Dist. 49, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/49/q/bon-sent-IV-d49-p2-s1-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether the glory of the body derives originally from the glory of the soul.*

Secondly it is asked concerning the origin of the beatitude or glory of the body, whether it derives originally from the glory of the soul. And that it does, is shown thus.

1. Dionysius to Dioscorus: « Beatitude does not belong to bodies, but overflows into bodies from souls ».

2. Likewise, glory is in the body through the resurrection, and the resurrection is through the union of the soul: therefore glory is in the body from the soul.

3. Likewise, it seems so more particularly as regards *impassibility*: because, as the Philosopher says, « when the soul departs, the body breathes out its last and withers »: therefore that it should be incorruptible, this it has only from the soul. — *If you say* that he is speaking according to the present state, this does not resolve the matter, because, just as the soul now holds the body together, so it will then also; whence Augustine, *On True Religion*: « The body will not have stability except through the soul, and this through God ».

4. Likewise, it seems so with regard to *spirituality*: because upon that text of the first letter to the Corinthians, chapter fifteen: *The last Adam into a life-giving spirit*; the Gloss: « Because the spirit adheres perfectly to God, it so gives life that it makes the body spiritual »: therefore it is manifest, etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Whenever something is the origin of something else by overflow, there is in both a likeness and univocity; but the brightness of a body and that of a spirit are brightnesses equivocally: therefore the one does not overflow into the other.

2. Likewise, everything that is from another by overflow, once that other is separated, is no longer present: therefore if the soul were separated from the body, the body would become dark; which it seems unfitting to say.

3. Likewise, that which has its *being* wholly by overflow from something, when joined to it, shares in those properties without any change on its own part: therefore if a glorious soul were united in the ordinary way to a passible body, it would make it impassible; but this cannot stand: because that a thing passible by nature should become impassible is from an infinite power: therefore not from the soul.

4. Likewise, the soul of Christ was glorious in the highest degree, and his body passible in the highest degree, and therefore also having the other defects: therefore defects of this kind are not removed through the glory of the soul, but through an absolute quality of the body: therefore etc.

### Conclusion

> *The glory of the body, as regards the dispositions which are absolute qualities of the body itself, is from God reforming the body; as regards its consummation, it is through the influence of the glorious soul.*

**I respond:** It must be said that one may speak of the dowries of the body, in which its glorification consists, either as regards *disposition*, or as regards *consummation*. If as regards *disposition*, then I say that they name dispositions which are absolute qualities of the body itself, which are given to it by God in its reformation. — If as regards *consummation*, then I say that they are from the glory of the soul, or from the glorious soul. Whence, just as at present the soul flows into the body, and through that influence the body has more colour, the body is more lasting, the body is stronger and more agile, than when the soul is separated: likewise I say in the case at hand, in its own manner, that the glorious soul, flowing into the body, *perfects and consummates* through its own reformation all those dowries for which it had the *dispositions*. Whence I believe that, if the body were separated, then even though it were bright and impassible, it would nevertheless not be so as it is now.

**To the arguments:** From these things the objections on either side are plain. For the first set of reasons show that they are in the body through influence; which indeed is true as regards *consummation*. The second set of reasons show that they are not *wholly* in the body by overflow from the glory of the soul; and this indeed is true; for it is presupposed that it be reformed by God so as to be capable, and that through the influence of the soul that capacity be consummated.

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning spirituality, it must be said that it is true where the agent and the patient share in matter; but it is not so in the case of the soul and the body; whence the soul, while remaining itself immobile, causes motion in the body through influence; and so too in the other properties, as heat is called animal heat, that is from the soul.

---