Dist. 4, Art. 1, 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/4/q/bon-sent-I-d4-a1-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III

*Whether it can be said congruously according to the rules of grammar: several gods.*

Thirdly it is asked, whether this name *God* grammatically signifies the plural number, or whether it can be said congruously: *several gods*. And that it can, seems thus:

**1.** Because according to the Philosopher understandings are the same among all, although vocal expressions are diverse; but the modes of signifying follow the modes of understanding: therefore since among the Hebrews it is congruously said *Heloim*, which is equivalent to that which is *gods*, therefore also among us.

**2.** Likewise, as the Philosopher will have it, the true presupposes the congruous; whence "*Cato's is*, or *is not*, signifies neither true nor false"; but this is true: *there are not several gods*: therefore congruous: therefore also this is congruous: *there are several gods*, because negation does not remove incongruity.

**3.** Likewise, just as *God* belongs to one alone, so *principle* of creatures belongs to one alone; but although several principles are said falsely, nevertheless they are said congruously: therefore by parity of reasoning we can say: *several gods*.

**4.** Likewise, this name *phoenix* has only a single supposit; nevertheless it is congruously said: *several phoenixes*. If you should say that the supposit is multiplied through succession of time, I object to you concerning this name *sun*, which is at no time multiplied; and nevertheless it is congruously said: *several suns*: therefore also *several gods*.

**On the contrary:**

**1.** Every name which has a plural is an appellative name; for proper names are not pluralized, for one does not say: *several Peters* or *Johns*; but this name *God* is not an appellative name, because it does not signify a multipliable form: therefore etc.

**2.** Likewise, this name *God* is properly proper to the divine nature; but no such [name] is multiplied: therefore etc.

> **Conclusion.** The name *God*, properly speaking, does not have a plural.

**I respond:** For the understanding of what has been said, it must be noted that this name *God* is said in three ways, namely *nuncupatively*, *adoptively* and *naturally*. In the first two modes it is pluralized; whence the Apostle in First Corinthians, chapter eight: *If indeed there are many gods, and many lords*; but in the third mode not, because thus this name *God* signifies the divine nature together with conditions whose collection is impossible to find in another; and therefore, just as a proper name does not have a plural, speaking according to art, so neither does this name *God*.

**1.** Therefore to that which is objected, that among the Hebrews there is a plural which is *Heloim*; it must be said that the modes of signifying do not follow only the diverse general modes of understanding, but also the modes of expressing. And because they themselves have articles and diverse modes of expressing, which we do not have, therefore they can have [it], but we cannot.

**2.** To that which is objected, that the true presupposes the congruous; it must be said that incongruity is twofold: one is from disharmony of accidents, as *Cato's is*; the other from disharmony of understandings, as when it is said: *several Peters*. The first incongruity takes away truth and falsity; but the second incongruity has falsity conjoined: and therefore, because through negation falsity is removed, and the Saints prefer to speak truly than to preserve the propriety of speech and speak less truly, therefore they deny *several gods*. It could nevertheless be said, that although this utterance *gods* is not a significative utterance according to art and imposition, it is nevertheless a significative utterance from the accommodation of usage, as *olli* for *illi*: and therefore the affirmative generates a false understanding, and the negative a true [understanding], although not grammatically.

**3. 4.** To that which is objected, that *principle* belongs to one alone, and likewise *phoenix*; it must be said that to belong to one alone is in three ways. For either it is because the name is imposed from an unmultipliable form, as in proper names; and thus it removes plurality in reality and in cosignification. Or it is imposed from a form which is suited by nature to be communicated, although it is not communicated because of determination, as when it is said: *principle of creatures*. Or on account of a defect of matter, as *phoenix*; and such [a name] removes plurality according to the thing, not according to cosignification, because such a form can be cosignified, as it can be multiplied through supposits.

---