Commentaria in Summam contra Gentiles, Liber IV

After St. Thomas showed that the bodies of the risen will be of the same species as our bodies are now, he consequently shows that they will be of a different condition superadded to nature¹. About this he does two things: first, he shows the condition of the bodies of both the good and the wicked; second, he shows in particular the condition of the bodies of the blessed, in the following chapter.

Concerning the first, he does two things: first, he shows that all human bodies will be incorruptible in the future; second, he shows how this incorruptibility is to be understood².

I. As to the first, this conclusion is put forward: all the bodies of the risen, of both the good and the wicked, will be incorruptible.

It is proved first from the end of the resurrection. The reward of the good and the punishment of the wicked will be perpetual, as is clear from what was determined in the Third Book. Therefore both must be received into an incorruptible body. - The consequence is proved. Because both the good and the wicked will rise to this end, that even in their own bodies they may obtain the reward or the punishment for what they did while they lived in the body.

2. It is proved secondly from the formal cause of the risen. Through the resurrection the soul will resume the body, lest it remain perpetually separated from the body. Therefore it is fitting that the body be disposed according to what suits the soul. Therefore that it be incorruptible. - The first consequence is proved. Because in that the perfection of the soul is provided for. The second, indeed: because the soul is incorruptible.

3. But it seems that this argument does not conclude. For by the same reasoning it would be concluded that from the beginning the soul ought to have been united to an incorruptible body: since it would then have been incorruptible in like manner, and would have required its perfection from union with the body, just as afterward when it is separated.

It is answered that one must speak differently of the institution of nature by God, and differently of the restoration to life through the resurrection. For in the first institution of nature it was fitting that God give to each thing what suited it according to nature. And because it suited the nature of the intellective soul, which must receive its knowledge from sensible things, to have a body composed of contraries, to which corruptibility follows of necessity from matter, it was fitting that a body corruptible by nature be given to it — which, even though by grace it would have been made in some way incorruptible, would nevertheless not be altogether incorruptible, but could come to corruptibility through the sin of man. In the resurrection, however, through which it is provided that the soul not be perpetually deprived of its specific perfection, it is fitting that an incorruptible body be fitted to it, lest it come again to that imperfection for the removing of which it is reunited to the body.

3. It is proved thirdly from the active cause of the resurrection. God will repair the corrupted bodies to life. Therefore, much more strongly, he will be able to grant them that, once life is regained, it be preserved perpetually in them.

This is confirmed by an example. Because even corruptible bodies, when he willed, he preserved unharmed from corruption: as the bodies of the three boys in the furnace.

II. As to the second, St. Thomas shows what this incorruptibility is. And he says that it must be understood that this body, which now is corruptible, will be rendered incorruptible by divine power, so that the soul will perfectly dominate it as to giving it life; nor will such communication of life be able to be impeded by any other. And this the Apostle signifies in I Cor. xv, saying, It is necessary that the corruptible, etc.

From this it follows that man does not rise immortal because he resumes another incorruptible body, as those mentioned above maintained: but because this very body, which now is corruptible, will be made incorruptible. - Whence also that which the Apostle says, that flesh and blood will not possess the kingdom of God, is understood to mean that then the corruption of flesh and blood will be taken away, their nature nevertheless remaining. Whence he adds, nor will corruption possess incorruption.

III. Concerning this last statement, namely that the nature of the blood will remain, a doubt arises. For, as can be established from the things above³, the bodies of the risen will not need nourishment. But blood is not given to animals by nature except for the sake of nourishment: for, as is said in II de Partibus Animal., c. III and sqq., blood is the last nourishment in animals⁴. Therefore it seems that in the bodies of the risen there ought not to be blood.

I answer, and I say first, that indeed one must say, according to the Catholic faith, that blood is contained in the bodies of the risen. For since we posit that there is blood in Christ — otherwise the wine could not now through consecration be transmuted into his blood — it is necessary that we posit that there is blood also in the other risen; for our resurrection will be assimilated to the resurrection of Christ.

I say secondly, and according to the opinion of those who hold that blood is informed by the intellective soul and is in act a part of the body: blood is posited in animals not only for the sake of nourishment, but also inasmuch as it pertains to the integrity of the body as a part in act. And therefore, although in the resurrection it will not serve the office of nourishment, it nevertheless remains in the risen so that they may have the integrity of nature; just as certain other members will be in them which will nevertheless not perform their proper offices. - But according to those who posit that blood is not properly a part in act of man, but improperly, inasmuch as it is the proximate potency of the whole body⁵, and is effectively perfected by the intellective soul, though not formally — which seems to me more conformable to the doctrine of St. Thomas, and is held by Capreolus in the Fourth Book, d. x, q. II⁶, from those things which are had in Tertia, q. XXXI, a. 5, ad 1 — it must be said that, although blood is the last nourishment, it is nevertheless of the truth of human nature, not indeed as a part properly in act, but as proximate to the part and akin to the parts. It is also the seat of the soul: inasmuch as through blood generated in the heart vital operation is diffused into all members, as St. Thomas says in Quarto, d. XI, in expos. litt.

Therefore, although in the risen blood does not remain under the aspect of nourishment, it nevertheless remains as pertaining to the integrity of human nature, and to the showing forth of natural power, which was exercised through the medium of blood, just as will be the case with the members that serve generation. This response is had in the Fourth Book, d. XLIV, q. I, a. 2, quª 2, ad 2.

IV. Concerning the incorruptibility of the bodies of the risen, it must be noted that St. Thomas here touches on one intrinsic cause common to all, namely the perfect dominion of the soul over the body, coming to it by divine power. In the Fourth Book of the Sent., d. XLIV, q. III, a. 1⁷, however, he assigns another cause in the bodies of the damned, namely the cessation of the motion of the heavens, without which no natural change can be, which is the extrinsic cause. And he seems there to deny that in the bodies of the damned there is incorruptibility from some intrinsic cause preventing corruption.

But this can be said in two ways. First, that St. Thomas in the Fourth Book does not wholly deny the intrinsic cause of incorruptibility in the damned: but that cause which is divine grace, such as was the cause in Adam and is in the Blessed; or that which is a quality flowing from the soul into the body itself, preserving it from corrupting things.

Second, that he denies the intrinsic cause preventing corruption which is the altogether complete subjection of the body to the soul: for this will be in the Blessed alone. But he does not deny every intrinsic cause.

2. It must be noted secondly, as can be had from the following chapter, that the perfect dominion of the soul over the body is twofold. For since this dominion is understood as the body obeys the soul without resistance, and this obedience cannot be impeded by anyone — either this is understood as regarding existence and regarding every action and passion of the body; or regarding existence only. The first dominion will be in the Blessed alone: the second, however, will be also in the damned. Whence, to show that the dominion of the soul over the body, which is common to both the damned and the Blessed, is not a perfect dominion in the first way, but only in the second way, when he had said that the soul perfectly dominates the body, he added⁸, as to its giving it life.