Dist. 20, Art. 2, Q. 1
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/20/q/bon-sent-I-d20-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### ARTICLE II.

#### *On order in the divine.*

Consequently the question is in the second place concerning the second article, namely whether in the divine there is order. And concerning this two things are asked.

First it is asked whether order is to be posited there.

Secondly, whether order of nature.

### QUESTION I.

#### *Whether in the divine there is the account of order.*

That in the divine there is order, is shown:

1. First through Augustine *Against Maximinus*: «When the Son is said to be from the Father, an inequality of substance is not signified, but an order of nature».

2. Likewise, this is seen by the authority of the Church, for the Church expresses the naming of the Trinity in an ordered way. For it is said *in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit*, and this order is never changed: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, principle expresses the account of order. «For the *first* and *principle*, says the Philosopher, I call the same»; but in the divine the Father is the principle of the Son, therefore he is first. But where this is, there is order: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, order expresses the account of complete being and of the good — «for being, as Boethius says, is what retains order and preserves nature»; and likewise the good — but in the divine the account of being and of the good is most perfectly: therefore there is there the account of order.

5. Likewise, wherever there are several things, among which there is no order, they are unordered; but in the divine persons there is plurality: therefore if there is no order there, there is unorderedness and confusion; but unorderedness and confusion is repugnant to the divine; therefore there is order there.

**On the contrary:** 1. Eusebius: «In the divine there is number, but not order».

2. Likewise, this same thing is seen from the account of order. Augustine *On the City of God*: «Order is the disposition assigning to each its own places, of equal and unequal things»; but in the divine there is no distinction of places: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, order is contrary to *simultaneity*, therefore where there is order, there is not complete simultaneity; but where there is not complete simultaneity, there is not perfect equality: therefore since in the divine there is complete and perfect equality, there is no order there.

4. Likewise, if order is in the divine, either it is something essential, or notional. Not essential, because where there is order, there is distinction; but in the divine there is no distinction according to essence: therefore etc. Nor [is it] something notional, since notion and property are the same, but order is the property of no person: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, where there is order, there is dependence and inclination; for nothing is ordered to anything, unless it has an inclination toward it; but in the divine there is no dependence: therefore there is no order at all there.

6. Likewise, order presupposes number; but in the divine there does not occur difference according to number, as was shown above: therefore neither order.

### CONCLUSION.

> Order is to be posited in the divine, but only order according to origin.

**I respond:** It must be said that order is threefold, namely according to position, according to antecedence, and according to origin.

Order according to position is said of those things of which one is higher, the other lower. And this can be in two ways: either in place, or in dignity. And this order does not occur in the divine, as the first reason taken from Eusebius shows, and the second taken from Augustine, as is plain.

But order according to antecedence is said to be of those things of which one is prior, while the other is posterior; and this is said in two ways: either because it precedes in duration or in time, or [because it is] prior in natural intelligence or cognition. And this order is not in the divine, as the third reason proves, because this order takes away equality and simultaneity, both of which are perfectly in the divine.

But order according to origin or according to emanation is [the order] of the producer to the produced. And this order is in the divine, because there is there the order of principle and

of that-from-the-principle, or of the producer and the produced; and that this order is in the divine the first reasons prove.

**To 4.** As to what is objected fourth, that order is neither something notional nor essential; it must be said that it is notional; but notion can be signified in two ways: either under its proper account, as when one says *generation*; or under a common account — by community, I say, of account — as when one says *order*, *notion*, *property* — just as *individual* is a common intention — and under this community it does not distinguish, yet in its lower [members] it presupposes distinction.

**To 5.** To that which is objected: where there is order, there is dependence; it must be said that order imports a relation, and because in creatures relation by reason of imperfection expresses dependence, therefore in creatures it imports dependence; but in the divine, relation only posits comparison and connection and no dependence and inclination: therefore etc.

**To 6.** To that which is objected last, that order presupposes number; it must be said that just as in the divine number is drawn away from the account of number, because there is there a distinction of hypostases only, so order [is drawn] from the account of order simply, because, although there is order there, nevertheless there is no antecedence there, but only emanation of origin.

Or otherwise it must be said that [order] does not always presuppose distinction according to number, unless it be understood of local order or [order] according to position. For order according to nature and according to natural intelligence is regarded between higher and lower, between which number does not occur. And so that [argument] is plain.