125. Numerical Terms in God: Transcendental Multitude and Divine Persons

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

• The Problem of Numerical Terms in Divine Predication: How can numerical language like “three persons” be applied to God without implying composition, parts, or limitation of the divine nature?
• Two Kinds of Multitude: The crucial philosophical distinction between multitude as a species of discrete quantity (genus of quantity) and multitude as a transcendental property
• The Role of Transcendentals: Understanding how transcendental terms like “one” and “multitude” function differently from categorical terms, being more universal and applicable to both material and immaterial beings
• Relations as the Basis of Distinction: The divine persons are distinguished by relations of opposition, not by absolute properties
• The Nature of Divine Simplicity: How God can be absolutely simple while still allowing for real distinction between persons

Key Arguments #

The Objections Against Numerical Terms in God #

• From Simplicity: The divine unity is the divine essence itself; but every number is a unity repeated. Therefore, numerical terms would seem to place multiple unities in God, contradicting divine simplicity.
• From Quantity: Whatever is said of God and creatures belongs more eminently to God than to creatures. But numerical terms place something (quantity) in creatures. Therefore, they must place something in God.
• From Circularity: If numerical terms only negate something (unity negates multitude, multitude negates unity), we get a circular reasoning that confuses the intellect and makes nothing certain.
• From Authority: Hilary says the Trinity “sustains the understanding of singularity and solitude, which is a profession of plurality.” Ambrose says “we do not place quantity in God.”

Thomas’s Resolution: Two Types of Number #

Numbering Number (numerus numerans)

• Abstract number existing only in the mind
• When we think of “three” abstractly, it exists only in our understanding and places nothing in God
• This is what exists when we ask: how many divine persons are there?

Numbered Number (numerus numeratus)

• Number as found in things themselves
• Example: “three men” - three actual instances of human nature
• In God, if we speak of numbered number: the Father is not a part of God; the Father IS God, identical with the whole Trinity
• Therefore, no whole-and-part composition emerges

Two Kinds of Division/Distinction #

Material Division (according to division of the continuous)

• Found only in material things having quantity
• The continuous can be divided forever, giving rise to multiple parts
• This is the basis of discrete quantity and number in the strict sense
• Example: dividing wood to make many chairs; dividing glass to make many windows

Formal Division (according to opposed or diverse forms)

• Found in immaterial things
• Constitutes multitude not bound to quantity
• The divine persons are formally distinct by relations of opposition
• No material divisibility is involved

The Transcendental Multitude Solution #

Numerical terms said of God are taken from multitude according as it is transcending (transcendental), not from multitude as a species of discrete quantity:

• Transcendental multitude: Constituted from units where each is undivided; signifies the things themselves with negation of division in each
• Quantitative multitude: Measured by a unit; restricted to the genus of quantity; implies composition of measurable parts
• Transcendental multitude is more universal than quantitative multitude, just as the transcendental “one” is more universal than the numerical “one”
• This multitude can be applied to immaterial beings (God, angels) without introducing quantity

The Logic of Transcendentals #

The Transcendental “One”

• Convertible with being; adds nothing positive, only negation of division
• Every being is undivided in itself
• Since it adds only negation, it is as universal as being itself

The Transcendental “Many”

• Just as “one” signifies a thing undivided, “many” signifies multiple things each undivided
• Each person in the Trinity is one (undivided), and the three are many (each undivided)
• This avoids the circularity objection: division precedes the concepts of one and many in our reasoning

Important Definitions #

Divisio (division, strict sense)

• The distinction of parts belonging to some whole
• Different from distinctio (distinction, broader sense)
• Every division is a distinction, but not every distinction is a division
• God is not “divided” into persons though persons are really distinct

Numerus numerans vs. numerus numeratus

• Numerans (numbering): abstract number in the mind
• Numeratus (numbered): concrete number as existing in things
• The distinction explains how “three persons” can be affirmed without placing quantity in God

Multitudo (multitude)

• Can mean discrete quantity (restricted to material things): has genus and measure
• Can mean transcendental property: convertible with being, more universal than quantity
• In divine predication, multitude is taken in the transcendental sense

Quantitas continua (continuous quantity) vs. quantitas discreta (discrete quantity)

• Continua: geometry; parts meet at common boundaries; divisible forever
• Discreta: arithmetic; parts do not meet; measured by unit
• Only discrete quantity requires material divisibility

Examples & Illustrations #

The Three Men vs. Three Persons in God #

• When we say “three men,” the three is a numbered number—three instances of human nature
• When we say “three persons in God,” it is NOT the same kind of three
• In three men: we can measure and count because we have multiple instances of limited substances
• In three persons in God: the Father is not one-third of God; each person IS God
• The three persons is a transcendental multitude, not a quantitative one

The Father and God #

• Are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit one thing? In the sense of substance (thing as absolutely understood), yes—they are one God
• Are they three things? In the sense of relation, yes—three distinct persons
• The word “thing” (res) is more primarily applied to substance than to relations
• This resolves the apparent contradiction without denying either unity or distinction

Whiteness and Blackness #

• By whiteness, blackness is excluded
• But the name “whiteness” does not signify only the exclusion of blackness
• Similarly: by the unity (in the creed), a plurality of gods is excluded; by plurality (of persons), solitude is excluded
• But this does not mean that “one God” signifies only the negation of multiple gods
• The positive meaning remains: the divine nature itself

John’s Gospel: “The Word Was Made Flesh” #

• “The Word was made flesh” (John 1:14): Only the Son became man, not the Father or Holy Spirit
• Contrast: “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth”
• The first statement involves a real change proper to one person
• The second involves appropriation: creation is a work of the whole Trinity but is appropriated to the Father
• These are not the same way of speaking; confusion leads to theological error

The Gospel of St. John: “Father and I Are One” #

• Christ says, “The Father and I are one” (John 10:30)
• If we ask: “Is God the Father God the Son?” the answer is NO—they are not the same person
• If we ask: “Are the Father and Son one God?” the answer is YES—they possess the same divine nature
• The resolution: The Father IS God (no real distinction between Father and God); the Son IS God (no real distinction between Son and God); therefore, Father and Son are one God, though they are not one person

Three Yards of Cloth #

• Measuring three yards of cloth: we are numbering something continuous (the cloth) by a unit (the yard)
• The cloth remains continuous quantity; the measurement is discrete
• This shows the distinction between measuring and division
• Helps clarify how we can speak of “three” without implying three parts or three measures of divinity

Notable Quotes #

“There’s not some magnitude that is repeated, you know, when you go from the Father to the Son and the Holy Spirit that you can measure how much they are, right? Each of them is the same thing as God, right?”

“The one, since it is among the transcendentals, is more common than substance and relation… Whence it is able to stand in divine things, both for substance and for relation.”

“Numerical terms, as they come into divine predication, are not taken from number, which is a species of quantity. Because thus they would not be said of God except metaphorically. But they are taken from multitude according as it is transcending.”

“You’ve got to be very careful. You can get into one here and see another one. It’s very difficult to avoid these things.”

“Logic directs our thinking with words. Not with words alone, right? Not without thoughts and so on. But logic doesn’t really direct any thinking you might do without words, if you do.”

Questions Addressed #

Q: How can there be three persons if God is absolutely simple? #

A: The three persons are distinguished by relations, not by absolute properties. Relations do not compose God because relations are the same as the divine substance. The “three” is a transcendental multitude (each person undivided, all three distinct from one another), not a quantitative number that would imply parts or composition.

Q: Does “three persons” place quantity in God? #

A: No. If we take “three” as abstract (numbering number), it exists only in our mind and adds nothing to God. If we take it as concrete (numbered number), each person is identical with the whole divine nature, not a part of it. Therefore, no quantity is introduced.

Q: What is the difference between saying “God is almighty” and “the Word was made flesh”? #

A: The first involves appropriation: almightiness is a work of the whole Trinity appropriated to the Father. The second involves a proper statement: only the Son, not the whole Trinity or the Father, became incarnate. When appropriation occurs, we must carefully distinguish it from statements about what is proper to one person alone.

Q: Are there any authorities who seem to deny that numerical terms place something in God? #

A: Yes, Peter Lombard (the Magister) and others held that numerical terms place nothing positive in God but only negate something. However, Thomas notes this requires careful understanding: they are negating the material divisibility and discrete quantity, not the real distinction of persons themselves.

Q: How do Aristotle and Thomas avoid the Platonic confusion about number? #

A: Plato confused the transcendental “one” (convertible with being) with the numerical “one” (the beginning of discrete quantity), leading him to think substances were numbers. Aristotle and Thomas distinguish these clearly: the transcendental one belongs to metaphysics and is found in all beings; the numerical one belongs to arithmetic and quantity. Even Euclid confused these two, showing how subtle the distinction is.

Q: Why does Berquist emphasize that words matter so much in theology? #

A: Because our understanding is bound to words and concepts in this life. The terms we use must be understood precisely. Confusion between the sense of terms (e.g., “three” as quantitative vs. transcendental) leads directly to theological error. Moreover, the Magisterium (the teaching authority) itself makes distinctions in how things are said, requiring us to distinguish between appropriation and proper statements, negation and affirmation.