Dist. 21, Art. 1, 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/21/q/bon-sent-I-d21-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### 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 Trinity*: «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 Maximinus*: «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] 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 under 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 *omnis* is added to the predicate, the locution is false and improper: therefore likewise also when [we add] this word *solus*.

2. Likewise, this word *solus* added to some term excludes another: whence the sense is: *solus homo*, that is, 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, or 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*, *solus* follows the composition: therefore it seems that it cannot negate it: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, I ask, what does it exclude 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 this 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 wish 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 also 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*? But 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.