Dist. 44, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 44
Quaestio II. Utrum materia uniuscuiusque membri resurgat in suo, an indifferenter in quolibet membro.
Secundo quaeritur, quid in quo resurgat quantum ad membra, utrum scilicet materia uniuscuiusque membri in suo, an indifferenter in quolibet. Et quod non in suo:
1. Videtur Augustinus dicere, et habetur in littera1, quod non refert, utrum pars materiae redeat in suum locum, sicut est in fusione statuae.
2. Item, ad hoc est ratio ostensiva, quia materia illa est in perfecta obedientia respectu Creatoris: ergo si ipsa nihil operatur2, et Creator non facit vim, nisi quod totum reparetur et debite, sicut bonus artifex; ergo videtur, quod sine differentia materia unius membri in alio possit resurgere.
3. Item, alia ratio ad hoc est, quia dispositio contrahitur in corpore ad resurgendum ex unione ad animam: ergo cum quaelibet pars toti animae uniatur, quia anima tota est in qualibet parte3, quaelibet pars habet indifferentiam ad totum.
4. Item, si necesse est, quod in eodem; sed esto, quod aliquis habeat nimis magnum caput, tunc necesse esset resurgere in eadem deformitate; sed hoc est inconveniens.
Sed contra:
1. Ezechielis trigesimo septimo4: Accesserunt ossa ad ossa, unumquodque ad iuncturam suam: ergo si est convenienter ibi signata forma resurrectionis futurae, patet etc.
2. Item, ratione videtur: quia resurrectio est eiusdem; sed si manus fieret ex materia pedis, non esset eiusdem; sic nec alia aliqua pars, si fieret de alia, et sic nec totum idem: ergo cum hoc sit inconveniens5, patet etc.
3. Item, resurrectio est ad remunerationem; sed contingit, unum membrum esse nobilius altero, et ulterius, magis mereri uno quam altero: ergo si non debet alicui praeiudicari, illa pars materiae in eo membro debet resurgere, quae prius ibi fuit.
4. Item, sicut se habet totum corpus ad totam animam, sic oculus ad potentiam visivam, ut dicit Philosophus6; sed necesse est, materiam totius corporis aptari animae huic, ita quod non alii: ergo et materiam potentiae visivae huic, et non alteri; et sic materia huius membri in hoc membro determinate resurget.
Conclusio
Membrum unumquodque reformabitur ex sua propria materia, quatenus est de eius substantia, non de superfluitate.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in membro sive in eius materia est aliquid considerare, quod est de substantia et perfectione, aliquid, quod est de superfluitate, sicut aliqua membra plus habent de materia, quam conveniens sit formae membri. Si primo modo, sic dico, quod unumquodque membrum ex sua propria materia reformabitur; reformatio enim respondet formationi. Unde eiusdem7 et de eodem est reformatio, cuius et de quo fuit formatio. — Si autem quantum ad superfluitatem, dicendum tunc, quod illud materiae, quod est superfluum in una parte, per totum dispergetur, ut sic non abundet unum membrum ab altero, nisi quantum debet.
1. Et sic loquitur Augustinus, quod patet; loquitur enim de superexcrescentia eorum quae debent resurgere8.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod materia illa est in perfecta obedientia; dicendum, quod verum est; tamen Creator non vult facere, nisi quod congruit ipsum facere; et congruit, quod unumquodque membrum fiat de sua materia. — Et quidam reddunt de hoc rationem ex parte diversorum appetituum, qui sunt in pulvere. Quidquid tamen sit de hoc, tamen hoc venit ab ordinatione perfecti artificis, ut reparet de eadem materia et eodem ordine9.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod quaelibet pars unitur toti animae; dicendum, quod anima est perfectio1 quantum ad substantiam, et motor quantum ad potentias; etsi anima non sit composita, immo simplex quantum ad substantiam, habet tamen multitudinem potentiarum, ratione quarum ad diversa organa comparatur. Quoniam igitur corpus est ordinatum ad resurrectionem utroque modo, et in quantum respicit animam ut perfectionem et ut motorem; et quantum ad rationem motoris est distinctio: ideo distincte resurget materia membrorum in suis locis.
4. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, iam patet responsio. Dico enim, quod illud per totum dispergetur, quod in aliqua parte est superfluum; nec illud faciet diversitatem in corpore, sed removebit deformitatem; et hoc intelligendum quantum ad corpora electorum2.
Sic igitur patet, quid in quo resurgat secundum verba beati Augustini, quibus magis innitendum est, maxime in hac materia, quam etiam rationi. Attamen tam ad primum problema quam ad ultimum posset de facili responderi, si quis velit seminales rationes intueri, in quas fit resolutio, quae in una parte salvabuntur respectu totius, si sit artifex, qui possit educere; et ideo, cum Deus hoc operetur et supra naturam, quid mirum est, si, quantumcumque parum de carne remaneat, totum reficiat? Nec unquam poterat adeo dividi quin modicum sufficiat cuilibet; hoc dico secundum operationem Dei, non secundum operationem naturae, sicut alibi melius patet, scilicet in secundo libro3.
---
Question II. Whether the matter of each member rises again in its own member, or indifferently in any member.
Secondly it is asked, as regards the members, what rises again in what — namely, whether the matter of each member [rises again] in its own, or indifferently in any. And [the arguments] that [it does] not [rise] in its own:
1. Augustine seems to say, and it is held in the text1, that it does not matter whether a part of the matter returns to its own place, as is the case in the casting of a statue.
2. Likewise, there is a demonstrative reason for this, because that matter is in perfect obedience with respect to the Creator: therefore if it itself does nothing2, and the Creator does no violence, but [wills] only that the whole be repaired and duly so, like a good craftsman; therefore it seems that without difference the matter of one member could rise again in another.
3. Likewise, another reason for this is that the disposition is contracted in the body for rising again from its union with the soul: therefore since any part is united to the whole soul, because the whole soul is in any part3, any part has indifference toward the whole.
4. Likewise, if it is necessary that [it rise] in the same [member] — but suppose that someone has too large a head, then it would be necessary to rise again in the same deformity; but this is unfitting.
On the contrary:
1. Ezekiel 374: The bones came together to the bones, each one to its own joint: therefore if the form of the future resurrection is fittingly signified there, it is clear, etc.
2. Likewise, it appears by reason: because the resurrection is of the same [body]; but if a hand were made from the matter of a foot, it would not be of the same; so neither would any other part [be the same], if it were made from another, and thus neither would the whole be the same: therefore since this is unfitting5, it is clear, etc.
3. Likewise, the resurrection is unto reward; but it happens that one member is nobler than another, and further, that one merits more by one than by another: therefore if no prejudice ought to be done to anyone, that part of matter ought to rise again in that member which was previously there.
4. Likewise, as the whole body stands to the whole soul, so the eye [stands] to the power of sight, as the Philosopher says6; but it is necessary that the matter of the whole body be fitted to this soul, such that [it is] not [fitted] to another: therefore also the matter of the power of sight [be fitted] to this [soul], and not to another; and thus the matter of this member will rise again determinately in this member.
Conclusion
Each member will be reformed from its own proper matter, insofar as it is of its substance, not of its superfluity.
I respond: It must be said that in a member, or in its matter, there is something to consider that is of substance and perfection, [and] something that is of superfluity — just as some members have more of matter than is fitting for the form of the member. If [it be considered] in the first way, then I say that each member will be reformed from its own proper matter; for reformation corresponds to formation. Hence the reformation is of the same and from the same [thing] of which and from which the formation was7. — But if [it be considered] as regards superfluity, it must then be said that that [portion] of the matter which is superfluous in one part will be dispersed throughout the whole, so that thus one member may not abound over another, except as much as it ought.
1. And thus Augustine speaks, which is clear; for he speaks of the superabundant growth of those things which ought to rise again8.
2. To that which is objected, that that matter is in perfect obedience; it must be said that it is true; yet the Creator does not will to do [anything] except what it is fitting for Him to do; and it is fitting that each member be made from its own matter. — And some render a reason for this from the diverse appetites which are in the dust. Whatever, however, may be the case about this, nevertheless this comes from the ordination of the perfect craftsman, that He may repair [it] from the same matter and in the same order9.
3. To that which is objected, that any part is united to the whole soul; it must be said that the soul is perfection1 as regards substance, and mover as regards its powers; and although the soul is not composite, but rather simple as regards substance, it nevertheless has a multitude of powers, by reason of which it is related to diverse organs. Since therefore the body is ordered to resurrection in both ways — both inasmuch as it regards the soul as perfection and as mover; and as regards the aspect of mover there is distinction: therefore the matter of the members will rise again distinctly in their own places.
4. To that which is objected last, the response is already clear. For I say that that which is superfluous in some part will be dispersed throughout the whole; nor will it make diversity in the body, but will remove deformity; and this is to be understood as regards the bodies of the elect2.
Thus therefore it is clear what rises again in what, according to the words of blessed Augustine, on which one ought rather to rely, especially in this matter, than even on reason. Nevertheless both to the first problem and to the last it could easily be responded, if one is willing to look to the seminal reasons, into which the resolution is made, which will be preserved in one part with respect to the whole, if there be a craftsman who can draw [them] out; and therefore, since God works this even above nature, what wonder is it if, however little of the flesh may remain, He should refashion the whole? Nor could it ever be so divided but that a little would suffice for each; this I say according to the operation of God, not according to the operation of nature, as is better shown elsewhere, namely in the second book3.
---
- 1Hic c. 2.Here [in] chapter 2.
- 2Cfr. supra pag. 273, nota 3. in fine. — Edd. prosequuntur: et creaturae non facit etc.Cf. above, p. 273, note 3, at the end. — The editions continue: and does no [violence] to the creature, etc.
- 3Ut ostensum est I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 3.As was shown in I Sentences, d. 8, p. II, q. 3.
- 4Vers. 7.Verse 7.
- 5Vide supra d. 43. a. 1. q. 4. — In maiori post eiusdem cod. aa subiungit numero.See above, d. 43, a. 1, q. 4. — In the major [premise], after eiusdem codex aa adds numero.
- 6Libr. II. de Anima, text. 9. (c. 1.): Si enim esset oculus animal, anima utique ipsi visus esset... Oportet igitur accipere quod est in parte, in toto vivente corpore; proportionaliter namque se habet, sicut pars ad partem, totus sensus ad totum corpus sensitivum, secundum quod huiusmodi. — Ibid. text. 26. (c. 2.) insinuatur minor.Book II On the Soul, text 9 (c. 1): For if the eye were an animal, sight would surely be its soul... One must therefore take what holds in a part [as holding] in the whole living body; for it stands proportionally, as part [stands] to part, so the whole sense-faculty [stands] to the whole sensitive body, insofar as it is such. — Ibid., text 26 (c. 2), the minor [premise] is intimated.
- 7Edd. cum pluribus codd. eadem (nonnulli codd. de eadem), inferius posito eius (nonnulli codd. eius et) pro cuius et. Subinde codd. R S T U X bb omittunt materiae, et post quod edd. addunt modo, ac post totum supplent corpus.The editions, with several codices, [read] eadem (some codices de eadem), with eius placed below (some codices eius et) for cuius et. Then codices R S T U X bb omit materiae, and after quod the editions add modo, and after totum they supply corpus.
- 8Cfr. infra dub. 4. — Superius pro sic codd. A F H I K aa (bb a secunda manu) in hoc casu.Cf. below, dubium 4. — Above, for sic, codices A F H I K aa (bb by a second hand) [read] in hoc casu.
- 9Vide quaest. praeced. et d. 43. a. 1. q. 5. ad 6.See the preceding question, and d. 43, a. 1, q. 5, ad 6.
- 1Sive forma corporis; cfr. I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 3. — Inferius pro utroque modo plures codd. vel cum edd. in utroque vel utroque. In fine solut. pro distincte cod. F relinquitur, quod.Or the form of the body; cf. I Sentences, d. 8, p. II, q. 3. — Below, for utroque modo several codices, or [reading] with the editions, [have] in utroque or utroque. At the end of the solution, for distincte codex F [reads] relinquitur, quod.
- 2De quo in art. seq.Concerning which [see] in the following article.
- 3Dist. 7. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. et d. 18. a. 1. q. 2. — Superius pro poterat adeo [cod. O ita] plures codd. poterit adeo. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.[Book II,] dist. 7, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, and d. 18, a. 1, q. 2. — Above, for poterat adeo [codex O ita] several codices [read] poterit adeo. — See the scholion to the preceding question.