Dist. 23, 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/23/q/bon-sent-I-d23-a2-q3
----------------------------------------
### QUESTION III.

#### *Whether we can catholicly say several gods.*

Thirdly it is asked whether catholicly we can say several gods. And that we can, is shown in this way.

1. This name *God* receives a distinguishing term by reason of supposition, as when it is said, *God begets God*: therefore since the same distinction is imported by the [verb] *begets* and by the [word] *three*, since [it is] personal, therefore in like manner this [statement] is catholic: *there are three gods*.

2. Likewise, *God* is the same as *one having deity*; but there are several having deity — this is said catholicly — therefore in like manner there are several gods.

3. Likewise, this name *God*, although it is substantival, is nevertheless imposed from operation. But it happens that operation is said in the plural of the [divine] persons, as is clear in Genesis 1: *Let us make man* etc.: therefore also this name *gods*.

4. Likewise, for the true numeration of anything no more is required than a true multiplication of supposits and of form; but this is in God, since there are three divine persons; *person* signifies a supposit, *divine* the form: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, since every general thing can be specified, and *person* is a general name, it seems that it can be specified, when it is said: *three persons*, so as to say still more particularly which three; but this cannot be done unless a name common to the three be added, and there is no other to give than this name *God*: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. That it is not said catholicly is clear from the commandments, Deuteronomy 6: *Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God*. Likewise in the [Athanasian] Creed: «Not three gods, but one is God».

2. Likewise, this same [point] is seen by reason, since this name *God* signifies the divine nature; but the divine nature is not numbered or pluralised: therefore neither is this name *God*.

> **Conclusion.** *Although there are three divine persons, nevertheless according to the catholic faith we cannot say that there are three gods.*

**I respond:** It must be said that one cannot say catholicly several gods, because the plural number signifies a pluralisation of the term according to supposit and form in a substantive name, since the plural doubles its singular. And therefore, since the form imported by this name *God* is not multiplied, several gods ought not to be said.

**To the arguments on the opposite side:**

1. To that, then, which is objected, that catholicly it is said *God begets*; it must be said that it is not similar, because *begets* imports at the same time a distinction together with agreement; but *several gods* simply imports distinction as regards both supposit and form.

2. To that which is objected, that *God* is the same as *one having deity*; I respond in two ways: that *one having deity* in one mode can be said neuter-wise, and so it is one only, and is equivalent to that which is *God*, which indeed signifies *that which is*; in another mode masculinely, and so it does not have an equivalent, and so is multiplied.

Yet it can be said in another way, that *God* does not signify the haver, but signifies the deity in comparison to the haver; and therefore is not multiplied.

3. To that which is objected concerning operation, it must be said that a name can signify operation in the manner of an adjacent [term], and so draws number from elsewhere; or in the manner of a substantive, and so is not multiplied, and in this way this name *God* signifies.

4. To that which is objected, that there is a multiplication of supposits and of form there; it must be said that this name *divine* is, as it were, possessive; whence it is imposed from a twofold form, namely of the possession and of the possessor. And the form of deity is in the account of possessor; and, the form of the possessor remaining undivided, the form of the possession is numbered, as *Socratic sheep*; so also in the present case; whence the form had is not numbered.

5. To that which is objected, that a general [term] can be specified; it must be said that *person*, since it names an individual of intellectual nature, can be specified in two ways, namely through the proper [characters] of the persons, as when it is said: *three persons*, that is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; it can also be specified by determination of nature, as if it be said: *divine* or *angelic* or *human persons*.

And if you ask why it is not specified through a single name, as is the case in creatures, where three angelic persons are called three Angels; it can be answered that this is on account of the poverty of human speech, with which both the Greek and Latin tongues labour, but Latin more.

— Or it can be said that this is not permitted by the nature of these names themselves, since a special name is imposed from a special form. Either, then, it is imposed from a common nature, or from a property of person. If it is imposed from a common nature, since that is not multiplied, it cannot be specified by a single name. If however it is imposed from a property of person, then, since that does not belong to the three, it cannot be specified through it. And therefore the Church, compelled by necessity, sets forth a general name, or [one] which imports the commonness of the name, which is common and multipliable; and therefore no specification is to be sought through another name except either through an adjectival name, or through the names of the persons.