2. Arguments of Others against Henry’s Opinion

37. Argument against this opinion:

First, that a part desires the being of the whole more than the being of itself, which is clear in both the macrocosm and the microcosm.

In the macrocosm because water ascends so that there not be a vacuum in the universe (as is plain in many experiments [Roger Bacon, Questions on Aristotle’s Physics; e.g. capillary action]), which however is against the particular natural inclination of water since water is naturally heavy and so tends downwards; but the universal inclination of nature dominates; for the good of the whole universe is hereby preserved, namely the continuity and contiguity of its parts, to which good it strives. In this way water is more inclined to the universal good of the universe than to a particular good.

38. The same also appears in the microcosm, for the hand exposes itself to save the head as naturally desiring more the saving of the head than other parts, and in this regard desiring the saving of the head more than itself, because the saving of the head is, as to life’s operations and vital influences, the saving of all the members.

39. From this further: since each creature is a certain participation in the divine goodness, a creature desires more the being of the divine good than the being of the good of itself; and consequently the rational creature will be able by its natural powers to love the divine good more than any other good, even than itself.

40. Besides, rational nature loves beatitude supremely, as is gathered from Augustine On the Trinity 13.5 n.8; but it loves the beatific object more than beatitude, therefore it loves that object above all things; therefore above itself. A confirmation is that someone who despairs and kills himself hates his being and yet does not hate beatitude, because he desires it could he have it; therefore he loves beatitude more than himself and so the beatific object more than himself.