Dist. 24, Art. 3, Q. 1
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-a3-q1
----------------------------------------
### ARTICLE III. *On the name "threefold" and "trinity."*

In the third place is the principal question concerning the third difference of numeral names, as is this name *threefold* (*trinus*) and *trinity* (*trinitas*). And on this two [questions] are asked.

First it is asked whether names of this sort import unity.

Second, granted that they do, it is asked of what sort is that unity which they import.

### Question I. *Whether the names which signify one and number together import unity.*

That they do import unity, however, is shown:

1. First, through etymology: for *trinitas* is so called as it were a unity of three, and likewise *trinus*.

2. Likewise, this is plain, since in divine matters this name *trinitas* is received, but not this name *ternarius*; but these two import the same plurality: therefore this is not by reason of plurality: therefore this name *trinitas* imports something beyond plurality, and nothing other than unity: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, in divine matters this name *trinus* is received, but this name *triplex* is not received — for God is not called *triplex*, as the Master says in the *littera*, but the faith commonly calls God *trinus* — therefore it says something beyond what *triplex* says; but not plurality: therefore unity.

4. Likewise, the Master said above, in the twenty-second distinction, that this name *trinitas* is a collective name; but a collective name does not only import plurality, but also unity: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. From three persons nothing one comes to be; but from many created unities something one results: therefore number, said in creatures, ought rather to import unity than [it does] in divine matters. But when in creatures it is said *binary* or *ternary*, it so imports number that [it does] not [import] unity: therefore neither ought this name *trinitas* to import [unity] in divine matters.

2. Likewise, if *trinus* and *trinitas* import plurality and unity; since no name so distinct and indistinct has plurality of distinction and unity of indistinction, it can be said of no name in divine matters.

3. Likewise, if it imports unity: therefore since the same thing ought not to be coupled with itself, it is badly and pointlessly said in the hymn of Confessors at the end:

> *He who, residing above the summit of heaven,*
> *Governs the machine of the whole world,*
> *Threefold and one*.

> **Conclusion.** *The name* trinus *or* trinitas *imports, together with plurality of persons, also unity of essence, but not collective [unity].*

**I respond:** It must be said that, because in divine matters number is in a singular way, namely from distinction of supposits with unity of form, in a special way it had to be expressed by a name which says plurality and unity together. — Since therefore names of this sort import plurality and unity, they are accordingly similar to collective names. But since the unity of collective [things] is a unity of aggregation, which follows upon plurality; here, however, it is a unity of form, which is not a consequence of plurality: therefore such a name is not collective. And therefore the Master says that it is *quasi* collective ("as it were collective").

*To 1.* And from this what was said first on the contrary side is plain. Therefore it must be conceded that it imports plurality and unity.

*To 2.* To that, then, which is objected, that no name imports plurality and unity together; it must be said that this is true by reason of form; but since it is one in form, it can have plurality of supposits: and this is not unfitting or impossible.

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning pointlessness, it must be said that, just as this word *cede* ("yield") has the meaning of the verb *to give* and of *place*, but when it is said *cede locum* ("yield place"), it falls away from the meaning of the other [word]: similarly in the [present] proposition, and similarly is it to be understood in relatives, when it is said: *filii pater* ("the sons' father").