Dist. 24
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-littera
----------------------------------------
### DISTINCTION XXIV.

#### Cap. unicum. *On what is signified by these names: "one" (masc.) or "one" (fem.), "two" (masc.) or "two" (fem.), "three" (neut.) or "three" (neut. pl.), "threefold" or "trinity", "several" or "plurality", "distinction" or "distinct", when we use them in speaking of God.*

Here it must be carefully inquired, since in the Trinity there is no diversity or singularity, nor multiplicity or solitude, what is signified by these names — namely *one* or *one* (fem.), *two* or *two* (fem.), *three* or *three* (neut. pl.), *threefold* or *trinity*, *several* or *plurality*, *distinct* or *distinction* — when it is said: one God, two persons or three persons, several persons, the persons are distinct; or when it is said: a distinction of persons, a plurality of persons, a trinity of persons, and the like. For we seem in saying these things to posit in God quantities of numbers and a multitude or multiplicity of things. Let us therefore take care to make clear what these signify there, with Him of whom we speak Himself disclosing it.

If we attend diligently to the words of the authorities set forth above, so that we may grasp the understanding of what has been said, the use of these words has rather been introduced for the sake of removing and excluding from the simplicity of the deity those things that are not there, than for the sake of positing anything.

For when it is said: *one God*, the multitude of gods is excluded, and a quantity of number is not posited in the divinity, as if it were said: He is God, and there are not many or several gods. Whence Ambrose in the first book *On the Faith* says: «When we say one God, the unity excludes a number of gods, and does not posit quantity in God, since neither number nor quantity is there».

Similarly, when it is said: *one is the Father*, or *one is the Son*, and the like, the reason of what is said is this, that there are not many fathers or many sons; and so likewise of similar things.

Likewise, when we say *that there are several persons*, we exclude singularity and solitude, we do not posit there diversity or multiplicity, as if it were said: we confess persons without solitude and singularity. Whence Hilary in the fourth book *On the Trinity* thus says: «God said: *Let us make man to our image and likeness*. I now ask: do you reckon God to have spoken to Himself alone, or do you understand this speech of His to have gone forth to another? If you say He was alone, you are convicted by His own voice saying: *Let us make* and *our*. For the profession of fellowship has taken away the understanding of singularity and solitude, since there can be no fellowship for one solitary, nor does the solitude of a solitary admit *let us make*, nor would He say *our* to one alien from Himself». Attend, reader, to these words and see that by the name of fellowship he signified plurality. The profession of fellowship, therefore, is a profession of plurality, which He professed when saying *Let us make* and *our*. For each is said in the plural; but by this profession of plurality He did not posit diversity or multitude, but denied solitude and singularity. So therefore, when we say: several persons or a plurality of persons, we exclude the understanding of singularity and solitude.

So also, when we say *three persons*, by the name of the ternary we do not posit a quantity of number in God or any diversity, but we signify that the understanding is to be directed to no other than to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, so that this be the understanding of what is said: there are three persons, or three are the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit — that is, neither the Father alone nor the Son alone nor the Father and the Son alone are in the deity, but also the Holy Spirit, and no other than these. Similarly, there is not there only this person or that, or this and that, but this and that and that, and no other. And that this is so to be understood Augustine sufficiently shows, where he says that by that name he did not wish diversity to be understood, but did not wish singularity.

Similarly, when we say: *the Father and the Son are two*, we do not posit there a quantity of duality, but we signify this: that there is not only the Father nor only the Son, but the Father and the Son, and this one is not that one; and so of other things of this sort. So also when we say: the Father and the Son are two persons, we signify this: that not only the Father is a person, nor only the Son is a person, but the Father is a person, and the Son is a person, and this one is not that one.

But when we say: *the persons are distinct*, or *there is distinction in the persons*, we exclude confusion and intermingling, and we signify that this one is not that one. And when we add: *the persons are distinct by properties* or *differing by properties*, we signify by their properties that this person is one and that person is another. And when we say: *one and another*, we do not posit there diversity or alienation, but we exclude Sabellian confusion.

So also, when *the persons are called discrete*, or when it is said that there is *discretion* in the persons, we make the same understanding. For in the same way *distinction* is taken there as *discretion*. And it is fittingly said that there is there *discretion* or *distinction*, not *diversity* or *division* or *separation*. Whence Ambrose in the first book *On the Faith*: «It is not the same Father who is the Son, but between the Father and the Son there is an express distinction».

But when it is said *trinity*, that seems to be signified which is signified when it is said *three persons*, so that, just as it cannot be said: the Father is three persons, or the Son is three persons, so it ought not to be said: the Father is the trinity, or the Son is the trinity.

Here it must not be passed over that, since it has been said above that God is to be confessed neither as singular nor as manifold, and this has been confirmed by the authorities of the Saints, Isidore seems to think the contrary, saying: «A distinction is to be made between trinity and unity. For unity is simple and singular, but trinity is manifold and numerable; for trinity is the unity of three». Behold, he says that unity is singular, and trinity manifold and numerable. But to this we say that he took *singular* as others take *one*, and *manifold* and *numerable* as others say *threefold*.

---