Bonaventure

DISTINCTIO XXIV.

Cap. unicum. Quid significetur his nominibus: unus vel una, duo vel duae, tres vel tria, trinus vel trinitas, plures vel pluralitas, distinctio vel distinctae, cum his utimur loquentes de Deo.

Hic diligenter inquiri oportet, cum in Trinitate non sit diversitas vel singularitas, nec multiplicitas vel solitudo, quid significetur his nominibus, scilicet unus vel una, duo vel duae, tres vel tria, trinus vel trinitas, plures vel pluralitas, distinctae vel distinctio, cum dicitur: unus Deus, duae personae vel tres personae, plures personae, distinctae sunt personae; vel cum dicitur: distinctio personarum, pluralitas personarum, trinitas personarum et huiusmodi. Videmur enim hoc dicentes numerorum quantitates et rerum multitudinem vel multiplicitatem in Deo ponere. Quid ergo ista ibi significent, ipso de quo loquimur aperiente, insinuare curemus.

Si diligenter praemissis auctoritatum verbis¹ intendimus, ut dictorum intelligentiam capiamus, magis horum verborum usus introductus ratione removendi atque excludendi a simplicitate deitatis quae ibi non sunt, quam ponendi aliqua.

Cum enim dicitur: unus Deus, multitudo deorum excluditur, nec numeri quantitas in divinitate ponitur, ac si diceretur: Deus est, nec multi sunt vel plures dii. Unde Ambrosius in primo libro de Fide² ait: «Cum unum dicimus Deum, unitas exludit numerum deorum nec quantitatem in Deo ponit, quia nec numerus nec quantitas ibi est».

Similiter, cum dicitur: unus est Pater, vel unus est Filius, et huiusmodi, ratio dicti haec est, quod non sunt multi patres vel multi filii, ita et de similibus.

Item, cum dicimus: plures esse personas, singularitatem atque solitudinem excludimus, non diversitatem vel multiplicitatem³ ibi ponimus, quasi diceretur: sine solitudine ac singularitate personas confitemur. Unde Hilarius in libro quarto de Trinitate⁴ sic ait: «Dixit Deus: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. Quaero nunc, an solum Deum sibi locutum existimes, an hunc sermonem eius intelligas ad alterum extitisse? Si solum fuisse dicis, ipsius voce argueris dicentis: Faciamus et nostram. Sustulit enim singularitatis ac solitudinis intelligentiam professio consortii, quia aliquod consortium esse non potest ipsi solitario, neque solitudo solitarii recipit faciamus⁵, nec alieno a se diceret nostram». Attende, lector, his verbis et vide, quia nomine consortii pluralitatem significavit. Professio ergo consortii est professio pluralitatis, quam professus est dicens faciamus et nostram. Pluraliter enim utrumque dicitur; sed hac professione pluralitatis non diversitatem vel multitudinem posuit, sed solitudinem et singularitatem negavit. Sic ergo, cum dicimus: plures personas vel pluralitatem personarum, singularitatis et solitudinis intelligentiam excludimus.

Ita etiam, cum dicimus: tres personas, nomine ternam non quantitatem numeri in Deo ponimus vel aliquam diversitatem, sed intelligentiam non ad alium nisi ad Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum dirigendam significamus, ut sit haec⁶ dicti intelligentia: tres personae sunt, vel tres sunt Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, id est, nec tantum Pater nec tantum Filius nec tantum Pater et Filius in deitate sunt, sed etiam Spiritus sanctus, et non alius ab his. Similiter, non tantum est ibi haec persona vel illa, vel haec et illa, sed haec et illa et illa⁷, et non alia. Et hoc fore ita intelligendum Augustinus satis ostendit, ubi dicit⁸, quod illo nomine non diversitatem intelligi voluit, sed singularitatem noluit.

Similiter, cum dicimus⁹: duo sunt Pater et Filius, non dualitatis quantitatem ibi ponimus, sed hoc significamus, quod non est tantum Pater nec tantum Filius, sed Pater et Filius, et hic non est ille; ita et de aliis huiusmodi. Ita etiam cum dicimus: Pater et Filius sunt duae personae, hoc significamus, quod non tantum Pater est persona, nec tantum Filius est persona, sed Pater est persona, et Filius est persona, et haec non est illa.

Cum autem dicimus: distinctae sunt¹⁰ personae, vel distinctio est in personis, confusionem atque permixtionem excludimus, et hanc non esse illam significamus. Cumque addimus: distinctae sunt personae proprietatibus sive differentes proprietatibus, aliam esse hanc personam et aliam illam suis proprietatibus significamus. Et cum dicimus: aliam et aliam, non diversitatem vel alienationem ibi ponimus, sed confusionem Sabellianam excludimus.

Ita etiam, cum dicuntur discretae personae, vel cum dicitur discretio esse in personis, eandem intelligentiam facimus. Eo¹¹ enim modo ibi accipitur distin-

ctio, quo discretio. Et congrue dicitur ibi esse discretio vel distinctio, non diversitas vel divisio sive separatio. Unde Ambrosius in primo libro de Fide¹²: «Non est ipse Pater, qui Filius, sed inter Patrem et Filium expressa distinctio est».

Cum vero dicitur¹³ trinitas, id significari videtur, quod significatur, cum dicitur: tres personae, ut, sicut non potest dici: Pater est tres personae, vel Filius est tres personae, ita non debeat dici: Pater est trinitas, vel Filius est trinitas.

Hic non est praetermittendum, quod, cum supra dictum sit¹⁴, Deum nec singularem nec multiplicem esse confitendum, idque Sanctorum auctoritatibus sit confirmatum, in contrarium videtur sentire Isidorus dicens¹⁵: «Distinguendum est inter trinitatem et unitatem. Est enim unitas simplex et singularis, trinitas vero multiplex et numerabilis; quia est trinitas trium unitas». Ecce unitatem dicit esse singularem, et trinitatem multiplicem et numerabilem. Sed ad hoc dicimus, quia singularem accepit, sicut et alii accipiunt unum; multiplicem vero et numerabilem¹⁶, sicut alii dicunt trinum.

---

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 above¹, 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 Faith² 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 multiplicity³, as if it were said: we confess persons without solitude and singularity. Whence Hilary in the fourth book On the Trinity⁴ 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 make⁵, 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 this⁶ 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 that⁷, and no other. And that this is so to be understood Augustine sufficiently shows, where he says⁸ that by that name he did not wish diversity to be understood, but did not wish singularity.

Similarly, when we say⁹: 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 distinct¹⁰, 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 distinction¹¹ 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 Faith¹²: «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 said¹³ 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 above¹⁴ 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, saying¹⁵: «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 numerable¹⁶ as others say threefold.

---