Forty Fourth Distinction. First Part. About the Resurrection of the Whole Man in the Truth of Human Nature

Single Question. Whether, in the Case of Every Man, the Whole that Belonged to the Truth of Human Nature in him will Rise Again

1. “Now some are accustomed     etc .” [Master Lombard, Sent. IV d.44 ch.1 n.1].

2. About this forty fourth distinction I ask whether, in the case of every man, the whole that belonged to the truth of human nature in him will rise again.

3. That it will not:

Genesis 2.21-22, “God took one of Adam’s ribs and made it into the woman.” Therefore     , either Eve will not [thus] rise again, because not that [will rise in her] which belonged to the truth of human nature in her from [Adam’s] rib, or Adam will not rise again with all that belonged to the truth of human nature in him, because not with his rib.

4. Again, the same thing will not rise again in diverse persons; but what belonged to the truth of the flesh in one can be nutriment for a second and belong to the truth of nature of the second, and so belong successively to the truth of nature in both. Therefore in one of the two there will not rise again whatever belonged to the truth of human nature in him.

5. Again, an argument from the same major by taking it under this minor: that ‘that which was semen in one can, through many changes, become semen in another’, and consequently in someone generated from the latter and in someone generated from the former the same thing will belong to the truth of nature in each.

6. Again, that whatever belonged to the truth of nature in anyone should rise again in him is only necessary so that the simply same numerical thing that fell should return. But, by parity of reasoning, it would be necessary to say the same of individual limbs or organic parts, and then that would have to rise in any part which belonged to the truth of any part - and this is against Augustine Enchiridion ch.23 n.89 (and it is in Lombard’s text): “it will not be so repaired that it must return to where the same parts of the body were, otherwise the hair too returns that much frequent shaving took away, etc.” And he adds, “It is as if a metal statue were melted down and the artisan wanted to restore it again from the same matter: it would make no difference as to the integrity of the statue which particles of matter returned to which limb of it, provided however the whole restored thing returned. Thus does God marvelously restore our flesh or all parts with marvelous speed out of the whole that our flesh consisted of. Nor will anything of its integrity be affected by whether hair returns to hair or is called back to other parts (the providence of the Artisan ensuring that nothing indecent happens).”

7. On the contrary:

The opposite is maintained by Augustine ibid., that “the flesh will be restored from the whole that it consisted of.” And again City of God 22.15 and Luke 21.18, “Not a hair of your head will perish.”

I. To the Question

8. As to this question, one is required, from the fact that man is composed of body and soul and the soul always remains the same, to consider how the organic body will return the same. But because the body is composed of many organic parts (which distinction of parts is required for the multitude of operations that the soul, because of its perfection, is principle of), one must consider the identity of the organic parts. And because heterogeneous parts are composed of homogeneous parts, one must consider the identity of the homogeneous parts, and first how a homogeneous part (as the flesh) remains, along with continuous nutrition, the same and not the same, and second how the same flesh returns that existed previously in the mortal body.

A. About the Manner of Nutrition

1. First Opinion

a. Exposition of the Opinion ‘

9. About the manner of nutrition there is an opinion [Lombard, Sent. II d.50 ch.15 n.2] that nothing of the food passes over to the truth of human nature, but that only what is contracted from parents belongs to the truth of human nature, and that this is multiplied in itself so that increase happens (an example is taken from the multiplication of loaves in the Gospel [Matthew 14.19-21, 35-38]). But what is generated from the food adheres like a warm fluid to the natural heat so that this heat is not extinguished (the way oil adheres to a wick). And in this way is food needed, though it is not converted into the truth of human nature.

b. Rejection of the Opinion

10. Against this:

First, that the vegetative power is no less perfect in man than in brutes; therefore, it is no less capable of the vegetative power’s operation, which is to nourish in the way that to nourish means to convert the substance of food into the substance of the thing to be nourished (for so it is in the brute); therefore such conversion through the vegetative power can occur in man. And there is a confirmation. For a man is generated in perfection of quantity just as a brute is, and the continuous loss of parts happens in him just as in a brute. So there must be increase and restoration here of what is lost just as there is there. But there this is because the term of action is truly something of the substance of the thing to be nourished and increased. Confirmation: we could not posit increase to be possible in man in this way [n.9] save by a miracle (as is plain of the multiplication of loaves); why then would human nature be more deficient as to acquisition of perfect quantity after imperfect quantity than the nature of an ox?

11. Again, according to this way it follows that in man there would be some flesh that was simply incorruptible for the whole of his life, or that, if it were corrupted, it could never be restored; for it could only be restored through nutrition, which restoration is denied. Both alternatives are unacceptable: the first because the incorruptible part would be of a different species from the other corruptible parts of flesh; the second because then what belongs to the truth of human nature in man would become always less and less.

12. Again, the parts of flesh that are generated from food are truly animated with the intellective soul; therefore they belong truly to the substance of that which lives with such [intellective] life. The antecedent, though it seem manifest, can yet be proved, because any part of the flesh is animated with the sensitive soul, because some operation of sensation and touch can be exercised in any part of the flesh. And any part of the flesh is animated with the vegetative soul, because any part of its due quantity is able to have some action of the vegetative soul; but the sensitive and intellective soul exist in man along with the intellective soul, Ord. II d.1 n.321.

2. Second Opinion

a. Exposition of the Opinion

13. Another statement [Henry of Ghent, Quodlibet II q.10] is that the flesh formed first, handed on from parents, belongs to the truth of human nature, but the food later passes over into what belongs to the truth of human nature. However, it does so in this way, that it is converted into what pre-exists, not by receiving a new form either in whole or in part, but only by the fact that, when the form of food in it falls away, the preexisting form of the flesh succeeds to it in the matter.

14. This is made clear by an example [Henry, Quodlibet IV q.36], because so it is with the intellective soul, that it newly perfects the matter that was under the form of food, and yet the intellective soul is not new in itself either in whole or in part.

15. It is also made clear by the authority of the Philosopher, On Generation 1.5.321b25-2a4, “The flesh grows in species not in matter, and the flesh remains in species while the flesh in matter flows and reflows.” But if a new form of flesh were introduced in nutrition, and if, by equal reason, a part of the form of flesh that was there before were to cease to be by being lost, then not only would the matter of flesh flow and reflow but the form of it also would, which seems to be against the Philosopher.

16. Third by reason [Henry, ibid.], because if in nutrition the matter of the food were to receive another form of flesh that was not there before, then this matter would only make with the pre-existing flesh a single thing by contiguity or continuity with it, and then nutrition would be a sort of juxtaposition of new flesh with pre-existing flesh, which the Philosopher denies in the aforementioned place [n.15]. There is also the consequence that no part of the nourished thing would be nourished or of the increased thing increased, because the part that the new flesh was put next to would not be.

b. Rejection of the Opinion

17. Against this opinion:

A form that has on its own part no other extension than it had before, which yet perfects a matter that has different extensions, is related indivisibly to that matter (this is because it does not perfect the parts of matter according as they are parts). But the form of flesh is not indivisibly related to matter in this way, because then it would be simple just as the intellective soul is simple, which is not something admitted. Therefore, since it perfects a matter that has different extensions (because the matter is much bigger than before), it must in itself have different extensions. And then, since its prior parts remain, another part of it must be new, otherwise the form would not have a greater extension now than it had before. The proof of the major is that a form which, as per accidens extended, is related to a matter that is extended, is related as itself having different extensions to a matter that has different extensions, because according to Aristotle, Categories 6.5b7-8),“the whiteness is as large as is the surface.” The fact is also plain by reason, because a part [of form] is in a part [of matter], and so a greater part in a greater part.

18. Again, it is admitted that there are, after nutrition, more parts of matter in the whole than there were before. Either then a new part of matter is in the whole without form (which is unacceptable), or it is there under a new form (and this is the intended conclusion), or it is there under a pre-existing part of form - and then either this preexisting part of form will cease to perfect the part of matter that it perfected before, and then the same part of the material form will migrate from one part of matter to another part (which is unacceptable), or the same prior part of form will at the same time perfect the prior part of matter and the new part of matter, and then, as a result, it will perfect two perfectible things, each of which equally exhausts it.

19. Again, flesh is of a nature to be in flux, because it is not incorruptible; but not only is the matter in flux but the form is as well, because this form cannot remain the same unless it remains informing the matter it did before (speaking of the same part of form), because it naturally depends on the perfectible thing it perfects. Therefore, the composite must be in flux, and consequently through nutrition a composite comes back.

3. Scotus’ own Response

a. First Conclusion

20. As to this article, then, let this conclusion be the first that, by extending the term ‘generation’ to cover all introduction of substantial form after privation into matter, there is some generation in the case of nutrition, because (as was argued [n.18]) the matter of the food does not remain under the form of food, nor under any other form than under that of the thing nourished, and it receives that form after nutrition;     therefore etc     .

21. The exposition of this conclusion is that the generation is not called generation simply, because it is not generation of a per se being insofar as what is not part of something else is said to be per se. But it can be called ‘generation-at’, because it is generation of something that becomes, by generation, the same as something pre-existent at which it is generated; or it can be called ‘generation-in’, because it is generation of a part in a whole of which it was not part.

b. Second Conclusion

22. A second conclusion is that in such sort of generation the form of the flesh which is introduced into the matter of the nutriment is new, because (as was argued against the preceding opinion [n.17]) the pre-existing form could not newly perfect that matter, for this possibility belongs only to a form that is altogether un-extended (as was illustrated there [n.17] about the intellective soul). For any form that is per accidens extended has a different part in different parts of the matter, and so, if new matter is perfected by the form, the new matter is not perfected by any part of the form that perfected another part of matter before.

23. An illustration of this is through the flowing away of a part generated in nutrition, because when it flows away then, just as the matter of the part ceases to be something of the whole flesh, so too does the form (which perfects the matter) cease to be part of the whole flesh, because it cannot remain or migrate without the matter.

c. Third Conclusion

24. A third conclusion is that a part added by nutrition is in some way like and in some way unlike the pre-existing part that was there by generation: like in specific form, not only in intellective form but in the form of corporeity that is presupposed; unlike in this, that the strength of a natural agent is the more weakened in proportion as its action on a contrary is the more continued.

25. The proof is that every such natural agent suffers reaction in its acting [Aristotle On Generation 1.7.324b9-10], and so, if it acts on a contrary, it suffers some corruptive action back from the contrary. Therefore, the more the flesh that was possessed before in generation acts on nutriment as on a contrary the more in proportion is its strength weakened, and by this is the flesh said to be more impure. Therefore, after some time, during which it has acted thus continually on its contrary, it is more impure than it was at the beginning, and consequently, since what is generated cannot be more perfect than what generates, the result is that the later the flesh generated by later flesh is itself generated, the more impure in proportion as a rule will it be, because generated by what is more impure.

26. This conclusion is confirmed by an example from Aristotle, (On Generation 1.5.322a31-33), that the more wine acts on the water mixed with it the more impure in proportion it is, so much so that at length, because of the impurity, the whole will become water. This conclusion [n.25] proves another, that not only is the flesh generated later more impure than the prior flesh, but also the same flesh remaining later in the whole is more impure than before - and this is the reason for impurity in the part of flesh generated later. The conclusion here does not assert that the form of flesh is receptive of more and less (thought if this were posited the impurity would be because of remission of the form); but the impurity can be posited precisely because of the imperfection of the natural qualities that are consequent to the form, which qualities are the principle of altering the food; because the more imperfect the food altered the more impure proportionally the flesh generated from it.

d. Fourth Conclusion

27. A fourth conclusion, about the distinction of flesh as to species and flesh as to matter, is plain from the third conclusion, because each part of flesh has a certain period of time within the whole, and it has a greater period the purer it is, and a lesser one the more impure it is. For flesh can keep its being in the whole as long as it is able, through its qualities, to resist what corrupts it. Now this period is greater in a part generated first than in one generated later, and each same part is more efficacious in acting in the prior part of a period than in the later part. And this difference must be understood to hold when other things are equal, that is: if a part of flesh was generated from the sort of food that was of a nature to be converted into flesh as equally pure as that from which the flesh was generated, then, provided a proportionate alteration of food is posited, purer flesh is of a nature to be generated from one food than from another.

28. From these points to the fourth conclusion: form bestows being and acting; therefore, a part according to form (a form-part) can be so spoken of as long as it has being according to form, or as long as it has acting according to form. And the second of these implies the first, and not conversely; for a thing more quickly loses action because of imperfection than being. In both respects, whether in this way or that, a form-part is not only a part of form, but includes matter as well as form.

29. Now in the first way [sc. as to being] any part, while it remains in the whole, is said to be a form-part, namely from the beginning to the end of its period, because, that is, it has being for that length of time.

30. In the second way [sc. as to action] it is not said to be a form-part for every part of the period, but for that part of the period for which it has power effective enough that action according to form can belong to it. I do not mean ‘belong to it’ only as it concurs with the action of the whole, nor as it is simply separate from the whole; but I mean that there is present to it in the whole a virtue for the action proper to it, which action it would be able to have as existent in the whole even though it not be considered precisely as it concurs with the action of the whole. And the efficacy of a virtue for action requires a determinate intensive and extensive virtue. For some slight part of virtue could not have its proper action in the whole in this way, but could only concur with the action of the whole, as Aristotle says [On Sense 6.445b31-6a1] about the action on the senses of a hundred thousandth part of a grain of millet.

31. Some determinate extensive quantity of virtue, therefore, is required for this efficacy of action in the whole.

32. Some intensive quantity of virtue is also required because, as was said [n.30], after active virtues decline to such an extent that they yield rather to their contraries than conquer them, the virtue cannot act with its proper action; therefore, in this second way, a species-part is of so much natural quantity and of so much active virtue that its proper action can belong to it, not indeed as it is a supposit outside the whole, but proper to it in such a way that it does merely concur with the action of the whole.

33. In the first way [as to extensive quantity, n.31], a part according to matter is not opposed to a species-part, save as a dead man is opposed to a living man; and thus is the same part said to be a species-part while it remains in the whole and a part according to matter when it is in flux, just as the same man is first said to be a living man and afterwards a dead man.

34. In the second way [as to intensive quantity, n.32], one part among the parts that remain in the whole is a species-part and another part is a part according to matter, because some slight part, to which no action can belong, even if it is at the beginning of its period, is a part according to matter; but a part of quantity sufficient for acting is a species-part - and that if it have virtue efficacious for an acting that requires a quantity of virtue. And contrariwise, a part according to matter is what does not have such efficacy of virtue, however much extensive quantity it may have.

4. To the Foundations of the Second Opinion

35. Hereby to the foundations or arguments of the preceding opinion [n.13]

[To the first] - The example of the intellective soul [n.14] is to the opposite effect, because the intellective soul is related to matter in a non-extensive way and non-extensively, and so it has no new part from the fact that it perfects a new part of matter. But the opposite follows about a form that is extensible in matter.

36. [To the second] - The authority of the Philosopher [n.15], about flesh according to species and flesh according to matter, is solved in the fourth conclusion [nn.27-34]. For the Philosopher does not understand that the part according to matter (that is, matter alone) flows and reflows and that the part according to form (that is, form according to its whole self) remains, but that both the part according to matter and the part according to form are an integral part of the whole and are truly a composite of matter and form; hence he says ‘flesh according to matter’ and ‘flesh according to species’ are composite of matter and form, but not ‘the matter of flesh’ and ‘the species of flesh’. But which part, composed of the matter and form of flesh, is flesh according to species, and which part is flesh according to matter, was stated in the fourth conclusion [n.34]. And how flesh according to matter is in flux is plain from the first way of distinguishing flesh into flesh according to species and into flesh according to matter [n.33]. But according to the second way [n.34], a part according to matter is in flux, that is, is in proximate disposition to flowing - and this when speaking of a part according to matter because of its deficiency in quantity of virtue. But, when speaking of a part according to matter, this difference between flowing and not flowing is not to be understood because of the deficiency of it in quantity of mass; rather the part according to species grows while the part according to matter does not grow, because (as will be said directly [n.40]) it is not that the smallest part or some notably large part in the whole grows, but rather that some part of determinate quantity grows that is sufficient for a part according to species.

37. The part according to species, then, is not in flux - because, according to the first understanding [nn.34-35], it remains in the whole; and because, according to the second understanding, it has virtue for preserving itself in the whole; and because, according to the third understanding, it has sufficient quantity for some part to be generated at it [cf. n.21] for its own conservation. And, contrariwise, the part according to matter, understood in three ways, is in flux in three ways.

38. [To the third] - To the third [n.16] I say that in nutrition and growth there is a certain juxtaposition, and yet for the thing nourished or increased (and this whether the whole or part of it) juxtaposition is not only what happens.

There is need of understanding here: posit some part of such quantity and virtue that it not only act along with the whole but could, while existent in the whole, have its own action, and let this part be called a. It has small parts, and let there be ten of them (because perhaps more are required in one thing than in another, as that in a plant one suffices, in a brute two, in a man three or more - I care not). Each of these parts has an equal virtue intensively, and let them be called b, c, etc. Suppose food were drawn through depositings and purifyings in whatever number to the point that now it is in a form proximate to the form of the body to be nourished - whether this were done before or after the parts to be nourished have the food sent to their place by the regulative power of the whole body itself (and this through certain subtle paths that subserve this sending function, of which sort are the veins in the bodies of animals and other such things corresponding to them in plants). This food now, under a changed or glutinous form, is proximate to the part to be nourished and is received within certain pores left behind by the flowing away of certain of the parts according to matter (which parts were present there before and have now, through their own flowing off, left behind pores filled with some more subtle humors); and thus the whole food, lacking the density in its parts that is required for the body’s wellbeing, is, while existing there, converted into the thing to be nourished. And, just as before the conversion it was juxtaposed by way of contiguity with the parts of the thing to be nourished, so is it after the conversion juxtaposed by way of continuity with some of the parts that remain.

39. So then: a is a part great enough that being nourished and increased befits it; in the pores within the body are everywhere received the parts of the food, and these parts, while existing there, are generated into [cf. n.21] parts b and c, and are juxtaposed with other pre-existing parts. But not juxtaposed with the whole, because they are something within the whole, although no newly generated part is within another part of the nourished part, even if it be the smallest part which being nourished or growing may properly in such wise fit that each part of it be nourished and increased. And this is something necessary, to set down some smallest part, thus increased, of noticeable quantity; for if every part in the whole (however small the part) were properly to increase, it would be necessary that what increases always increase double, or at least increase to a noticeable amount greater than before - which is manifestly false.

40. Thus therefore is it plain, in response to this third argument [n.16], how there is juxtaposition of something and juxtaposition with what thing or things, namely with the smallest parts, which are properly not nourished. But there is no juxtaposition with that which is properly nourished (namely with that of which some part has flowed away and a new part afterwards restored), but there takes place in it a certain generation-in [cf. n.21], that is, an intrinsic generation of a new part in the place of the old part that has flowed away.

41. But from these points one does not yet have anything of the manner of growth, because the generation that happens in nutrition is momentary. But growth is not in an instant, since it is a motion. Generation can also come about without growth, as is plain from the Philosopher On Generation 1.5.322a31-33. Nor is there need here to add the manner of the growth, because we are asking about nutrition here only so as to grasp how homogeneous parts in nutrition remain the same or not the same.

B. How in the Resurrection the Flesh Returns the Same

1. First Conclusion

42. As to the second main point [n.8]: the supposition here is that to the truth of an individual man’s nature pertain not only the essential parts, namely matter and form, but also the integral parts (not only the heterogeneous ones, but the homogeneous ones that the heterogeneous are composed of, and in brief whatever was truly animated by the intellective soul, or is per se something of the individual animated body). On this supposition I state first this conclusion: that not everything that in Peter belonged to the truth of his nature for the whole of his life will rise again in him.

43. The proof is that because many of these sorts of parts flowed out during his life and many others came back in (from the preceding article [nn.19; 35-41]), then if they were all to return in him his body would either be of extreme density or of extreme size.

2. Second Conclusion

44. Second conclusion: what parts then will rise again so as to be of due density and due size? And that is: of as large a quantity as he would be of at the end of thirty years, had he lived, because whatever is to be re-formed in the resurrection is posited to be of such quantity - which I understand to mean: if he had suffered no deprivation that prevented him from reaching within thirty years the due quantity that would have occurred in his un-deprived nature.

45. Here there is a double way:

For this way is true: that as a rule a prior part of a man, that is, a part within the body of a living man, is purer (from the preceding article [nn.25-26]) - as a rule, I say, because by accidental impediment, whether on the part of what contains or on the part of something applied that is fitting or harmful, something else can come about.

46. Now the following is probable: that the body will be repaired from the purer parts that were at some point parts of this body; therefore it will have the whole of what was contracted from parents (because this was purest), and always the purer parts of whatever else is generated from food, up to a quantity sufficient for the whole body.

47. The second way is that nutrition is not per se necessary, save for the restoration of what is lost; but growth is per se necessary, so that the generated thing may reach the due quantity of its nature. Therefore, in all nutrition (up to the limit of growth) something is converted precisely because of nutrition, namely so that what flowed away might be restored, and something is converted because of increase, namely so that the due quantity may be acquired, even had nothing flowed away. And the first of these, indeed, does not belong to the principal intention of nature, for nature would simply rather conserve, for the being of the whole, the part that had flowed away (if nature could conserve it) than restore in its place another less perfect part. But the second does belong to the principal intention of a nature that wants to attain perfect quantity. So that the second is intended for the sake of acquiring perfection; the first is as it were occasioned for the sake of avoiding imperfection.

48. To this is added the probable conclusion that (up to due quantity) those parts will be in the body that is to be resuscitated which nature made more by intention to be parts of the body, up to the quantity sufficient for that body. But of this sort are the parts that arrived to give increase and not those that arrived to give restoration.

49. Therefore the body will rise again from that which was first taken from parents, and from the other parts generated from food for the sake of due increase of the body, up to the quantity sufficient for that body.

50. These two ways agree in this, that whatever was taken from parents will rise again, because, according to the first way [nn.45-46], it was purest of all the parts of the body and, according to the second way [n.47], it belonged most to nature’s intention in this supposit. But they disagree as to the parts generated from food, because the first posits that to this are joined, as to parts, those that were purer in this body as to the whole flow of its life; the other posits that to this are joined the parts that belonged more by the intention of nature to the truth of this body. Now the parts are not the same that are purer in the whole flow of time and that belong more by the intention of nature to this body, because the parts generated first are always regularly purer, whether they are more or less intended; but always, whether first or later, those parts that were generated over and above the necessary restoration of what has been lost were more of the intention of nature.

51. If you ask in objection against each way ‘how then will the man to be resuscitated have the same flesh which he had while alive here?’ - I say that he will not have precisely the same that he had in some instant or in some time of his life. But neither will he have the whole that he had at some time beside what he contracted from parents. Yet he will have the whole, and have the other parts that he had successively, now this one now that one. And so the body resuscitated will be more the same as the body possessed in this life than if it were the same as the man had in any determinate instant (or part) of his life, because although it would be the same as it for such an instant, it would be more different from the man’s body at another instant.

II. To the Initial Arguments

52. To the arguments:

[To the first] - To the first [n.3] I say that the rib did not belong to the truth of nature in Adam, because he had enough ribs besides it (as to what commonly belongs to a man). But that rib was given to him as superfluous for his supposit, but necessary for the intention of nature - just the way semen is in a male, not as something of the nature of the supposit, but for the sake of generation of another supposit is it in him as in a vessel; hence it is not animated by his soul. So was it with that rib.

53. But if it be altogether imagined that the rib was simply necessary for Adam as an integral part, I reply: what follows is that he [God] made up the flesh for it, that is, in place of it he formed another rib.

54. I believe the first response to be truer, but if the second be granted then the transferred rib will not rise again in Adam but another one will.

55. As to the second [n.4]: I believe that there never was, nor will there be until the end of the world, anything that belongs equally to the truth of human nature in two supposits; and therefore it will rise again precisely in the single supposit where it more belonged to its truth - more, I say, because more pure in him or because a part of him is more of the intention of nature.

56. But if it be simply contended that it was simply and equally of the nature of both supposits, I say it will rise again in him in whom it was first animated. And Augustine says this (Enchiridion 23.88), and it is in Lombard’s text (Sent. IV d.44 ch.1 n.1), “[Earthly matter] returns to the soul which initially animated it so a man might come to be.” And this is reasonable, because it is after first animation that the flesh of an individual man is made, and consequently, although it be afterwards taken over by someone else, its first relation to this matter is not lost.

57. But if he in whom the flesh belonged secondarily to the truth of his nature - if he had other parts sufficient for his due quantity, parts that belonged to his body through nutrition in successive stages of his life, then from them will a body of due quantity be repaired, because the parts were animated by his soul and had a more essential order to his soul - setting aside what will rise again in someone else, because this had a more essential relation to the other soul than to his. But if, beside what will rise again in someone else, the nourishable parts (which it successively had) do not suffice for the due quantity of this body, the Omnipotent God will supply them whence he will.

58. [To the third] - As to the third [n.5], if it were possible for exactly the same semen to be in two persons, and consequently for the same semen to belong primarily to the truth of nature in two supposits (which however I believe never was in fact nor will be), it will rise again in the first one of them.

59. [To the fourth] - To the next [n.6] I say that there is not the same reasoning for whole and for part, because the restoration of the same whole is what is first intended in the resurrection, and not the restoration of the same part, especially the part that is not a principal one, one without whose identity the whole cannot be the same.

60. And if you argue about a principal part whose unity is required for the unity of the whole, I say the like about this part as I said about the whole, that homogeneous parts sufficient for its due quantity will rise again in an organic part - and in this way, that if the homogeneous parts belonged equally, both in purity and in the intention of nature, to the truth of another part, then those homogeneous parts will rise again in the organic part that belonged first to the truth of its nature (I mean first in time). But if, in the case of some other part, they belonged more principally to the truth of that part’s nature in the second of the above ways [sc. in nature’s intention], then they will rise again in that other part.