma in supposito.

Et ideo proprietates determinant et distinguunt personas, non autem essentiam.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod participia et verba notionalia significant actus notionales. Actus autem suppositorum sunt.

Proprietates autem non significantur ut supposita, sed ut formae suppositorum. Et ideo modus significandi repugnat, ut participia et verba notionalia de proprietatibus praedicentur.