Bonaventure

## Commentarius in Distinctionem XXXVIII.

De divinae praescientiae causalitate, infallibilitate et necessitate.

Nunc ergo ad propositum revertentes, coepto insistamus etc.

Divisio textus.

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation that follows. Each note is given first in Latin (`La.`), then in literal English (`En.`).

Haec est secunda pars huius partis totalis, in qua agitur de divina scientia. Terminata enim prima parte, in qua agitur de ipsa quantum ad substantiam et in generali, hic agitur de ipsa quantum ad modum. Et quoniam duplex est modus nobilis cognitionis, scilicet certitudo et perfectio, sive infallibilitas et immutabilitas, ideo haec pars habet duas partes. In prima agit de praescientiae infallibilitate sive certitudine, in secunda vero de eius immutabilitate sive perfectione, ibi¹: Praeterea solet quaeri, utrum scientia Dei etc.

Prima pars spectat ad praesentem distinctionem, in qua Magister intendit quaerere et determinare, utrum divina praescientia infallibiliter ponat praescitum. Et habet haec distinctio duas partes. In prima² parte, rediens ad propositum propter digressionem prius factam, breviter epilogat praedeterminata. In secunda prosequitur suum principale propositum, ibi: Hic oritur quaestio non dissimulanda etc. Et haec pars habet duas. In prima Magister inquirit, utrum praescientia ponat praescitum per modum causae, vel effectus: in secunda, utrum per modum necessitatis, vel contingentiae sive infallibilitatis, ultimo capitulo, ibi: Ad hoc autem, quod supradictum est etc. Prima pars duas habet. In prima opponit ad utramque partem, scilicet quod praescientia est causa praesciti et etiam effectus, pro et contra. In secunda solvit, ibi: Hanc igitur quae videtur repugnantiam etc. Similiter et secunda duas habet; in prima opponit, in secunda solvit, ibi: Ad quod dicimus, illam locutionem.

Tractatio quaestionum.

Ad intelligentiam praesentis distinctionis duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo de praescientia divina quantum ad causalitatem.

Secundo quantum ad necessitatem.

Et de primo quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur, utrum praescientia divina sit causa rerum.

Secundo, utrum sit causata a rebus³.

---

## Commentary on Distinction XXXVIII.

On the causality, infallibility and necessity of the divine foreknowledge.

"Now therefore, returning to our proposition, let us press on with what we have begun etc."

Division of the text.

This is the second part of this whole part, in which the divine knowledge is treated. For with the first part finished — in which it [the divine knowledge] is treated as to its substance and in general — here it is treated as to its mode. And since the mode of noble cognition is twofold, namely certitude and perfection, that is, infallibility and immutability, therefore this part has two parts. In the first he treats of the infallibility or certitude of the foreknowledge, in the second indeed of its immutability or perfection, there¹: "Furthermore, it is wont to be asked whether the knowledge of God etc."

The first part pertains to the present distinction, in which the Master intends to inquire and to determine whether the divine foreknowledge infallibly posits the foreknown. And this distinction has two parts. In the first² part, returning to his proposition because of the digression made before, he briefly recapitulates the things determined beforehand. In the second he pursues his principal proposition, there: "Here arises a question not to be dissimulated etc." And this part has two [parts]. In the first the Master inquires whether foreknowledge posits the foreknown by way of cause or of effect; in the second, whether by way of necessity, or of contingency or infallibility, in the last chapter, there: "To this, however, [namely] what was said above etc." The first part has two [parts]. In the first he raises objections on each side — namely, that foreknowledge is the cause of the foreknown and likewise [its] effect, for and against. In the second he resolves [them], there: "This therefore which seems a contradiction etc." Likewise the second [part] also has two; in the first he raises objections, in the second he resolves [them], there: "To which we reply, [namely] that that mode of speaking."

Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of the present distinction two [matters] are principally asked.

First, concerning the divine foreknowledge as to causality.

Second, as to necessity.

And concerning the first, two [questions] are asked.

First it is asked, whether the divine foreknowledge is the cause of things.

Second, whether it is caused by things³.

---