Caput 83 Chapter 83 Quod in resurgentibus non erit usus ciborum neque venereorum That after the resurrection there will be no use of food or sex Ex praemissis autem ostenditur quod apud homines resurgentes non erit venereorum et ciborum usus. From what has been said it follows that men will have no use of sex or food after rising again. Remota enim vita corruptibili, necesse est removeri ea quae corruptibili vitae deserviunt. Manifestum est autem quod ciborum usus corruptibili vitae deservit: ad hoc enim cibos assumimus ut corruptio quae posset accidere ex consumptione naturalis humidi, evitetur. Est etiam in praesenti ciborum usus necessarius ad augmentum: quod post resurrectionem in hominibus non erit, quia omnes in debita quantitate resurgent, ut ex dictis patet. Similiter commixtio maris et feminae corruptibili vitae deservit, ordinatur enim ad generationem per quam quod perpetuo conservari non potest secundum individuum, in specie conservatur. Ostensum est autem quod resurgentium vita incorruptibilis erit. Non igitur in resurgentibus erit ciborum neque venereorum usus. When corruptible life is no more, there will be an end of those things that minister to it. Now it is evident that the use of food ministers to the corruptible life, since the reason why we partake of food is to avoid the corruption that might result from the consumption of the natural humidity. Moreover, in the present life food is necessary for growth; but after the resurrection men will not grow, since they will rise again of the size that is due to them, as we have already stated. Likewise, the alliance of male with female administers to the corruptible life, for its purpose is generation, by which that which cannot last forever in the individual may be preserved in the species. Now we have shown that the life of those who rise again will be everlasting. Therefore, after the resurrection there will be no use for food or sex. Adhuc. Vita resurgentium non minus ordinata erit quam praesens vita, sed magis: quia ad illam homo perveniet solo Deo agente: hanc autem consequitur cooperante natura. Sed in hac vita ciborum usus ordinatur ad aliquem finem: ad hoc enim cibus assumitur ut per digestionem convertatur in corpus. Si igitur tunc erit ciborum usus, oportebit quod ad hoc sit quod convertatur in corpus. Cum ergo a corpore nihil resolvatur, eo quod corpus erit incorruptibile; oportebit dicere quod totum quod convertitur ex alimento, transeat in augmentum. Resurget autem homo in debita quantitate, ut supra dictum est. Ergo perveniet ad immoderatam quantitatem: immoderata est enim quantitas quae debitam quantitatem excedit. Again. The life of those who will have risen again will not be less orderly than the present life: in fact, it will be more so, since they will obtain that life through the agency of God alone, whereas the present life is acquired through the cooperation of nature. Now in this life food is consumed for a certain purpose, namely, that it may be transformed into the body by the process of digestion. Therefore, if then there will be a use for food, it will be that it may be transformed into the body. Since, then, the body will suffer no dissolution, because it will be incorruptible, we shall have to admit that whatever a man will derive from nourishment will add to his size. And seeing that, as we have shown above, he will rise again in the size due to him, it follows that he will become of immoderate size, for that which is more than due is immoderate. Amplius. Homo resurgens in perpetuum vivet. Aut igitur semper cibo utetur: aut non semper, sed per aliquod determinatum tempus. Si autem semper cibo utetur, cum cibus in corpus conversus a quo nihil resolvitur necesse sit quod augmentum faciat secundum aliquam dimensionem, oportebit dicere quod corpus hominis resurgentis in infinitum augeatur. Quod non potest esse: quia augmentum est motus naturalis; intentio autem virtutis naturalis moventis nunquam est ad infinitum, sed semper est ad aliquid certum; quia, ut dicitur in II de anima, omnium natura constantium terminus est et magnitudinis et augmenti. Si autem non semper cibo utetur homo resurgens, semper autem vivet, erit aliquod tempus dare in quo cibo non utetur. Quare hoc a principio faciendum est. Non igitur homo resurgens cibo utetur. Further. Man will live forever after rising again. Either, then, he will continue always to take food, or only for a certain time. If he continue always to take food, his growth will be according to a certain measure, since his food will have been transformed into his body, in which nothing will be dissolved: consequently, his body will grow indefinitely. But this is impossible, because growth is a natural movement, and a natural motive force never aims at the indefinite, but always at something definite. The reason is that, as Aristotle says, there is a limit to the size and increase of all things in nature. On the other hand, if man who is to live forever is not always to partake of food after the resurrection, there will be a time during which he will not partake of it, and so should he have done from the beginning. Therefore, there will be no use for food after the resurrection. Si autem non utetur cibo, sequitur quod neque venereorum usum habebit, ad quem requiritur decisio seminis. A corpore autem resurgentis semen decidi non poterit. Neque ex substantia eius. Tum quia hoc est contra rationem seminis: esset enim semen ut corruptum et a natura recedens; et sic non posset esse naturalis actionis principium, ut patet per philosophum in libro de generatione animalium. Tum etiam quia a substantia illorum corporum incorruptibilium existentium nihil resolvi poterit. Neque etiam semen esse poterit superfluum alimenti, si resurgentes cibis non utantur, ut ostensum est. Non igitur in resurgentibus erit venereorum usus. And if he will have no use for food, neither will he have any use for sex, which requires emission of seed. Now after the resurrection there can be no emission of seed from a man’s body, nor from his substance, since this is incompatible with the nature of seed; it would involve corruption and a subtraction from man’s nature, so that it could not be a principle of nature, as the Philosopher says. Another reason is because no resolution will be possible in the incorruptible bodies of those who rise again. Nor will it be possible for the seed to be the product of the surplus nourishment, since after the resurrection man will not partake of food, as we have shown. Therefore, man will have no use of sex after the resurrection. Item. Venereorum usus ad generationem ordinatur. Si igitur post resurrectionem erit venereorum usus, nisi sit frustra, sequitur quod tunc etiam erit hominum generatio, sicut et nunc. Multi igitur homines erunt post resurrectionem qui ante resurrectionem non fuerunt. Frustra igitur tantum differtur resurrectio mortuorum, ut omnes simul vitam accipiant qui eandem habent naturam. Again. The use of sex aims at generation. Consequently, if it be used after the resurrection, and to some purpose, it follows that men will be begotten then, even as now. Hence, there will be many after the resurrection who were not in existence before. And thus there will be no use in deferring the resurrection of the dead, that all who have the same nature may receive life together. Amplius. Si post resurrectionem erit hominum generatio, aut igitur illi qui generabuntur iterum corrumpentur: aut incorruptibiles erunt et immortales. Si autem erunt incorruptibiles et immortales multa inconvenientia sequuntur. Primo quidem, oportebit ponere quod illi homines sine peccato nascantur originali, cum necessitas moriendi sit poena consequens peccatum originale: quod est contra apostolum dicentem Rom. 5:12, quod per unum hominem peccatum in omnes homines pervenit et mors. Deinde sequitur quod non omnes indigeant redemptione quae est a Christo, si aliqui sine peccato originali et necessitate moriendi nascantur: et sic Christus non erit omnium hominum caput, quod est contra sententiam apostoli dicentis I Cor. 15:22, quod sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita et in Christo omnes vivificabuntur. Sequitur etiam et aliud inconveniens, ut quorum est similis generatio, non sit similis generationis terminus: homines enim per generationem quae est ex semine nunc quidem consequuntur corruptibilem vitam; tunc autem immortalem. Si autem homines qui tunc nascentur, corruptibiles erunt et morientur: si iterato non resurgunt, sequetur quod eorum animae perpetuo remanebunt a corporibus separatae; quod est inconveniens, cum sint eiusdem speciei cum animabus hominum resurgentium. Si autem et ipsi resurgent, debuit et eorum resurrectio ab aliis expectari, ut simul omnibus qui unam naturam participant, beneficium conferatur resurrectionis, quod ad naturae reparationem pertinet, ut ex dictis patet. Et praeterea non videtur esse aliqua ratio quare aliqui expectentur ad simul resurgendum, si non omnes expectantur. Moreover. If, after the resurrection, men will be begotten, either they too will die, or they will be incorruptible and immortal. If they are to be incorruptible and immortal, many difficulties will result. In the first place, we shall have to say that those men will be born without original sin, seeing that the necessity of dying is the punishment resulting from original sin. And this is against the statement of the Apostle that as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men (Rom 5:12). Second, it follows that not all men need to be redeemed by Christ, if some are to be born without original sin and the necessity of dying. Thus Christ would not be the head of all; this is contrary to the statement of the Apostle that as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Cor 15:22). There is also yet another incongruity in that men having like generation should have different terms of generation, since men begotten of seed now acquire a corruptible life, whereas then they will acquire an immortal life. On the other hand, if the men to be born then are to be corruptible and die, either they will not rise again, and in consequence their souls will remain forever separated from their bodies (and this is unreasonable, seeing that they are of the same species as the souls of those who rise again); or they will rise again, and then the others should wait for them, so that all who share in the same nature may, at the same time, receive the benefit of resurrection, which belongs to the reparation of nature, as stated above. Moreover, there would seem to be no reason for some to wait until they rise together, if all do not wait alike. Adhuc. Si homines resurgentes venereis utentur et generabunt, aut hoc erit semper: aut non semper. Si semper, sequetur quod multiplicatio hominum erit in infinitum. Intentio autem naturae generantis post resurrectionem non poterit esse ad alium finem quam ad multiplicationem hominum: non enim erit ad conservationem speciei per generationem, cum homines incorruptibiliter sint victuri. Sequetur igitur quod intentio naturae generantis sit ad infinitum: quod est impossibile. Si vero non semper generabunt, sed ad aliquod determinatum tempus, post illud igitur tempus non generabunt. Quare et a principio hoc eis attribuendum est, ut venereis non utantur nec generent. Moreover. If after the resurrection men are to have sexual intercourse and beget, this will either be for always, or only for a time. If it is to go on forever, men will increase in numbers indefinitely. Now after the resurrection the intention of nature in the begetter can be for no other end but the increase in numbers: for it cannot be for the preservation of the species by means of generation, seeing that man’s life will be incorruptible. Consequently, the intention of nature in the begetter will be for something indefinite: and this is impossible. On the other hand, if they are not to go on forever begetting, but only for a certain time, then after that time they will no longer beget: so we ought to say that neither will they from the beginning have sexual intercourse and beget. Si quis autem dicat quod in resurgentibus erit usus ciborum et venereorum, non propter conservationem vel augmentum corporis, neque propter conservationem speciei vel multiplicationem hominum, sed propter solam delectationem quae in his actibus existit, ne aliqua delectatio hominibus in ultima remuneratione desit:—patet quidem multipliciter hoc inconvenienter dici. Someone, however, might say that there will be use for food and sexual intercourse not for the preservation and increase of the body, nor for the preservation of the species and the increase of mankind, but merely for the pleasure accompanying those acts, lest in the final reward something should be lacking to man’s enjoyment. But there are many ways of showing that such a statement is devoid of reason. Primo quidem, quia vita resurgentium ordinatior erit quam vita nostra, ut supra dictum est. In hac autem vita inordinatum et vitiosum est si quis cibis et venereis utatur propter solam delectationem, et non propter necessitatem sustentandi corporis, vel prolis procreandae. Et hoc rationabiliter: nam delectationes quae sunt in praemissis actionibus, non sunt fines actionum, sed magis e converso; natura enim ad hoc ordinavit delectationes in istis actibus, ne animalia, propter laborem, ab istis actibus necessariis naturae desisterent: quod contingeret nisi delectatione provocarentur. Est ergo ordo praeposterus et indecens si operationes propter solas delectationes exerceantur. Nullo igitur modo hoc in resurgentibus erit, quorum vita ordinatissima ponitur. First, because, as we have already observed, life after the resurrection will be better ordered than the present life, as stated above. Now, in this life it is inordinate and sinful to make use of food or sex for mere pleasure, and not for the purpose of supporting the body or begetting children. And there is reason in this, since the pleasure attaching to these actions is not their end. To the contrary, nature has made them pleasant lest man should not take the trouble to perform acts that are necessary to nature; but that might happen unless the pleasure urged him. Consequently, to do these things with the sole object of pleasure is altogether out of order and unbecoming. Therefore, this cannot be said of those who will rise again, whose life will be most orderly. Adhuc. Vita resurgentium ad conservandam perfectam beatitudinem ordinatur. Beatitudo autem et felicitas hominis non consistit in delectationibus corporalibus, quae sunt delectationes ciborum et venereorum, ut in tertio libro ostensum est. Non igitur oportet ponere in vita resurgentium huiusmodi delectationes esse. Again. The life of those who rise again will have perfect beatitude for its object, and man’s perfect happiness does not consist in pleasures of the body, such as those that are derived from food and sexual intercourse, as we proved. Therefore, we must not ascribe such pleasures to life after the resurrection. Amplius. Actus virtutum ordinantur ad beatitudinem sicut ad finem. Si igitur in statu futurae beatitudinis essent delectationes ciborum et venereorum, quasi ad beatitudinem pertinentes, sequeretur quod in intentione eorum qui virtuosa agunt, essent aliqualiter delectationes praedictae. Quod rationem temperantiae excludit: est enim contra temperantiae rationem ut aliquis a delectationibus nunc abstineat ut postmodum eis magis frui possit. Redderetur igitur omnis castitas impudica, et omnis abstinentia gulosa. Si vero praedictae delectationes erunt, non tamen quasi ad beatitudinem pertinentes, ut oporteat eas esse intentas ab his qui virtuosa agunt: hoc esse non potest. Quia omne quod est, vel est propter alterum, vel propter seipsum. Praedictae autem delectationes non erunt propter alterum: non enim erunt propter actiones ordinatas ad finem naturae, ut iam ostensum est. Relinquitur igitur, quod erunt propter seipsas. Omne autem quod est huiusmodi, vel est beatitudo vel pars beatitudinis. Oportet igitur, si delectationes praedictae in vita resurgentium erunt, quod ad beatitudinem eorum pertineant. Moreover. Acts of virtue are directed to happiness as their end. Therefore, if the state of future bliss includes the pleasures of the table and sexual intercourse as pertaining to happiness, it would follow that those who act virtuously must in some way include those pleasures in their intention. But this would exclude temperance, since it is inconsistent with that virtue to abstain from pleasures now in order the more to enjoy them hereafter. Every chaste man would be a rake, and every abstainer a glutton. If, however, the said pleasures are to be present in the state of bliss, but not as belonging thereto, so that those who act virtuously would not have to intend them; this is impossible, because whatsoever is at all is either for the sake of something else, or for its own sake. Now the said pleasures will not be for the sake of something else, since they will not be for the sake of actions directed to nature’s end, as we have already shown. Consequently, they will be for their own sake. But all such things are either happiness itself, or part of it. Hence, if those pleasures are to be present in the life of those who rise again, they will form part of their happiness. Quod esse non potest, ut ostensum est. Nullo igitur modo huiusmodi delectationes erunt in futura vita. And we have proved this to be impossible. Therefore, in no sense will those pleasures have any place in the life to come. Praeterea. Ridiculum videtur delectationes quaerere corporales, in quibus nobiscum animalia bruta communicant, ubi expectantur delectationes altissimae, in quibus cum angelis communicamus, quae erunt in Dei visione, quae nobis et angelis erit communis, ut in tertio libro ostensum est. Nisi forte quis dicere velit beatitudinem angelorum esse imperfectam, quia desunt eis delectationes brutorum: quod est omnino absurdum. Hinc est quod dominus dicit, Matth. 22:30, quod in resurrectione neque nubent neque nubentur, sed erunt sicut angeli Dei. Further. It seems ridiculous to seek pleasures of the body, which are common to us and dumb animals, in a place where the highest pleasures are to be found, consisting in the vision of God, which we shall have in common with the angels, as stated above (unless someone were to say that the angels’ happiness is imperfect because they lack the pleasures of the beasts, which is equally absurd). Hence, our Lord said that in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels of God in heaven (Matt 22:30). Per hoc autem excluditur error Iudaeorum et Saracenorum, qui ponunt quod in resurrectione homines cibis et venereis utentur, sicut et nunc. Quos etiam quidam Christiani haeretici sunt secuti, ponentes regnum Christi futurum in terris terrenum per mille annos, in quo spatio temporis dicunt eos qui tunc resurrexerint, immoderatissime carnalibus epulis vacaturos, in quibus sit cibus tantus ac potus ut non solum nullam modestiam teneant, sed modum quoque ipsius incredulitatis excedant. Nullo autem modo ista possunt nisi a carnalibus credi. Hi autem qui spirituales sunt, istos ista credentes Chiliastas appellant, Graeco vocabulo, quod, verbum e verbo exprimentes, nos possumus millenarios nuncupare, ut Augustinus dicit, XX de civitate Dei. Hereby we refute the error of the Jews and Mohammedans who say that after the resurrection men will use food and sexual intercourse, even as now. They were followed by some Christian heretics, who said that Christ would reign over an earthly kingdom that would last for a thousand years, and that for this space of time those who have risen again will give themselves to the most immoderate pleasures in eating and drinking, to such an extent as to exceed not only all moderation, but even the bounds of credibility: but such things can enter the minds of those only who are carnally inclined. Those who are spiritual call those who believe these things ‘Chiliastai,’ a Greek word which, as Augustine observes, may be rendered Millenarians. Sunt autem quaedam quae huic opinioni suffragari videntur. Et primo quidem, quia Adam ante peccatum vitam habuit immortalem: et tamen et cibis et venereis uti potuit in illo statu, cum ante peccatum illi sit dictum: crescite et multiplicamini, et iterum: de omni ligno quod est in Paradiso comede. There are, however, a few things that would seem to support this opinion. In the first place, Adam, before he sinned, was immortal; yet he could use food and sexual intercourse in that state, since it was before he sinned that it was said to him: Be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28); and again: You may freely eat of every tree of the garden (Gen 2:16). Deinde ipse Christus post resurrectionem legitur comedisse et bibisse. Dicitur enim Luc. ult., quod cum manducasset coram discipulis, sumens reliquias dedit eis. Et actuum 10, dicit Petrus: hunc, scilicet Iesum, Deus suscitavit tertia die, et dedit eum manifestum fieri, non omni populo, sed testibus praeordinatis a Deo, nobis, qui manducavimus et bibimus cum illo, postquam resurrexit a mortuis. Again, after his Resurrection, Christ is said to have eaten and drunk, for it is said that they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them (Luke 24:43). Also, Peter said: God raised him, that is Jesus, on the third day and made him manifest; not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead (Acts 10:40–41). Sunt etiam quaedam auctoritates quae ciborum usum in huiusmodi statu hominibus repromittere videntur. Dicitur enim Isaiae 25:6: faciet dominus exercituum omnibus populis in monte hoc convivium pinguium medullatorum, vindemiae defaecatae. Et quod intelligatur quantum ad statum resurgentium, patet ex hoc quod postea subditur: praecipitabit mortem in sempiternum, et auferet dominus Deus omnem lacrymam ab omni facie. Dicitur etiam Isaiae 65:17: ecce, servi mei comedent, et vos esurietis. Ecce, servi mei bibent, et vos sitietis. Et quod hoc referendum sit ad statum futurae vitae, patet ex eo quod postea subditur: ecce, ego creabo caelum novum, et terram novam et cetera. dominus etiam dicit, Matth. 26:29: non bibam amodo de hoc genimine vitis usque in diem illum cum illud bibam vobiscum novum in regno patris mei. Et Luc. 22 dicit: ego dispono vobis, sicut disposuit mihi pater meus, regnum: ut edatis et bibatis super mensam meam in regno meo. Apocalypsis etiam 22:2, dicitur quod ex utraque parte fluminis, quod erit in civitate beatorum, erit lignum vitae, afferens fructus duodecim. Et 20, dicitur: vidi animas decollatorum propter testimonium Iesu, et vixerunt et regnaverunt cum Christo mille annis. Ceteri mortuorum non vixerunt donec consummarentur mille anni. Ex quibus omnibus praedictorum haereticorum opinio confirmari videtur. There are, moreover, some texts which would seem to promise the use of food to men in that state. It is said: On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of fat things full of marrow, a feast of wine on the lees (Isa 25:6). And that this refers to the state of life after the resurrection is clear from what follows: He will swallow up death forever, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces (Isa 25:8). Again, it is said: Behold, my servants shall eat, but you shall be hungry; behold, my servants shall drink, but you shall be thirsty (Isa 65:13); and this is shown to refer to the state of the future life by the words that follow: For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth (Isa 65:17). Again, our Lord said: I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom (Matt 26:29); and: As my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom (Luke 22:29–30). Again it is said that on either side of the river, which shall be in the city of the blessed, there shall be the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit (Rev 22:2); and again: I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus . . . they came to life, and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended (Rev 20:4–5). All these texts might seem to confirm the opinion of the above-mentioned heretics. Haec autem non difficile est solvere. Quod enim primo obiicitur, de Adam, efficaciam non habet. Adam enim perfectionem quandam habuit personalem, nondum tamen erat natura humana totaliter perfecta, nondum multiplicato humano genere. Institutus ergo fuit Adam in tali perfectione quae competebat principio totius humani generis. Et ideo oportuit quod generaret ad multiplicationem humani generis; et per consequens quod cibis uteretur. Sed perfectio resurgentium erit natura humana totaliter ad suam perfectionem perveniente, numero electorum iam completo. Et ideo generatio locum non habebit, nec alimenti usus. Propter quod et alia erit immortalitas et incorruptio resurgentium, et alia quae fuit in Adam. Resurgentes enim sic immortales erunt et incorruptibiles ut mori non possint, nec ex eorum corporibus aliquid resolvi. Adam autem sic fuit immortalis ut posset non mori si non peccaret, et posset mori si peccaret: et eius immortalitas sic conservari poterat, non quod nihil resolvetur ab eius corpore, sed ut contra resolutionem humidi naturalis ei subveniri posset per ciborum assumptionem, ne ad corruptionem corpus eius perveniret. But the answer is not very difficult to find. The objection which refers to Adam avails nothing. Adam had a certain personal perfection, but human nature was not as yet wholly perfect in point of numbers. Accordingly, Adam was created with the perfection becoming to the principle of the whole human race: therefore, he had to beget in order that mankind might increase in numbers, and consequently it was necessary also that he should partake of food. On the other hand, the perfection of man after the resurrection will consist in human nature attaining to its full perfection, so that the number of the elect may be complete: therefore, there will be no room for begetting or partaking of nourishment. Hence the immortality and incorruption of those who rise again will differ from the immortality and incorruption of Adam. They will be immortal and incorruptible in such a way as to be unable to die, and as to preclude any dissolution whatsoever in their bodies. But Adam was immortal in such a way that it was possible for him not to die if he sinned not, and possible for him to die if he sinned. And his immortality could be preserved in such a way not that there would be no dissolution in his body, but that the dissolution of the natural humidity would be remedied by the use of food, lest his body should be actually corrupted. De Christo autem dicendum est quod post resurrectionem comedit, non propter necessitatem, sed ad demonstrandum suae resurrectionis veritatem. Unde cibus ille non fuit conversus in carnem, sed resolutus in praeiacentem materiam. Haec autem causa comedendi non erit in resurrectione communi. With regard to Christ it must be said that, after his Resurrection, he ate not because he needed to, but to show the reality of his Resurrection. Consequently, that food was not changed into his flesh, but dissolved into prejacent matter. But there will be no such reason for eating after the general resurrection. Auctoritates vero quae ciborum usum post resurrectionem repromittere videntur, spiritualiter intelligendae sunt. Proponit enim nobis divina Scriptura intelligibilia sub similitudine sensibilium, ut animus noster ex his quae novit, discat incognita amare. Et secundum hunc modum delectatio quae est in contemplatione sapientiae, et assumptio veritatis intelligibilis in intellectum nostrum, per usum ciborum in sacra Scriptura consuevit designari: secundum illud Proverb. 9, quod de sapientia dicitur: miscuit vinum, et proposuit mensam suam. Et insipientibus locuta est, venite, comedite panem meum, et bibite vinum quod miscui vobis. Et Eccli. 15:3 dicitur: cibabit illum pane vitae et intellectus, et aqua sapientiae salutaris potabit illum. De ipsa etiam sapientia dicitur Proverb. 3:18: lignum vitae est his qui apprehenderint eam: et qui tenuerit eam, beatus. Non igitur praedictae auctoritates cogunt dicere quod resurgentes cibis utantur. The texts that seem to promise the use of food after the resurrection should be understood in a spiritual sense. Sacred Scripture sets before us intelligible truths under the guise of sensible objects, in order that our mind, from the things which it knows, may learn to love the things which are beyond its knowledge. Thus, then, the delight afforded by the contemplation of wisdom, and the acquisition of intelligible truth by our understanding, tends to be indicated in Sacred Scripture by the use of food. This is what is said of wisdom: She has slaughtered her beasts, she has mixed her wine, she has also set her table . . . To him who is without sense she says: ‘Come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed’ (Prov 9:2, 4–5); and again: She will feed him with the bread of understanding, and give him the water of wisdom to drink (Sir 15:3). Again, it is said of wisdom: She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her; those who hold her fast are called happy (Prov 3:18). Therefore, these texts do not prove that those who rise again will partake of food. Hoc tamen quod positum est de verbis domini quae habentur Matth. 26:29 potest et aliter intelligi: ut referatur ad hoc quod ipse cum discipulis post resurrectionem comedit, et bibit novum quidem vinum, idest, novo modo, scilicet non propter necessitatem, sed propter resurrectionis demonstrationem. Et dicit, in regno patris mei, quia in resurrectione Christi regnum immortalitatis demonstrari incoepit. The words of our Lord (Matt 26:29) can be understood in another sense to the one suggested, so as to refer to his eating and drinking a new wine indeed with his disciples after the Resurrection: that is, in a new way, not because he needed it, but in order to prove his Resurrection. And the words: in the kingdom of my Father signify that in the Resurrection of Christ the kingdom of immortality began to be demonstrated. Quod vero in Apocalypsi dicitur de mille annis et prima resurrectione martyrum, intelligendum est quod prima resurrectio est animarum, prout a peccatis resurgunt: secundum illud apostoli, Ephes. 5:14: exsurge a mortuis, et illuminabit te Christus. Per mille autem annos intelligitur totum tempus Ecclesiae, in quo martyres regnant cum Christo, et alii sancti, tam in praesenti Ecclesia, quae regnum Dei dicitur, quam etiam in caelesti patria quantum ad animas: millenarius enim perfectionem significat, quia est numerus cubicus et radix eius est denarius qui solet etiam perfectionem significare. The reference in the Apocalypse to the thousand years and the first resurrection of the martyrs signifies that the first resurrection is that of souls, in rising from sins, according to the Apostle: Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light (Eph 5:14). The thousand years signify the whole time of the Church, when the martyrs and other saints reign with Christ both in the Church of the present, which is called the kingdom of God, and in the heavenly kingdom as to their souls. For a thousand is the number that signifies perfection, because it is a cube (that is, a solid figure), and its root is ten, which also is wont to signify perfection. Sic ergo manifestum fit quod resurgentes non vacabunt cibis et potibus, neque venereis actibus. Accordingly, it is evident that those who rise again will have no use for meat, drink and sex. Ex quo ultimo haberi potest quod omnes occupationes activae vitae cessabunt, quae ordinari videntur ad usum ciborum et venereorum et ad alia quae sunt necessaria corruptibili vitae. Sola ergo occupatio contemplativae vitae in resurgentibus remanebit. Propter quod Luc. 10:42, dicitur de Maria contemplante quod optimam partem elegit, quae non auferetur ab ea. Inde est etiam quod dicitur Iob 7:9 qui descendit ad Inferos, non ascendet, nec revertetur ultra in domum suam, neque cognoscet eum amplius locus eius, in quibus verbis talem resurrectionem Iob negat qualem quidam posuerunt, dicentes quod post resurrectionem homo redibit ad similes occupationes quas nunc habet, ut scilicet aedificet domos, et alia huiusmodi exerceat officia. Lastly, we may conclude that all the occupations of the active life will cease, since they appear to be directed to the use of food and sexual intercourse, and other necessities of a corruptible life. Consequently, only the occupation of the contemplative life will remain in those who rise again: for which reason it was said of Mary when contemplating that she has chosen the better portion, which shall not be taken away from her (Luke 10:42). Hence also it is said: He who goes down to hell does not come up; he returns no more to his house, nor does his place know him any more (Job 7:9–10). In these words, Job denies the resurrection such as some held, saying that after the resurrection man will return to occupations like those he has now (as, for instance, the building of houses and similar avocations). Caput 84 Chapter 84 Quod corpora resurgentium erunt eiusdem naturae That the bodies of those who rise again will have the same nature as before Occasione autem praemissorum quidam circa conditiones resurgentium erraverunt. Quia enim corpus ex contrariis compositum videtur ex necessitate corrumpi, fuerunt aliqui qui dixerunt homines resurgentes huiusmodi corpora ex contrariis composita non habere. The preceding matter gave some an occasion for erring about the condition of those who rise again. Seeing that a body composed of contrary elements seems to be necessarily subject to corruption, some have maintained that the bodies of those who rise again will not be composed of contrary elements. Quorum aliqui posuerunt corpora nostra non in natura corporali resurgere, sed transmutari in spiritum: moti ex eo quod apostolus dicit, I Cor. 15:44: seminatur corpus animale, surget spirituale. Alii vero ex eodem verbo sunt moti ut dicerent quod corpora nostra in resurrectione erunt subtilia, et aeri et ventis similia. Nam et spiritus aer dicitur: ut sic spiritualia aerea intelligantur. Alii vero dixerunt quod in resurrectione animae resument corpora, non quidem terrena, sed caelestia: occasionem accipientes ex eo quod apostolus dicit, I Cor. 15:40, de resurrectione loquens: sunt corpora caelestia, et corpora terrestria. Quibus omnibus suffragari videtur quod apostolus ibidem dicit, quod caro et sanguis regnum Dei non possidebunt. Et sic videtur quod corpora resurgentium non habebunt carnem et sanguinem, et per consequens nec aliquos humores. Of these, some held that our bodies will not rise again with a corporeal nature, but will be transformed into spirits: and they were induced to hold this view by the words of the Apostle: It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body (1 Cor 15:44). Others, moved by the same text, asserted that in the resurrection our bodies will be rarefied, like air and wind, for the air is called spiritus, so that the spiritual body would mean an air-like body. Again, others said that in the resurrection our souls will resume not earthly, but heavenly bodies; they were brought to hold this view by the words of the Apostle speaking of the resurrection: There are celestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies (1 Cor 15:40). And all these would seem to find a support in the words of the Apostle: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50). And thus it seems that the bodies of those who rise again will not contain flesh and blood, nor consequently any other humors. These views, however, are manifestly erroneous. Sed harum opinionum error manifeste apparet. Nostra enim resurrectio conformis erit resurrectioni Christi, secundum illud apostoli, Philipp. 3:21: reformabit corpus humilitatis nostrae configuratum corpori claritatis suae. Christus autem post resurrectionem habuit corpus palpabile, ex carnibus et ossibus consistens: quia, ut dicitur Lucae ult. post resurrectionem discipulis dixit: palpate et videte: quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere. Ergo et alii homines resurgentes corpora palpabilia habebunt, ex carnibus et ossibus composita. For our resurrection will be in conformity with Christ’s, according to the Apostle: He will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body (Phil 3:21). Now, after his Resurrection, Christ had a palpable body, consisting of flesh and bone, since, as it is related, he said to his disciples after the Resurrection: Handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have (Luke 24:39). Therefore, other men, when they rise again, will likewise have palpable bodies, consisting of flesh and bone. Adhuc. Anima unitur corpori sicut forma materiae. Omnis autem forma habet determinatam materiam: oportet enim esse proportionem actus et potentiae. Cum igitur anima sit eadem secundum speciem, videtur quod habeat eandem materiam secundum speciem. Erit ergo idem corpus secundum speciem post resurrectionem et ante. Et sic oportet quod sit consistens ex carnibus et ossibus, et aliis huiusmodi partibus. Again. The soul is united to the body as form to matter. Now every form has its definite matter, since act must be proportionate to potency. Since, then, the soul will be of the same species, seemingly it will have the same specific matter. Therefore, the body will be the same specifically after the resurrection as before: thus it will consist of flesh and bone and other like parts. Amplius. Cum in definitione rerum naturalium, quae significat essentiam speciei, ponatur materia, necessarium est quod, variata materia secundum speciem, varietur species rei naturalis. Homo autem res naturalis est. Si igitur post resurrectionem non habebit corpus consistens ex carnibus et ossibus et huiusmodi partibus, sicut nunc habet, non erit qui resurget eiusdem speciei, sed dicetur homo tantum aequivoce. Further. Since the definition of natural things, which signifies the specific essence, includes matter, it would seem to follow that a specific change of matter must involve a specific change of the natural thing. Now man is a natural thing. Accordingly if, after the resurrection, he will not have a body consisting of flesh and bone and like parts as now, those that rise again will not be of the same species as now, and they will be called men but equivocally. Item. Magis distat ab anima unius hominis corpus alterius speciei, quam corpus humanum alterius hominis. Sed anima non potest iterato uniri corpori alterius hominis, ut in secundo ostensum est. Multo igitur minus poterit in resurrectione uniri corpori alterius speciei. Again. The soul of one man is more distant from a body of another species than from the body of another man. Now the soul cannot be united to the body of another man, as we have proved. Much less, then, can it be united, in the resurrection, to a body of another species. Praeterea. Ad hoc quod homo idem numero resurgat, necessarium est quod partes eius essentiales sint eaedem numero. Si igitur corpus hominis resurgentis non erit ex his carnibus et his ossibus ex quibus nunc componitur, non erit homo resurgens idem numero. Further. For a man to be the same in number when he rises again, his essential parts must be the same in number. If, then, his body will not consist of flesh and bone when he rises from the dead, he will not be the very same man.