I. To the Question

162. Here one needs to know that since, according to Damascene ch.100, “resurrection is a second rising of that which fell and was dissolved,” and that the whole man fell in death, and also that, if one posits that the form of the mixed [body] there was different from the intellective soul (as I believe to be true), then the mixed body was dissolved in death or after death - since this is so, then there is needed for resurrection, in the order of nature, first indeed that the mixed body be restored the same, and second that the same intellective soul be united to the mixed body so that the same man may thus rise again [Ord. IV d.11 nn279-284].

163. First then one must see if nature could bring back the numerically same form of mixed body; second if to the dissolved mixed body an intellective soul could be reunited so that there be the same man. The first point contains two things: first whether nature can bring back something corruptible the same in number; second whether it can bring back this mixed body. Thus there are as it were three articles in particular.

A. Whether Nature can Universally Bring Back Some Corruptible Thing the Same in Number

1. First Opinion, which is that of the Philosophers

a. Exposition by Augustine of the Opinion

164. About the first article Augustine in City of God 12.14 reports the opinion of the ancient philosophers saying that the numerically same things return in a circuit of time. They posit that after the ‘great year’, that is, after a circuit of 36,000 years, everything will return numerically the same.

165. Their reasoning is that when the cause of things returns the same, the effect will be the same; and, as it is, all the celestial bodies will return to their position, because, on the supposition of Ptolemy in his Almagest 9.6 that the heaven of the fixed stars moves one degree in a hundred years contrary to the daily motion, the result is that the motion from East to West will be completed in 36,000 years.

b. Rejection of the Opinion

α. Through Scriptural Authorities

166. But this opinion is rejected there [n.164] by Augustine through the authority of Scripture:

Romans 6.9, “Christ being risen from the dead does not now die; death will no longer have dominion over him.” I Thessalonians 4.17, “We who are alive, who remain, will be taken up together.. .to meet Christ in the air, and thus we shall be always with the Lord.” Psalm 11.8-9, “Thou, O Lord, wilt preserve us and guard us from this generation forever;” - hence about those who hold the above opinion the Psalmist well adds, “the impious walk in a circuit.” p. By Reason

β. By Reason

167. And Augustine [ibid.] rejects it by reason, as regard beatitude, because according to the above circular process there would be no true beatitude, in that the blessed soul would be going to return to the miseries that it had before. And so, while it is blessed, it either believes it will never return, and then it is blessed with a false opinion, or believes it will return, and then it is afraid and consequently not blessed. And to the verse of Ecclesiastes 1.9-10, “There is nothing new under the sun.,” Augustine replies there [ibid.], “Far be it that we believe that those circuits are referred to in these words of Solomon; but the point must be taken either in a general sense, that the same things were before that will be, but not the same numerically, or, as some have understood, that the wise man [Solomon] wanted it to be understood that everything has already happened in the predestination of God, and that for this reason there is nothing new under the sun.”

168. The opinion can also be rejected as concerns the reason for it [nn.165, 167], because if some celestial motion be incommensurable with another (which can be proved if it be posited that, on the supposition of equal velocity on both sides, expanse is incommensurable with expanse over which the motion goes), then, I say, it follows that never will all the motions return to the same point. Nor is this feature of incommensurability in the motions opposed to the continuity of continuous motion, because if two movables were moved, one over the side of a square and the other over the diagonal of it, these motions would be incommensurable, and they would, if they lasted, perpetually fail to return to uniformity. But this question would require a long discussion of the individual motions that are congruent with the [Ptolemaic] epicycles and deferents, as to whether any motion incommensurable with another could be found in the whole heavens.

169. Again, the foundation adopted by Ptolemy [n.165] is rejected by Thebit,Thabit ibn Qurra, died 901. His rejection of the position held by Ptolemy position is reported by Roger Bacon, Communia Naturalium 2 p.5 ch.19. ⁶ who proves that the sphere of the fixed stars is not thus moved from West to East, because, according to Thebit, the star that was otherwise at the starting point of Capricorn in the ninth heaven [sc. sphere] would be at the starting point of Cancer in the ninth heaven. And therefore Thebit posited for the eighth heaven or for the heaven of the fixed stars a motion in certain small circles described on the starting point of Aries and of Libra in the ninth heaven. And he posited that it is a certain motion of precession and recession, according as the starting point of Aries, movable in its circle, is ascending, and as, oppositely, the starting point of Libra, movable in its circle, is descending; and as elsewhere, conversely, the head of Libra is ascending while the head of Aries is descending. And thus do the stars in the eighth heaven move in longitude and latitude together. If then this motion be proved to be completable in a period of time in which not all the lower spheres would be able to return to the same place that they had at the beginning of the motion, the proposed conclusion would follow.

170. Again, the reasoning [n.165] is defective, because identity of effect depends not only on the efficient cause but also on the matter; but the matter can be altogether different, or possess a different place in comparison with the heavens, because bodies can be prevented by the action of free choice from being in the ‘where’ where they were before. By such action too a body can be divided, and so the matter of it dispersed.

171. Again, manifest unacceptable results in the case of the human species follow on this position:

For it follows first that learning is nothing but remembering, which the Philosopher touches on in Posterior Analytics 1.1.71a1-11; and this is unacceptable because, as he proves in Posterior Analytics 2.19.99b22-27, it is unacceptable that the noblest habits exist in us and escape our notice.

172. Another unacceptable result is that the acts of free choice are not necessarily subject to the causality of the heavens, and consequently the acts will not necessarily return the same, and consequently not those acts either which necessarily depend on them. And however this example is posited by Augustine (ibid. n.164) about the saying of the philosophers, “As in this age,” he says, “Plato taught his students in the school called the Academy, so through innumerable ages backwards the same Plato and the same city and the same school and the same students are to be found.” And he adds, “Far be it from us to believe these things,” and he introduces the disproofs from Scripture previously brought forward [n.166].

2. Second Opinion

173. There is another opinion [Bonaventure, Albert the Great, Aquinas, Giles of Rome etc.], totally to the contrary, that it is impossible for anything to return numerically the same through a natural agent.

174. For this is adduced the authority of the Philosopher, On Generation 2.11.338b161-7, “Things whose substance has perished do not return the same in number.”

175. And there is his authority in Physics 5.4.228a6-12, about health, that it does not return numerically the same.

176. And his authority in Categories 10.13b20-27, “a return from privation to possession is impossible,” which is to be understood about the privation subsequent to form and about the preceding form. In agreement with this is what some allege from Metaphysics 8.5.1045a3-6, about wine and vinegar. And Aristotle denies that the return is immediate, even as to the species, because there must first be a resolution back into common matter.

177. There is also his authority in Ethics 6.3.1139b9-11 approving the saying of Solon [actually Agathon] that ‘God is deprived of this alone, to make undone what has been done;” therefore it is impossible to bring back past things, because this would then make them not only not to be past things but also to be present things.

178. Again, by four arguments:

The first is this: in every case of corruption, the matter of a generated thing is divided up, so that the generated thing is not generated from the whole same matter that was in the corrupted thing before, and thus further a greater and greater division of the matter is always being brought about. Therefore, in any circular process, if return is made to something of the same species as the thing first corrupted, it will not be from the same total matter, and consequently will not be the same, because identity of matter and of form is required for numerical identity- from the Philosopher Metaphysics 12.5.1071a17-29; and by reason, because identity of matter and form is the essential principle of the whole.

179. Again, a natural agent can only act through motion and change; but motion and change cannot return the same, because their unity is their continuity, and interruption or repetition is repugnant to continuity; repugnant therefore also to unity of motion and change. Therefore, the term of a natural agent cannot return the same.

This reason is confirmed as follows: as ‘this product’ is to product, so is ‘this production’ to production; therefore, by permutation, as product is to production, so is ‘this product’ to ‘this production’. But there cannot be product without production; therefore neither can there be ‘this product’ without ‘this production’. And ‘this production’ cannot return the same, because it is a change; therefore neither can ‘this product’ return the same.

180. Again, the same thing could not return unless there could be the same potency for it; but this is false, because either the same potency always remains or it is newly produced:

Not in the first way, because potency is corrupted in the arrival of form, and consequently, after the first reduction to act, the same potency does not remain. Nor in the second way, because just as a privation succeeds to the form different from the privation that preceded the form, so the form is resolved into a different potency - if it is resolved into any potency.

There is also a joint proof that neither way is possible, because there is no potency for the past; this form is past.

181. Why too is the same thing not brought back by nature immediately, if the potency for the same thing is in the receptive subject and if nature could be the active cause?

For since nature acts by impetus, there is no reason in this fact why nature may not as immediately bring back the same thing as not immediately do so when at least the sort of order of forms is in place by which it can bring back the same thing in species. But we clearly see that the same thing in number is not immediately brought back in the initial bringing back of the same thing in species - the fact is plain from the altogether different accidents that are consequent (at least as inseparable accidents) to the supposit itself.

And this question, posed by ‘why’, could be the fourth principal reason [n.178].

3. Third Opinion

182. The third opinion [Henry of Ghent, William of Ware] is an intermediate one, which posits that although not everything could return numerically the same by the action of nature, yet something can thus return numerically the same.

183. [First argument] - Argument for this opinion:

First by the remark of the Philosopher Metaphysics 8 [n.159], “If the agent is the same and the matter the same, the effect will be the same,” because he only assigns a possible diversity of effect because of a diversity of matter or efficient cause. But it is possible for the efficient cause and the matter to be, in their second relation to the thing produced, the same as they were in their first relation to the thing produced; therefore, it is possible for the thing produced second to be the same as the thing produced first.

184. The proof of the minor is that, although dispersion or division of matter frequently happen in corruption, yet the opposite is possible in many cases. For example, if a fire is contained within a urinal and is corrupted there into air and then from this air is generated fire by reflection of the rays of the sun or in some other way, the contained matter will be the same. Similarly, if something compact is generated from something compact precisely when the form of the thing generated can follow the form of the thing corrupted, the consequence is that the reason that the whole matter was in the form of the thing corrupted is equally reason that the same whole matter will be in the form of the thing to be generated.

185. Response: the remark of the Philosopher [n.183] must be understood with the addition of ‘at the same time’, because, according to him in Physics 5.4.227b21-24, not only is there an adding up of effects because of difference in species and subject, but also because of difference in time.

186. Another and better response is that Aristotle means that if the agent and matter are different the effect too will be different, but not that, by reversing the antecedent, if the agent and matter are the same, therefore the effect will be the same. Hence at the end [of the passage from the Metaphysics 8., n.159] he says in conclusion: “If then [nature] happens to make the same thing from the matter, it is plain that the principle that functions as mover is the same, for if the matter is different the mover and what is made are different,” supply: “since there the mover is different, what is made will also be different.”

187. Against the first response [n.185]: if the agent acts now in instant a, it will cause this (let this be p), and if it does not act now but stops until instant b, it will cause the same thing; therefore if it cause in a, and in the time intermediate between a and b the caused thing is destroyed, and the cause act again in instant b, it will cause the same thing. The consequence is plain from the fact that the continuity of the intermediate time does nothing for the identity of what persists through it, because what persists has the same being in the time as in the limits of the time.

188. If you deny the assumption, because in instant b a cause second from the universal cause (namely the heaven) cannot have the same influence as it had in instant a, and therefore it will not be able then to cause the same thing - to the contrary in two ways:

First because a like influence is sufficient for identity of effect; for if in instant a another agent were next to the passive thing, it would produce the same thing numerically as the original agent produced, and yet the influence would not be numerically the same as the influence of the latter, but only like it; now, however, there is in the other instant, namely b, an influence like what there was in instant a.

Again, this influence is not anything absolute received in the second cause, because then the second cause could, through what it received, act without the first cause whose influence it receives, because it now has the whole of that for which it needs the action of the first cause - which is unacceptable; therefore the influence of the higher cause with respect to the lower one is not anything received in the lower cause. Hence there is only the order in causing of the lower cause to the superior cause, which superior cause is, as concerns itself, always causing; so there will not be a different influence, just as neither a different order of higher cause to lower cause.

189. [Second argument] - Again, either it is simply impossible for the same thing numerically to be differently produced, and then it follows that neither does God have power for this; or it is not simply impossible, and then it follows that it will also now be in the causality of the things which it was possible in before; but it was before in the causality of natural causes, therefore it will be in their causality now as well.

4. Scotus’ own Judgment about these Opinions

190. As regards this article I reply that the third opinion seems more probable. For the first opinion, about the return of all things, is altogether improbable, because it is at least against the faith. Nor is the reason given for it effective, because the reason about the return of the heaven both presupposes a dubious antecedent and its inference is dubious.

191. The second opinion does not sufficiently prove the impossibility of the return by nature of anything at all.

192. And therefore the third opinion can be maintained, because it does not appear why nature could not bring something back that is numerically the same. For when there is continuous action by an agent natural in respect of what it produces, as there is in the sun in respect of its rays, if the sun be posited to produce a ray in a first instant and to conserve it in succeeding time, then in the last instant, for example b, there will be the same ray, since the identity of a ray in a second instant with itself in a first instant does not depend on its existence in the intermediate time, because the numerically same thing could have been produced in the same instant without the intermediate existence. It follows that, with the intermediate existence destroyed, the same thing could exist in both extremes; and although in the case of other agents, where the agent would not be said to act after the first instant, there might be evasion on this point in respect of the proximate agent, yet the argument remains the same with respect to the remote agent on which the effect continuously depends; and the intended conclusion follows about this effect dependent immediately on the proximate agent.

5. To the Arguments for the Second and Third Opinions

193. To the arguments that are for the second opinion and consequently against the third opinion:

194. [To the authorities of Aristotle] - To the first [n.174] response was made in the first question [n.19].

As to the second [n.175], the opposite could rather be drawn from the doubt in Physics 5, because if the health that continued for a day remains the same, why will the health that existed in the morning and was interrupted at noon and returned in the evening not in the same way be the same? Hence the negative response that is alleged is not expressly obtained there [in Physics 5].

195. To the other authority from Categories [n.176]: if privation, which is the term ‘from which’, cannot return the same, neither can the term ‘to which’ (and this when speaking of the precise term ‘from which’, and as regard a natural agent). But now the only cause why it does not return the same is that the positive state, with which the privation is conjoined, does not return the same; for if the form can return that, according to the order of generation, immediately precedes the other form in the matter, there appears no reason why the concomitant privation could not also return. This proposition, then, from the Categories is understood in the order of natural generation in descending process, because after the privation there the positive state does not return, for the form does not return that immediately preceded the positive state in the order of generation. Briefly it can be said that the proposition is understood of identity in species, not of identity in number, and then of immediate return; and consequently neither [of these authorities, nn.175, 176] is about mediate return.

196. To the one from Ethics 6 [n.177]: the Philosopher understands the phrase “to make undone what has been done” to mean that one cannot make them not to have been done; but it does not follow that therefore one cannot make them present, because it is not repugnant for them to have been done and to be, by another making, present now, even had they been destroyed between the first action and the second.

197. To the reasons for the opinion:

[To the first reason] - As to the first [n.178], it is plain that it should not move us: First because some part of the matter remains the same notwithstanding the division of it; therefore in that part the same form as before would be brought back (if return of the same form is not impeded for any other reason than the difference of the matter); and then the new generated thing would in part be numerically the same as what was before, and in part diverse, because as regard the part of the matter that remains the generated thing would be the same as what was first corrupted; but as regard other parts of the matter (that have succeeded to those that were before in the corrupted thing and have been dispersed) the generated thing would be different from what was corrupted.

Second because God or an angel could collect all the parts of the matter of the corrupted thing and apply them in due proportion to a natural agent, and thus, according to this reason, the whole of the numerically same thing would return as before.

Similarly, the whole matter can be naturally preserved the same without division - for example if fire in the urinal be converted into air and all the air conversely be converted into fire, there is here no dispersion of the matter.

The response then is that it is not necessary for the matter of the previously corrupted thing to be divided and, granted it remained the same, it would not be the whole idea of the return of the same thing.

198. [To the second reason] - As to the next, about motion and change, response was made in the first question [n.27].

199. As to the confirmation, about the interchange of proportions [n.179], I say that an interchanged proportion is taken from Euclid 5 prop.16, “if quantities are proportional, they will also be quantities when proportioned” [Euclid: “If four quantities be proportional, they will be proportional when interchanged”].

200. And this point is carried over [sc. to the confirmation]. Also, to arguments of this sort the answer is plain from Aristotle Prior Analytics 2.22.68a3-16: “If a and b are converted, c and d are also converted; if a and d contradict, b and c contradict.” And thus does the argument from interchanged proportion universally hold, provided the interchange happen as to contradiction and conversion. But if it happen as to contradiction and consequent and antecedent, it is not valid, but there is a fallacy of the consequent. Hence this inference is not valid: as man is to non-man, so animal is to nonanimal; therefore, by interchange, as man is to animal as to consequence, so non-man is to non-animal as to consequence [cf. Ord. I d.36 nn.56-57].

201. As to the proposed conclusion, which is argued for to this effect, which is that ‘it cannot be without this’ [n.179: sc. ‘this product cannot be without this production’], the consequence is not valid when a common term determines for itself another common term [sc. ‘product’ and ‘production’], and an inferior under a common term [sc. ‘this product’ under ‘product’] does not determine for itself an inferior under the other common term [sc. ‘this product’ under ‘this production’]. But the following is quite possible that, from the fact that some common term determines for itself another common term, the only consequence is that an inferior determines for itself the same common term.

An example: ‘as surface is to this surface, so is color to this color’ and conversely; therefore, by permutation, ‘as surface cannot be without color, so neither can this surface be without this color’ - this does not follow, because although one common term determines for itself another common term, yet the singular term does not determine for itself a singular term. Similarly: ‘as body is to this body, so place is to this place’; therefore, by permutation, ‘as body is to place, so this body is to this place’; but body cannot be without place; therefore neither can this body be without this place - the consequence is not valid, because this body does not determine this place for itself in the same way that body determines place for itself. But this consequence holds: if that which is necessarily required for another cannot be without something, neither can that for which it is required be without that something. And so, since production is necessarily included in the idea of ‘this production’, if production cannot be without product, the consequence is that ‘this production’ will not be able to be without ‘this product’; but neither production in common nor product in common necessarily require ‘this’ production.

202. In brief: permutation only holds in accord with the same thing that the proportion accorded with before, or in accord with something where ‘to be a proportion’ is included in the first proposition - as in this case, which is that included in ‘a proportional is in accord with convertibility’ is ‘the proportionals are in accord with repugnance’ [sc. that ‘product’ and ‘this product’ agree in being repugnant to ‘without production’ and ‘without this production’ respectively]. But in the issue at hand it is not so, because in ‘being proportional as to higher and lower’ is not universally included ‘being proportional as to the same sort of inseparability in the lower as in the higher’.

203. [To the third reason] - To the next one [n.180] I say that the potencyprinciple always remains the same, and it suffices for the reception of form. Because if you seek beyond this principle for another potency, which is a potency of relation, it does nothing for the reception of form; but if it be required, it can be said to be now the same.

204. And when you ask, “either it remains the same or it returns the same” [n.180], each can be granted:

The first, to be sure, because, when speaking absolutely about the potency that states the order of the receiver to the received, the order remains the same whether before the received thing is present or when it is present, because the order follows the nature of the receiver, which nature is naturally perfected by such form. And the proof that the potency remains is that if God were to bring back the same form (which is not denied to be possible for him), it would make with the matter something ‘per se one’ just as before; therefore the potency in the matter with respect to the form would be the same as before.

205. And then when the argument is made that ‘potency is destroyed in the arrival of form’ [n.180], one must say that this is not properly understood of the idea itself of potency, but of a certain respect concomitant with the potency that the potency has because of the fact that it precedes act, which preceding is a certain priority in duration to act; but this is not included per se in the idea of potency, because potency can exist at the same time along with this priority and along with immediacy to act.

206. One could also say that potency before act remains always the same, even along with act; and yet opposites are not together at the same time, because the potency before act is not a potency for form for the same ‘now’ as when act is present in it, because it has act for that ‘now’. But the potency before act is not present in it for the same form, but for a form in the future.

207. Now that either one of these responses may be true is proved by this that, if something can have a potency for form, it already has the potency, because the impossible cannot become possible and, consequently, potency for some form cannot be had at some time without being had now, provided that what is susceptive of the form is possible now.

208. It might in another way be said that the same potency would return, just as it is also possible that the same act return. And then it would be said that, for the moment when the act is present, the potency opposite to act does not remain but that it does return when the act ceases.

209. In a final way it might be said that, from the beginning of creation, there are distinct potencies in the potency-principle, as many as are the receivable forms, not only distinct in species, but in number and not precisely so many but even that there are as many for the same form as there are times when the form can be induced, and that each of these potencies ceases to be when its proper act arrives and does not return; and yet the same form can return, because there is not only a single potency for it but different potencies according as the form was differently inducible into the same potencyprinciple.

When it is argued against the second member [n.180] that the same potency cannot return because neither can the privation - it was said above [n.195] that privation can return if the positive state can return with which the privation is conjoined; and about potency in the same way, if the form prior in the order of generation can return with which the potency for the second form is concomitant.

210. When it is argued, against each member [n.180], that there is no potency for the past, this is true of the past as it is past; hence there is properly no potency for the past to have been or not been, but there is potency for the thing that was past insofar, however, as it can be future.

Now this argument about potency [n.180] works not only against a natural agent but also against the return of the same material form through divine action, because divine action requires in matter a potency that it perfects. He who would say that these potencies are nothing, when speaking of any power besides that which states a respect of the receiver to the form received, should free himself of all this bother, because how many nothings are posited does not matter. But the potency that is a real relation on the part of matter to form (just as, conversely, in-forming is a real relation of form to matter) - that potency, I say, returns the same if the form returns; or if it not return before the composite, it could return the same (the point was stated in the first question [n.41]).

211. [To the fourth argument] - To the final argument [n.181], as to why the same thing in number would not return at once with the initial return of the same thing in species, one can say that there are impediments on the part of the passive thing and the agent, because of which inseparable accidents cannot immediately be brought back; and without these inseparable accidents the same substance would not be brought back. It need not always be so that there are such impediments.

B. Whether it is Possible for Nature to Bring Back the Same Mixed Body

212. As to the second principal article [n.163], it is absolutely possible for nature to bring back the same mixed body on the supposition of the third opinion in the preceding article [n.182]; but it is not possible for nature to bring back the same thing in the way it will be brought back.

213. The proof of the first conclusion is that, if the third opinion in the preceding article be true, then whenever the whole of the same matter is, without impediments, in proximity to the same agent, the same thing can be brought back - in proximity not just to the same agent in number but to the same agent in species, because identity in species in an agent is equivalent to identity in number. The proof is that if in this instant this fire generates from this wood this fire, then if in the same instant that fire were proximate to the same wood it would generate the same fire. But it is possible for the whole matter (from which this body was otherwise generated in a natural generation) to be again under the form of sperm and menstrual fluid in another womb, as is proved by the statement of Gregory Moralia IV ch.31 n.62 (and it is set down in II d.20 nn.18-20, of the Lectura). Therefore the same mixed body would then be formed in another womb.

214. The second conclusion is for me more certain, because it depends on certain particulars, namely if the third stated opinion is true [nn.182-192]. My proof for this second conclusion is that the whole of active nature is tied to a certain order of forms in the changing of things, so that the whole of nature could not produce wine immediately after vinegar (only God is not limited to this order in his acting). And this order is especially necessary as regard a natural agent when process is being made to what is perfect, because something perfect cannot be produced in many ways but in fewer ways. Now, as it is, the mixed body is perfect among corruptible things, and     therefore a considerable order in forms that are first according to natural order (as the order of seed, blood, flesh etc     .) is determined for the mixed body. But such forms do not, as it is, precede this formation of the body in the way the body will then be restored [sc. at the resurrection], because it will be restored suddenly from ash or dust or other things, whatever it was before reduced to; therefore, the whole of nature will not be able to restore the same body in the way in which the body will then be restored.

C. Whether Nature Could Reunite the Intellective Soul to the Dissolved Mixed Body so that it be the Same Man

1. Opinion of Others and its Refutation

215. As to the third article [n.163]: once the body has been restored by something or other, it seems that the soul could be united to that body by nature, because this form [the soul] is the disposition that necessitates with respect to animation; so there is in nature a disposition necessary for animation, but that which it disposes for necessarily follows on such disposition.

216. But on the contrary

It is plain that the soul cannot be united to the body by any creature other than itself; but neither can it be united by itself as by the effecting principle of the union. Proof of both theses: an equivocal cause is simply nobler than the effect, and the proof is from Augustine 83 Questions q.2, “Everything that comes to be cannot be equal to that by which it comes to be, otherwise justice, which must render to each what is his own, would necessarily be taken away from things.” But Augustine means this about an equivocal cause, because justice in a univocal cause requires equality, while in an equivocal it requires eminence. Avicenna holds the same in his Metaphysics 6.3, and Augustine Literal Commentary on Genesis 12.16 n.33, holds the same, that “the agent is more outstanding than the passive thing.” This proposition, as stated elsewhere [Ord. I d.3 n.407], depends on this other, “the agent is simply more perfect than its formal effect;” but man is simply more perfect than his soul (as whole than part), and than any other bodily substance. It is plain, therefore, that neither the soul nor any other bodily substance (other than man) can be the effective cause of man.

217. Again, Physics 2, the form and efficient cause are not numerically the same; therefore the soul, which is the formal cause of man, cannot be the efficient cause of the same man.

218. Again, the first union [of body and soul], made in generation, is not less natural than this other, made in resurrection; but the soul could not have been the effective cause of this union; therefore only God was in creating and infusing the soul. - I concede the conclusion that if the first production of man is subject to active divine virtue alone, then to him alone will be subject the second production of man; but this production is in the animation of the organic body.

219. To the argument for the opposite [n.215] I say that in the whole of nature there is nothing in the receptive thing that is a disposition that necessitates for the form, because along with any such disposition there stands the potency for the contradictory opposite [sc. the disposition, qua disposition, can be with or without the form it is the disposition for]; the receptive thing, which is precisely receptive, necessarily goes along with this potency, for such potency is repugnant to necessity [sc. a potency qua potency is not necessitated to being actualized or to not being actualized].

220. But the customary phrase ‘the disposition that necessitates’ [n.215] must be understand in this way: not because the disposition belongs to the idea of necessity but because, when the disposition is posited, the agent necessarily induces the form for which the disposition is the mere disposition - the agent induces either with necessity simply, as when the agent is merely natural, or with necessity in a certain respect, as when the agent is voluntary and disposes itself so to act. And in this last way the form of corporeity is a disposition necessitating for the soul, not that the disposition is of itself or by virtue of itself followed by animation, but because once the disposition is in place, the agent, by the conditioned necessity of its own disposition, induces the form that it is for.