|
Objection 1: It would seem that none of the food is changed into
true human nature. For it is written (Mt. 15:17):
"Whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is
cast out into the privy." But what is cast out is not changed into
the reality of human nature. Therefore none of the food is changed
into true human nature.
Objection 2: Further, the Philosopher (De Gener. i, 5)
distinguishes flesh belonging to the "species" from flesh belonging to
"matter"; and says that the latter "comes and goes." Now what is
formed from food comes and goes. Therefore what is produced from food
is flesh belonging to matter, not to the species. But what belongs to
true human nature belongs to the species. Therefore the food is not
changed into true human nature.
Objection 3: Further, the "radical humor" seems to belong to the
reality of human nature; and if it be lost, it cannot be recovered,
according to physicians. But it could be recovered if the food were
changed into the humor. Therefore food is not changed into true human
nature.
Objection 4: Further, if the food were changed into true human
nature, whatever is lost in man could be restored. But man's death
is due only to the loss of something. Therefore man would be able by
taking food to insure himself against death in perpetuity.
Objection 5: Further, if the food is changed into true human
nature, there is nothing in man which may not recede or be repaired:
for what is generated in a man from his food can both recede and be
repaired. If therefore a man lived long enough, it would follow that
in the end nothing would be left in him of what belonged to him at the
beginning. Consequently he would not be numerically the same man
throughout his life; since for the thing to be numerically the same,
identity of matter is necessary. But this is incongruous. Therefore
the food is not changed into true human nature.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xi): "The
bodily food when corrupted, that is, having lost its form, is changed
into the texture of the members." But the texture of the members
belongs to true human nature. Therefore the food is changed into the
reality of human nature.
I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Metaph. ii),
"The relation of a thing to truth is the same as its relation to
being." Therefore that belongs to the true nature of any thing which
enters into the constitution of that nature. But nature can be
considered in two ways: firstly, in general according to the species;
secondly, as in the individual. And whereas the form and the common
matter belong to a thing's true nature considered in general;
individual signate matter, and the form individualized by that matter
belong to the true nature considered in this particular individual.
Thus a soul and body belong to the true human nature in general, but
to the true human nature of Peter and Martin belong this soul and this
body.
Now there are certain things whose form cannot exist but in one
individual matter: thus the form of the sun cannot exist save in the
matter in which it actually is. And in this sense some have said that
the human form cannot exist but in a certain individual matter, which,
they said, was given that form at the very beginning in the first man.
So that whatever may have been added to that which was derived by
posterity from the first parent, does not belong to the truth of human
nature, as not receiving in truth the form of human nature.
But, said they, that matter which, in the first man, was the
subject of the human form, was multiplied in itself: and in this way
the multitude of human bodies is derived from the body of the first
man. According to these, the food is not changed into true human
nature; we take food, they stated, in order to help nature to resist
the action of natural heat, and prevent the consumption of the
"radical humor"; just as lead or tin is mixed with silver to prevent
its being consumed by fire.
But this is unreasonable in many ways. Firstly, because it comes to
the same that a form can be produced in another matter, or that it can
cease to be in its proper matter; wherefore all things that can be
generated are corruptible, and conversely. Now it is manifest that
the human form can cease to exist in this (particular) matter which is
its subject: else the human body would not be corruptible.
Consequently it can begin to exist in another matter, so that
something else be changed into true human nature. Secondly, because
in all beings whose entire matter is contained in one individual there
is only one individual in the species: as is clearly the case with the
sun, moon and such like. Thus there would only be one individual of
the human species. Thirdly, because multiplication of matter cannot
be understood otherwise than either in respect of quantity only, as in
things which are rarefied, so that their matter increases in
dimensions; or in respect of the substance itself of the matter. But
as long as the substance alone of matter remains, it cannot be said to
be multiplied; for multitude cannot consist in the addition of a thing
to itself, since of necessity it can only result from division.
Therefore some other substance must be added to matter, either by
creation, or by something else being changed into it. Consequently no
matter can be multiplied save either by rarefaction as when air is made
from water; or by the change of some other things, as fire is
multiplied by the addition of wood; or lastly by creation. Now it is
manifest that the multiplication of matter in the human body does not
occur by rarefaction: for thus the body of a man of perfect age would
be more imperfect than the body of a child. Nor does it occur by
creation of flesh matter: for, according to Gregory (Moral.
xxxii): "All things were created together as to the substance of
matter, but not as to the specific form." Consequently the
multiplication of the human body can only be the result of the food
being changed into the true human nature. Fourthly, because, since
man does not differ from animals and plants in regard to the vegetative
soul, it would follow that the bodies of animals and plants do not
increase through a change of nourishment into the body so nourished,
but through some kind of multiplication. Which multiplication cannot
be natural: since the matter cannot naturally extend beyond a certain
fixed quantity; nor again does anything increase naturally, save
either by rarefaction or the change of something else into it.
Consequently the whole process of generation and nourishment, which
are called "natural forces," would be miraculous. Which is
altogether inadmissible.
Wherefore others have said that the human form can indeed begin to
exist in some other matter, if we consider the human nature in
general: but not if we consider it as in this individual. For in the
individual the form remains confined to a certain determinate matter,
on which it is first imprinted at the generation of that individual, so
that it never leaves that matter until the ultimate dissolution of the
individual. And this matter, say they, principally belongs to the
true human nature. But since this matter does not suffice for the
requisite quantity, some other matter must be added, through the
change of food into the substance of the individual partaking thereof,
in such a quantity as suffices for the increase required. And this
matter, they state, belongs secondarily to the true human nature:
because it is not required for the primary existence of the individual,
but for the quantity due to him. And if anything further is produced
from the food, this does not belong to true human nature, properly
speaking. However, this also is inadmissible. First, because this
opinion judges of living bodies as of inanimate bodies; in which,
although there be a power of generating their like in species, there is
not the power of generating their like in the individual; which power
in living bodies is the nutritive power. Nothing, therefore, would
be added to living bodies by their nutritive power, if their food were
not changed into their true nature. Secondly, because the active
seminal power is a certain impression derived from the soul of the
begetter, as stated above (Question 118, Article 1). Hence
it cannot have a greater power in acting, than the soul from which it
is derived. If, therefore, by the seminal power a certain matter
truly assumes the form of human nature, much more can the soul, by the
nutritive power, imprint the true form of human nature on the food
which is assimilated. Thirdly, because food is needed not only for
growth, else at the term of growth, food would be needful no longer;
but also to renew that which is lost by the action of natural heat.
But there would be no renewal, unless what is formed from the food,
took the place of what is lost. Wherefore just as that which was there
previously belonged to true human nature, so also does that which is
formed from the food.
Therefore, according to others, it must be said that the food is
really changed into the true human nature by reason of its assuming the
specific form of flesh, bones and such like parts. This is what the
Philosopher says (De Anima ii, 4): "Food nourishes inasmuch as
it is potentially flesh."
Reply to Objection 1: Our Lord does not say that the "whole" of
what enters into the mouth, but "all"---because something from
every kind of food is cast out into the privy. It may also be said
that whatever is generated from food, can be dissolved by natural
heat, and be cast aside through the pores, as Jerome expounds the
passage.
Reply to Objection 2: By flesh belonging to the species, some have
understood that which first receives the human species, which is
derived from the begetter: this, they say, lasts as long as the
individual does. By flesh belonging to the matter these understand
what is generated from food: and this, they say, does not always
remain, but as it comes so it goes. But this is contrary to the mind
of Aristotle. For he says there, that "just as in things which have
their species in matter"---for instance, wood or stone---"so in
flesh, there is something belonging to the species, and something
belonging to matter." Now it is clear that this distinction has no
place in inanimate things, which are not generated seminally, or
nourished. Again, since what is generated from food is united to, by
mixing with, the body so nourished, just as water is mixed with wine,
as the Philosopher says there by way of example: that which is added,
and that to which it is added, cannot be different natures, since they
are already made one by being mixed together. Therefore there is no
reason for saying that one is destroyed by natural heat, while the
other remains.
It must therefore be said that this distinction of the Philosopher is
not of different kinds of flesh, but of the same flesh considered from
different points of view. For if we consider the flesh according to
the species, that is, according to that which is formed therein, thus
it remains always: because the nature of flesh always remains together
with its natural disposition. But if we consider flesh according to
matter, then it does not remain, but is gradually destroyed and
renewed: thus in the fire of a furnace, the form of fire remains, but
the matter is gradually consumed, and other matter is substituted in
its place.
Reply to Objection 3: The "radical humor" is said to comprise
whatever the virtue of the species is founded on. If this be taken
away it cannot be renewed; as when a man's hand or foot is amputated.
But the "nutritive humor" is that which has not yet received
perfectly the specific nature, but is on the way thereto; such is the
blood, and the like. Wherefore if such be taken away, the virtue of
the species remains in its root, which is not destroyed.
Reply to Objection 4: Every virtue of a passible body is weakened
by continuous action, because such agents are also patient. Therefore
the transforming virtue is strong at first so as to be able to transform
not only enough for the renewal of what is lost, but also for growth.
Later on it can only transform enough for the renewal of what is lost,
and then growth ceases. At last it cannot even do this; and then
begins decline. In fine, when this virtue fails altogether, the
animal dies. Thus the virtue of wine that transforms the water added
to it, is weakened by further additions of water, so as to become at
length watery, as the Philosopher says by way of example (De
Gener. i, 5).
Reply to Objection 5: As the Philosopher says (De Gener. i,
5), when a certain matter is directly transformed into fire, then
fire is said to be generated anew: but when matter is transformed into
a fire already existing, then fire is said to be fed. Wherefore if
the entire matter together loses the form of fire, and another matter
transformed into fire, there will be another distinct fire. But if,
while one piece of wood is burning, other wood is laid on, and so on
until the first piece is entirely consumed, the same identical fire
will remain all the time: because that which is added passes into what
pre-existed. It is the same with living bodies, in which by means of
nourishment that is renewed which was consumed by natural heat.
|
|