Dist. 24, Art. 3, 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-a3-q2
----------------------------------------
### QUESTION II. *Whether the unity which the names "trinity" and "three" import is the unity of the essence, or of the supposit.*

Secondly it is asked, of what kind that unity is which this name *trinity* or *three* imports — namely, whether of supposit, or of essence. And that [it is] of essence is shown:

1. Because that which is *trinity* is said of all [the persons] together and in the singular; but this belongs only to a term importing substantial unity: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, no unity is "of three" except essence or essential; but *trinity* is the unity of three: therefore this name *trinity* expresses essential unity; by parity of reason, also this name *three*.

3. Likewise, neither this name *trinity* nor this name *three* is said of a person: therefore it does not import personal unity. For it is not conceded: *the person is three*, or *the person is trinity*.

**On the contrary:**

1. Names of this sort import simultaneously plurality and unity; but the unity of the person alone is what can be pluralized, not [the unity] of the essence: therefore they import the unity of the person.

2. Likewise, the unity of the essence is predicated of the Father; but neither this name *three*, nor this name *trinity*, is predicated of the Father: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the unity of the essence is predicated of the essence; but this is by no means said: *the divine essence is three*, nor: *trinity is three*: therefore it does not express essential unity.

It is asked, therefore, what unity they import, and whether these names are said according to substance, or according to relation. And since they are said of all [the persons] together in the singular, they seem to be said according to substance; since again they are not said of any one singly, they do not seem to be said according to substance.

> **Conclusion.** *The unity which the terms "trinity" and "three" import is not personal unity, but essential.*

**I respond:** It must be said that for this purpose a twofold etymology is wont to be assigned. In one way *trinity* is called *unity thrice*; and thus the numeral name falls in it as a complement, and it is so said according to relation, like numeral terms; and the unity which it imports is personal unity, not essential, since the latter is pluralized. The other etymology is: *trinity is the unity of three*; and then the unity is not numbered, but is signified as communicable from the three; and since this unity is essential, therefore it imports essential unity.

And this last etymology indeed without doubt has truth; but the first does not seem to have truth. For since *three* and *trinity* have the same signification, if that is the etymology: *unity thrice*, then *three* would be called *one thrice*. But this cannot be said of God, namely *thrice one*, although he is nevertheless called *three*.

On account of this it must be said that names of this sort import formal unity, or unity of essence, together with plurality of supposits; and therefore they have in some way the nature of a substantial term in this, that they are said of three in the singular, and the nature of a numeral term in this, that they are said of no one [supposit] *per se*.

**To the arguments on the opposite side:**

*To 1.* To that which is objected, that the unity of the person alone can be pluralized; it must be said that *trinity* does not import plurality with regard to unity in the direct [case], but only in the oblique, [namely] that it be of three or to three; and this is [the case] of the essence.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that the unity of the essence is predicated of the Father; it must be said that this is true, but not on this ground — that several [persons] come together in him — just as *animal* is predicated of man, yet not on the ground on which diverse species come together in him — and since *trinity* imports that unity as in several [supposits], therefore etc.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that it is not said *the essence [is] three*, nor *trinity [is] three*; it must be said that this name *three* imports unity as in concretion, and so as inhering in several. And therefore of it alone is it said that it imports unity as in concretion,

as [does] this name *God*, which indeed stands for the persons. And because this name *God* is such, therefore it is conceded: *God is three*, [but] not: *the deity is three*: because *deity* does not stand for a person; likewise neither does this *trinity*; and so all things are plain.