Bonaventure

Quaestio II. Utrum dotes corporis aequaliter sint in omnibus.

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on every printed page; these are notes 1–9 of page 1017. Note 10 of page 1017 anchors in Articulus III's opener and is rendered in the following chunk.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum dotes corporis aequaliter sint in omnibus, vel secundum magis et minus. Et quod aequaliter, videtur:

1. Quia magis et minus dicitur per admixtionem contrarii minorem et maiorem, quoniam ibi tantum summum est, ubi nihil admixtum de contrario¹; sed omnes dotes in omnibus Beatis nihil habent admixtum de contrario: ergo in omnibus sunt aequaliter.

2. Item, de impassibilitate videtur: quia primae ad Corinthios decimo quinto² super illud: Alia claritas etc.; Glossa: «In differenti gloria resurgent; sed hoc communiter habebunt, quod incorrupti erunt»: hoc ergo commune aut dicitur commune secundum aequalitatem, aut secundum magis et minus. Si secundum magis et minus, similiter et gloria; sed non dicitur gloria secundum magis et minus: ergo secundum aequalitatem.

3. Item, unum corpus non dicitur altero subtilius, nisi quia aliquid potest penetrare, quod non alterum; sed quodlibet corpus glorificatum poterit omne corpus penetrare: ergo etc.

4. Item, agilius est quod potest citius moveri; sed «quam cito volet spiritus, ibi protinus erit et corpus», ut dicit Augustinus de Civitate Dei vigesimo secundo³: ergo quodlibet est agile in summo. A simili ergo arguatur de claritate et aliis.

Contra: 1. Primae ad Corinthios decimo quinto⁴: Alia claritas solis etc.: si ergo differens claritas, pari ratione et aliae dotes.

2. Item, dotes animae sunt secundum plus et minus, ut supra⁵ ostensum est, quia liberius videt unus quam alter: ergo et dotes corporis.

3. Item, anima, quae plus servivit⁶ et meruit, excellentiores habet dotes: ergo et corpus, per quod anima plus servivit Deo et meruit, debet similiter.

Conclusio

Corporis dotes erunt in diversis secundum plus et minus, et perfectius et minus perfectum.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod dotes in corporibus Beatorum sunt secundum plus et minus, et perfectius et minus perfectum in diversis.

Ad cuius intelligentiam notandum, quod quaedam recipiunt magis et minus per contrarii impermixtionem, ut puta quando utrumque contrariorum est aliqua natura, ut album et nigrum⁷. Quaedam recipiunt magis et minus per accessum ad complementum, ut sunt illa quorum opposita sunt privationes, ut bonum et lucidum. Dico ergo, quod dotes corporis recipiunt magis et minus per accessum ad terminum, non per immixtionem contrarii. — Et per hoc patet solutio ad primum.

Rursus, notandum est, quod in recipientibus magis et minus quaedam sunt, quae dicunt privationem simul et positionem, sicut impassibile, quod dicit virtutem ad non patiendum, et dicit privationem passionis; similiter subtile et agile. Et dico, quod quantum ad privationem, quia totum et universaliter privat, non recipit magis et minus⁸; sed quantum ad positionem, quae non est in summo, recipit magis et minus. — Et per hoc patent argumenta sequentia.

Quod vero dicitur protinus etc., intelligendum est sine retardatione, non quia subito, sed repente⁹.

---

Question II. Whether the dowries of the body are equally in all.

Secondly it is asked whether the dowries of the body are equally in all, or according to more and less. And that they are equally, it seems:

1. Because more and less is said by a lesser and greater admixture of the contrary, since there alone is the highest degree, where nothing is admixed of the contrary¹; but all the dowries in all the Blessed have nothing admixed of the contrary: therefore in all they are equally.

2. Likewise, it seems concerning impassibility: because on First Corinthians fifteen², on that text: One glory etc.; the Gloss: «They will rise in differing glory; but this they will have in common, that they will be incorrupt»: this common thing, therefore, is either called common according to equality, or according to more and less. If according to more and less, then likewise also the glory; but glory is not said according to more and less: therefore according to equality.

3. Likewise, one body is not called more subtle than another, except because it can penetrate something which the other cannot; but any glorified body whatever will be able to penetrate every body: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, that is more agile which can be moved more swiftly; but «as swiftly as the spirit shall will, there forthwith will the body also be», as Augustine says in On the City of God twenty-two³: therefore each one is agile in the highest degree. From a like argument, then, let it be argued concerning brightness and the others.

On the contrary: 1. First Corinthians fifteen⁴: One is the brightness of the sun etc.: if therefore the brightness differs, by parity of reasoning the other dowries also.

2. Likewise, the dowries of the soul are according to more and less, as was shown above⁵, because one sees more freely than another: therefore the dowries of the body also.

3. Likewise, the soul which has served⁶ and merited more has more excellent dowries: therefore also the body, through which the soul served God and merited more, ought likewise.

Conclusion

The dowries of the body will be in different persons according to more and less, and as more perfect and less perfect.

I respond: It must be said that the dowries in the bodies of the Blessed are according to more and less, and more perfect and less perfect in different persons.

For the understanding of this it must be noted that certain things receive more and less through the non-admixture of the contrary, as for instance when each of the contraries is some nature, as white and black⁷. Certain things receive more and less through approach toward completion, as are those things whose opposites are privations, as good and luminous. I say therefore that the dowries of the body receive more and less through approach toward the terminus, not through the admixture of a contrary. — And through this the solution to the first is clear.

Again, it must be noted that among things receiving more and less there are certain ones which state a privation together with a position, as impassible, which states a power for not suffering, and states the privation of suffering; likewise subtle and agile. And I say that as regards the privation, since it deprives wholly and universally, it does not receive more and less⁸; but as regards the position, which is not in the highest degree, it does receive more and less. — And through this the following arguments are clear.

But as to what is said, forthwith etc., it must be understood as without delay, not because suddenly, but on a sudden⁹.

---