Dist. 3, Part 2, Art. 2, 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/3/q/bon-sent-I-d3-p2-a2-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether the trinity of the image, which consists in mind, knowledge, and love, necessarily leads to the knowledge of the three divine persons.*

Thirdly and lastly it is asked whether this trinity of the image — namely of mind, knowledge, and love — necessarily leads to knowledge of the Trinity with respect to the persons. And it seems that it does:

1. Because in this trinity of the image there is relation; but there is no relation except with regard to persons: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, in this trinity there is distinction, since knowledge is not love; but in God there is no distinction except of persons: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, in this trinity there is the origin of one being born from one, and of a third from both: therefore, since these are proper to the persons, it is clear etc.

4. Likewise, in this trinity there is love in the third place, which is proper to the Holy Spirit and which is toward another: therefore it seems that it necessarily leads to the Trinity of persons.

**On the contrary:** 1. This trinity is understood in the creature without personal distinction: therefore it can also be understood in God; but this is false: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, knowledge and love are in each of the persons; but through those things which are in all, one does not arrive at knowledge of personal distinction: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, supposing that there were only one person, that person would still know and love itself: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the philosophers knew this trinity, and yet they did not know the Trinity of persons: therefore this trinity does not necessarily lead to that.

> **Conclusion.** Reason alone does not ascend from this trinity of mind, knowledge, and love to knowledge of the Trinity.

**I respond:** It must be said that through this trinity [knowledge of the Trinity is had] by attributing those things which are in this trinity to that highest Trinity. But this can be done in two ways. For either these three can be attributed to God according to substance — so that by *mind* we understand the mind in God, and by *knowledge in the soul* knowledge in God, and so of the third; and in this way it does not lead to knowledge of the Trinity except as regards the appropriated [attributes]; and thus the philosophers understood it.

These [three] can also be carried over to God by reason of properties, which are order and origin, distinction and relation; and in this way they lead to knowledge of the Trinity with regard to what is proper [to the persons].

But to posit or to understand these in God is something faith can do, but not reason; and so the perfect knowledge of the image is not had except by faith. Hence it should rightly be granted that the image, perfectly known *as* image, leads to knowledge of the Trinity — but not without qualification. And by this both sides are made clear.

**To 1 and 2.** To that which is objected concerning love, it must be said that *love* can signify complacency, and so it is common [to the persons]; or it can signify connection or communion or gift, and so it has the character of a person.