|
Objection 1: It would seem that they will rise again to the animal
life, or in other words that they will make use of the acts of the
nutritive and generative powers. For our resurrection will be
conformed to Christ's. But Christ is said to have ate after His
resurrection (Jn. 21; Lk. 24). Therefore, after the
resurrection men will eat, and in like manner beget.
Objection 2: Further, the distinction of sexes is directed to
generation; and in like manner the instruments which serve the
nutritive power are directed to eating. Now man will rise again with
all these. Therefore he will exercise the acts of the generative and
nutritive powers.
Objection 3: Further, the whole man will be beatified both in soul
and in body. Now beatitude or happiness, according to the
Philosopher (Ethic. i, 7), consists in a perfect operation.
Therefore it must needs be that all the powers of the soul and all the
members should have their respective acts after the resurrection. And
so the same conclusion follows as above.
Objection 4: Further, after the resurrection there will be perfect
joy in the blessed. Now such a joy includes all pleasures, since
"happiness" according to Boethius is "a state rendered perfect by
the accumulation of all goods" (De Consol. iii), and the perfect
is that which lacks nothing. Since then there is much pleasure in the
act of the generative and nutritive powers it would seem that such acts
belonging to animal life will be in the blessed, and much more in
others, who will have less spiritual bodies.
On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 22:30): "In the
resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married."
Further, generation is directed to supply the defect resulting from
death, and to the multiplication of the human race: and eating is
directed to make up for waste, and to increase quantity. But in the
state of the resurrection the human race will already have the number of
individuals preordained by God, since generation will continue up to
that point. In like manner each man will rise again in due quantity;
neither will death be any more, nor any waste affect the parts of man.
Therefore the acts of the generative and nutritive powers would be void
of purpose.
I answer that, The resurrection will not be necessary to man on
account of his primary perfection, which consists in the integrity of
those things that belong to his nature, since man can attain to this in
his present state of life by the action of natural causes; but the
necessity of the resurrection regards the attainment of his ultimate
perfection, which consists in his reaching his ultimate end.
Consequently those natural operations which are directed to cause or
preserve the primary perfection of human nature will not be in the
resurrection: such are the actions of the animal life in man, the
action of the elements on one another, and the movement of the
heavens; wherefore all these will cease at the resurrection. And
since to eat, drink, sleep, beget, pertain to the animal life,
being directed to the primary perfection of nature, it follows that
they will not be in the resurrection.
Reply to Objection 1: When Christ partook of that meal, His
eating was an act, not of necessity as though human nature needed food
after the resurrection, but of power, so as to prove that He had
resumed the true human nature which He had in that state wherein He
ate and drank with His disciples. There will be no need of such proof
at the general resurrection, since it will be evident to all. Hence
Christ is said to have ate by dispensation in the sense in which
lawyers say that a "dispensation is a relaxation of the general law":
because Christ made an exception to that which is common to those who
rise again (namely not to partake of food) for the aforesaid motive.
Hence the argument does not prove.
Reply to Objection 2: The distinction of sexes and the difference
of members will be for the restoration of the perfection of human nature
both in the species and in the individual. Hence it does not follow
that they are without purpose, although they lack their animal
operations.
Reply to Objection 3: The aforesaid operations do not belong to man
as man, as also the Philosopher states (Ethic. x, 7), wherefore
the happiness of the human body does not consist therein. But the
human body will be glorified by an overflow from the reason whereby man
is man, inasmuch as the body will be subject to reason.
Reply to Objection 4: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii,
12, x, 5), the pleasures of the body are medicinal, because they
are applied to man for the removal of weariness; or again, they are
unhealthy, in so far as man indulges in those pleasures inordinately,
as though they were real pleasures: just as a man whose taste is
vitiated delights in things which are not delightful to the healthy.
Consequently it does not follow that such pleasures as these belong to
the perfection of beatitude, as the Jews and Turks maintain, and
certain heretics known as the Chiliasts asserted; who, moreover,
according to the Philosopher's teaching, would seem to have an
unhealthy appetite, since according to him none but spiritual pleasures
are pleasures simply, and to be sought for their own sake: wherefore
these alone are requisite for beatitude.
|
|