← Back to Distinction 19

Dist. 19, Art. 2, Q. 2

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 19

Textus Latinus
p. 466

Quaestio II. Utrum, Adam peccante, corpus eius per esum ligni vitae posset perpetuari.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum, Adam peccante, corpus eius posset perpetuari per esum ligni vitae. Et quod sic, videtur:

Ad oppositum.

1. Primo per textum Genesis tertio1: Nunc ergo ne forte sumat de ligno vitae et vivat in aeternum2; hoc dictum est de Adam post peccatum: ergo si post peccatum sumsisset, in aeternum vixisset, et corpus eius perpetuum fuisset.

p. 467

2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur per Richardum de sancto Victore3, qui de Adam ait sic: Habuit ante peccatum corruptibilitatem, post peccatum corruptionem; sed utroque modo per esum ligni vitae potuit sustentari.

3. Item, hoc probatur per experimentum. Henoch enim et Elias, sicut dicunt Glossa4 et auctoritates Sanctorum, in paradiso conservantur per esum ligni vitae usque ad antichristi adventum; sed qua ratione usque ad illud tempus conservari possunt, eadem ratione et deinceps: ergo pari ratione et corpus Adae.

4. Item, non fuit maioris efficaciae lignum scientiae boni et mali ad corpus perdendum, quam lignum vitae ad conservandum; sed per esum illius ligni corpus hominis factum est dissolubile: ergo pari ratione per esum alterius ligni poterat corpus corruptibile solidari et perpetuari, sicut econtra alterius ligni comestio corpus sanum et solidum reddidit dissolubile et infirmum.

5. Item, post peccatum, si spiritus hominis iungeretur fonti vitae5, disponeretur ad perpetuam beatitudinem et vitam immortalem: ergo si lignum vitae corporale sic se habebat ad corpus servandum, sicut lignum vitae spirituale se habet ad spiritum; videtur, quod si homo poenituisset et de ligno vitae gustasset, quod corpus eius esset factum indissolubile.

6. Item, homo bene complexionatus, si non habet impedimentum extrinsecum, vivere potest usque ad consumtionem humidi radicalis6. Si igitur illud humidum posset restaurari, posset corpus eius in perpetuum incorruptum servari: si ergo illud lignum vitae, sicut dicunt doctores, habebat vim restaurandi humidum radicale; videtur, quod si homo de illo comedisset, quod corpus eius in aeternum posset durare, etiam post commissionem culpae.

Fundamenta.

Sed contra: 1. Ad Romanos sexto7: Stipendia peccati mors; ergo si, postquam homo peccavit, necessarium fuit, ipsum peccasse; necessarium fuit, ipsum mori: ergo necessarium fuit, corpus eius dissolvi: ergo non poterat perpetuari per esum alicuius ligni.

2. Item, sententia data fuit, Genesis secundo8: Quacumque die comederitis etc. Si ergo illam sententiam nulla virtus creata potest infirmare, quantumcumque homo comederet de ligno vitae, necesse erat, ipsum mori et corpus eius resolvi. Et hoc ipsum dicit alius textus, Genesis tertio: Pulvis es, et in pulverem etc.

3. Item, homo per peccatum similis factus est iumentis insipientibus9; sed iumenta si comederent de ligno vitae, non propter hoc corpora eorum fierent indissolubilia: ergo si homo quantum ad conditionem mortis iumentis similis effectus est per culpam; quantumcumque de ligno vitae comederet, corpus eius dissolvi necesse esset.

4. Item, non minus est de mortali immortalem facere quam de mortuo vivum; sed mortuum suscitare hoc est virtutis solius Dei et virtutis infinitae: ergo corpus dissolubile ad indissolubile reducere, hoc est solius virtutis divinae: ergo si homo post peccatum de illo ligno comederet, corpus eius nihilominus dissolvi esset necesse.

Conclusio

Esus ligni vitae post peccatum non potuisset Adam reddere immortalem.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod eadem lege, qua divina iustitia non patitur, innocentem puniri et mori, non patitur etiam, malum remanere impunitum. Et ideo divinum decretum fuit, ut, si homo mandatum Dei transgrediendo peccaret et ipsi Auctori suo inobediens existeret, spiritus carnis dominium amitteret; et sicut voluntas a Deo recesserat, sic anima invita corpus ipsum desereret, et dissolutum in suam originem, unde sumtum erat, rediret. Et quoniam divinum decretum erat inviolabile, hinc est, quod postquam homo peccavit, quantumcumque de ligno vitae ederet, corpus eius non fieret indissolubile, ita quod mortem posset evadere10. — Ideo concedendae sunt rationes hoc ostendentes.

Solutio oppositorum.

Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:

Ad 1. Ad illud quod primo obiicitur in contrarium de textu, dicendum, quod aeternum non dicit ibi vitae interminabilitatem11, sed vitae quandam diuturnitatem, quomodo saepe consuevit loqui Scriptura. Quamvis autem lignum vitae illud corpus non posset perpetuare, poterat tamen adeo naturam ipsius adiuvare et vigorare, ut diutius viveret12.

Ad 2, 3. Et per hoc patet responsio ad duo sequentia, scilicet ad verbum Richardi, et ad illud quod obiicitur de Henoch et Elia. Utrumque enim non concludit vitae interminabilitatem, sed solum quandam diuturnitatem; quam etsi lignum vitae posset homini lapso conferre per sibi divinitus collatam virtutem, non tamen poterat in aeternum conservare; quia divinum decretum infirmare13 non poterat, et corpus hominis peccantis ad hoc post peccatum habile non erat, et illud lignum in solo eo quod dispositionem habebat ad eius effectum, efficaciam habebat.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur per simile de ligno scientiae boni et mali, dicendum, quod illud simile deficit dupliciter. Primum, quia illud lignum scientiae boni et mali non fecit, corpora illa esse dissolubilia, sed solum hominis culpa et divina sententia. Secundo vero, quia corpus Adae, antequam peccaret, nec habebat necessitatem ad permanendum nec necessitatem ad corrumpendum; sed postquam p. 468homo peccavit, corpus eius subiectum fuit necessitati moriendi, et ideo per esum ligni vitae non poterat conservari.

Ad 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de coniunctione spiritus ad fontem vitae spiritualis etc., dicendum, quod illud simile deficit dupliciter. Primo quidem, quia voluntas facilius vertitur et revertitur quam natura. Secundo vero, quia fons vitae spiritualis multo potentior est super animam, quam illud lignum esset super corpus; et ideo non sequitur, quod si divinus Spiritus recreat et vivificat animam, quod lignum vitae reformet et consolidet corpus in statum pristinum.

Ad 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod lignum vitae restauraret humidum radicale; dicendum, quod etsi per sui esum sufficienter restauraret humidum in corpore hominis secundum statum naturae institutae, nunquam tamen in statu naturae lapsae sic restauraret, quin semper aliqua deperditio fieret; et ita, quamvis diutius conservaret, nihilominus tamen aliquando illud radicale humidum deficeret, et corpus ad dissolutionem perveniret14.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether, with Adam sinning, his body could have been perpetuated through eating of the tree of life.

Secondly it is asked whether, with Adam having sinned, his body could have been perpetuated through eating of the tree of life. And that it could, it seems:

On the affirmative side.

1. First by the text of Genesis third1: Now therefore lest perhaps he take from the tree of life and live for ever2; this was said of Adam after sin: therefore if after sin he had taken, he would have lived forever, and his body would have been perpetual.

2. Likewise, this same thing seems through Richard of Saint Victor3, who says thus of Adam: He had corruptibility before sin, corruption after sin; but in either mode he could have been sustained through eating of the tree of life.

3. Likewise, this is proved by experiment. For Enoch and Elijah, as the Gloss4 and the authorities of the Saints say, are preserved in paradise through eating of the tree of life until the coming of antichrist; but by whatever reason they can be preserved up to that time, by the same reason also thereafter: therefore by parallel reasoning also the body of Adam.

4. Likewise, the tree of knowledge of good and evil was not of greater efficacy for losing the body, than the tree of life for preserving it; but through the eating of that tree man's body was made dissoluble: therefore by parallel reasoning through the eating of the other tree a corruptible body could be made solid and perpetual, just as conversely the eating of the other tree rendered a sound and solid body dissoluble and infirm.

5. Likewise, after sin, if the spirit of man were joined to the fount of life5, it would be disposed to perpetual beatitude and immortal life: therefore if the corporeal tree of life so stood to the body for preserving it, as the spiritual tree of life stands to the spirit; it seems that if man had repented and had tasted of the tree of life, his body would have been made indissoluble.

6. Likewise, a man of good complexion, if he has no extrinsic impediment, can live until the consumption of the radical moisture6. If therefore that moisture could be restored, his body could be preserved incorrupt in perpetuity: if therefore that tree of life, as the doctors say, had the power of restoring the radical moisture; it seems that if man had eaten of it, his body could last forever, even after the commission of fault.

Foundations.

On the contrary: 1. To the Romans sixth7: The wages of sin is death; therefore if, after man had sinned, it was necessary that he had sinned; it was necessary that he die: therefore it was necessary that his body be dissolved: therefore it could not be perpetuated through eating of any tree.

2. Likewise, a sentence was given, Genesis second8: On whatever day you shall eat etc. If therefore no created power can weaken that sentence, however much man might eat of the tree of life, it was necessary that he die and his body be dissolved. And this same thing the other text says, Genesis third: Dust thou art, and unto dust etc.

3. Likewise, man through sin was made like the senseless beasts9; but if the beasts were to eat of the tree of life, their bodies would not for that reason become indissoluble: therefore if man as regards the condition of death has been made like the beasts through fault; however much he might eat of the tree of life, his body would necessarily be dissolved.

4. Likewise, it is no less to make the immortal from the mortal than the living from the dead; but to raise the dead is of the power of God alone and of infinite power: therefore to reduce a dissoluble body to indissoluble, this is of divine power alone: therefore if man after sin were to eat of that tree, his body would nonetheless necessarily be dissolved.

Conclusion

The eating of the tree of life after sin could not have rendered Adam immortal.

I respond: It must be said that by the same law by which divine justice does not allow the innocent to be punished and to die, it likewise does not allow evil to remain unpunished. And therefore the divine decree was, that, if man by transgressing God's command should sin and should be disobedient to his very Author, the spirit would lose dominion of the flesh; and just as the will had withdrawn from God, so the soul, unwilling, would desert the body itself, and the body, dissolved, would return to its origin whence it had been taken. And since the divine decree was inviolable, hence it is that after man had sinned, however much he might eat of the tree of life, his body would not become indissoluble, in such a way that it could escape death10. — Therefore the reasons showing this are to be conceded.

Solution of the opposites.

To the arguments for the affirmative:

To 1. To that which is first objected to the contrary from the text, it must be said that for ever does not there denote interminability of life11, but a certain length of life, in the way Scripture is often accustomed to speak. Although the tree of life could not perpetuate that body, it could nevertheless so aid and invigorate its nature that it would live longer12.

To 2, 3. And through this the response is clear to the two following points, namely to the saying of Richard, and to that which is objected concerning Enoch and Elijah. For neither concludes interminability of life, but only a certain length; which, even if the tree of life could confer it upon fallen man through the power divinely bestowed upon it, it could nevertheless not preserve forever; because it could not weaken13 the divine decree, and the body of sinning man was not suited for this after sin, and that tree had efficacy only in that it had a disposition to its effect.

To 4. To that which is objected through a parallel concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it must be said that that parallel falls short in two ways. First, because that tree of knowledge of good and evil did not make those bodies to be dissoluble, but only man's fault and the divine sentence did. Secondly, because the body of Adam, before he sinned, had neither a necessity for permanence nor a necessity for corruption; but after man had sinned, his body was subjected to the necessity of dying, and therefore through eating of the tree of life it could not be preserved.

To 5. To that which is objected concerning the conjunction of spirit to the fount of spiritual life etc., it must be said that that parallel falls short in two ways. First indeed, because the will is turned and turned back more easily than nature. Secondly however, because the fount of spiritual life is much more powerful over the soul, than that tree would be over the body; and therefore it does not follow, that if the divine Spirit recreates and vivifies the soul, that the tree of life should reform and consolidate the body to its pristine state.

To 6. To that which is objected, that the tree of life would restore the radical moisture; it must be said that even if through its eating it would sufficiently restore the moisture in man's body according to the state of instituted nature, never however in the state of fallen nature would it so restore it, that there would not always be some loss; and so, although it would preserve it longer, nonetheless at some time that radical moisture would fail, and the body would come to dissolution14.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Gen. 3, 1. seqq. Cfr. lit. Magistri hic c. 4. — Mox pro si Vat. etsi, quae et dein post dictaret cum ed. 1 addit eum sumere cibum.
    Gen. 3:1ff. Cf. the text of the Master, here c. 4. — Soon after, for si the Vatican edition reads etsi, which also after dictaret with ed. 1 adds eum sumere cibum.
  2. Vers. 22: Nunc ergo ne forte mittat manum suam et sumat etiam de ligno vitae et comedat et vivat in aeternum.
    Verse 22: Now therefore lest perhaps he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live for ever.
  3. Libro I. de Emmanuele, c. 11 dicit: Perdidit sane... gloriam incorruptionis, qua immortalis factus est, praerogativam dignitatis... abundantiam plenitudinis... Denudationem immortalitatis audi, ubi de ligno vetito legis: Quacumque die comederis ex eo, morte morieris. Ut ibid. c. 15: Certe lignum vitae ex eo nomen habuit, quod ex insita sibi natura ex eo comedentium vitam servare posse accepit. — In textu Richardi pro sustentari multi codd. cum edd. 1, 2 suscitari. — Sententia similis tenoris invenitur in libro, olim Augustino tributo, cui titulus: Quaestiones veteris et novi Testamenti, q. 19.
    Book I On Emmanuel, c. 11 he says: He lost indeed... the glory of incorruption by which he had been made immortal, the prerogative of dignity... the abundance of fullness... Hear of the stripping of immortality, where you read concerning the forbidden tree: On whatever day you shall eat of it, by death you shall die. Also ibid. c. 15: Certainly the tree of life took its name from this, that from the nature implanted in it, it received the power of preserving the life of those eating of it. — In Richard's text, for sustentari many codices with editions 1, 2 read suscitari. — A statement of similar tenor is found in the book once attributed to Augustine, with the title Questions of the Old and New Testament, q. 19.
  4. In Gen. 5, 24; Eccli. 44, 16; Hebr. 11, 5. De Glossa cfr. August., VI. Oper. imperf. contra Iulian. c. 30; I. contra Advers. Legis et Prophet. c. 15. n. 26; I. de Peccator. meritis et remiss. et de bapt. parvul. c. 3. n. 3.
    On Gen. 5:24; Ecclus. 44:16; Heb. 11:5. On the Gloss cf. Augustine, VI Unfinished Work against Julian c. 30; I Against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets c. 15, n. 26; I On the Merits and Remission of Sins and the Baptism of Infants c. 3, n. 3.
  5. Psalm. 35, 10: Quoniam apud te est fons vitae, et in lumine tuo videbimus lumen.
    Psalm 35:10: For with thee is the fountain of life, and in thy light we shall see light.
  6. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 316, nota 12, ubi ex Scoto cit. videri potest, quid sit humidum radicale iuxta opinionem illius aetatis. — Paulo post pro servari codd. T aa conservari.
    Cf. tom. I, p. 316, note 12, where from Scotus, cited, can be seen what the radical moisture is according to the opinion of that age. — A little later, for servari codices T aa read conservari.
  7. Vers. 23. — Paulo post sola Vat. omittit necessarium fuit ipsum peccasse... mori, ergo.
    Verse 23. — A little later, the Vatican edition alone omits necessarium fuit ipsum peccasse... mori, ergo.
  8. Vers. 17. — Seq. textus est Gen. 3, 19.
    Verse 17. — The following text is Gen. 3:19.
  9. Psalm. 48, 13. — Paulo inferius pro mortis plures codd. mortalitatis.
    Psalm 48:13. — A little below, for mortis several codices read mortalitatis.
  10. Cfr. August., XIII. de Civ. Dei, c. 15. et XIV. c. 15.
    Cf. Augustine, XIII On the City of God, c. 15 and XIV c. 15.
  11. Boeth., V. de Consol. prosa 6: Aeternitas igitur est interminabilis vitae tota simul et perfecta possessio.
    Boethius, V On Consolation, prose 6: Eternity therefore is the entire and perfect possession of an interminable life all at once.
  12. Cfr. August., XIII. de Civ. Dei, c. 20.
    Cf. Augustine, XIII On the City of God, c. 20.
  13. Cod. aa melius infirmari.
    Codex aa better: infirmari.
  14. Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    See the scholion to the preceding question. ---
← Dist. 19, Art. 2, Q. 1Dist. 19, Art. 3, Q. 1→