Bonaventure

## Commentarius in Distinctionem XLIV.

De potentia Dei in comparatione ad modum sive qualitatem rerum.

Nunc illud restat discutiendum, utrum melius 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.`).

Supra¹ egit Magister de potentia in comparatione ad possibile secundum substantiam et quantitatem; hic tertio agit de potentia quantum ad modum sive qualitatem rerum. Et haec pars habet duas partes. In prima Magister agit de potentia quantum ad qualitatem possibilium, quae quidem est maior et minor bonitas. Secundo, quantum ad qualitatem potentiae, quae quidem est immutabilitas, ibi: Praeterea quaeri solet, utrum Deus etc.

Prima pars habet duas. In prima quaerit, utrum Deus mundum potuerit facere meliorem². In secunda, utrum res, quas facit, possit facere meliori modo sive alio modo, et hoc ibi: Post haec considerandum est etc., ubi agit quantum ad modum. Praeterea quaeri solet, utrum Deus etc. Haec est secunda pars, ubi quaerit de divinae potentiae immutabilitate, quaerens, utrum Deus possit quidquid potuit, et habet haec pars duas. In prima ostendit, quod non possit quidquid potuit, et hoc facit opponendo³. In secunda vero contrarium asserit in solvendo, ibi: Ad quod dicimus, quod sicut omnia semper etc.

Tractatio quaestionum.

Ad intelligentiam praesentis distinctionis quaeritur de modo sive qualitate divinae potentiae. Et circa hoc quaeruntur principaliter duo.

Primo quaeritur, utrum Deus mundum potuerit facere meliorem.

Secundo quaeritur de immutabilitate divinae potentiae, utrum quod semel potest Deus, semper possit.

Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor.

Primo quaeritur, utrum Deus potuerit facere mundum meliorem quoad substantiam partium integrantium.

Secundo, utrum potuerit ipsum facere meliorem quoad partium integrantium proprietates.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum potuerit facere mundum meliorem quantum ad ordinem partium.

Quarto, utrum potuerit facere mundum antiquiorem.

---

## Commentary on Distinction XLIV.

On the power of God in comparison to the mode or quality of things.

"It now remains to be discussed whether [God could have made the world] better," etc.

Division of the text.

Above¹ the Master treated of [God's] power in comparison to the possible according to substance and quantity; here, in the third place, he treats of [God's] power as to the mode or quality of things. And this part has two parts. In the first the Master treats of [God's] power as to the quality of possibles, which is indeed [their] greater and lesser goodness. Second, as to the quality of the power [itself], which is indeed [its] immutability, there: "Furthermore it is wont to be asked, whether God" etc.

The first part has two [parts]. In the first he asks whether God could have made the world better². In the second, whether the things which he makes he can make in a better mode or in another mode, and this there: "After these things it must be considered," etc., where he treats of the mode. "Furthermore it is wont to be asked, whether God," etc. — this is the second part, where he inquires concerning the immutability of the divine power, asking whether God can [do] whatever he could [do], and this part has two [parts]. In the first he shows that he cannot [do] whatever he could [do], and this he does by way of objection³. In the second, however, he asserts the contrary by way of resolution, there: "To which we say that just as all things always," etc.

Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of the present distinction, [the question] is asked concerning the mode or quality of the divine power. And on this point two [questions] are principally asked.

First it is asked whether God could have made the world better.

Second it is asked concerning the immutability of the divine power: whether what God can [do] once, he can always [do].

Concerning the first, four [questions] are asked.

First it is asked whether God could have made the world better as to the substance of its integrating parts.

Second, whether he could have made it better as to the properties of its integrating parts.

Third it is asked whether he could have made the world better as to the order of its parts.

Fourth, whether he could have made the world more ancient.

---