Dist. 2, Art. 1, Q. 3
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/1/d/2/q/bon-sent-I-d2-a1-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether the number of divine persons is infinite.*

In the third place, consequently, it is asked whether infinity is to be posited in the divine persons. And that it is so, is shown in this way.

1. Because the creature is finite, and whatever is in it is actually finite: therefore from the opposites, since the divine essence is infinite, whatever is in it is infinite; therefore since in God there is a number of persons, it will be infinite; and so the persons will be infinite.

2. Likewise, since infinity is twofold, virtual and numerical, virtual infinity is in God: therefore by parity of reasoning numerical infinity also: therefore in God there are infinite persons.

3. Likewise, an infinite power, when it emanates according to its whole infinity, produces an infinite not only intensively but also extensively; but the power of the Father in the production of persons emanates according to its all-encompassing potency: therefore it produces persons not only infinite in power, but rather even infinite in number.

4. Likewise, this very point is shown thus: the multiplication of persons either belongs to power, or it does not. If not, then it ought not to be posited in the divine; if it belongs to power *per se*: therefore a greater multiplication will belong to a greater power, and an infinite multiplication to the highest power: therefore etc.

**On the contrary**, this is shown by a fourfold condition, which is taken from this, that there must always be attributed to God what is more noble, namely that it is necessary to posit a finitude of persons. The first is distinction, the second order, the third connection, the fourth supreme completion.

1. From the first condition it is shown thus: if there is distinction there, then there is no confusion; but where there is infinity, there is confusion: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, from the second thus: where there is order, there is termination, since where termination is lacking, mediation also is lacking, and consequently order; but where there is termination, there is no infinity: therefore if in the divine persons there is order, there is no infinity.

3. Likewise, from the third thus: where there is connection, it is necessary that all persons proceed from one; for if one proceeds from another and so on consequently, then there is an infinite distance between the first and the last; but this is inconvenient: therefore all proceed from one: either, then, by the same modes, or by diverse. If by the same: therefore no distinction; if by diverse, but the diverse modes of emanating are finite: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, from the fourth thus: if there is supreme completion there, then divinity is fitted to complete other things: therefore since the completion of persons consists in beatitude, it is fitted to beatify. But if there were infinite persons, it would be impossible for anyone to be beatified by God; for the cognition of every person belongs to the substance of beatitude, since the whole goodness, which is the substantial reward, is in each of the persons; therefore either the soul would know all of them, or it would not be blessed; but it would be impossible to know all of them, since its power is finite: therefore etc.

> **Conclusion.** That the number of divine persons is finite, both faith holds and reason persuades.

**I respond:** It must be said that in the divine persons, with respect to number, infinity is not to be posited but finitude.

The reason for this is that numerical infinity is repugnant to perfection and to order, because it is by recession from unity or from its origin. Likewise also infinity of mass; and therefore neither is in God. But the infinity of power is by access to unity and origin; and therefore, since this belongs to perfection, it is to be posited in God, but the others are not.

**To the arguments:**

*To 1 and 2.* To that which is objected, that whatever is in God is infinitely; it must be said that it is true that it is infinite, but not by any kind of infinity, but by that by which God is infinite; and this is the infinity of immensity, and in this way the Trinity is infinite, not by numerical infinity, which does not befit God.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that infinite power, infinitely emanating, produces infinite things; it must be said that to the divine power no production befits except of a perfect thing; and therefore there does not befit it the production of any infinity except that which stands together with supreme perfection. But this is not numerical infinity, and therefore it is not in God.

*To 4.* To the last objection, that it belongs to power to multiply itself; it must be said that not in every way does it belong to power, but to multiply oneself perfectly belongs to power; and therefore it does not follow: therefore to multiply oneself more is a greater perfection, unless it be understood perfectly; but to multiply oneself infinitely according to number is imperfectly; and therefore it does not befit God.