Bonaventure

Articulus III. De dote subtilitatis.

Consequenter quaeritur de dote subtilitatis, de qua duo quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur de ipsa in se. Secundo, de ipsa per comparationem ad actum nostrum.

Quaestio I. Utrum corpus gloriosum possit penetrare omne aliud corpus.

Quantum ergo ad primum quaeritur, utrum corpus gloriosum possit penetrare omne aliud corpus non gloriosum. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia dicitur Ioannis vigesimo⁵: Cum fores essent clausae, quod Iesus stetit in medio; et Gregorius dicit, quod propter subtilitatem ostia clausa non obstiterunt: ergo etc.

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia corpus gloriosum in suo⁶ motu non potest retardari, ergo nec impediri; et si non potest impediri, ergo nihil potest ei resistere: ergo in suo motu potest omne corpus penetrare.

3. Item, si non potest penetrare omne corpus; cum possibile sit, illud includi, possibile esset incarcerari; sed esse in carcere est miseriae: ergo possibile est, beatum fieri miserum⁷.

4. Item, Damascenus⁸: « De Christo Domino post resurrectionem quaedam dicuntur secundum dispensationem, ut cicatrices, cibatio, potatio; quaedam secundum naturam, ut transire de loco ad locum infatigabiliter et clausis ianuis, intrare »: ergo si hoc est de natura corporis gloriosi, patet etc.

Contra: 1. Cum subtile et rarum obviat duro, non penetrat, sed penetratur, ut patet, quia lapis dividit aera et transit per ipsum: si ergo corpus gloriosum est subtile, ergo per illam dotem⁹ non contingit sibi penetrare, sed potius penetrari.

2. Item, corpus gloriosum non est maioris subtilitatis quam radius vel aer; sed radius sua subtilitate non penetrat corpora opaca, et aer non penetrat nisi porosa: ergo corpus gloriosum non potest omnia penetrare.

3. Item, si penetrat, aut hoc est dividendo, aut subintrando per poros, aut simul coexistendo. Si dividendo; sed quaedam sunt corpora indivisibilia et insecabilia; item, sunt alia, quae, si dividuntur, nunquam reiungentur; sunt et alia, quae, si dividuntur, corrumpuntur: ergo cum corpus gloriosum nihil destruat, quod non possit destrui¹⁰, sed etiam quod possit; non omnino poterit penetrare saltem p. 1028 empyreum. — Si subintrando per poros; sed pori sunt discontinui: ergo necesse esset, corpus gloriosum discontinuari. — Si simul coexistendo; sed impossibile est per naturam, duo corpora esse simul¹; sed gloria non aufert naturam; ergo etc. Quod autem duo corpora esse simul in philosophia sit impossibile, dicit ratio ostensiva: quia corpori debetur locus ut propria mensura², sed multiplicato mensurato, necesse est, multiplicari mensuram propriam: ergo etc.

4. Item, sicut se habet unum locatum ad plura loca, ita plura locata ad unum locum; sed unum locatum impossibile est esse in pluribus locis simul: ergo nec plura locata possunt esse in eodem loco simul.

5. Item, hoc videtur per impossibile: quia tunc accipiatur corpus aequalis magnitudinis, ut corpus gloriosum; tunc ista duo omnino conterminantur, ergo soliditas in soliditate et superficies in superficie et linea in linea et punctus in puncto; sed duo indivisibilia sunt simul unum³: ergo etc.

6. Item, trahatur linea a centro illius distantiae ad punctum circumferentiae per medium corpus glorificatum, et rursus alia ab eodem puncto ad idem per corpus non glorificatum; aut est una linea, aut duae. Si una, ergo corpus gloriosum et non gloriosum sunt unum; si duae lineae, tunc videntur inconvenientia tria: primum, quod ab eodem puncto ad idem punctum possunt esse duae lineae rectae, et ita duae lineae rectae, inter quas non cadit superficies media; et rursus, duae lineae rectae habentes eosdem terminos, cum lineae multiplicentur per terminos; item, duae lineae rectae faciunt figuram. Quae sunt tria maxima inconvenientia secundum Philosophum⁴.

7. Item, si corpus gloriosum potest propter sui subtilitatem coexistere et penetrare corpus grossum⁵, multo fortius aliud subtile: ergo duo corpora gloriosa possunt esse simul; et si duo, pari ratione tria; et si hoc, tunc omnia.

Conclusio

Conclusio. Corpora gloriosa habent dotem penetrabilitatis.

Respondeo: Omnes concedunt, quod corpora gloriosa habent dotem penetrabilitatis⁶. — Sed quidam dicunt, quod hanc habent, quoniam omnia corpora eis subiacent et obediunt, et ipsam virtutem habent super omnia. Unde dicunt, quod sicut aer cedit sagittae, sic omne corpus cedit corpori glorioso. — Sed illud improbatum est⁷, quia qua virtute seiungeretur lapis, si per ipsum transiret, et caelum similiter et corpus hominis non gloriosi.

Alii dicunt, quod non cedit; sed quia omnia corpora quodam modo sunt porosa, et corpus glorificatum habet rationem et naturam lucis, quae tota per essentiam salvatur in puncto et dilabitur, quando non habet resistentiam; volunt, quod corpus gloriosum pertranseat, et non per poros multos, sed potest per unum. — Sed illud adhuc videtur inconveniens. Ponamus enim, corpus aliquod non esse porosum; tunc per illud non posset transire. Item, quomodo est intelligendum, quod corpus gloriosum efficiatur ita modicum, sicut porus, quin deperdatur eius figura, eius quantitas et mensura? Ideo non est conveniens haec positio.

Alii ponunt, quod quia corpus est in perfecta obedientia respectu intellectus, et intellectus⁸ potest abstrahere a quantitate naturam secundum intelligentiam, et tunc abstrahere poterit secundum veritatem; et tunc corpus, abstracta quantitate, habet corporis substantiam et spiritualitatem. Unde sicut spiritus est simul cum corpore et a corpore non impeditur: sic glorificatum corpus cum non glorificato. — Sed hoc est impossibile et non intelligibile, quod sit corpus vivens et organicum et non sit corpus quantum⁹; ideo hoc non est ponendum. Qualiter enim salvetur organizatio et membrorum distinctio in corpore a quantitate abstracto; hoc non video.

Alii vero dicunt, quod corpus gloriosum potest esse in eodem loco cum non glorioso; unde penetrat subintrando per totum, non per poros; et hoc potest sic intelligi. Quod enim duo corpora naturalia non possunt esse simul in eodem loco, non est eo, quod sunt duo; ante enim per naturam sunt duo, quam sint in uno loco vel duobus, quia per suas formas. Et hoc patet, quia duo puncta et duae lineae et duae superficies simul sunt in contactu physico, quia « contigua sunt quorum termini simul », et « simul sunt, quandocumque in eodem loco primo sunt¹⁰ ». Quod ergo non sunt simul, hoc p. 1029 est propter corpulentiam ipsorum, et quia unum non est alteri pervium. Si ergo ita sit, quod alterum habeat subtilem corporeitatem et penetrativam virtutem respectu alterius; tunc quidem poterunt esse simul. Et quoniam in dote penetrabilitatis datur corpori subtilitas et virtus activa ad penetrandum non glorificatum; ideo penetrat, illo non cedente. — Corpora vero mathematica et lineae et puncta ideo plura sunt, quia distantia; et ideo impossibile est, duo corpora mathematica vel duas lineas vel puncta esse simul, vel etiam mathematicum cum naturali, sicut vult Philosophus¹.

Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod subtile dispositum est penetrari, non penetrare; dicendum, quod hoc est verum ubi est subtilitas raritatis ad patiendum; sed hic est subtilitas iuncta virtuti agenti, sicut patet in igne et radio.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod aequalis subtilitatis est radius; dicendum, quod etsi sit aequalis subtilitatis, non tamen est tantae virtutis in penetrando; et utrumque requiritur, ut visum est.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod duo corpora non possunt esse simul; iam patet responsio: quia, si intelligatur de corpore secundum esse naturale, non habet² hoc, quia corpus, sed quia habet corpulentiam. — Quod ergo obiicitur de mensura, dicendum, quod duplex est mensura, scilicet intra et extra. Mensura intra est propria et multiplicatur secundum multiplicationem mensurati, quia est unigenea mensurato; mensura extra non oportet, quod multiplicetur in quantum mensura; sed si multiplicatur, hoc est propter indigentiam vel incompossibilitatem mensuratorum.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod unum corpus non potest esse in pluribus locis, ergo nec unus locus continet duo corpora; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia primum facit finitas³, qua creatura non privatur per gloriam; secundum facit corpulentia et grossities, quae aufertur per gloriam.

Ad 5, 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur de punctis et lineis, dicendum, quod non habent distinctionem manifestam, quae est secundum distantiam, sed distinctionem naturalem, quae est secundum diversam substantiam, quae simul in suis naturis coexistunt. Ipse vero opponit, ac si esset distinctio secundum esse mathematicum⁴.

Ad 7. Ad illud quod obiicitur de corpore glorificato, utrum possit esse simul cum alio; aliqui dixerunt, quod sic, sicut duo radii et lumina simul sunt secundum Dionysium⁵. Sed tamen hoc non credo, quia unum non est materiale respectu alterius nec pertransibile alio; et ideo, quamvis sit ibi subtilitas, deficit tamen penetrabilitas. Nec est simile de luminibus, quia formae sunt habentes multiplicationem non a subiecto, in quo sunt, sed a principio effectivo, sicut dicit Dionysius; et ideo plura corpora gloriosa non possunt esse simul, sicut gloriosum cum non glorioso.

De numeratione notarum. Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page. The apparatus below is therefore labelled by page: notes 5–10 of page 1027, notes 1–10 of page 1028, and notes 1–5 of page 1029. Notes 1–4 of page 1027 belong to the preceding question (a. 2, q. 2) and are rendered there.

Article III. On the dowry of subtlety.

Next there is inquiry concerning the dowry of subtlety, about which two things are asked. First, inquiry is made concerning it in itself. Second, concerning it by comparison to our act.

Question I. Whether the glorified body can penetrate every other body.

As to the first, then, it is asked whether the glorified body can penetrate every other non-glorified body. And that it can, seems so:

1. Because it is said in John the twentieth⁵: When the doors were shut, that Jesus stood in the midst; and Gregory says that on account of subtlety the closed doors offered no obstacle: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, it seems by reason: because the glorified body cannot be retarded in its⁶ motion, therefore neither can it be impeded; and if it cannot be impeded, therefore nothing can resist it: therefore in its motion it can penetrate every body.

3. Likewise, if it cannot penetrate every body; since it is possible that it be enclosed, it would be possible for it to be imprisoned; but to be in prison belongs to misery: therefore it is possible for the blessed to be made miserable⁷.

4. Likewise, Damascene⁸: « Of Christ the Lord after the resurrection certain things are said according to dispensation, such as the scars, eating, drinking; certain things according to nature, such as to pass from place to place untiringly and, the doors being shut, to enter »: therefore if this belongs to the nature of the glorified body, it is clear etc.

Contra: 1. When the subtle and rare meets the hard, it does not penetrate but is penetrated, as is clear, because a stone divides the air and passes through it: if therefore the glorified body is subtle, therefore by that dowry⁹ it does not fall to it to penetrate, but rather to be penetrated.

2. Likewise, the glorified body is not of greater subtlety than a ray or air; but a ray by its subtlety does not penetrate opaque bodies, and air does not penetrate save porous ones: therefore the glorified body cannot penetrate all things.

3. Likewise, if it penetrates, either this is by dividing, or by entering through the pores, or by coexisting simultaneously. If by dividing; but certain bodies are indivisible and incapable of being cut; likewise, there are others which, if they are divided, will never be rejoined; and there are still others which, if they are divided, are corrupted: therefore since the glorified body destroys nothing which cannot be destroyed¹⁰, but even what can be; it will not be able to penetrate everything, at least not p. 1028 the empyrean. — If by entering through the pores; but the pores are discontinuous: therefore it would be necessary that the glorified body be made discontinuous. — If by coexisting simultaneously; but it is impossible by nature that two bodies be simultaneous¹; but glory does not take away nature; therefore etc. And that two bodies being simultaneous is impossible in philosophy, a demonstrative reason declares: because to a body there is due a place as its proper measure², but when the measured is multiplied, it is necessary that the proper measure be multiplied: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, as one thing placed stands to many places, so many things placed stand to one place; but it is impossible for one thing placed to be in many places at once: therefore neither can many things placed be in the same place at once.

5. Likewise, this seems [to lead] to an impossibility: because then let a body of equal magnitude to the glorified body be taken; then these two are wholly coterminous, therefore solidity is in solidity and surface in surface and line in line and point in point; but two indivisibles [that are] together are one³: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, let a line be drawn from the centre of that distance to a point on the circumference through the middle of a glorified body, and again another from the same point to the same [point] through a non-glorified body; either it is one line, or two. If one, then the glorified and the non-glorified body are one; if two lines, then three unfitting consequences appear: first, that from the same point to the same point there can be two straight lines, and thus two straight lines between which no surface falls in the middle; and again, two straight lines having the same termini, whereas lines are multiplied by their termini; likewise, two straight lines make a figure. Which are three very great absurdities according to the Philosopher⁴.

7. Likewise, if the glorified body can, on account of its subtlety, coexist with and penetrate a gross body⁵, much more strongly another subtle one: therefore two glorified bodies can be simultaneous; and if two, by parity of reason three; and if this, then all.

Conclusion

Conclusion. Glorified bodies have the dowry of penetrability.

I respond: All concede that glorified bodies have the dowry of penetrability⁶. — But some say that they have this because all bodies are subject and obedient to them, and they have that very power over all things. Hence they say that as the air yields to an arrow, so every body yields to a glorified body. — But that has been disproved⁷, because [one asks] by what power a stone would be sundered, if [the glorified body] passed through it, and likewise the heaven and the body of a non-glorified man.

Others say that it does not yield; but because all bodies are in a certain manner porous, and the glorified body has the account and nature of light, which is wholly preserved in its essence in a point and slips through when it has no resistance; they hold that the glorified body passes through, and not through many pores, but that it can [pass] through one. — But that still seems unfitting. For let us suppose some body not to be porous; then it could not pass through it. Likewise, how is it to be understood that the glorified body is made so small, like a pore, without its figure, its quantity and measure being lost? Therefore this position is not fitting.

Others hold that, because the body is in perfect obedience with respect to the intellect, and the intellect⁸ can abstract nature from quantity according to understanding, then it will be able to abstract [it] according to truth; and then the body, quantity being abstracted, has the substance and the spirituality of a body. Hence as a spirit is together with a body and is not impeded by the body: so is a glorified body with a non-glorified one. — But this is impossible and unintelligible, that there should be a living and organic body which is not a quantified body⁹; therefore this is not to be posited. For how organization and the distinction of members are preserved in a body abstracted from quantity; this I do not see.

But others say that the glorified body can be in the same place with the non-glorified; hence it penetrates by entering in through the whole, not through the pores; and this can be understood thus. For that two natural bodies cannot be simultaneously in the same place is not from this, that they are two; for they are two by nature before they are in one place or in two, since [they are two] by their forms. And this is clear, because two points and two lines and two surfaces are simultaneous in physical contact, since « contiguous things are those whose termini are together », and « they are together whenever they are in the same place primarily¹⁰ ». That therefore they are not together, this p. 1029 is on account of their corpulence, and because the one is not pervious to the other. If therefore it be so, that the one has a subtle corporeity and a penetrative power with respect to the other; then indeed they will be able to be together. And since in the dowry of penetrability there is given to the body subtlety and an active power for penetrating the non-glorified; therefore it penetrates, the latter not yielding. — But mathematical bodies and lines and points are many for this reason, that they are distant; and therefore it is impossible that two mathematical bodies or two lines or points be together, or even a mathematical with a natural one, as the Philosopher holds¹.

To 1. To that which is objected, that the subtle is disposed to be penetrated, not to penetrate; it must be said that this is true where there is a subtlety of rarity apt for undergoing; but here there is a subtlety joined to an agent power, as is clear in fire and in a ray.

To 2. To that which is objected, that a ray is of equal subtlety; it must be said that although it be of equal subtlety, it is nevertheless not of such power in penetrating; and both are required, as has been seen.

To 3. To that which is objected, that two bodies cannot be together; the answer is now clear: because, if it be understood of a body according to natural being, it does not have² this because it is a body, but because it has corpulence. — To what therefore is objected concerning measure, it must be said that measure is twofold, namely within and without. Measure within is proper and is multiplied according to the multiplication of the measured, because it is of one kind with the measured; measure without need not be multiplied insofar as it is a measure; but if it is multiplied, this is on account of the neediness or the incompossibility of the things measured.

To 4. To that which is objected, that one body cannot be in many places, therefore neither does one place contain two bodies; it must be said that it is not alike: because the first is caused by finitude³, of which the creature is not deprived through glory; the second is caused by corpulence and grossness, which is taken away through glory.

To 5, 6. To that which is objected concerning points and lines, it must be said that they do not have a manifest distinction, which is according to distance, but a natural distinction, which is according to diverse substance, [substances] which coexist together in their natures. But he objects as though the distinction were according to mathematical being⁴.

To 7. To that which is objected concerning the glorified body, whether it can be together with another; some have said that it can, just as two rays and lights are together according to Dionysius⁵. But nevertheless I do not believe this, because the one is not material with respect to the other nor passable-through by the other; and therefore, although there be subtlety there, penetrability is nevertheless lacking. Nor is it alike with lights, because forms are things having their multiplication not from the subject in which they are, but from the effective principle, as Dionysius says; and therefore many glorified bodies cannot be together, as a glorified one can be with a non-glorified.