Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 21, Art. 1, Q. 2

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 21

Textus Latinus

p. 381

QUAESTIO II.

Utrum dictio exclusiva vere addi possit termino substantiali a parte praedicati.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum dictio exclusiva vere possit addi termino substantiali a parte praedicati. Et quod sic, ostenditur hoc modo.

1. Augustinus sexto de Trinitate¹: «Patrem dicimus esse Deum, sed non esse solum Deum, esse autem solum Deum dicimus Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum». Si tu dicas, quod ly solus intelligitur ex parte subiecti; obiicitur expressius per hoc quod dicit Augustinus contra Maximinum²: «Ipsa Trinitas est unus solus verus Deus»; constat quod in hac solus Deus non potest esse dispositio ex parte subiecti, quia sic esset sermo incongruus: ergo etc.

2. Item, hoc ipsum³ videtur per expositionem: Trinitas est Deus et non aliud quam Deus, ergo Trinitas est solus Deus; praemissae sunt verae: ergo et conclusio.

3. Item, ratione videtur per simile: quando praedicatum non inest alii quam subiecto, vere haec dictio solus accipitur ex parte subiecti: ergo quando subiectum non subest alii quam praedicato, vere accipitur a parte praedicati: sed istud subiectum Trinitas non subest⁴ alii quam Deo: ergo etc.

Contra: 1. Haec dictio solus est dispositio subiecti, sicut hoc signum omnis; sed quando omnis⁵ additur ad praedicatum, locutio est falsa et impropria: ergo et⁶ similiter, quando haec dictio solus.

2. Item, haec dictio solus addita alicui termino excludit alium: unde sensus est: solus homo, id est⁷ homo et non alius; sed alius respicit suppositum, et terminus subiicitur ratione suppositi, et praedicatur ratione formae: ergo haec dictio solus de sui ratione respicit subiectum: ergo falso et improprie additur praedicato.

p. 382

3. Item, secundum quod additur praedicato, aut tenetur categorematice, aut⁸ syncategorematice. Si categorematice, tunc est nomen adiectivum et non recipitur in divinis; si syncategorematice, sic importat negationem implicitam; sed negatio antecedit quod negat: ergo necesse est, quod antecedat compositionem, quam negat; sed cum dicitur: Pater est solus Deus, solus⁹ sequitur compositionem: ergo videtur, quod non possit ipsam negare: ergo etc.

4. Item, ego quaero, quid excludat¹⁰ quando additur ad praedicatum. Si aliud a praedicato, ut sit sensus: est solus Deus, id est Deus et non aliud; tunc est ibi superfluitas, quia forma praedicati excludit aliam formam disparatim, quantum est de se — unde sequitur: iste est homo, ergo non est aliud ab homine — ergo videtur, quod dictio exclusiva faciat superfluitatem et nugationem: non ergo tenetur exclusive, et ita videtur, quod teneatur adiective solum et quod importet solitudinem circa istum¹¹ terminum Deus; et istae sunt falsae.

Conclusio. Dictio exclusiva potest in divinis addi praedicato termini substantialis vere, sed non proprie, nisi cum determinatione et adiunctione termini partitivi.

Respondeo: Ad hoc volunt¹² aliqui dicere, quod haec dictio solus proprie non debet addi ad praedicatum, sed tantum ad subiectum; et cum additur praedicato, impropriae sunt locutiones, et tunc idem est dicere solus et tantum. Sed tamen, si aliquis inspiciat, non tantum cum hac dictione solus, sed etiam¹³ cum hac dictione tantum videbit improprietatem et superfluitatem. Quid enim est dicere: Trinitas est tantum Deus, nisi est Deus, et non aliud quam Deus? Sed¹⁴ hoc improprie satis dictum est, quia hoc ipso, quod Deus est, excluditur, quod non sit aliud a Deo. Si enim Deus est, ergo non est aliud a Deo, et nullus haereticus unquam dixit, Trinitatem esse Deum, qui diceret, aliud esse a Deo. Unde non videtur magnum quid Augustinus dicere, si hoc voluit dicere.

Et propterea aliter dicendum est, quod haec dictio solus dupliciter potest addi termino substantiali a parte praedicati: aut per se, aut cum termino numerali sive partitivo. Per se improprie additur; et si addatur secundum vocem, tamen secundum intellectum stat a parte subiecti. Idem enim est dicere: est homo albus, et est albus homo. Unde sensus est: non dicimus, Patrem esse solum Deum, id est, non dicimus, solum Patrem esse Deum. Si autem aliter ponatur, videtur sermo habere superfluitatem et improprietatem, quia hoc excludit, quod excludebatur ex natura ipsius praedicati.

Aliquando additur haec dictio solus termino substantiali cum termino numerali, sicut cum hoc termino unus; et tunc excludit pluralitatem, et hoc modo bene additur praedicato; et ita accipit Augustinus contra Maximinum, cum dicit: «Trinitas est unus solus verus Deus», ita quod non plures; et tunc est verus sermo et proprius et contra haereticos, qui dicebant, Trinitatem plures esse deos. Et importatur per istum terminum solus privatio multitudinis, et ita discretio, et magis proprie dicitur de Trinitate, quod Trinitas sit unus solus Deus, quam de Patre, cum tamen possit dici de utroque, quia Pater est unus Deus, et nullus unquam dixit, Patrem esse plures; sed de Trinitate sive de tribus aliqui dixerunt; et ideo congruentius dicitur: Trinitas est unus solus Deus. Concedendum est igitur, quod solus potest addi ad praedicatum termini substantialis vere in divinis, sed non proprie, nisi cum determinatione et adiunctione termini partitivi.

Ad argumenta in oppositum:

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod solus est dispositio subiecti, sicut hoc signum omnis; dicendum, quod non est ita propria dispositio subiecti, sicut hoc signum omnis; quia omnis distribuit pro suppositis, pro quibus terminus subiicitur, non pro quibus praedicatur, saltem simul sumtis; solus autem non solum dicitur ratione suppositi, verum etiam ratione formae, quia excludit alium et etiam potest excludere aliud.

p. 383

2. Et per hoc patet sequens, quia non semper excludit alium masculine, sed etiam potest excludere aliud neutraliter, vel etiam pluralitatem, quando additur termino numerali, ut visum est.

3. Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum teneatur syncategorematice, vel categorematice, prout est nomen importans formam denominantem, ut idem sit solus quod solitarius; dicendum, quod syncategorematice. Quod obiicitur, quod sequitur compositionem; dicendum, quod solus importat duo in se, scilicet intellectum huius nominis alius et intellectum negationis. Quantum ad intellectum huius nominis alius, respicit terminum, circa quem ponitur, et sequitur actum; quantum ad intellectum negationis praecedit; et hoc non est inconveniens quantum ad diversa praecedere et sequi. Et hoc patet exponenti. Si enim dicam: video solum Petrum, sensus est: video Petrum et non video alium a Petro. Similiter intelligendum est in proposito.

4. Ad illud quod quaeritur, quid excludit, cum additur praedicato; dicendum, quod quando additur sine determinatione, excludit aliam formam; et tunc revera est ibi superfluitas et improprietas, tamen nihilominus veritas. Sed quando additur cum termino partitivo, tunc excludit pluralitatem; et tunc potest locutio habere veritatem. Pater enim et Filius sunt unus Deus et non plures, et ita unus solus Deus.

Scholion

I. Prima opinio in corp. posita asserit, omnes [propositio]nes, in quibus vocabulum solus ponitur ad praedicatum, esse improprias, et tunc hoc verbum solus aequivalere termino tantum. Contra hanc sententiam arguit S. Doctor, quod tunc verba S. Augustini in fundam. sint valde impropria, et quod insuper ibi sit superfluitas. Quare distinguendo duplicem modum, quo solus addi possit praedicato, suam propriam opinionem proponit et corroborat, quam magis explicat infra dub. 1. Aliqui tamen primum membrum distinctionis, quando solus per se additur praedicato, iterum distinguunt et in aliquo sensu ut proprie dictum admittunt. Ita S. Thomas (hic q. 2. a. 1.), B. Albertus et Petrus. Tamen in Summa (I. q. 31. a. 3. ad 2.) Angelicus omnes istas propositiones dicit esse improprias, «forte ex parte praedicati intelligatur aliqua implicatio, ut dicatur: Trinitas est Deus, qui est solus Deus». Dionys. Carth. (hic q. unic.) censet, quod S. Thomas in Commentario a S. Bonaventura «parumper dissentit. Videtur autem in hac re positio illa Bonaventurae planior ac aptior esse». Hoc argumento non spernendo probare nititur.

II. Praeter citatos cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 66. m. 3. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unic. a. 5. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 5. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. unica, collater. 1. et 2.

---

English Translation

QUESTION II.

Whether the exclusive word can truly be added to a substantial term on the side of the predicate.

Secondly it is asked, whether the exclusive word can truly be added to a substantial term on the side of the predicate. And that it can be so, is shown in this manner.

1. Augustine in the sixth book On the Trinity¹: «We say that the Father is God, but [we do] not [say] that he is God alone; but God alone we say to be the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit». If you should say that the [word] solus is understood on the side of the subject, [the point] is objected more expressly through what Augustine says against Maximinus²: «The Trinity itself is one only true God»; it is established that in this [statement] solus Deus cannot be a determination on the side of the subject, since [if it were] thus, the discourse would be incongruous: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, this same [point]³ seems [evident] through exposition: the Trinity is God and nothing other than God, therefore the Trinity is God alone; the premises are true: therefore so also is the conclusion.

3. Likewise, by reasoning it seems [evident] through a parallel: when the predicate does not belong to anything other than the subject, this word solus is truly taken on the side of the subject; therefore when the subject does not stand under anything other than the predicate, it is truly taken on the side of the predicate: but this subject Trinity does not stand under⁴ anything other than God: therefore etc.

On the contrary: 1. This word solus is a determination of the subject, just as this sign omnis [is]; but when omnis⁵ is added to the predicate, the locution is false and improper: therefore likewise also⁶ when [we add] this word solus.

2. Likewise, this word solus added to some term excludes another: whence the sense is: solus homo, that is⁷, a man and not another; but another concerns a supposit, and the term is made the subject by reason of its supposit, and is predicated by reason of its form: therefore this word solus of its own account regards the subject: therefore it is added falsely and improperly to the predicate.

3. Likewise, according as it is added to the predicate, it is taken either categorematically, or⁸ syncategorematically. If categorematically, then it is an adjectival noun and is not received in divine matters; if syncategorematically, then it imports an implicit negation; but the negation precedes that which it negates: therefore it is necessary that it precede the composition which it negates; but when it is said: the Father is God alone, solus⁹ follows the composition: therefore it seems that it cannot negate it: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, I ask, what does it exclude¹⁰ when it is added to the predicate. If [it excludes] something other than the predicate, so that the sense is: est solus Deus, that is, God and not anything else; then there is superfluity there, since the form of the predicate excludes another disparate form, as far as in itself — whence it follows: this is a man, therefore he is not anything other than a man — therefore it seems that the exclusive word produces superfluity and trifling: therefore it is not held exclusively, and so it seems that it is held only adjectivally and that it imports solitariness around this¹¹ term God; and these [propositions] are false.

Conclusion. The exclusive word can in divine matters be added to the predicate of a substantial term truly, but not properly, except with the determination and adjunction of a partitive term.

I respond: To this some wish¹² to say, that this word solus properly ought not to be added to the predicate, but only to the subject; and when it is added to the predicate, the locutions are improper, and then it is the same to say solus and tantum. But nevertheless, if anyone considers carefully, not only with this word solus, but also¹³ with this word tantum he will see impropriety and superfluity. For what is it to say: the Trinity is only God, except it is God, and not anything other than God? But¹⁴ this is said improperly enough, since by this very fact, that he is God, it is excluded that he be anything other than God. For if he is God, therefore he is not anything other than God, and no heretic ever said the Trinity to be God who [also] said it to be something other than God. Whence Augustine does not seem to be saying anything great, if this is what he wished to say.

And therefore it must be said otherwise, that this word solus can be added in two ways to a substantial term on the side of the predicate: either by itself, or with a numeral or partitive term. By itself it is added improperly; and if it be added in word, nevertheless according to the understanding it stands on the side of the subject. For it is the same to say: est homo albus, and est albus homo ["he is a white man" and "he is a man white"]. Whence the sense is: we do not say, that the Father is God alone, that is, we do not say, that the Father alone is God. But if it be set otherwise, the discourse seems to have superfluity and impropriety, since this excludes [what] was [already] excluded from the nature of the predicate itself.

Sometimes this word solus is added to a substantial term with a numeral term, as with this term unus; and then it excludes plurality, and in this way it is well added to the predicate; and so Augustine takes [it] against Maximinus, when he says: «The Trinity is one only true God», so that [there are] not several [Gods]; and then the discourse is true and proper and against the heretics, who used to say that the Trinity was several gods. And there is imported through this term solus the privation of multitude, and so distinction, and it is more properly said of the Trinity that the Trinity is one only God, than of the Father, although it can be said of either, since the Father is one God, and no one ever said that the Father was several; but concerning the Trinity or the three some have said [so]; and therefore it is more fittingly said: the Trinity is one only God. It must therefore be conceded, that solus can be added to the predicate of a substantial term truly in divine matters, but not properly, except with the determination and adjunction of a partitive term.

To the arguments on the opposite side:

1. To that, then, which is objected, that solus is a determination of the subject, just as this sign omnis; it must be said, that it is not so properly a determination of the subject as this sign omnis; since omnis distributes for the supposits for which the term is the subject, not for those of which it is predicated, at least taken together; but solus is said not only by reason of the supposit, but also by reason of the form, since it excludes [an]other [masculine] and also can exclude [an]other [neuter].

2. And through this the next [argument] is clear, since it does not always exclude alium (another) masculine, but can also exclude aliud (another) neuter, or even plurality, when it is added to a numeral term, as has been seen.

3. To that which is asked, whether it is held syncategorematically, or categorematically, inasmuch as it is a noun importing a denominating form, so that solus is the same as solitarius ("solitary"); it must be said, [that it is held] syncategorematically. As to what is objected, that it follows the composition; it must be said, that solus imports two [things] in itself, namely the understanding of this name alius ("another") and the understanding of negation. As to the understanding of this name alius, it regards the term about which it is set, and follows the act [of composition]; as to the understanding of negation, it precedes [it]; and this is not unfitting in respect to different things, to precede and to follow. And this is clear to one explaining [it]. For if I should say: I see Peter alone, the sense is: I see Peter and I do not see another besides Peter. Similarly it is to be understood in the present matter.

4. To that which is asked, what it excludes, when it is added to the predicate; it must be said, that when it is added without determination, it excludes another form; and then there really is superfluity and impropriety there, but nevertheless truth. But when it is added with a partitive term, then it excludes plurality; and then the locution can have truth. For the Father and the Son are one God and not several, and so one only God.

Scholion

I. The first opinion set out in the body asserts that all [proposi]tions in which the word solus is set with the predicate are improper, and that in such case this word solus is equivalent to the term tantum ("only"). Against this opinion the holy Doctor argues that, [if it were so,] then the words of St. Augustine in the fundamentum (the opening argument) would be very improper, and that moreover there would be superfluity there. For which reason, distinguishing a twofold mode by which solus can be added to the predicate, he proposes and corroborates his own opinion, which he explains more fully below in dub. 1. Some however further distinguish the first member of the distinction — when solus is added by itself to the predicate — and admit it in a certain sense as properly said. Thus St. Thomas (here q. 2, a. 1), Blessed Albert and Peter [of Tarentaise]. Yet in the Summa (I, q. 31, a. 3, ad 2) the Angelic [Doctor] says all those propositions to be improper, «unless perhaps on the side of the predicate some implication be understood, so that it be said: the Trinity is God, who is the only God». Dionysius the Carthusian (here q. unic.) judges that St. Thomas in the Commentary «in some small measure dissents from St. Bonaventure. But in this matter that position of Bonaventure seems to be plainer and more apt». He strives to prove [it] by a not contemptible argument.

II. Besides those cited, cf. Alex. of Hales, S. p. I, q. 66, m. 3, a. 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 3, 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. unic., a. 5. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 5. — Giles of Rome, here 2 princ., q. unica, collater. 1 and 2.

---

Apparatus Criticus

Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. l. 1: Unus omnino solus Deus a nobis ipsa Trinitas praedicatur. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2 circa finem. — Mox Vat. praeter fidem mss. et sex primarum edd. ly solus pro in hac solus Deus. Per verba, quae dein sequuntur, scil. sermo incongruus, intellige sermonem contra grammaticae regulas.
See here the text of the Master, c. 2, l. 1: We predicate the Trinity itself as one altogether-only God. See here the text of the Master, c. 2 near the end. — Soon after, the Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and the first six editions, [reads] ly solus in place of in hac solus Deus. By the words which then follow, namely sermo incongruus, understand a discourse against the rules of grammar.
Ex plurimis mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus ipsum.
From very many manuscripts and edition 1 we have supplied ipsum.
Postulantibus codd. cum ed. 1 hoc non contextu, posuimus subest loco inest.
With the codices together with edition 1 demanding [it], with this not [being] the [original] context, we have set subest in place of inest.
In Vat. deest particula et, quae tamen a multis mss. ut AKGTV etc. et ed. 1 exhibetur.
In the Vatican edition the particle et is missing, which however is exhibited by many manuscripts such as A, K, G, T, V etc. and by edition 1.
Vat. cum cod. cc omittit minus bene, et aliis mss. cum ed. 1 obnitentibus, id est. Paulo ante aliqui codd. ut SVZ post excludit repetunt terminum.
The Vatican edition with codex cc omits — less well, and with the other manuscripts together with edition 1 resisting — id est ("that is"). A little before, some codices such as S, V, Z after excludit repeat terminum ("the term").
Cod. V addit tenetur. Paulo infra post si syncategorematice plurimi mss. cum edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 adiiciunt sed. Dein cod. T implicat loco importat.
Codex V adds tenetur ("is held"). A little below, after si syncategorematice, very many manuscripts together with editions 1, 2, 3, 6 add sed ("but"). Then codex T [reads] implicat in place of importat.
Sequimur maiorem numerum mss. ut H I M N P Q Z etc. et ed. 1 ponendo solus, quod aliqui codd. ut OR U omittunt, aliqui vero ut CLSY ei substituunt sic, cod. T hic, Vat. cum cod. cc autem falso non. Mox cod. Z, cum ed. 1, verbis transpositis, ergo non videtur, quod possit etc.
We follow the greater number of manuscripts such as H, I, M, N, P, Q, Z etc. and edition 1 in setting solus, which some codices such as O, R, U omit, while others such as C, L, S, Y substitute for it sic ("thus"), codex T hic ("here"), but the Vatican edition with codex cc falsely [reads] non ("not"). Soon after, codex Z, together with edition 1, with the words transposed, [reads] ergo non videtur, quod possit ("therefore it does not seem that it can") etc.
Ed. 1 excludit.
Edition 1 [reads] excludit ("excludes").
Antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 exigentibus, substituimus istum pro hunc, et mox post et expunximus additum sic.
With the more ancient manuscripts and edition 1 requiring [it], we have substituted istum for hunc, and soon after, we have struck out the sic added after et.
Vat. cum recentiore cod. cc voluerunt.
The Vatican edition with the more recent codex cc [reads] voluerunt ("they wished" — perfect plural).
Ex pluribus mss. ut G H I P Q Z ee ff et ed. 1 adiecimus etiam. Paulo infra post Quid enim Vat. cum cod. cc addit aliud, quod tamen deest in aliis codd. et ed. 1. Dein post nisi cod. V et ed. 1 repetunt Trinitas.
From several manuscripts such as G, H, I, P, Q, Z, ee, ff and edition 1 we have added etiam ("also"). A little below, after Quid enim, the Vatican edition with codex cc adds aliud ("anything else"), which however is missing in the other codices and in edition 1. Then after nisi, codex V and edition 1 repeat Trinitas.
Ope vetustiorum scriptorum supplevimus Sed.
With the help of the more ancient writers we have supplied Sed ("But").
Ad normam mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 expunximus hic additum ipsam. Paulo ante cod. cc et edd. 2, 3 falso quin pro qui. Mox Vat. contra fere omnes codd. et ed. 1 et ideo loco Unde.
According to the standard of the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3 we have struck out the ipsam added here. A little before, codex cc and editions 2, 3 falsely [read] quin in place of qui. Soon after, the Vatican edition, against nearly all the codices and edition 1, [reads] et ideo in place of Unde.
Faventibus antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1, restituimus particulam Et. Paulo post in mss. desiderantur verba a parte praedicati, certe supplenda. — Aristot., II. Periherm. c. 1: Transposita vero nomina et verba idem significant, ut est albus homo, et est homo albus. — Sequimur antiquiores codd. et ed. 1 ponendo Aliquando pro Aliter, et mox post sicut cum addendo hoc, ac dein substituendo ita loco sic. — Vat. cum uno alterove tantum codice distinctio, quae et paulo post praeter fidem mss. et sex primarum edd. omittit haec verba quia Pater est unus Deus. — In plurimis mss. et ed. 1 deest pro quibus, e contra in codd. aa bb habetur sed non pro illis, pro quibus. — Nonnulli codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt etiam, pro quo aliqui falso exhibent non.
With the more ancient manuscripts and edition 1 favoring [it], we have restored the particle Et. A little after, in the manuscripts the words a parte praedicati ("on the side of the predicate") are wanting, certainly to be supplied. — Aristotle, On Interpretation II, c. 1: Nouns and verbs transposed signify the same, as "est albus homo" and "est homo albus". — We follow the more ancient codices and edition 1 in setting Aliquando ("sometimes") in place of Aliter ("otherwise"), and soon after, after sicut cum adding hoc, and then substituting ita in place of sic. — The Vatican edition with only one or another codex [reads] distinctio ("distinction"), which also a little after, against the witness of the manuscripts and the first six editions, omits these words quia Pater est unus Deus ("since the Father is one God"). — In very many manuscripts and edition 1 pro quibus ("for which") is missing; on the contrary, in codices aa, bb there is found sed non pro illis, pro quibus ("but not for those for which"). — Several codices together with edition 1 omit etiam, in place of which some falsely [read] non.

← Dist. 21, Art. 1, Q. 1 Dist. 21, Art. 2, Q. 1→