Dist. 17, Art. 1, Q. 3
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 17
QUAESTIO III.
Utrum anima Adae fuerit producta ante corpus, vel postea.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum anima Adae producta fuerit ante corpus, vel postea. Et quod ante, videtur:
Ad oppositum.
1. Per textum Genesis primo1: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem etc.; hoc dictum est sexta die; sed post septimam subditur: Formavit Deus hominem de limo terrae: ergo si prima formatio refertur ad animam, secunda ad corpus, prius fuit facta anima quam corpus.
2. Item, hoc videtur ratione. Sicut homo ex parte corporis communicat cum animalibus brutis, ita ex parte animae communicat cum Angelis2: ergo sicut corpus hominis productum est eodem die cum animalibus brutis, sic spiritus eius rationalis debuit produci eodem die cum Angelis: ergo etc.
3. Item, anima Adae se habet ad corpus sicut aeviternum ad temporale, et sicut aevum ad tempus3; sed aevum est prius tempore, et aeviternum prius temporali: ergo prius videtur debuisse produci anima Adae quam corpus, cui debebat uniri.
4. Item, substantia spiritualis, a corpore non dependens quantum ad esse, non dependet quantum ad productionem; sed spiritus rationalis Adae ab eius corpore non dependebat quantum ad esse: ergo nec quantum ad productionem. Corpus autem a spiritu dependebat, quia sine illo permanere non poterat: ergo si absolutum est ante dependens4, prius debuit produci anima quam corpus.
5. Item, maior est distantia inter spirituale et corporale, quam sit inter corpora miscibilia; sed corpora miscibilia prius producta sunt separatim, quam sint ad invicem mixta ad constitutionem tertii: ergo anima prius debuit produci quam corpori uniri: ergo non est creata in corpore, sed extra5.
6. Item, tanto aliquid prius debet produci, quanto magis appropinquat primariae rerum origini; sed anima plus appropinquat ad Deum, qui est principium omnium, quam corpus humanum, cum sit ei similior in simplicitate et spiritualitate: ergo etc.
Contra:
Fundamenta.
1. Genesis secundo6: Formavit Deus hominem de limo terrae, et inspiravit in faciem eius spiraculum vitae; quod exponitur, id est, spiritum fecit; sed spiraculum vitae spirare nihil aliud est quam animam hominis creare: ergo si prius creavit corpus, quam spiraculum inspiraret, prius ergo produxit corpus quam animam.
2. Item, anima naturaliter est forma corporis7; sed naturalis forma aut simul producitur cum materia, aut sequitur materiam: ergo aut anima non est forma naturalis, aut si est forma naturalis, producta est post corpus, vel simul cum corpore: non ergo ante.
3. Item, quanto forma nobilior est, tanto ultimior; sed anima rationalis nobilissima est inter omnes formas naturales: ergo ultima: ergo produci debuit post vegetabilem et sensibilem8.
4. Item, ordinata productio procedit ab imperfecto ad perfectum9: si ergo perfectio omnium operum facta est in homine, et maxime quantum ad animam, videtur, quod homo quantum ad animam produci debuit ultimo post omnia.
5. Item, si anima producta esset ante corpus, cum haberet usum liberi arbitrii, nihil esset impediens nec retardans: ergo videtur, quod ante unionem ad corpus meruisset vel demeruisset: ergo corpus non esset particeps omnis meriti ipsius animae, nec anima deberet remunerari in corpore; quodsi hoc falsum est, planum est, animam Adae ante corpus suum non fuisse productam10.
6. Item, si anima Adae ante corpus esset producta: aut appetivisset uniri corpori, aut non. Si non: ergo unio eius ad corpus non esset naturalis, nec unio eius ad corpus fieret per naturam; si sic: appetebat ergo corpus, quod non habebat. Si ergo corpus ei differebatur, ipsa in appetendo affligebatur: ergo poena erat ei ante culpam11.
CONCLUSIO. Anima Adae producta fuit in corpore.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quamvis circa istam quaestionem videatur dubitasse egregius doctor Augustinus12, quia utraque pars videtur posse sustineri probabiliter, et ordo congruus servari utrobique; tenendum est tamen tanquam verum et magis congruum, quod anima Adae producta fuerit in corpore, nec Deus eam produxerit ante corporis formationem. Dubitat Augustinus. Conclusio. — Licet enim videatur satis rationabiliter posse dici, quod Deus animam ante corpus eius produxerit, ut ostenderetur13 eam a corpore non dependere, sed per se posse subsistere; ut etiam cum hoc pariter ostenderet conformitatem eius et naturae angelicae tam in rationis capacitate, per quam est anima imago, quam in beatitudine, ad quam anima et Angelus habent ordinari: Rationes Augustini. longe tamen rationabilius videtur ponere, quod anima producta sit statim cum corpore, tum quia anima unitur corpori ut perfectio naturalis, cui naturaliter appetit copulari, adeo, ut sine illo poena sit ei esse et ab illo sequestrari; Rationes pro conclusione. tum etiam, quia unitur sicut motor mobili, ita quod sine ipso non potest mereri nec demereri; et ideo non debuit ante corpus produci, ne ante culpam puniretur, et ne absque corpore mereretur vel demereretur. — Huic autem positioni non tantum14 concordat ratio, immo etiam Scripturae suffragatur auctoritas, quae dicit, post productionem et formationem hominis15 Deum sibi vitae spiraculum inspirasse. — Huic igitur parti tanquam probabiliori et securiori adhaerendo, concedere possumus rationes hanc partem astruentes.
Solutio oppositorum.
1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium de textu, dicendum, quod alterum eorum est dictum per recapitulationem, vel primum est dictum per anticipationem. Melius tamen est dicere, quod Scriptura illud recapitulat, ut addat16.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod corpus simul productum est cum brutis, ergo etc.; dicendum, quod non est simile; productio enim corporis sic concordat productioni brutorum animalium, ut pro-
ductio rationalis spiritus non discordet, immo potius illorum imperfectionem sua dignitate consummet17; productio vero spiritus sic concordat productioni Angelorum, ut minime concordet productioni corporum humanorum, quae quidem spectant ad terrae ornatum, cuius ornatus productio spectat ad diem sextum.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de comparatione aeviterni ad temporale, dicendum, quod etsi substantia aeviterna ex parte post se plus extendat quam temporalis, utpote quia caret fine; non tamen oportet, quod a parte ante, maxime, si sit talis, quae sui productione appetitum rei temporalis habeat terminare; et sic fuit in anima Adae. Et praeterea, si illud possit esse verum de aeviterno, quod pure habet rationem aeviterni, non tamen habet veritatem de eo, quod sic habet rationem aeviterni, quod etiam temporalis. Anima enim rationalis, etsi in quantum spiritus et ens per se habeat rationem aeviterni in quantum tale, tamen, in quantum animat corpus transmutabile, habet tempore mensurari18.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod anima non dependet a corpore quantum ad esse; dicendum, quod etsi non dependeat a corpore tanquam indigens eo ad sui conservationem, dependet tamen per appetitus sui inclinationem, quam habet ad ipsum, sicut forma ad materiam propriam; et ideo, sicut forma producitur in materia, sic anima Adae produci debuit in proprio corpore.
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de corporibus miscibilibus, dicendum, quod non est simile, quia elementa, quae miscentur, non dependent ab invicem, et unum potest habere esse completum sine altero; non sic autem est de anima et eius corpore, quorum utrumque ab altero dependet19.
6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod anima origini primae magis approximat; dicendum, quod cum Deus sit alpha et omega, principium et finis20, et Notandum. rationalis creatura in utraque habitudine sit ei propinqua; proprie tamen loquendo, angelica natura plus ei appropinquat in ratione principii, et humana plus in ratione finis: ideo inter omnes creaturas prior omnium creata est sapientia21, sive creatura angelica, et dignitate et origine; et post omnia producta est anima humana tanquam finis omnium et consummatio. Et ideo quamvis multum approximet Deo, in quantum tenet rationem originis, non minus tamen approximat Deo, in quantum habet rationem finis; et ideo competentius fuit, eam produci posterius quam prius. Haec dicta sunt de anima Adae; nam de aliis animabus infra22 suo loco quaeretur.
SCHOLION.
I. Praeexistentia animarum in genere, quam cum Platone Origenes docuit, censurata est a Concilio generali V. (ut communius dicitur) can. 1. his verbis: « Si quis fabulosam animarum praeexistentiam et, quae ex illa consequitur, monstruosam restitutionem asseruerit a. s. ». De hoc errore S. Doctor cum aliis commentatoribus agit infra d. 18. a. 2. q. 2. Hoc autem loco speciatim tractatur de anima primi parentis, quia ob rationes speciales Augustinus magis de hac dubitavit quam de illis, ut loco citato exponitur.
II. Alii auctores antiqui hanc specialem quaestionem non explicite tractant, sed eam tangunt (vel hic, vel d. 17. vel 18.) in generali quaestione de praeexistentia animarum. Alex. Hal. eam tangit S. p. II. q. 60. m. 2. a. 2.
De hac speciali quaestione tractant: S. Thom., S. I. q. 91. a. 4. ad 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 2; S. p. II. tr. 12. q. 72. m. 4. a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2; a. 2.
---
Question III.
Whether the soul of Adam was produced before the body, or afterward.
Thirdly it is asked whether the soul of Adam was produced before the body, or afterward. And that it was before, it seems:
To the contrary [position].
1. By the text of Genesis 11: Let us make man to our image etc.; this is said on the sixth day; but after the seventh it is added: And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: therefore if the first formation refers to the soul, the second to the body, the soul was made before the body.
2. Likewise, this seems by reason. Just as man on the side of the body shares with the brute animals, so on the side of the soul he shares with the Angels2: therefore just as the body of man was produced on the same day as the brute animals, so his rational spirit ought to have been produced on the same day as the Angels: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, the soul of Adam stands to the body as the aeviternal stands to the temporal, and as aevum stands to time3; but aevum is prior to time, and the aeviternal prior to the temporal: therefore the soul of Adam seems to have had to be produced before the body, to which it was to be united.
4. Likewise, a spiritual substance, not depending on the body as to being, does not depend as to production; but the rational spirit of Adam did not depend on his body as to being: therefore not as to production either. The body, however, depended on the spirit, because it could not endure without it: therefore if the absolute is prior to the dependent4, the soul ought to have been produced before the body.
5. Likewise, the distance between the spiritual and the corporeal is greater than that between miscible bodies; but miscible bodies are first produced separately, before they are mixed together for the constitution of a third: therefore the soul ought first to have been produced before being united to the body: therefore it was not created in the body, but outside5.
6. Likewise, a thing ought to be produced earlier in proportion as it more nearly approaches the primary origin of things; but the soul approaches God, who is the principle of all things, more closely than the human body, since it is more like Him in simplicity and spirituality: therefore etc.
On the contrary:
Foundations.
1. Genesis 26: And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life; which is expounded, that is, He made the spirit; but to breathe the breath of life is nothing other than to create the soul of man: therefore if He first created the body before He breathed in the breath, then He produced the body before the soul.
2. Likewise, the soul is naturally the form of the body7; but a natural form is either produced together with matter, or follows matter: therefore either the soul is not a natural form, or, if it is a natural form, it is produced after the body, or together with the body: therefore not before.
3. Likewise, the nobler a form is, the later [it is]; but the rational soul is the noblest among all natural forms: therefore the last: therefore it ought to be produced after the vegetative and the sensitive8.
4. Likewise, an orderly production proceeds from the imperfect to the perfect9: if therefore the perfection of all works was accomplished in man, and most of all as to the soul, it seems that man as to the soul ought to have been produced last after all things.
5. Likewise, if the soul had been produced before the body, since it would have had the use of free choice, nothing would have been impeding or delaying it: therefore it seems that before union with the body it would have merited or demerited: therefore the body would not be partaker of all the merit of the soul itself, nor ought the soul be rewarded in the body; but if this is false, it is plain that the soul of Adam was not produced before its body10.
6. Likewise, if the soul of Adam were produced before the body: either it would have desired to be united to the body, or not. If not: then its union with the body would not be natural, nor would its union with the body come about by nature; if so: then it desired the body, which it did not have. If, therefore, the body was deferred to it, it was afflicted in desiring: therefore there was punishment for it before fault11.
CONCLUSION. The soul of Adam was produced in the body.
I respond: It must be said that, although concerning this question the eminent doctor Augustine12 seems to have been in doubt, because each side seems able to be sustained probably, and a fitting order to be kept either way; nevertheless it must be held as true and more fitting that the soul of Adam was produced in the body, and that God did not produce it before the formation of the body. Augustine doubts. Conclusion. — For although it may seem to be said with sufficient reasonableness that God produced the soul before its body, in order that it might be shown13 that it does not depend on the body, but is able to subsist through itself; and that with this He might equally show its conformity also with the angelic nature both in the capacity of reason, through which the soul is image, and in beatitude, to which the soul and the Angel are ordered: Augustine's reasons. yet it seems far more reasonable to hold that the soul was produced at once with the body, both because the soul is united to the body as its natural perfection, to which it naturally desires to be joined, so much so that it is a punishment for it to be without it and to be separated from it; Reasons for the conclusion. and likewise because it is united as a mover to the movable, so that without it the soul can neither merit nor demerit; and therefore it ought not to have been produced before the body, lest it be punished before fault, and lest it merit or demerit apart from the body. — To this position not only14 does reason concord, but indeed the authority of Scripture also gives support, which says that after the production and formation of man15 God breathed the breath of life into him. — Adhering therefore to this side as more probable and safer, we can grant the reasons that establish this side.
Solution of the opposing [arguments].
1. To that, however, which is first objected in contrary from the text, it must be said that one of them was said by way of recapitulation, or the first was said by anticipation. Yet it is better to say that Scripture recapitulates this, in order to add [something further]16.
2. To that which is objected, that the body was produced together with the brutes, therefore etc.; it must be said that the cases are not similar; for the production of the body so concords with the production of the brute animals, that
the production of the rational spirit does not discord, but rather consummates their imperfection by its dignity17; whereas the production of the spirit so concords with the production of the Angels that it concords least with the production of human bodies, which indeed belong to the adornment of the earth, the production of which adornment belongs to the sixth day.
3. To that which is objected concerning the comparison of the aeviternal to the temporal, it must be said that although an aeviternal substance extends more than the temporal on the side after itself, inasmuch as it lacks an end; nevertheless it is not necessary that [it extends more] on the side before, especially if it is such that by its production it has to terminate the appetite of a temporal thing; and so it was in the soul of Adam. And moreover, if that may be true of the aeviternal which has the character of the aeviternal purely, it does not, nevertheless, hold true of that which so has the character of the aeviternal that it is also temporal. For the rational soul, although insofar as it is spirit and being through itself it has the character of the aeviternal as such, nevertheless, insofar as it animates a changeable body, it has to be measured by time18.
4. To that which is objected, that the soul does not depend on the body as to being; it must be said that although it does not depend on the body as needing it for its own conservation, yet it depends through the inclination of its own appetite, which it has toward it, just as a form toward its proper matter; and therefore, just as a form is produced in matter, so the soul of Adam ought to have been produced in its proper body.
5. To that which is objected concerning miscible bodies, it must be said that the cases are not similar, because the elements which are mixed do not depend on one another, and one can have complete being without the other; but it is not so concerning the soul and its body, of which each depends on the other19.
6. To that which is objected, that the soul approximates more closely to the primary origin; it must be said that since God is alpha and omega, principle and end20, and Note. the rational creature is near to Him in either relation; yet, speaking properly, the angelic nature approaches Him more in the character of principle, and the human more in the character of end: therefore among all creatures wisdom was created before all21, that is, the angelic creature, both in dignity and in origin; and after all things the human soul was produced as the end of all and the consummation. And therefore, although it approximates much to God insofar as it holds the character of origin, nevertheless it approximates God no less insofar as it has the character of end; and therefore it was more fittingly produced later than earlier. These things have been said concerning the soul of Adam; for concerning the other souls it will be asked below22 in its proper place.
Scholion.
I. The pre-existence of souls in general, which Origen taught along with Plato, was censured by the Fifth General Council (as is more commonly said) can. 1, in these words: «If anyone shall have asserted the fabulous pre-existence of souls and the monstrous restoration that follows from it, let him be anathema.» Concerning this error the Holy Doctor, with other commentators, treats below in d. 18, a. 2, q. 2. But in this place there is specially treated the soul of the first parent, because for special reasons Augustine doubted concerning this more than concerning the others, as is expounded in the place cited.
II. Other ancient authors do not explicitly treat this special question, but touch on it (either here, or in d. 17 or 18) in the general question on the pre-existence of souls. Alex. Hal. touches on it in S. p. II. q. 60. m. 2. a. 2.
On this special question treat: S. Thomas, S. I. q. 91. a. 4. ad 3. — B. Albert, here a. 2; S. p. II. tr. 12. q. 72. m. 4. a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. — Aegid. R., here q. 2; a. 2.
---
- Vers. 26. Seq. textus est Gen. 2, 7.Gen. 1, 26. The following text is Gen. 2, 7.
- Cfr. supra pag. 398, nota 5.Cf. above p. 398, note 5.
- Vide supra d. 2. p. I. a. I. q. I. — Ibid. a. 2. q. I. minor insinuatur.See above d. 2, p. I, a. I, q. I. — Ibid., a. 2, q. I, where the minor is suggested.
- Simile ex Aristot., I. Ethic. c. 6. de absoluto et relativo occurrit supra pag. 49, nota 3.A similar [point] from Aristotle, Ethics I, c. 6, on the absolute and the relative, occurs above p. 49, note 3.
- Vat. extra corpus.The Vatican edition reads outside the body.
- Vers. 7. — Cfr. supra q. 1. ad 1, ubi expositio huius textus habetur.Gen. 2, 7. — Cf. above q. 1, ad 1, where the exposition of this text is given.
- Vide supra pag. 82, nota 1. — De minori ait Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 26. (c. 2.): Uniuscuiusque enim actus in eo, quod potentia existit, et in propria materia aptus natura est fieri.See above p. 82, note 1. — Concerning the minor Aristotle says, On the Soul II, text 26 (c. 2): For the act of each thing is by nature apt to come to be in that which exists potentially, and in its own proper matter.
- Huius arg. expositionem vide supra d. 15. a. 2. q. 2. in corp.For the exposition of this argument see above d. 15, a. 2, q. 2, in the body.
- Cfr. supra pag. 330, nota 5.Cf. above p. 330, note 5.
- Cfr. infra d. 18. a. 2. q. 2. fundam. 3. — Cod. cc et ed. 1 post usum liberi arbitrii subiungunt et.Cf. below d. 18, a. 2, q. 2, fundam. 3. — Codex cc and ed. 1 add and after the use of free choice.
- Hoc arg. tangit August., VII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 25. n. 36. seqq. et X. de Civ. Dei, c. 30. Cfr. Aristot., I. de Anima, text. 53. (c. 3.). — Cod. cc et ed. 1 antequam culpa.Augustine touches on this argument in On Genesis according to the Letter VII, c. 25, n. 36ff., and City of God X, c. 30. Cf. Aristotle, On the Soul I, text 53 (c. 3). — Codex cc and ed. 1 read before fault.
- Libr. VII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 24. n. 35. seqq.Book VII On Genesis according to the Letter, c. 24, n. 35ff.
- Plures codd. cum Vat. ostenderet. — De seq. prop. cfr. supra d. 16. a. 2. q. 1. et d. 1. p. II. a. 2. q. 2.Several codices with the Vatican edition read He would show. — On the following proposition cf. above d. 16, a. 2, q. 1, and d. 1, p. II, a. 2, q. 2.
- Vat. perperam tamen.The Vatican edition reads, incorrectly, however.
- Scriptura ponit hic totum pro parte, scil. corpore.Here Scripture puts the whole for the part, namely the body.
- Vide August., VI. de Gen. ad lit. c. 1. n. 1. seqq.See Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter VI, c. 1, n. 1ff.
- Cfr. supra d. 15. a. 2. q. 2. in corp. et ad 2; d. 1. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. ad 2. — Multi codd. cum ed. 4 incongrue consummat; Vat. cum ceteris edd. conservet. Paulo inferius non pauci codd. productio corporum pro productioni corporum, et dein Vat. quae quidem spectat pro quae quidem spectant.Cf. above d. 15, a. 2, q. 2, in the body and ad 2; d. 1, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, ad 2. — Many codices with ed. 4 incongruously read consummates; the Vatican edition with the other editions reads let it preserve. A little further down, not a few codices read production of bodies for to the production of bodies, and then the Vatican reads which indeed belongs for which indeed belong.
- Intellige cum Vat. etsi, quae etiam aliquanto inferius cum edd. 3, 4 omittit verba etsi in quantum usque ad tamen.Understand with the Vatican edition although, which also a little further down, with edd. 3, 4, omits the words although insofar as up to nevertheless.
- Non pauci codd. non dependet; erronee. In aliquibus horum codd. error iam a secunda manu correctus fuit.Not a few codices read does not depend; erroneously. In some of these codices the error was corrected already by a second hand.
- Apoc. 22, 13: Ego sum alpha et omega, primus et novissimus, principium et finis.Apoc. 22, 13: I am alpha and omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
- Eccli. 1, 4. — Cfr. de his supra d. 2. p. I. a. 2. q. 3; d. 10. a. 2. q. 2. ad 2; d. 15. a. 2. q. 1. seq.Eccli. 1, 4. — Cf. concerning these things above d. 2, p. I, a. 2, q. 3; d. 10, a. 2, q. 2, ad 2; d. 15, a. 2, q. 1f.
- Dist. 18. a. 2. q. 2.Dist. 18, a. 2, q. 2. ---