Continued in: Next
(5) Whether the same can be predicated of essential names taken in the abstract?
(6) Whether the names of the persons can be predicated of concrete essential names?
(7) Whether essential attributes can be appropriated to the persons?
(8) Which attributes should be appropriated to each person?
FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 39, Art. 1]
Whether in God the Essence Is the Same As the Person?
Objection 1: It would seem that in God the essence is not the same as person. For whenever essence is the same as person or _suppositum,_ there can be only one _suppositum_ of one nature, as is clear in the case of all separate substances. For in those things which are really one and the same, one cannot be multiplied apart from the other. But in God there is one essence and three persons, as is clear from what is above expounded (Q. 28, A. 3; Q. 30, A. 2). Therefore essence is not the same as person.
Obj. 2: Further, simultaneous affirmation and negation of the same things in the same respect cannot be true. But affirmation and negation are true of essence and of person. For person is distinct, whereas essence is not. Therefore person and essence are not the same.
Obj. 3: Further, nothing can be subject to itself. But person is subject to essence; whence it is called _suppositum_ or "hypostasis." Therefore person is not the same as essence.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 7): "When we say the person of the Father we mean nothing else but the substance of the Father."
_I answer that,_ The truth of this question is quite clear if we consider the divine simplicity. For it was shown above (Q. 3, A. 3) that the divine simplicity requires that in God essence is the same as