|
Objection 1: It would seem that in the state of innocence man did
not require food. For food is necessary for man to restore what he has
lost. But Adam's body suffered no loss, as being incorruptible.
Therefore he had no need of food.
Objection 2: Further, food is needed for nourishment. But
nourishment involves passibility. Since, then, man's body was
impassible; it does not appear how food could be needful to him.
Objection 3: Further, we need food for the preservation of life.
But Adam could preserve his life otherwise; for had he not sinned,
he would not have died. Therefore he did not require food.
Objection 4: Further, the consumption of food involves voiding of
the surplus, which seems unsuitable to the state of innocence.
Therefore it seems that man did not take food in the primitive state.
On the contrary, It is written (Gn. 2:16): "Of every tree
in paradise ye shall eat."
I answer that, In the state of innocence man had an animal life
requiring food; but after the resurrection he will have a spiritual
life needing no food. In order to make this clear, we must observe
that the rational soul is both soul and spirit. It is called a soul by
reason of what it possesses in common with other souls---that is, as
giving life to the body; whence it is written (Gn. 2:7): "Man
was made into a living soul"; that is, a soul giving life to the
body. But the soul is called a spirit according to what properly
belongs to itself, and not to other souls, as possessing an
intellectual immaterial power.
Thus in the primitive state, the rational soul communicated to the
body what belonged to itself as a soul; and so the body was called
"animal", through having its life from the soul. Now the first
principle of life in these inferior creatures as the Philosopher says
(De Anima ii, 4) is the vegetative soul: the operations of which
are the use of food, generation, and growth. Wherefore such
operations befitted man in the state of innocence. But in the final
state, after the resurrection, the soul will, to a certain extent,
communicate to the body what properly belongs to itself as a spirit;
immortality to everyone; impassibility, glory, and power to the
good, whose bodies will be called "spiritual." So, after the
resurrection, man will not require food; whereas he required it in the
state of innocence.
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (Questions. Vet. et
Nov. Test. qu. 19): "How could man have an immortal body,
which was sustained by food? Since an immortal being needs neither
food nor drink." For we have explained (Article 1) that the
immortality of the primitive state was based on a supernatural force in
the soul, and not on any intrinsic disposition of the body: so that by
the action of heat, the body might lose part of its humid qualities;
and to prevent the entire consumption of the humor, man was obliged to
take food.
Reply to Objection 2: A certain passion and alteration attends
nutriment, on the part of the food changed into the substance of the
thing nourished. So we cannot thence conclude that man's body was
passible, but that the food taken was passible; although this kind of
passion conduced to the perfection of the nature.
Reply to Objection 3: If man had not taken food he would have
sinned; as he also sinned by taking the forbidden fruit. For he was
told at the same time, to abstain from the tree of knowledge of good
and evil, and to eat of every other tree of Paradise.
Reply to Objection 4: Some say that in the state of innocence man
would not have taken more than necessary food, so that there would have
been nothing superfluous; which, however, is unreasonable to
suppose, as implying that there would have been no faecal matter.
Wherefore there was need for voiding the surplus, yet so disposed by
God as to be decorous and suitable to the state.
|
|