- Whether any created intellect can see the essence of God?
- Whether the essence of God is seen by the intellect through any created image?
- Whether the essence of God can be seen by the corporeal eye?
- Whether any created intellect by its natural powers can see the Divine essence?
- Whether the created intellect needs any created light in order to see the essence of God?
- Whether of those who see the essence of God, one sees more perfectly than another?
- Whether those who see the essence of God comprehend Him?
- Whether those who see the essence of God see all in God?
- Whether what is seen in God by those who see the Divine essence, is seen through any similitude?
- Whether those who see the essence of God see all they see in it at the same time?
- Whether anyone in this life can see the essence of God?
- Whether God can be known in this life by natural reason?
- Whether by grace a higher knowledge of God can be obtained than by natural reason?
- Whether in God the essence is the same as the person?
- Whether it must be said that the three persons are of one essence?
- Whether essential names should be predicated in the singular of the three persons?
- Whether the concrete essential names can stand for the person?
- Whether abstract essential names can stand for the person?
[Q39 / A3]
Objection 1: It would seem that essential names, as the name “God,” should not be predicated in the singular of the three persons, but in the plural. For as “man” signifies “one that has humanity,” so God signifies “one that has Godhead.” But the three persons are three who have Godhead. Therefore the three persons are “three Gods.”
Reply: Though the name “God” signifies a being having Godhead, nevertheless the mode of signification is different. For the name “God” is used substantively; whereas “having Godhead” is used adjectively. Consequently, although there are “three having Godhead,” it does not follow that there are three Gods.
Objection 2: Further, Gn. 1:1, where it is said, “In the beginning God created heaven and earth,” the Hebrew original has “Elohim,” which may be rendered “Gods” or “Judges”: and this word is used on account of the plurality of persons. Therefore the three persons are “several Gods,” and not “one” God.
Reply: Various languages have diverse modes of expression. So as by reason of the plurality of “supposita” the Greeks said “three hypostases,” so also in Hebrew “Elohim” is in the plural. We, however, do not apply the plural either to “God” or to “substance,” lest plurality be referred to the substance.
Objection 3: Further, this word “thing” when it is said absolutely, seems to belong to substance. But it is predicated of the three persons in the plural. For Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 5): “The things that are the objects of our future glory are the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” Therefore other essential names can be predicated in the plural of the three persons.
Reply: This word “thing” is one of the transcendentals. Whence, so far as it is referred to relation, it is predicated of God in the plural; whereas, so far as it is referred to the substance, it is predicated in the singular. So Augustine says, in the passage quoted, that “the same Trinity is a thing supreme.”
Objection 4: Further, as this word “God” signifies “a being who has Deity,” so also this word “person” signifies a being subsisting in an intellectual nature. But we say there are three persons. So for the same reason we can say there are “three Gods.”
Reply: The form signified by the word “person” is not essence or nature, but personality. So, as there are three personalities—that is, three personal properties in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost—it is predicated of the three, not in the singular, but in the plural.