FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 115, Art. 1]

Whether a Body Can Be Active?

Objection 1: It would seem that no bodies are active. For Augustine

says (De Civ. Dei v, 9): "There are things that are acted upon, but

do not act; such are bodies: there is one Who acts but is not acted

upon; this is God: there are things that both act and are acted upon;

these are the spiritual substances."

Obj. 2: Further, every agent except the first agent requires in its

work a subject susceptible of its action. But there is not substance

below the corporeal substance which can be susceptible of the

latter's action; since it belongs to the lowest degree of beings.

Therefore corporeal substance is not active.

Obj. 3: Further, every corporeal substance is limited by quantity.

But quantity hinders substance from movement and action, because it

surrounds it and penetrates it: just as a cloud hinders the air from

receiving light. A proof of this is that the more a body increases in

quantity, the heavier it is and the more difficult to move. Therefore

no corporeal substance is active.

Obj. 4: Further, the power of action in every agent is according to

its propinquity to the first active cause. But bodies, being most

composite, are most remote from the first active cause, which is most

simple. Therefore no bodies are active.

Obj. 5: Further, if a body is an agent, the term of its action is

either a substantial, or an accidental form. But it is not a

substantial form; for it is not possible to find in a body any

principle of action, save an active quality, which is an accident;

and an accident cannot be the cause of a substantial form, since the

cause is always more excellent than the effect. Likewise, neither is

it an accidental form, for "an accident does not extend beyond its

subject," as Augustine says (De Trin. ix, 4). Therefore no bodies are

active.

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. xv) that among other

qualities of corporeal fire, "it shows its greatness in its action

and power on that of which it lays hold."

_I answer that,_ It is apparent to the senses that some bodies are

active. But concerning the action of bodies there have been three

errors. For some denied all action to bodies. This is the opinion of

Avicebron in his book on _The Fount of Life,_ where, by the arguments

mentioned above, he endeavors to prove that no bodies act, but that

all the actions which seem to be the actions of bodies, are the

actions of some spiritual power that penetrates all bodies: so that,

according to him, it is not fire that heats, but a spiritual power

which penetrates, by means of the fire. And this opinion seems to be

derived from that of Plato. For Plato held that all forms existing in

corporeal matter are participated thereby, and determined and limited

thereto; and that separate forms are absolute and as it were

universal; wherefore he said that these separate forms are the causes

of forms that exist in matter. Therefore inasmuch as the form which

is in corporeal matter is determined to this matter individualized by

quantity, Avicebron held that the corporeal form is held back and

imprisoned by quantity, as the principle of individuality, so as to

be unable by action to extend to any other matter: and that the

spiritual and immaterial form alone, which is not hedged in by

quantity, can issue forth by acting on something else.

But this does not prove that the corporeal form is not an agent, but

that it is not a universal agent. For in proportion as a thing is

participated, so, of necessity, must that be participated which is

proper thereto; thus in proportion to the participation of light is

the participation of visibility. But to act, which is nothing else

than to make something to be in act, is essentially proper to an act

as such; wherefore every agent produces its like. So therefore to the

fact of its being a form not determined by matter subject to

quantity, a thing owes its being an agent indeterminate and

universal: but to the fact that it is determined to this matter, it

owes its being an agent limited and particular. Wherefore if the form

of fire were separate, as the Platonists supposed, it would be, in a

fashion, the cause of every ignition. But this form of fire which is

in this corporeal matter, is the cause of this ignition which passes

from this body to that. Hence such an action is effected by the

contact of two bodies.

But this opinion of Avicebron goes further than that of Plato. For

Plato held only substantial forms to be separate; while he referred

accidents to the material principles which are "the great" and "the

small," which he considered to be the first contraries, by others

considered to the "the rare" and "the dense." Consequently both

Plato and Avicenna, who follows him to a certain extent, held that

corporeal agents act through their accidental forms, by disposing

matter for the substantial form; but that the ultimate perfection

attained by the introduction of the substantial form is due to an

immaterial principle. And this is the second opinion concerning the

action of bodies; of which we have spoken above when treating of

the creation (Q. 45, A. 8).

The third opinion is that of Democritus, who held that action takes

place through the issue of atoms from the corporeal agent, while

passion consists in the reception of the atoms in the pores of the

passive body. This opinion is disproved by Aristotle (De Gener. i, 8,

9). For it would follow that a body would not be passive as a whole,

and the quantity of the active body would be diminished through its

action; which things are manifestly untrue.

We must therefore say that a body acts forasmuch as it is in act, on

a body forasmuch as it is in potentiality.

Reply Obj. 1: This passage of Augustine is to be understood of the

whole corporeal nature considered as a whole, which thus has no

nature inferior to it, on which it can act; as the spiritual nature

acts on the corporeal, and the uncreated nature on the created.

Nevertheless one body is inferior to another, forasmuch as it is in

potentiality to that which the other has in act.

From this follows the solution of the second objection. But it must

be observed, when Avicebron argues thus, "There is a mover who is not

moved, to wit, the first maker of all; therefore, on the other hand,

there exists something moved which is purely passive," that this is

to be conceded. But this latter is primary matter, which is a pure

potentiality, just as God is pure act. Now a body is composed of

potentiality and act; and therefore it is both active and passive.

Reply Obj. 3: Quantity does not entirely hinder the corporeal form

from action, as stated above; but from being a universal agent,

forasmuch as a form is individualized through being in matter subject

to quantity. The proof taken from the weight of bodies is not to the

purpose. First, because addition of quantity does not cause weight;

as is proved (De Coelo et Mundo iv, 2). Secondly, it is false that

weight retards movement; on the contrary, the heavier a thing, the

greater its movement, if we consider the movement proper thereto.

Thirdly, because action is not effected by local movement, as

Democritus held: but by something being reduced from potentiality to

act.

Reply Obj. 4: A body is not that which is most distant from God; for

it participates something of a likeness to the Divine Being,

forasmuch as it has a form. That which is most distant from God is

primary matter; which is in no way active, since it is a pure

potentiality.

Reply Obj. 5: The term of a body's action is both an accidental form

and a substantial form. For the active quality, such as heat,

although itself an accident, acts nevertheless by virtue of the

substantial form, as its instrument: wherefore its action can

terminate in a substantial form; thus natural heat, as the instrument

of the soul, has an action terminating in the generation of flesh.

But by its own virtue it produces an accident. Nor is it against the

nature of an accident to surpass its subject in acting, but it is to

surpass it in being; unless indeed one were to imagine that an

accident transfers its identical self from the agent to the patient;

thus Democritus explained action by an issue of atoms.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part I (Prima Pars) From the Complete American Edition · 第 701 / 722 题