Bonaventure

Quaestio II. Utrum corpus glorificatum sit palpabile a tactu non glorificato.

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; this chunk carries notes 1–11 of page 1030, labelled with a page prefix.

Secundo quaeritur de subtilitate per comparationem ad actum nostrum; et quaeritur, utrum corpus glorificatum sit palpabile a tactu non glorificato. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Lucae ultimo¹: Palpate et videte, quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet.

2. Item, Gregorius in homilia²: « Palpabile fuit per veritatem naturae et subtile per effectum spiritualis potentiae ».

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia in corpore glorioso erit veritas carnis et ossis; sed caro est mollis, et os durum; sed durum et molle sunt obiecta tactus³: ergo etc.

4. Item, corpus gloriosum potest immutare visum⁴: ergo eadem ratione potest immutare tactum.

Contra: 1. Gregorius⁵: « Corrumpi necesse est quod palpatur »; sed gloriosum corpus est incorruptibile: ergo et impalpabile.

2. Item, Ioannes Chrysostomus in quadam homilia⁶: « Dignum est quaerere, qualiter corpus incorruptibile tangibile fuit mortali manu; sed ne tumultueris; condescensionis enim fuit ».

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia omne quod sentitur tactu, sentitur aut per resistentiam, aut qualitatem activam, sicut sentitur aer frigidus; sed corpus gloriosum non potest sentiri per resistentiam, quia nihil ei resistit; non per qualitatem activam, quia nulla talis immutatio ibi remanet: ergo nullo modo.

4. Item, tactus maxime est materialis; corpus autem illud spirituale⁷: ergo etc.

Conclusio

Conclusio. Corpus gloriosum potest se praebere tangibile et etiam non se praebere sive latere.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod cum dico tangibile, duo dico, scilicet quod potest immutare sensum, et hoc est perfectionis; et quod non potest latere tactum nostrum, et hoc est imperfectionis. Et quia remanebit quod est perfectionis, et tolletur quod est imperfectionis⁸; ideo dico, quod corpus gloriosum potest se praebere tangibile et potest se non praebere sive latere; et hoc habet secundum diversas conditiones. Nam tangi potest, quia potest impellenti resistere, cum sit corpus verum, non vanum vel phantasticum; latere potest, quia potest penetrare organum tactus. Primum habet per virtutem naturae, secundum per effectum spiritualis potentiae. Et haec duo contraria sunt in nobis, sed non in illo corpore. — Concedendae ergo sunt rationes, quod tangi potest.

Ad argumenta pro parte opposita:

Ad 1, 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod palpatur est corruptibile; dicendum, quod hoc verum est de eo quod est tactui subiectum, sed istud non erat⁹; et ideo condescensionis erat.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de resistentia, dico, quod corpus tangens non resistit tangendo, sed magis e converso; et licet nihil possit corpori glorioso resistere, ipsum tamen potest aliis; sicut patet, quia constat, quod potest sustollere¹⁰ lapidem in manu.

Ad 4. Ad ultimum vero patet responsio: quia corpus non efficitur ita spirituale, quin salvetur in eo veritas carnis et ossis¹¹.

---

Question II. Whether the glorified body is palpable to a touch that is not glorified.

Secondly it is asked about subtlety by comparison with our act; and it is asked whether the glorified body is palpable to a touch that is not glorified. And that it is, seems so.

1. Luke, last chapter¹: Handle and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones.

2. Likewise, Gregory in a homily²: "It was palpable through the truth of its nature and subtle through the effect of spiritual power."

3. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because in the glorious body there will be the truth of flesh and bone; but flesh is soft, and bone hard; but hard and soft are objects of touch³: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, a glorious body can alter sight⁴: therefore by the same account it can alter touch.

On the contrary: 1. Gregory⁵: "What is handled must necessarily be corrupted"; but a glorious body is incorruptible: therefore it is also impalpable.

2. Likewise, John Chrysostom in a certain homily⁶: "It is worth asking how an incorruptible body was tangible to a mortal hand; but do not be troubled; it was a matter of condescension."

3. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because everything that is perceived by touch is perceived either through resistance or through an active quality, as cold air is perceived; but a glorious body cannot be perceived through resistance, because nothing resists it; nor through an active quality, because no such alteration remains there: therefore in no way.

4. Likewise, touch is most of all material; but that body is spiritual⁷: therefore etc.

Conclusion

Conclusion. A glorious body can present itself as tangible and can also not present itself, that is, lie hidden.

I respond: It must be said that when I say tangible, I say two things, namely that it can alter sense, and this belongs to perfection; and that it cannot lie hidden from our touch, and this belongs to imperfection. And because what belongs to perfection will remain, and what belongs to imperfection will be taken away⁸; therefore I say that the glorious body can present itself as tangible and can not present itself, that is, lie hidden; and it has this according to diverse conditions. For it can be touched, because it can resist one who pushes against it, since it is a true body, not empty or phantastic; it can lie hidden, because it can penetrate the organ of touch. The first it has through the power of nature, the second through the effect of spiritual power. And these two are contrary in us, but not in that body. — Therefore the reasons are to be conceded, that it can be touched.

To the arguments on the opposite side:

To 1 and 2. To that which is objected, that what is handled is corruptible; it must be said that this is true of what is subject to touch, but that body was not⁹; and therefore it was a matter of condescension.

To 3. To that which is objected concerning resistance, I say that the touching body does not resist by touching, but rather the reverse; and although nothing can resist a glorious body, that body nevertheless can resist others; as is plain, because it is agreed that it can lift up¹⁰ a stone in its hand.

To 4. To the last the answer is plain: because the body is not made so spiritual that the truth of flesh and bone is not preserved in it¹¹.

---