II. To the Initial Arguments

113. [To the first] - As to the first [n.63], the proposition of Augustine depends on this one, “an agent is more outstanding than the formal term of action,” and “the formal term is more outstanding than the receptive subject of it.”

114. Now the second of these two propositions is only true insofar as the first part is act and the second potency. And thus must one concede that the agent, insofar as it is in formal or virtual act, is more outstanding than the passive thing, insofar as the passive thing is in potency to it. But from this does not follow that it is more outstanding in its absolute nature than what is susceptive of it, just as neither does this follow about the formal term with respect to the same.

115. But because Augustine intends to conclude through this argument [n.63] that body does not act on spirit, one can say that his major is true of an equivocal and total or principal agent, and otherwise not; and thus is his conclusion true. And it is admitted that fire is not a principal agent acting on a spirit, whether as to the detention (because fire does not act in this respect but is the definitive container formally of a spirit), or as to affecting a spirit (because fire only acts here as the instrument of God, the way a phantasm is disposed to the agent intellect [nn.88-91]).

116. Now, in causing sadness in this way or that, the fire is not the principal agent, but the will that does not want the object is. For the sadness follows rather from the fact the object is not wanted than from the idea of the object in itself, or from the very apprehension of the fact of the unwanted object; for the object causes sadness not just as unwanted but as something unwanted that is apprehended as being or going to be.

117. [To the second] - As to the next [n.64], Augustine’s remark can be expounded as being about what spirits are immediately affected by (that these are like corporeal things because they are passions in some way caused by bodies), and not about what spirits are mediately affected by (that these are corporeal things). Or, which amounts to the same, let it be expounded as being about what affects spirits formally, not effectively.

118. [To the third] - As to the next [n.65], this proposition is universally true, that “the agent must be present to the patient, at least according to active virtue.” From this follows that where an appropriate presence cannot be had save by contact, contact is required; but where a truer presence can be had, this suffices much more for action; but the presence of a spirit to body by coexistence can be much truer than presence by contact.

119. In another way it can be said that virtual contact is required and not mathematical [cf. Ord. II d.9 nn.59, 62]. Now virtual contact is that something in this thing could be the term of virtue in that thing, which is nothing other than that that thing has the active virtue of something in this thing. And in this way would God, were he not below the sphere of the moon, be present to the center of the earth, as was said in Ord. I d.37 n.9.

120. [To the fourth] - As to the next [n.66], one can say that an equivocal cause assimilates equivocally, that is, according to something that it has not formally but virtually in itself. And in this way an object that is not-wantable has sadness in itself and assimilates according to this sadness. In another way it can be said that the proposition [n.66 “an agent aims to make the patient like itself”] is true of the principal agent, not of the instrumental agent. Now God is here the principal agent and assimilates the passive thing to himself; for he understands and wills the affliction of the spirit, and according to what is thus understood and willed does he assimilate the suffering spirit to himself.