Bonaventure on Creation: a Ressourcement for the Modern World Kase^ Kimball

Bonaventure on Creation: A Ressourcement for the Modern World Kase^ Kimball

In particular, Bonaventure’s encouragement to understand creation as a sacrament of the Triune God can help US love the natural world and thereby find our way back both to God and true personhood. [We] have been far more interested in using the world than in Modernity’s View of the Natural World Kase) Before we turn to Bonaventure, we must Kimball (BA really knowing or admiring it.”1 ^tis attitude International has been shaped by modern science and tech- first get a grasp of how modern science and Studies, Jobns nology, both of which train US to approach technology have trained US to objectify the Hopfeins everything with a “technical-rational” natural world. Martin Heidegger describes Uninersit^) is technology as both “a human activity” and beginningber an؛mindset.2 As the data on the state of the envi- tbird^earo ronment demonstrates with ever-increasing "a means to an end.”7 Means and ends are MA in doctrinal clarity, this posture toward the natural world situated within the four types of causal- tbeoloo at Regent has been disastrous for the planet. It has been ity: material, formal, final, and efficient.8 College. Raised Heidegger illttstrates these four distinct but on tbe beautiful costly to the physical and ontological well- Massachusetts being of human beings in particular: in a interrelated causes by describing the creation coast, she spent world of objects it is difficult to relate to any- of a silver chalice: the material cause is the six^ears on staff {luitb InterVarsit ؛thing or anyone (including God) personally. 3 silver itself, out of which the chalice is made the formal cause is the shape into which Christian While it is tempting to seek solutions in mod- Fellowship in ,the final cause is the Baltimore, MD ؛ern science and technology, it seems foolish the silver is fashioned to imagine that the very technical-rational purpose for which the chalice is made. before moving to mindset that precipitated the current envi- silver, the form, and the purpose are all "CO- Vancouver, where What about the she is trainingto ؟.responsible” for the chalice .ronmental crises could rescue US from them. teach theolo٥ What we need, rather, is to “learn to swim efficient cause, the cause that "brings about against the current of objectification-for-the- the effect that is the finished, actual chal- sake-of-mastery” by cultivating a different ice”?10 Heidegger first names the silversmith mindset.^ Given how deeply entrenched we as the efficient cause and then denies this are in the modern way of thinking, we will claim.11 What he wishes to draw to our atten- need help in this work. In light of this, I tion is that a particular material (silver) does would like to add my voice to those who not come into a particular shape (a chalice) have proposed that we look to Bonaventure, intended for a particular purpose (sacrifice) the thirteenth-century Franciscan theolo- because of the silversmith’s solitary effort in gian and philosopher. If we can “penetrate “making” it.1¿ Rather, the silversmith “con- through the distinctive medieval dimensions siders carefully and gathers together” the he must submit to the ^؛of Bonaventure’s system,”5 we will find his other three causes1 writings to be “a vital resource . . . for meet- properties of the material cause, the bounds ing the challenges of the present and future.”0 of the formal cause, and the telos of the Θ .1 CRUX: Winter 2015/Vol. 51/ No. 4

final cause. In this way, it is not the efficient US to “exploit” natural forces by harnessing cause (the silversmith) alone who makes the their energy and taking it out of context.25 chalice, but the four causes together that Machines are an effective means of energy “bring [the chalice] into appearance, ^ey extraction, but at a high cost: they separate let it come forth into presencing. They set it us from nature, and compel US to relate to free to that place and so start it on its way, it in an abstract way.26 As a result of this, he namely, into its complete arrival.”!^ In other says, “the sphere in which we live is becom- words, the “bringing-forth” that the four ing more and more artificial, less and less causes accomplish together is a process of human.”27 Furthermore, the pragmatic, “revealing,” of allowing something that was this-worldly focus of science closes US off once invisible to come into the open.!5 to the “religious element” which, he says, is Because modern technology is also “not only of an essential part of the human, bound up in means and ends, it too is a but of the innermost part.”28 way of revealing.!^ However, “the reveal- Because modern technology reveals ing that rules in modern technology is not the truth of nature, but its potential a challenging, which puts to nature the function as “standing-reserve,” and uses unreasonable demand that it supply energy scientific knowledge to exploit and objec- that can be extracted and stored as such.”!7 tify nature from a distance, it enables US In modern science, nature appears to US to have what Martin Buber calls an “1-it” as something “identifiable through cal- relationship with creation. In “Ι-It” relation- orderable as a system of ships, we experience by “traveling] over the [,]..٠ culation -Modern technology asks surface of things . . . extracting] knowl ة!”.information everything to be part of an undifferenti- edge about their constitution from them” ated “standing-reserve” until we choose to without their participation.29 To relate to use it.!9 Heidegger later clarifies that it is something as an “it” is to see it as a thing, the essence of modern technology rather as one object calcified and constrained by than technology itself that sets US down the many others surrounding it.50 In this a path of revealing in a narrow way, a way relationship, the “I” becomes distinct and that does not reveal the truth of things but “conscious of itself as subject (of experienc- in the end, ing and using).”3! “Ι-Thou” relationships, by ؛rather their potential to be used we too are revealed as nothing more than an contrast, are exclusive (in the sense that the anonymous “standing-reserve.”20 In short, “Thou” fills one’s field of vision) relation- modern technology trains US only to “order” ships of direct mutual knowing and love٠32 and control the materials of creation rather When we relate to something as “Thou” than to be like the silversmith who, atten- we do not experience it at all, but know tive to its material, formal, and final causes it entirely.33 In this relationship, the “I” revealed the truth of a chalice.2! becomes not an “individual” but a “person Likewise, Romano Guardini deals with and becomes conscious of itself as subjectiv- the way in which modern technology invites ity.”34 Buber holds that even though much us to ignore the truth of nature and thereby of creation cannot willingly interact with exploit it for our own benefit. Science, he us, it is possible to have “Ι-Thou” relation- says, helps US understand the world in a ships with it in the form of “reciprocity of rational way.22 This knowledge enables US the being itself.”33 ^is requires not that we to coerce nature for our benefit in defiance notice different things about nature, but of its innate limits and structure, to acquire that we “become bound up in relation to “working rational mastery over plant and it.”36 Buber indicates that “Ι-it” relationships animal life.”23 Like Heidegger’s claim that are necessary for the “sustaining, relieving, technology reveals nature as “the chief store- and equipping of human life,” which is why house of the standing energy reserve,”24 they have come to dominate humanity over Guardini mentions that technology allows time.37 At the same time, he cautions that

!------Bonaventure on Creation: A Ressourcement for the Modern World when we have only "lit" relationships, we ears, unseal your lips, and apply your heart lose our humanity and cease to be able to so that in all creatures you may see, hear, encounter God: the ultimate “ôu.”3§ praise, love and serve, glorify and honor your God.”54 Although sin mars our ability BonaventureS View of Creation to read the book of creation, if we submit As we have seen, modern technology makes to the cleansing power of Christ and are it easy to relate to the natural world as an aided by the book of Scripture, the material “it” to be mastered and used, rather than a world can aid US in our ascent to God.55 By “lu” to be known and loved, dhis is det- “imparting] to the human person a certain rimental to our ability to relate to a personal knowledge of God,” the natural world can God, and thereby be real persons. In con- prompt one “to seek [him] ؟trast, Bonaventure views the natural world more deeply.”6 calling it a bookô and a For Bonaventure, the ؟sacramentally,3 mirror^ because it points beyond itself to material world is valuable to the Triune God upon whom it depends as the spiritual life: even in “our efficient, exemplary, and final cause.42 He present [that is, postlapsarian] Bonaventure recounts how God created the visible world condition the created uni- “as a means of self-revelation so that, like a verse itself is a ladder leading vietus tbe mirror of God or a divine footprint, it might us toward God.”57 Different lead man to love and praise his Creator.”^3 parts of creation reveal God natural world Creation is the “outer book” that expresses differently: all creatures sacramentally an “inner book”: the Word (God’s Wisdom are “traces” of God, ratio- or Art) by whom he creates.44 Human nal creatures are “images” calling it a book beings are unique in creation by virtue of of God, and creatures “who their ability to read both books.45 Indeed, are God-conformed” are his and a mirror prior to the fall, grace enabled humanity to “likeness[es].”58 Traces do not see the internal book perfectly through the offer incomplete representa- because it points external.46 While the entirety of creation’s tions of God, but ones that to ؛existence and essence is not merely to sig- are “distant but distinct” com- beyond itsel nify God, we cannot truly understand it pared to that of the image, tbe Triune God. apart from its “essential relation’’47 to him: which is “both distinct and a relationship of analogy, like that between close.”59 Bonaventure later an Ímage48 and its 0riginal.49 Indeed if we specifies that “taking percep- never allow ourselves to “go beyond [crea- tible things as a mirror, we see tures] and arrive at God, following the God through them—through invitation which things themselves give to His traces, so to speak,”6° and to do so is us,” we err, and thereby both misunderstand to occupy the lowest rung on the ladder of and abuse the natural world.50 Those who ascent.6! As we ascend, we carry what we look at creation and fail to see and worship learn with US so that “every higher step con- God, Bonaventure concludes, must be deaf, tains within it all that is contained in the dumb, blind, and foohsh.51 lower.”62 ôugh our vision has been marred He traces this erroneous separation by sin and must be cleansed by grace, the of the two books to Eden: after Eve chose material world remains a gift, a visible “sign external beauty (the apple) over internal from heaven” through which we can per- wisdom (reason and obedience), human- ceive the truth about the invisible God.63 ity was no longer able to see God through creation.52 He then invites his readers to What Creation Reveals about the Triune forsake the way of Eve, godless philoso- God -and instead Bonaventure takes great pains to associ ؟phy, and inductive inquiry3 “open your eyes, then, alert your spiritual ate various features of the natural world ه .No , ١ج .CRUX-I١Ér ،20٦5Νο١

with particular members of the Trinhy.64 resented by the Word.”78 Creation, like the However, because this way of thinking is Trinity, has an exitus-reditus dynamic to it: likely incomprehensible to modern read- it comes from God, is patterned after God, ers,65 let US turn to the other way in which and is meant to reach its telos in returning Bonaventure understands creation to reveal to God.79 Creation will return to God as the Trinity: his theology of exemplarity.66 human beings (material like creation and We have said that God creates through the spiritual like God) grow in likeness to the Word, who is his Wisdom or Art. How does Word, who reconciled the material and spir- this work? Bonaventure begins his explana- itual in his incarnation.8٥ tion inside the “dynamic and expressive” Thus far, we have demonstrated that Trinity.^7 “In God,” Bonaventure says, how we treat creation is bound up with “there is a proper relationship to productive how we think about it. In modernity, the diffusion. God’s being is supreme good, primary way that we seek to understand wherefore it supremely diffuses itself.’’^8 the world is through abstract, rational, As Delio explains: if God is self-diffusing scientific means that only disclose the ere- good, and perfect goodness is personal ated world as something to be used. To do love, then a perfect God must be, at his this is to treat the created world as an “it”: core, not mere being, but love. We see this gleaning information without relating to in the Trinity: the Father loves the Son, or truly knowing it. When we only know who receives this love and then gives it to how to have “Ι-it” relationships, we lose our the Spirit, who binds the Father and Son capacity to be persons who find our being together. Because the Father gives himself in relation with God and others. Clearly, we completely away to the Son, the Son is a need a new way of thinking, not to replace perfect “likeness” or “similitude” of the science (for even Buber acknowledges that ٥9 ^e Son, the centre of the Trinity, humanity would not get very far if we lived .Father expresses the “coincidence of opposites” perpetually enveloped in “Ι-Thou” rela- within the Triune life: in him we see that tionships), but to compliment it. I believe God is uncreated and begetting, selfsuffi- Bonaventure can help US on this score.

cient and self-giving, going out (1exitus) and returning 0reditus).70 A Sacramental View of Creation In addition to being the exemplar of For Bonaventure, Christ is the hermeneu- the Trinity, the Son is the exemplar of ere- tical key to reality. Because the Word is ation.7! The Son is begotten by the Father’s the world’s exemplar (in creation and in self-expression, and therefore called Word.77 destiny), to attain true knowledge of any- Because God is open to the Word, the thing, including creation, one must begin “Absolute Otherness” within the Trinity, with Christ: “It is impossible to understand the “relative otherness” of creation becomes a creature except through that by which it possible: “the Word is the ontological basis was made.”8! While scientists fail to give of all that is other than the Father.”7^ In this the natural world meaning because they way, the Word contains (and is therefore seek to explain it purely rationally, a sac- the exemplar of) the infinite possibilities ramental perspective “gives the universe God creates its true meaning by subordinating it to ؛of God’s creative capacity;7 through the Son in the sense that the Son is its true end, which is to show forth God the Word upon which the “external word” to man, and to lead man to God.”87 One of creation depends as its exemplary cause.75 might argue that to approach the world sac- As Delio puts it: “As the Word expresses the ramentally is merely another way to know In creation only in an abstract, distant way, to ةFather, creation expresses the Word.”7 this way, all of creation is necessarily related objectify it by using it as a tool on a spiri- to the Son, after whom it is patterned:77 tual ascent away from the material. To need “both the highest and lowest things are rep- creation to see God, and thereby reach our ------ا- he Modern World؛ Bonaventure on Creation: A Ressourcement for

telos, the argument might go, is to exploit it. its Creator.92 Heidegger observed that we Buber himself warns against this approach, obscure this fundamental truth of creation saying: “‘God in the world’ is another lan- when we approach it technologically; with guage of /i.”83 However, I do not believe Bonaventure as our teacher, we may reveal it that following Bonaventure will lead US in as we approach creation sacramentally. Made this direction. His theology was inspired according to the pattern of the Trinity., all of by the life of St. Francis, who “identi- creation is designed to manifest the unity, gen- fied each and every creature as a brother erosity, and humble openness and sister” because he had learned to see to the Other that characterize Christ in them; he became a “true person” the love exchanged between by learning to relate to all things in love.84 the Father and the Son.93 Once Perhaps, then, adopting Bonaventure’s we acknowledge this, we real- approach could help US become people ize that “to live rationally is not who, like Francis, love creation as a “Thou” to wield power over another Made according and thereby re-personalize ourselves and but to love rightly, promoting to tbe pattern reconnect with God. a harmony of goodness” in a Let me explain. Bonaventure teaches way fitting to the exemplar of tbe Trinity that the Word contains all the things that after which the world, and we, God could create: “not only Platonic uni- were created.9^ To live ratio- all of creation versais but also individual things in their nally is to welcome creation as Consequently, when crea- a “^ou” we know in relation, is designed to ؤdistinctness.”8 tures mirror God, “their own individuality is rather than as an “it” we order manifest tfie ؛intensified.’. If all of creation reveals God, and constrain for our benefit.9 to find God therein requires that we know To live rationally, therefore, we unity generosity each creature close-up, in its particularity, as must allow a sacramental view Francis did.82 As we said above, we do not to correct the way that mod- and bumble discard what we learn from creation as we ern science and technology approach our telos (union with God), but have exclusively shaped our openness to gather it up and bring it with US on the rest thinking about nature, to its of the journey. Beholding God in creation detriment and ours. tbe Otber tbat helps us become like him, and thereby fulfill To view creation sacra- our calling to gather up all of creation in our mentally is to acknowledge characterize the return to him.88 As Buber says: “To elimi- our interconnectedness: In love exchanged nate or leave behind nothing at all, to include Christ our sin-marred vision is the whole world in the Thou, to give the healed so that we (like Francis) between the world its due and its truth, to include noth- see him in the world around ing beside God but everything in him—this us. As we see him in creation, Father and is full and complete relation. . . . If you hal- we grow more into his like- low this life you meet the living God.”89 ness, into love. As we love, we the Son. ^us, says Delio, we gain knowledge of God become true persons and bring not a from nature but a knowledge in and all of creation to our common through nature”; it emerges from an “I-^rou” telos in God.96 Bonaventure rather than an “Ι-it” relationship.9^ knew that we, unique among Bonaventure also teaches that the natu- creatures, are endowed with ral world is not, fundamentally, a thing. It is free will. We alone can choose how we relate not “lifeless and inert. Rather, because the to the rest of creation. May we, by grace, fol- material world is created by God, it is like low not in the way of Adam and Eve but with the Trinity itself, dynamic and relational.”9! Bonaventure in the way of Francis: rationally, In truth, creation is fundamentally not exis- wisely, obediently—for our good and the tence, but love; it is “on a journey” back to good of all creation. X No.4,\־ CR٧X-!mte٢20|o\.5

Notes Saggau (St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute 1 Craig Gay, "Week 6: Modern Institutions 2: Publications, St. Bonaventure University, 2003), 97. Science and Technology" (lecture. Regent College, 40 Bonaventure, le Breviloquium, trans. José De Vancouver BC, October 1, 2015). Vinck, vol. 2, The Works of Bonaventure: Cardinal, 2 Ibid. Seraphic Doctor, and Saint (Paterson, NJ: St. Anthony 3 Ibid. Guild, 1960), 2.5.2, 2.12.1; Bonaventure, Collations 4 Ibid. on the Six Days, trans. José De Vinck, vol. 5, The .Liu w. Cousins, Bonaventure and the Works of Bonaventure, 12.14"؟ <؟ Coincidence ofOpposites (Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 41 Bonaventure, Collations on the Six Days, 2.27; 1978), 231. Bonaventure, “The Journey of the Mind to God," in 6 Ewert H. Cousins, introduction to Bonaventure: Mystical opuscula, trans. José De Vinck, vol. 1, le .٠e Life Works of Bonaventure, 2.1 ,Life؛Journey into God, The Tree 0 ؟'The Soul of St. Francis, trans. Ewert H Cousins (New York: 42 Bonaventure, Breviloquium, 2.1.2, 2.1.4, Paulist, 1978), 46. 2.12.2; Bonaventure, Collations on the Six Days, 2.23; 7 Martin Heidegger, "The Question Concerning Efrem Bettoni, Saint Bonaventure (Westport, CT: Technology," in The Question Concerning Technology, Greenwood, 1981), 47, 64-65. and Other Essays, trans. William Lovitt (New York: 43 Bonaventure, Breviloquium, 2.11.2. See also. Harper & Row, 1977), 4. Bonaventure, Collations on the Six Days, 13.12. 8 Ibid., 6. 44 Bonaventure, Breviloquium, 2.11.2, 1.2.4, 12n. 9 Ibid., 7-8. 45 Ibid., 2.11.2. 10 Ibid., 6. 46 Ibid., 2.12.4. 11 Ibid., 6, 8. 47 Bettoni, Saint Bonaventure, 62. 12 Ibid. 48 I am using "image” in its general sense, not the 13 Ibid. particular meaning Bonaventure assigns to it, which I 14 Ibid., 9. will discuss below. ,Bonaventure ًاYxltnut Gilson, The Philosophy 0 (؟Ibid., 11. 4 15 16 Ibid., 12. trans. Dorn Illtyd Trethowan and Frank j. Sheed 17 Ibid., 14. (Paterson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild, 1965), 189. 18 Ibid., 23. 50 Bettoni, Saint Bonaventure, 62-63; Gilson, 19 Ibid., 17, 17n, 19. Philosophy ofBonaventure, 197-98; Leonard Bowman, 20 Ibid., 18-20, 24, 27-28. "The Cosmic Exemplarism of Bonaventure,” Journal 21 Ibid., 33-34. ofReligion 55 (1975): 188. 22 Romano Guardini, Letters from Lake Como: 51 Bonaventure, "Journey of the Mind to God,” 1.15. Explorations in Technology and the Human Race, 52 Bonaventure, Breviloquium, 3.3.2; Bonaventure, trans. Geoffrey William Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Collations on the Six Days, 13.12; Bonaventure, "Journey Eerdmans, 1994), 43-46. of the Mind to God,” prologue, 4. 23 Ibid., 44-45. 53 Bonaventure, Collations on the Six Days, 5:1.17. 24 Heidegger, "Question Concerning 54 Bonaventure, "Journey of the Mind to God,” Technology," 21. 1.15, italics original. 25 Guardini, Lettersfrom Lake Como, 71-72. 55 Ibid. 1.1-2; Bonaventure, Collations on the Six 26 Ibid., 12-24, 97-105. Days, 13.12. For our purposes, it will suffice to say that 27 Ibid., 17. Christ’s grace is capable of restoring our vision. A Ion- 28 Ibid., 111. ger discussion on how exactly this comes about is not 29 Martin Buber, land Thou (New York: Charles within the scope of this paper, but will be the topic of Scribner’s Sons, 1958), 5. my forthcoming thesis. 30 Ibid., 4, 7, 12-13. 56 Ilia Delio, Simply Bonaventure: An 31 Ibid., 62. Introduction to His Life, bought, and Writings 32 Ibid., 4, 8-9,11,15. Park, NY: New City, 2001), 102. 33 Ibid., 11. 57 Bonaventure, "Journey of the Mind to God,” 1.2. 34 Ibid., 62. 58 Bonaventure, Breviloquium, 2.12.1. .؟-\<؟)Gilson, Philosophy ofBonaventure, \2 (؟<؟ .Ibid., 6-7, 125-26 35 36 Ibid., 7. 60 Bonaventure, “Journey of the Mind to God,” 2.1. 37 Ibid., 34, 37-38. 61 Ibid.) 1.9. 38 Ibid., 34, 54, 104-9. 61 OenysYumtt, The Darkness of God: Negativity 39 Ilia Delio, Joseph Chinnici, and Elise Saggau, in Christian Mysticism (New York: Cambridge .Creation: Learning to Live in a University Press, 1995), 112-13 ًاA Franciscan View 0 Sacramental World (St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan 63 Bonaventure, “Journey of the Mind to God,” Institute, St. Bonaventure University, 2003), 29; 2.11-12. Zachary Hayes, "Is Creation a Window to the Divine? 64 See, for example: Bonaventure, Breviloquium, A Bonaventurian Response,” in Franciscans and 2.1.2, 2.1.4; Bonaventure, “Journey of the Mind to Creation: What Is Our Responsibility? Washington God,” 1.10-11, 2.7; Bonaventure, Collations on the Six Theological Union Symposium Papers, 2003, eàjllst Days, 2.23; Bettoni, Saint Bonaventure, 47, 64-5.

2٥ Bonaventure on Creation: A Ressourcement for the Modern World

65 Bettoni, Saint Bonaventure, 64; Gilson, Creation," 316-26; Hayes, "Creation a Window to the .Divine?," 96 ٠ةPhilosoph) of Bonaventure, 45 66 I’m relying largely on secondary sources in the 81 Ilia Delio, “From Metaphysics to Kataphysics: following two paragraphs because the main primary Bonaventure’s ‘Good' Creation," Scottish Journal of text from which Bonaventure’s theology of exemplar- Theology 64 (May 2011): 123. On the idea that Christ ism derives IVtis Commentary! on the Sentences of Peter is the ultimate source of knowledge, see Bonaventure, Lombard) has only been partially translated into Collations on the Six Days, 1.1, 1.10, 3.4. On the the English. I was unable to obtain copies of what has idea that Christ is the exemplar of word and world, been translated. see Cousins, Bonaventure and the Coincidence of G7 Cousins, Bonaventure and the Coincidence of Opposites, 116-18. .ﻵ-4ﻵGiVson, Philosoph) of Bonaventure, 45 اد؟ .Opposites, 99 68 Bonaventure, Collations on the Six Days, 11.11. 83 Buber, land Thou, 78. 69 Delio, Simply Bonaventure, 40-48; Cousins, 84 Delio, Chinnici, and Saggau, Franciscan ,View ofCreation, 30-31. See ibid., 21, and Cousins ,־\\\ ,Bonaventure and the Coincidence of Opposites Bonaventure, Collations on the Six Days, 1.16, 17, 3.7. Bonaventure and the Coincidence of Opposites, Τ47- 70 Bonaventure, Collations on the Six Days, 49, for discussion on Bonaventure's indebtedness to -٠Υ1Λ4،, Cousins, Bonaventure and the Coincidence of Francis, particularly of his understanding of the rela\ Opposites, 110-14; Delio, Simply Bonaventure, 43. tionship between God and creation. 71 Bowman, “Cosmic Exemplarism of 85 Bowman, “Cosmic Exemplarism of Bonaventure,” 183. Bonaventure," 182, italics original. Cousins, Bonaventure and the Coincidence of ة<؟ Zachary Hayes, "Incarnation and Creation in 72 ٠ﻷ4ا ,the Geology of St. Bonaventure,” in Studies Honoring Opposites Ignatius Charles Brad), Friar Minor fSi ^onaventutt, 87 Delio, Chinnici, and Saggau, Franciscan View NY: Franciscan Institute, 1976), 314. of Creation, 47. 73 Ibid., 314-15; Cousins, Bonaventure and the 88 Ibid., 27, 46. .Buber, land lou, 79 89 .ﻷﻷ,Coincidence of Opposites 74 Delio, Simply Bonaventure, 60; Bettoni, Saint 90 Delio, "From Metaphysics to Kataphysics,” .Ymnaventute, Collations on the Six 177-79, italics original ,*ا؟Bonaventure, 4 Days, 3.4. 91 Delio, Chinnici, and. Saggau, Franciscan View 75 Hayes, "Incarnation and Creation,” 314; Delio, of Creation, Τ5. See a\so Cousins, Bonaventure and the Simply Bonaventure, 46-48. Coincidence ofOpposites, 98-99; Bowman, “Cosmic .Exemplarism of Bonaventure,” 185 . ًﻷﻧﺎ ,k\10, Simpl) Bonaventure\76 77 Hayes, “Creation a Window to the Divine?,” 92 Delio, Chinnici, and Saggau, Franciscan View 94-95; Delio, Simply Bonaventure, 46, 48. ofCreation, 46. For more on the idea that creation is 78 Bonaventure, Collations on the Six Days, 3.8. not being but love, see Delio, “From Metaphysics to .Cousins, Bonaventure and the Coincidence Kataphysics,” 174 ﻷ7 .(؛Odio, Simpl) Bonaventure, 4 ﻵﻷ ofOpposites, 111; Bonaventure, Collations on the Six Days, 1.17; Bowman, "The Cosmic Exemplarism of 94 Delio, “From Metaphysics to Kataphysics," Bonaventure,” 181. 179. 80 Delio, Chinnici, and Saggau, Franciscan View 95 Ibid., 177,179. ofCreation, 26-27; Bowman, "Cosmic Exemplarism 96 Delio, Chinnici, and Saggau, Franciscan View of Bonaventure,” 195-96; Hayes, "Incarnation and of Creation, 27, 45—47.