Dist. 35, Divisio Textus
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/35/q/bon-sent-I-d35-divisio
----------------------------------------
## Commentary on Distinction XXXV.

#### *On the knowledge of God in general, in itself.*

> *"And since above we have discoursed and said many things"* etc.

### Division of the text.

Above the Master treated of the mystery of the Trinity and of the Unity; in this part he treats of the conditions according to which there is in God the formal character of causality, which are namely power, wisdom and will. Now this part has three divisions. In the first of which he treats of knowledge; in the second of power, below at distinction forty-two: *"Now it must be treated of the omnipotence of God;"* in the third of will, below at distinction forty-five: *"Now of the will of God"* etc.

The first part has three [divisions]. In the first he treats of knowledge in general, in itself. In the second he treats of the modes of divine cognition, whether God knows mutably or immutably, and in what way, at distinction thirty-eight: *"Now therefore returning to our proposed subject."* In the third he treats with regard to special effects, below at distinction forty: *"Predestination, however, concerns saving goods."*

The first part is divided into three. In the first the Master determines concerning God's knowledge itself. In the second, because things known are in the knower after the manner of the knower, he determines how things are in God, below at distinction thirty-six: *"It is wont here to be asked, since all things are said to be in God's cognition."* In the third he determines incidentally how God is in things, below at distinction thirty-seven: *"And since it has been demonstrated in part."*

The first part, which contains the present distinction, has three [divisions]. In the first, since God's knowledge is one, he determines how it receives many names. In the second, since God's knowledge or foreknowledge is eternal, he determines how it stands with respect to temporal or created things, there: *"Here it must be considered, whether knowledge or foreknowledge."* In the third, since God's knowledge is of being, [he determines] how it knows non-beings, there: *"Therefore all things are said to be in God"* etc.

In the first part, continuing himself, he says that the divine essence has many names on account of what it connotes. In the second he says that God's knowledge would be, if nothing were future, and would be knowledge, but would not be called foreknowledge. In the third he shows that all things have their formal grounds in God, through which they are known and are in him, and thus all things are present to him; and so the division and sense are clear. For the subdivisions of the parts are evident in the letter [of the text itself].

### Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of the present distinction it is asked concerning the formal character of divine cognition, which is wont to be called *idea*.

First it is asked, whether in God an ideal *ratio* is to be posited.

Second, given that it is, it is asked whether it has plurality according to the thing.

Third, whether it has plurality according to the *ratio*.

Fourth, whether it has plurality according to a number of universals, or of singulars.

Fifth, whether it has plurality according to a finite or an infinite number.

Sixth, whether in the ideas there is plurality according to an ordered or a confused number.

---