Dist. 24, Art. 2, Q. 2
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/24/q/bon-sent-I-d24-a2-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether numeral names in divine matters are said according to substance or according to relation.*

Secondly, it is asked whether the aforesaid names are said according to substance, or according to relation. And that [they are said] according to substance is shown.

1. As Boethius and Augustine say: « Quantity passes over into substance »; but number expresses quantity, therefore it passes over into substance: therefore numeral terms are said according to substance.

2. Likewise, every name which is said *of itself* [*ad se*] is said according to substance; but *two* and *three* is a name said *of itself*, not *of another*: therefore they are said according to substance.

3. Likewise, when it is said: *The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three*, that which is *three* is said either notionally or essentially; not notionally, since there is no notion which is said in common of the three: therefore it is said essentially.

4. Likewise, the notions are five; but if the numeral terms import a plurality of notions, then there will be a fivefold [number] in divine matters: therefore not three, but five there are. But this is false: therefore they are not said notionally; therefore they are said essentially or substantially.

**On the contrary:**

1. Every name pertaining to substance is not said in the plural, but in the singular; but *three* is said only in the plural: therefore in no way is it said according to substance, therefore it is said according to relation.

2. Likewise, every substantial name is predicated of any [given] person; but *three* is predicated of no [single] person: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if this name *three* is said according to substance, then it is permitted to it to add a substantial term: therefore we can say *three gods* or *three substances*, each of which is against the faith.

> **Conclusion.** *Numeral names in divine matters are said according to relation and import [the notions themselves].*

**I respond:** It must be said that some wished to say that numeral terms of this kind in God express nothing other than this name *person* in the plural. Whence if it is said: *the persons are three*, the same thing is subject and predicate. And the reason and mode of understanding here is this: that, if forms were posited to be from eternity, as is imputed to Plato that he held, then there would be many [forms] and in some certain number. But that number would not be a property nor a passion consequent [on form], but the very numeral forms themselves. And in this way, to say *three* in divine matters is nothing other than to say the persons themselves.

But that need not be said, since if it were entirely the same, then it would seem to be a triviality, if it were said: *three persons, one person*; and it would seem that nothing more is being said, when it is said: *three are persons*, than: *persons are persons*.

And on account of this another mode of speaking is, that numeral terms of this kind are said according to relation and import the notions themselves. And this is plain, because in divine matters they import distinction; but distinction is from properties: whence *three* imports the property of three persons in concretion. But a notion, insofar as it belongs to one alone, expresses property; insofar, however, as it distinguishes [it] from another, it expresses relation: whence the persons are called *three* as distinguished by their properties. And if you ask, what is being said when it is said: *three notions*; it must be said that the properties are distinguished by themselves, therefore it expresses nothing but the notions themselves.

*To 1.* To that, then, which is objected, that quantity passes over into substance; it must be said that number in creatures is quantity, but in God expresses relation; and this is plain thus. Distinction in creatures is through the apposition of some property or quality, and so through addition; but where addition, there limitation; where limitation, there division of one from another, and where these are, there aggregation of diverse things and measurement. And because measuring belongs to quantity, on distinction in lower [things] there follows number, and it is a mode of being consequent upon matter together with form. But in divine matters distinction is only through origin, not through addition of anything, and therefore there is no addition, no limitation; and where this is not, there is also no measurement, and therefore no quantity either. But where origin is, there is relation and disposition; and therefore in divine matters number does not express quantity, but rather relation. And since relation does not pass over into substance, therefore neither do the numeral terms.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that they are said *of themselves*; it must be said that for a name to be said *of another*, this can be in two ways: either *within* or *outside*, [and either] implicitly or explicitly. And that name is said substantially which is not said *of another*, neither within nor outside, neither implicitly nor explicitly. But a numeral term expresses relation *to another within*, since it imports a distinction of [things] numbered and implies relation.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that no notion is said of the three; it must be said that this is true: no determinate notion; but a [name] common to the notions according to its account is said of the three, like this name *related* and this name *distinct* and similar names.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that the notions are five; it must be said that *three* does not import any [and every] notion whatsoever, but only the personal [notions]. For that notion which makes a person to be a person and distinct from all [others], it is called the unity of the person, insofar as it gives distinct being; and that notion is one of one, just as the unity of one is one; and these are only three. And therefore since there are only three unities in the three persons, hence it is that the persons are called only *three*.