|
Objection 1: It would seem that the plants and animals will remain
in this renewal. For the elements should be deprived of nothing that
belongs to their adornment. Now the elements are said to be adorned by
the animals and plants [Gn.
1:11,12,20,21,24,25]. Therefore they will not be
removed in this renewal.
Objection 2: Further, just as the elements served man, so also did
animals, plants and mineral bodies. But on account of this service
the elements will be glorified. Therefore both animals and plants and
mineral bodies will be glorified likewise.
Objection 3: Further, the universe will remain imperfect if
anything belonging to its perfection be removed. Now the species of
animals, plants, and mineral bodies belong to the perfection of the
universe. Since then we must not say that the world will remain
imperfect when it is renewed, it seems that we should assert that the
plants and animals will remain.
Objection 4: Further, animals and plants have a more noble form
than the elements. Now the world, at this final renewal, will be
changed for the better. Therefore animals and plants should remain
rather than the elements, since they are nobler.
Objection 5: Further, it is unseemly to assert that the natural
appetite will be frustrated. But by their natural appetite animals and
plants desire to be for ever, if indeed not as regards the individual,
at least as regards the species: and to this end their continual
generation is directed (De Generat. ii). Therefore it is unseemly
to say that these species will at length cease to be.
On the contrary, If plants and animals are to remain, either all of
them will, or some of them. If all of them, then dumb animals,
which had previously died, will have to rise again just as men will
rise again. But this cannot be asserted for since their form comes to
nothing, they cannot resume the same identical form. On the other
hand if not all but some of them remain, since there is no more reason
for one of them remaining for ever rather than another, it would seem
that none of them will. But whatever remains after the world has been
renewed will remain for ever, generation and corruption being done
away. Therefore plants and animals will altogether cease after the
renewal of the world.
Further, according to the Philosopher (De Generat. ii) the
species of animals, plants and such like corruptible things, are not
perpetuated except by the continuance of the heavenly movement. Now
this will cease then. Therefore it will be impossible for those
species to be perpetuated.
Further, if the end cease, those things which are directed to the end
should cease. Now animals and plants were made for the upkeep of human
life; wherefore it is written (Gn. 9:3): "Even as the green
herbs have I delivered all flesh to you." Therefore when man's
animal life ceases, animals and plants should cease. But after this
renewal animal life will cease in man. Therefore neither plants nor
animals ought to remain.
I answer that, Since the renewal of the world will be for man's sake
it follows that it should be conformed to the renewal of man. Now by
being renewed man will pass from the state of corruption to
incorruptibility and to a state of everlasting rest, wherefore it is
written (1 Cor. 15:53): "This corruptible must put on
incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality"; and
consequently the world will be renewed in such a way as to throw off all
corruption and remain for ever at rest. Therefore it will be
impossible for anything to be the subject of that renewal, unless it be
a subject of incorruption. Now such are the heavenly bodies, the
elements, and man. For the heavenly bodies are by their very nature
incorruptible both as to their whole and as to their part: the elements
are corruptible as to their parts but incorruptible as a whole: while
men are corruptible both in whole and in part, but this is on the part
of their matter not on the part of their form, the rational soul to
wit, which will remain incorrupt after the corruption of man. on the
other hand, dumb animals, plants, and minerals, and all mixed
bodies, are corruptible both in their whole and in their parts, both
on the part of their matter which loses its form, and on the part of
their form which does not remain actually; and thus they are in no way
subjects of incorruption. Hence they will not remain in this renewal,
but those things alone which we have mentioned above.
Reply to Objection 1: These bodies are said to adorn the elements,
inasmuch as the general active and passive forces which are in the
elements are applied to specific actions: hence they adorn the elements
in their active and passive state. But this state will not remain in
the elements: wherefore there is no need for animals or plants to
remain.
Reply to Objection 2: Neither animals nor plants nor any other
bodies merited anything by their services to man, since they lack
free-will. However, certain bodies are said to be rewarded in so far
as man merited that those things should be renewed which are adapted to
be renewed. But plants and animals are not adapted to the renewal of
incorruption, as stated above. Wherefore for this very reason man did
not merit that they should be renewed, since no one can merit for
another, or even for himself that which another or himself is incapable
of receiving. Hence, granted even that dumb animals merited by
serving man, it would not follow that they are to be renewed.
Reply to Objection 3: Just as several kinds of perfection are
ascribed to man (for there is the perfection of created nature and the
perfection of glorified nature), so also there is a twofold perfection
of the universe, one corresponding to this state of changeableness,
the other corresponding to the state of a future renewal. Now plants
and animals belong to its perfection according to the present state,
and not according to the state of this renewal, since they are not
capable thereof.
Reply to Objection 4: Although animals and plants as to certain
other respects are more noble than the elements, the elements are more
noble in relation to incorruption, as explained above [Question
74, Article 1, ad 3].
Reply to Objection 5: The natural desire to be for ever that is in
animals and plants must be understood in reference to the movement of
the heaven, so that they may continue in being as long as the movement
of the heaven lasts: since there cannot be an appetite for an effect to
last longer than its cause. Wherefore if at the cessation of movement
in the first movable body, plants and animals cease as to their
species, it does not follow that the natural appetite is frustrated.
|
|