Dist. 21, Dubia
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-dubia
----------------------------------------
### DOUBTS ON THE MASTER'S TEXT.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the *littera*, and first there is doubt concerning what the Master says, namely that properly the whole Trinity is *the only God* (*solus Deus*), since he seems to wish to deny this: «*The Father is the only God*»; but this seems to be true by exposition, because the Father is God and is not another from God nor another thing: therefore etc. Likewise, a predicate which is said of the whole Trinity cannot be other than an essential predicate; therefore since *the only God* (*solus Deus*) is an essential predicate — because otherwise it would not be said of the whole Trinity — and an essential predicate is said of each person singly: therefore the Father is the only God.

**I respond:** It must be said that when *solus* is added per se to the predicate, in such a way that it is not understood on the side of the subject, the speech is improper, whether it be said of the whole Trinity or of the Father. Nor does Augustine wish to say that *solus Deus* is predicated of the whole Trinity in such a way as not [to be predicated] of the Father. But in those locutions: *to God alone honor and glory*, and the like, *solus Deus* is not taken for a single person, excluding the other persons, but for the whole Trinity, excluding other natures; and the Master takes [it] thus, as if Augustine wished to say that this, namely *solus Deus*, is predicated of the Trinity, and not of the Father. But he himself means that it should supposit for the Trinity itself; but if it supposits for the Father, nevertheless it does not precisely supposit for the Father alone; and therefore Augustine concedes that the Trinity alone is the only true God, yet not the Father alone. Hence the Master also does not say that the Father is not *solus Deus*, but that it is not properly said. And this is manifest, if one considers how *solus* ought to be added to the predicate.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *We say that the Trinity is the only God, although [God] is always with the saints, since [he] is inseparable from other things and most intimate to all*: on what account does he say [that he is] more with the saints than with others?

**I respond:** It must be said that although God is in all things and with all things, nevertheless he is said to be specially with the saints because of the effect of indwelling grace, through which they themselves are conformed and become beloved and like to him. Hence Proverbs eight: *My delights [are] to be with the sons of men*, says the Wisdom of God. Hence *the Lord be with you* is said to men, not to beasts.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning this locution: *No one knows the Son except the Father*, because, since *nemo* is composed of *non* and *homo*, therefore *nemo* is the same as *no man*; but «an exceptive word does not except [anything] except what is contained under the term». Hence nothing is said [in]: *no man runs except a donkey*. Therefore since the Father is not contained in the supposition of this noun *homo*, it is plain etc. If you say that the distribution imported by this term *nemo* is by usage extended beyond men; then I ask: for what does it stand? either for what is created, or for what is uncreated? If for what is created, there is no exception, because [the proposition is] simply true; and besides, the Father is not contained therein. If for what is uncreated, [it is] simply and totally false: therefore it cannot be verified by exception. If you say [that it stands] for both; how can this be, since they have nothing in common? And if they do have [something] in common, either this which is *nemo* is distributed for essences, or for persons; if for essences: therefore the Father ought not to be excepted; if for persons: therefore the Holy Spirit ought to be excepted, just as also the Father; otherwise the locution is false.

**I respond:** It must be said that *nemo* is distributed commonly for every knower or for [everyone] having a cognitive power, and *nemo* is distributed not for the supposit alone or person, but for the nature. Hence the Father is not excepted because [he is] a person, but because [he is] of the same nature with the Son; and therefore in that exception the Son and the Holy Spirit are implied, and therefore the locution has truth.

Or say that *nemo* is distributed for men, and *nisi* is taken not exceptively, but adversatively, as it is said in 2 Timothy chapter 2: *It is of no avail except to the subversion of the hearers*.

---