Commentaria in Summam contra Gentiles, Liber IV

From the aforesaid conclusion St. Thomas infers by way of corollary that among men who rise again there will be no use of foods and of sexual intercourse. Concerning this he does three things: first, he shows the proposition; second, he excludes the error¹; third, he infers a certain corollary².

As to the first, it is argued first thus. The use of foods serves corruptible life, and likewise the union of male and female: the former indeed so that the corruption which could befall from the consumption of natural moisture may be avoided, and so that there may be due growth; the latter inasmuch as it is ordered to generation, by which what cannot be preserved perpetually in the individual is preserved in the species. Therefore it will not be in those who rise again. — The consequence is proved. Because, corruptible life being removed, it is necessary to remove those things which serve corruptible life; but the life of those who rise again will be incorruptible.

Second. If there will then be use of foods, it will be necessary that it be for this, that it be converted into the body. Therefore man will arrive at an immoderate quantity. This is false: because man will rise again in due quantity. Therefore etc. — The antecedent is proved. Because the life of the risen will not be less ordered than the present life, but more so. In this life, however, the use of foods is ordered to this, that food be converted into the body through digestion. — But the consequence is proved: because then nothing will be dissolved from the body, for the reason that it will be incorruptible: and therefore everything that is converted from food would pass over into growth.

Third. Either the risen man will always use food: or not always. If the first, since food converted into the body, from which nothing is dissolved, would produce growth according to some dimension, the body of man would be increased to infinity. But this cannot be: because growth is a natural motion: but the intention of nature is never toward the infinite, but is always toward something determinate, as is said in II de Anima. — If the second, therefore there will be some time in which man, always living, will not use food. Therefore this too must be done from the beginning.

From this it further follows that there will not be use of sexual intercourse either. It is proved. Because seed cannot be shed from the body of the risen. Not, I say, from its substance. Both because this is against the nature of seed: because it would be corrupted and departing from nature, and so it could not be the principle of a natural action, as is clear through the Philosopher in the book de Generatione Animalium. And because nothing can be dissolved from the substance of incorruptible bodies. — Nor indeed from the surplus of food: if the risen do not use foods. Therefore etc.

II. Note, as we declared in I Physicorum³, that this proposition which St. Thomas assumes, namely, that the intention of the moving natural power is always toward something determinate, has truth both concerning the intention of the specific nature and concerning the intention of the individual nature. For there is some limit of magnitude in the human species beyond which the human species could not be preserved; for a greatest man could be given, so that in human nature there cannot be one greater than he. Likewise there is some limit of magnitude of any individual beyond which, by the power of its own form, it cannot be extended. But although the proposition has truth both in the species and in the individual, here however it is taken insofar as it is verified of the individual power: because this suffices for the purpose for which it is adduced.

2. Note further, from the doctrine of St. Thomas in the First Part, art. ult.⁴, that by the name of seed cannot be understood that which has already been converted into the substance of the members through a certain resolution: because, if it did not retain the nature of that from which it is resolved, then it would depart from the nature of the begetter, being as it were on the way of corruption; and then it would not have the power of converting another thing into a similar nature. But if it retained the nature of that from which it is resolved, then it would be contracted to a determinate part, and would not have the power of moving toward the nature of the whole. Hence, when St. Thomas argues that seed cannot be shed from the substance of the body, because it would be corrupted and departing from nature, and so could not be the principle of a natural action, it must be understood thus; namely that shed seed would either be on the way of corruption, as if it had not fully and completely departed from the nature of that from which it is shed, but were in the very departure; or it would be corrupted, namely if it had fully departed from that nature, and in either way it could not be the principle of a natural action, namely of that action by which another thing is converted into a nature similar to that from which the seed is shed; for what departs from some nature through corruption does not have the power of inducing a similar nature, since it loses the form, which is the principle of inducing a similar nature.

III. Fourth. If there will be use of sexual intercourse, there will also be generation of men, just as now: because such use is ordered to generation. Therefore there will also be many men after the resurrection who were not before. Therefore the resurrection of the dead is delayed so long in vain, so that all who have the same nature may together receive life.

Concerning the last consequence, note that St. Thomas supposes the reason of the Doctors why the resurrection is delayed so long, namely this, that all men may together receive life through the resurrection. For then it is clear that for this reason the resurrection is delayed in vain, if after the resurrection there will be generation: for it is manifest that, if other men are to exist after the resurrection who did not exist before, then not all having human nature will have life together through the resurrection at the same time.

Fifth. If after the resurrection there will be generation of men, either those who will be generated will be corrupted again: or not. If the second, then it will be necessary to hold that those men are born without original sin, since the necessity of dying is the punishment following original sin, namely in man's first birth: but this is against the Apostle, Rom. v. It will further follow that not all need the redemption which is from Christ: and so Christ will not be the head of all, against the sentence of the Apostle, I Cor. xv. It also follows that those whose generation is similar do not have a similar term of generation: because now men obtain corruptible life through generation, but then immortal. But this is unfitting. — But if the first, if they do not rise again a second time, then their souls will remain perpetually separated from the body, which is unfitting. But if they too rise again, their resurrection also ought to have been awaited by the others: both so that the benefit of the resurrection be conferred at the same time on all sharing one nature; and because there does not seem to be any reason why some are awaited for rising together, if not all are awaited.

Sixth. If risen men will use sexual intercourse and will generate, either this will be always: or not always, but for some determinate time. If the first, therefore the generation of men will be into infinity. Therefore the intention of the generating nature will be toward the infinite, which is impossible. The second consequence is proved: because then the intention of the generating nature could not be toward another end than the multiplication of men; for it will not be for the conservation of the species through generation, since men are to live incorruptibly. — But if the second, therefore after that time they will not generate. Therefore this too must be granted to them from the beginning, that they neither use sexual intercourse nor generate.

Note that this argument proceeds from this supposition, that after the resurrection there will no longer be a state of corruption, but of incorruption. This is certain from the fact that then there will be no motion of the celestial bodies, on which all other motions depend. Therefore he assumes that after the resurrection men are to live incorruptibly. But even those against whom he argues seem to concede that supposition. Therefore from it he proceeds against them.

IV. If against all the reasons adduced it be said that in the risen there will be use of foods and of sexual intercourse for the sake of the mere delight which consists in those acts, lest any delight be lacking to men in the final recompense: — that this is said unfittingly is shown in many ways.

First thus. In this life it is inordinate and vicious if anyone uses foods and sexual intercourse for the sake of mere delight. Therefore this will not be in the risen. — The consequence is proved. Because the life of the risen will be more ordered than ours. — But the antecedent is proved: because since the delights which are in the aforesaid acts are not the ends of the acts, but rather the converse, as having been ordained by nature lest animals, on account of toil, desist from those acts necessary to nature; the order is perverse and unbecoming if operations are exercised for the sake of mere delights.

Second. The perfect beatitude and happiness of man does not consist in bodily delights of this kind. Therefore etc. The consequence is proved. Because the life of the risen is ordered to preserving perfect beatitude.

Third. Either delights of this kind in the state of future beatitude are as pertaining to beatitude: or not. Not the first. Because then they would be in some way in the intention of those who do virtuous deeds: since the acts of the virtues are ordered to beatitude as to an end. But this excludes the rationale of temperance: against which it is that one abstains from delights now in order to be able to enjoy them more afterwards. For thus all chastity would be rendered unchaste, and all abstinence gluttonous. — Not the second either. Because everything that is, is either for the sake of another, or for its own sake. But delights of this kind will not be for the sake of another: because not for the sake of actions ordered to the end of nature. Therefore they will be for their own sake. But everything of this kind is either beatitude, or a part of beatitude. Therefore etc.

Fourth. It seems ridiculous to seek bodily delights, in which the brute animals share with us, where the most lofty delights are expected, common to us and to the angels: — unless perhaps someone says that the beatitude of the angels is imperfect because they lack the delights of the brutes; which is altogether absurd. Therefore etc.

It is confirmed by the authority of the Lord saying, Matth. xxii, that in the resurrection they will neither marry nor be given in marriage.

V. Note that when it is said that the delights of foods and of sexual intercourse are not for their own sake, but for the sake of the operations, it is one thing to say that the delights are for the sake of the operations: and another that they themselves are sought for the sake of the operations. For that they are for the sake of the operations states their order according to the institution of both by the Author of nature, and according to the intention of nature. For God, who instituted nature, ordained the aforesaid operations to the conservation of the individual and of the species; to these operations, however, he added delights, so that from the appetite for these, animals would attend to operations of this kind; and thus he willed the delights to be for the sake of the operations. But that the delights are sought for the sake of the operations states their order insofar as they terminate the act of appetite. And then, if they are compared to the intellective appetite following reason, so also the delights are sought for the sake of the said operations, to which they are joined: that is, they are not sought except insofar as they are joined to those operations, to which man devotes himself for the sustenance of his own body, and for begetting offspring. But if they are compared to the sensitive appetite, so the delights are not sought for the sake of the operations, but on the contrary the operations for the sake of the delights, as St. Thomas says in I IIae, q. iv, a. 2, ad 2. But the reason for this is that sensitive apprehension does not reach to the common notion of good, but to some particular good, which is delightful: for it judges that to be good which is delightful according to sense. What therefore is said here about the delights and the operations of foods and of sexual intercourse must be understood according to their comparison to the Institutor of nature, and to nature itself, and according to comparison to the intellective appetite: not however according to comparison to the sensitive appetite.

VI. As to the second⁵, St. Thomas excludes the error of the Jews and of the Saracens. And first, he sets out the error itself, with its motives; second, he answers their motives⁶. He says therefore first, that from the aforesaid the error of the aforesaid is excluded, of those holding that in the resurrection men will use foods and sexual intercourse, just as now. Whom also certain heretical Christians have followed, holding that the kingdom of Christ to come on earth will be earthly for a thousand years, in which space of time they say that those who will then have risen will give themselves most immoderately to carnal feasts: but spiritual men call these Chiliasts, that is, millenarians, as Augustine says, XX de Civitate Dei.

2. To this error there seems first to lend support the fact that Adam before sin had immortal life: and yet he could then use foods and sexual intercourse, as is clear from Scripture.

Second, because Christ himself is read to have eaten and drunk after the resurrection: as is clear from Lucae ult., and Act. x.

Third, because this seems to be promised to the risen, when it is said in Isaiae xxv, The Lord of hosts will make etc.; and lxv, Behold, my servants etc.

Fourth, because the Lord seems to say this, Matth. xxvi, and Lucae xxii.

Fifth, because it seems to be said in Apoc. xxii.

Lastly, because concerning the thousand years it seems to be said in Apoc. xx.

VII. To the first of these⁷ however, St. Thomas says that the reason is not the same concerning Adam, and concerning the risen men. Because since human nature was not yet totally perfect, the human race not yet multiplied, Adam was instituted in such perfection as befitted the beginning of the whole human race: and therefore it was fitting that he generate for its multiplication, and consequently use foods. But in the perfection of the risen, human nature will totally arrive at its perfection, the number of the elect being already complete. Therefore generation will have no place, nor the use of foods.

He says second, that the immortality of the risen will be one thing, and that which Adam had another. Because they can neither die, nor can anything be dissolved from their bodies. But Adam could not die, if he did not sin: and he could die, if he sinned. And he could be preserved immortal, not because nothing would be resolved from his body, but so that against the resolution of natural moisture he could be aided through the taking of foods, lest he come to corruption.

2. To the second he says that Christ ate not out of necessity, but to demonstrate the truth of his resurrection. Hence that food was not converted into flesh, but was resolved into pre-existing matter. But this cause will not be in the common resurrection.

Note first, from the doctrine of St. Thomas in the Fourth book, d. xliv, q. i, a. 3, qu. 4, ad 1, that Christ is said to have eaten after the resurrection by dispensation, inasmuch as for the aforesaid cause he omitted what is common to the risen, namely not to use foods. But in the common resurrection the demonstration of the truth of the resurrection will not be necessary: because it will be known to all. Therefore there will be no cause of eating.

Consider second, from the doctrine of the same in the Third book, q. lv, a. 6, ad 2, that by Christ, after he rose, certain arguments were brought forward to prove the truth of human nature; certain ones however to prove the glory of the resurrection. Eating therefore was brought forward, not to prove the glory of the resurrection, but to show that he had risen according to true human nature. Therefore it is rightly said here that Christ ate to demonstrate the truth of his resurrection.

3. To the authorities afterwards adduced, which seem to promise the use of foods after the resurrection, it is said first, commonly, that they must be understood spiritually: namely that the delight which is in the contemplation of wisdom, and the taking up of intelligible truth into our intellect, be signified through the use of foods; according to that saying of Proverb. ix, She hath mingled her wine etc.; and Eccli. xv, She shall feed him etc.; and Proverb. iii, A tree of life etc. For divine Scripture proposes intelligible things to us under the likenesses of corporeal things, so that our mind, from those things which it knows, may learn to love unknown things.

It is said second, that the words of the Lord which are adduced in Matth. xxvi can also be referred to this, that he himself after the resurrection ate and drank with the disciples new wine, that is, in a new way, namely not out of necessity, but for the demonstration of the resurrection. But he says in my kingdom, because in his resurrection the kingdom of immortality began to be demonstrated.

4. To the last it is said first, that the first resurrection is of souls, insofar as they rise from sins: according to that saying in Ephes. v, Arise etc.

It is said second, that by the thousand years is understood the whole time of the Church, in which martyrs and other saints reign with Christ as to their souls, both in the present Church, which is called the kingdom of God, and in the heavenly homeland. For the millenary number signifies perfection: because it is a cubic number, that is, a solid figure⁸, and its root is the denary, which is accustomed also to designate perfection.

Note first, from Boethius in his Arithmetica⁹, that a cubic number is said to be one which results from a number multiplied into itself twice; and its root is that number which is multiplied into itself. But it is certain that the millenary results from the denary number repeated into itself twice: for ten times ten times ten make a thousand. Therefore it is rightly said that it is a cubic number, and that its root is ten.

Note second, as St. Thomas says in I Metaph., lect. 7, that the denary number is perfect, because it is as it were the first term of numbers, and comprehends in itself the nature of all numbers, for the reason that all other numbers are nothing but a certain repetition of the denary. Therefore it is rightly said here that it is accustomed to designate perfection.

VIII. As to the third¹⁰, St. Thomas sets down this corollary, that all the occupations of the active life will cease in the resurrection, and only the occupation of the contemplative life will remain.

It is proved. Both because those occupations seem to be ordered to the use of foods and of sexual intercourse, and to other things which are necessary to corruptible life.

And because in Lucae x, of Mary contemplating it is said, The best part etc.

And because in Iob vii it is said, He who goes down to hell etc.