Here is S. Thomas on the question of whether the body that rises again in the life to come is the same in number with the body of this life. The translation is mine, the Latin taken off the web from Corpus Thomisticum, the excellent website developed and maintained by Roberto Busa, who used the Taurini 1956 edition.
I will add some notes one day.
Edward Buckner, London 2010.
|De corpore autem quaesitum est utrum corpus resurgat idem numero||Concerning the body, it is now asked whether the body rises again the same in number|
| Quodlibet XI, q. 6 tit. 2 Et ostendebatur quod non.||And it was shown that it was not.|
| Quodlibet XI, q. 6 arg. 1|
|Quia, secundum philosophum in Top., illud dicitur idem numero quod est idem proprio, accidente, et definitione. Sed corpus in resurrectione non habebit eadem propria, quia modo risibile, tunc non; non eadem accidentia, quia nunc albus, Crispus, niger, et huiusmodi, quae tunc non erunt; non eamdem etiam definitionem, quia modo definitur per mortale, tunc vero non mortale erit. Ergo videtur quod non resurget idem numero.||For, according to the Philosopher in the Topics, what is said to be the same in number is said to be the same in property, accident and definition. But in resurrection, the body will not have the same properties – for it is now capable of laughter, then not; not the same accidents, for it is now white, curly-headed , black and so on, which then will not exist. Not even the same definition, because now it is defined by mortal, but then it will not be mortal. Therefore it seems that it will not rise again the same in number.|
| Quodlibet XI, q. 6 arg. 2|
|Praeterea, identitas materiae facit idem numero. Sed materia corporis resurgentis non erit eadem cum corpore quod nunc est, cum multae formae reiterentur in ea. Ergo corpus non resurget idem numero.||Moreover, identity of material causes sameness in number. But the material of the risen body will not be the same as the [material of] the body which exists now, since many forms will be returned to it. Therefore the body will not rise again the same in number.|
| Quodlibet XI, q. 6 arg. 3|
|Praeterea, philosophus dicit in Lib. de anima, quod non est eadem statua numero quae destruitur, et de eodem aere reficitur. Pari ergo ratione corpus quod modo corrumpitur, non erit idem numero cum eo quod resurget.||Moreover, the Philosopher says in the book De Anima that the statue which is destroyed and is remade in brass is not the same in number. Therefore by parity of reason the body which is now destroyed will not be the same in number with the one that rises.|
| Quodlibet XI, q. 6 arg. 4|
|Praeterea, constat quod homo humanitate est homo, et una humanitate unus homo. Sed in corpore quod nunc est, et quod resurget, erunt duae humanitates, quia per mortem destruitur forma totius. Ergo erunt duo homines; et sic videtur quod corpora non resurgent eadem numero.||Moreover, it is plain that a man is man by humanity, and is one man by humanity. But in the body which exists now, and which rises again, there will be two humanities, because the form of the whole is destroyed in death. Therefore there will be two men, and thus it seems that bodies do not rise again the same in number.|
| Quodlibet XI, q. 6 s. c.|
|Contra, Iob XIX, 27: quem visurus sum ego ipse, et oculi mei conspecturi sunt.||Against. Job xix.27: “[And I shall be clothed again with my skin, and in my flesh I shall see my God]. Whom I myself shall see, and my eyes shall behold, and not another”|
| Quodlibet XI, q. 6 co.|
|Respondeo. Dicendum, quod ad hoc quod aliquid sit idem numero, requiritur identitas principiorum essentialium. Unde quodcumque principiorum essentialium, etiam in ipso individuo, varietur, necesse est etiam identitatem variari. Illud autem est essentiale cuiuslibet individui quod est de ratione ipsius, sicut cuilibet rei materiali sunt essentialia materia et forma; unde si accidentia varientur et mutentur, remanentibus principiis essentialibus individui, ipsum individuum remanet idem. Cum ergo principia essentialia hominis sint anima et corpus, et haec remaneant, quia resurget eadem anima et idem corpus; dicendum, quod corpus hominis resurget idem numero.||I reply. It must be said to this that for something to be the same in number there is required the identity of the essential principles. Therefore let any of the essential principles, even in the individual itself, be varied, and it is also necessary for the identity to be varied. But an essential principle of any individual is what is its logical nature, just as material and form are essential principles of any material form. Therefore if accidents are varied and changed, with the essential principles of the individual remaining, the individual itself will remain the same. Therefore, since the essential principles of a man are body and soul, and since these remain (because the same body and the same soul rise again), it must be said that the body of a man rises again the same in number.|
| Quodlibet XI, q. 6 ad 1|
|Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod obiectio illa procedit ex falso intellectu litterae. Non enim dicitur idem numero illud quod habet idem accidens nunc et postea, et idem proprium; sed illud est idem numero quod est idem cum accidente et idem cum proprio, sicut cum subiectum est idem cum accidente, proprio, et definitione; et non illa quae habent idem accidens, idem proprium, et unam definitionem.||To the first argument it must be said that this objection proceeds from a false understanding of the text. For it is not said that what is the same in number has the same accident now and after, and the same property, but that what is the same in number is the same with the accident and with the property, just as when the subject is the same with accident, property and definition, and not those which have the same accident, the same property and on definition.|
|Unde patet quod obiiciens false intellexit textum. Dato autem quod secundum illum intellectum procedat obiectio, dicendum, quod intelligitur de accidentibus individuantibus, scilicet de dimensionibus; et erunt haec in corporibus glorificatis. Item erit ibi idem proprium, scilicet risus; Iob VIII, 21: implebitur os tuum risu, et labia tua iubilo. De definitione vero dicendum, quod licet resurgat immortale, tamen vera mortalitas non tolletur ab eo, quia natura humana erit ibi, quae ex se habet quod sit mortalis.||Therefore it is clear that the objector understands the text falsely. And given that the objection proceeds according to the understanding, it must be said that it is understood of individuating accidents, namely of dimensions, and these will be in glorified bodies. Likewise, it will be the same with property, namely being capable of laughter. See Job. viii.21 (“your mouth will be filled with laughter, and your lips with rejoicing”). But of the definition, it must be said although it rises immortal, nevertheless true mortality is not taken away from it, because human nature will be there, which has it from itself that it is mortal.|
| Quodlibet XI, q. 6 ad 2|
|Ad secundum dicendum, quod licet eadem materia faciat idem numero, non tamen materia nuda, nec quae facit principium in numero; sed una materia secundum quod est sub dimensionibus terminantibus ipsam, facit idem numero; unde licet multae formae reiterentur in materia corporis resurgentis, tamen resurget corpus sub eisdem dimensionibus, et cum eisdem principiis essentialibus.||To the second, it must be said that although identity of material causes sameness in number, nevertheless this is not ‘raw’ material, nor what makes the principle in number, but one material according as it exists under the dimensions terminating it causes sameness in number. Therefore although many forms will be returned to the material of the risen body, nevertheless the body will rise under the same dimensions, and with the same essential principles.|
| Quodlibet XI, q. 6 ad 3|
|Ad tertium dicendum, quod Augustinus dicit contrarium: ipse enim vult, si statua reficiatur ex eodem aere, quod sit eadem numero. Nihilominus tamen dicendum, quod omnia artificialia ponuntur dupliciter in genere vel in specie; quia vel per materiam suam, vel per formam suam. Naturalia autem ponuntur in genere vel specie tantum per formam suam. Formae autem artificiales, quia sunt accidentia, ideo oportet quod collocentur in genere vel specie per materiam; naturales vero non, quia sunt substantiales. Dico ergo, quod si consideretur statua prout ponitur in genere vel specie per materiam suam, sic reficitur eadem statua; si vero consideretur prout ponitur in genere vel specie per formam, sic dico, quod non reficitur eadem, sed alia: quia alia est forma huius, et alia illius. In corpore autem non est sic, quia in corpore erit eadem forma.||To third, it must be said that Augustine says the contrary. For he would have it that if a statue is remade from the same brass, then it is the same in number. But notwithstanding, it must be said that all artificially created things are given twofold in genus and in species, because [they are given] either through their material, or through their form. Now naturally created objects are given in genus and species only through their form. And artificially created forms, because they are accidents, therefore have to be arranged in genus or in species through material, but natural ones not, because they are substantial. So I say that if the statue is considered according as it is in genus or species by its material, then the same statue is remade. But if it is considered according as it is given in genus or in species by form, then I say that the same thing is not remade, but another, because the form of this is one thing, the form of that is another. But with the body it is not so, because in the body there will be the same form.|
| Quodlibet XI, q. 6 ad 4|
|Ad quartum dicendum, quod non sunt duae humanitates in corpore quod corrumpitur et quod resurgit, sed una: quia principia essentialia non mutantur, sed sunt eadem.||To the fourth, it must be said that there are not two humanities in the body that is destroyed and which rises again, but one. For the essential principles are not changed, but are the same.|
THE LOGIC MUSEUM Copyright (translation only) (C) E.D.Buckner 2010.