|
Objection 1: It would seem that in the state of innocence man was
not immortal. For the term "mortal" belongs to the definition of
man. But if you take away the definition, you take away the thing
defined. Therefore as long as man was man he could not be immortal.
Objection 2: Further, corruptible and incorruptible are generically
distinct, as the Philosopher says (Metaph. x, Did. ix, 10).
But there can be no passing from one genus to another. Therefore if
the first man was incorruptible, man could not be corruptible in the
present state.
Objection 3: Further, if man were immortal in the state of
innocence, this would have been due either to nature or to grace. Not
to nature, for since nature does not change within the same species,
he would also have been immortal now. Likewise neither would this be
owing to grace; for the first man recovered grace by repentance,
according to Wis. 10:2: "He brought him out of his sins."
Hence he would have regained his immortality; which is clearly not the
case. Therefore man was not immortal in the state of innocence.
Objection 4: Further, immortality is promised to man as a reward,
according to Apoc. 21:4: "Death shall be no more." But man
was not created in the state of reward, but that he might deserve the
reward. Therefore man was not immortal in the state of innocence.
On the contrary, It is written (Rm. 5:12): "By sin death
came into the world." Therefore man was immortal before sin.
I answer that, A thing may be incorruptible in three ways. First,
on the part of matter---that is to say, either because it possesses
no matter, like an angel; or because it possesses matter that is in
potentiality to one form only, like the heavenly bodies. Such things
as these are incorruptible by their very nature. Secondly, a thing is
incorruptible in its form, inasmuch as being by nature corruptible,
yet it has an inherent disposition which preserves it wholly from
corruption; and this is called incorruptibility of glory; because as
Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor.): "God made man's soul of
such a powerful nature, that from its fulness of beatitude, there
redounds to the body a fulness of health, with the vigor of
incorruption." Thirdly, a thing may be incorruptible on the part of
its efficient cause; in this sense man was incorruptible and immortal
in the state of innocence. For, as Augustine says (Questions.
Vet. et Nov. Test. qu. 19): "God made man immortal as long
as he did not sin; so that he might achieve for himself life or
death." For man's body was indissoluble not by reason of any
intrinsic vigor of immortality, but by reason of a supernatural force
given by God to the soul, whereby it was enabled to preserve the body
from all corruption so long as it remained itself subject to God.
This entirely agrees with reason; for since the rational soul
surpasses the capacity of corporeal matter, as above explained
(Question 76, Article 1), it was most properly endowed at the
beginning with the power of preserving the body in a manner surpassing
the capacity of corporeal matter.
Reply to Objection 1:and 2: These objections are founded on
natural incorruptibility and immortality.
Reply to Objection 3: This power of preserving the body was not
natural to the soul, but was the gift of grace. And though man
recovered grace as regards remission of guilt and the merit of glory;
yet he did not recover immortality, the loss of which was an effect of
sin; for this was reserved for Christ to accomplish, by Whom the
defect of nature was to be restored into something better, as we shall
explain further on (TP, Question 14, Article 4, ad 1).
Reply to Objection 4: The promised reward of the immortality of
glory differs from the immortality which was bestowed on man in the
state of innocence.
|
|