Dist. 19
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 19
# DISTINCTIO XIX.
Cap. I.
De statu hominis ante peccatum, qualis fuit secundum corpus, et qualis post peccatum.
Solent quaeri plura de primo hominis statu ante peccatum, scilicet qualis fuerit homo, priusquam peccaret, et in corpore et in anima, mortalis, an immortalis, passibilis, an impassibilis; de termino inferioris vitae et de transitu ad superiorem; de modo propagationis filiorum, et alia multa, quae non inutiliter sciuntur, licet aliquando curiositate quaerantur. Et priusquam ad animi qualitatem pertinentia prosequamur, de qualitate eius secundum corpus et modo propagationis filiorum et de aliis quibusdam inspiciamus.
« Primus igitur homo secundum naturam corporis Duplex sensus mortalis et immortalis. terreni et immortalis fuit quodam modo secundum aliquid, quia potuit non mori, et mortalis quodam modo, quia potuit mori. In illo namque primo statu habuit posse mori et posse non mori. Et haec fuit prima humani corporis immortalitas, scilicet posse non mori. In secundo vero statu post peccatum habuit posse mori et non posse non mori, quia in hoc statu moriendi est necessitas. In tertio statu habebit posse non mori et non posse mori, quia ad illum statum pertinet moriendi impossibilitas, quod ex gratia erit, non ex natura1 ».
Cap. II.
Quomodo dicitur homo factus in animam viventem.
In primo statu fuit corpus hominis animale, Dubium 1. id est egens alimoniis ciborum; unde et homo factus dicitur in animam viventem, non spiritualem, id est in animam corpus sensificantem, quod adhuc erat animale, non spirituale, quod egebat cibis, ut per animam viveret. Factus est igitur in animam viventem, id est vitam corpori dantem, tamen per sustentamenta ciborum; et tunc erat corpus mortale et immortale, quia poterat mori et poterat non mori. — « Post peccatum Dubium 2. Aliter post peccatum et in resurrectione. vero factum est mortuum, sicut dicit Apostolus2: Corpus propter peccatum mortuum est, id est, necessitatem moriendi in se habet. — In resurrectione vero erit Dubium 3. spirituale, scilicet agile et cibis non egens, et immortale, non sicut in statu primo tantum fuit, scilicet quod possit non mori, sed etiam quod non poterit mori. Unde Augustinus super Genesim3: « Apostolus Augustinus. ait: Corpus quidem mortuum est propter peccatum, etc. Prius de limo terrae formatum est corpus animale, non spirituale, cum quali resurgemus et renovabimur a vetustate, non in corpus animale, quale fuit, sed in melius, id est spirituale, cum hoc mortale induet immortalitatem4, in quam mutandus erat Adam, nisi mortem corporis animalis peccando meruisset. Non ait Apostolus: corpus mortale est propter peccatum, sed: mortuum ».
Cap. III.
Corpus hominis ante peccatum mortale et immortale erat, post peccatum mortuum.
« Illud enim ante peccatum mortale et immortale erat, quia poterat mori et non mori. Aliud autem est non posse mori, aliud posse non mori. Ideo factum est per peccatum non mortale, quod erat, sed mortuum, quod non fieret, nisi peccaret. Animale enim est et hoc corpus, sicut primi hominis fuit, sed iam deterius est; habet enim necessitatem moriendi ». — Ecce hic evidenter aperit Augustinus, quod corpus hominis ante peccatum mortale et immortale fuit, sed non qualiter fiet in resurrectione. De hoc eodem Beda5 Beda. super Genesim ait: « Non est credendum, ante peccatum ita fuisse mortua corpora, sicut modo. Ait enim Apostolus: Corpus propter peccatum mortuum est, sed licet fuissent animalia nondum spiritualia, non tamen mortua, quae scilicet necesse esset mori ».
Cap. IV.
Utrum immortalitas, quam tunc habuit, fuerit de conditione naturae, an ex gratiae beneficio.
Solet hic quaeri, cum homo primus mortale et immortale corpus habuerit, utrum ex conditione naturae ipsius corporis habuerit utrumque, an alterum beneficium esset gratiae, scilicet immortalitas, id est, posse non mori. — Ad quod dici potest, quia alterum habebat in natura corporis, id est posse mori; alterum vero, scilicet posse non mori, erat ei ex ligno vitae, scilicet ex dono gratiae. Unde Augustinus super Genesim6: « Quodam Augustinus. modo creatus est homo immortalis, quod erat ei de ligno vitae, non de conditione naturae. Mortalis erat conditione corporis animalis, immortalis beneficio Conditoris. Non enim immortale erat, quod omnino mori non posset; quod non erit, nisi cum fuerit spirituale »: — Aperte dicit, quod non ex natura, sed ex ligno vitae habebat posse non mori. Propter hoc aliqui dicunt, Opinio quorundam. quod nisi illo ligno vitae uteretur, non semper viveret, quia peccaret. Peccaret enim, si illo ligno non uteretur, quia praeceptum erat ei, ut comederet de omni ligno paradisi, nisi de ligno scientiae boni et mali. Sicut ergo peccavit comedendo quod erat prohibitum, ita etiam peccaret, si non comederet quod erat iussum.
Cap. V.
Si posset homo semper vivere, utens aliis lignis et non ligno vitae, Deo non mandante, ut de illo ederet.
Sed adhuc quaeritur, si non esset praeceptum, ut de ligno vitae ederet, et aliis et non illo vesceretur, nunquid posset non mori? Si semper viveret, non utens illo ligno, non erat ei ex illo ligno posse non mori. Si vero non posset semper vivere, id erat ei ex illo ligno. — Aliqui dicunt, Opinio 1. quod si non fuisset ei praeceptum vesci illo ligno, et aliis et non illo vesceretur, viveret semper; sic determinantes illud quod supra dixit Augustinus, scilicet: « Erat ei de ligno vitae, non de conditione naturae » tantum, scilicet quasi non ex conditione naturae solummodo erat ei, sed etiam ex illo ligno. — Aliis autem videtur, Opinio 2. quod ex ligno vitae erat ei posse non mori, non ex natura. Ideo enim dicitur potuisse non mori, quia poterat uti illo ligno, de quo edens non moreretur.
Cap. VI.
De immortalitate corporis prima et secunda.
De hac vero hominis immortalitate, qualis fuerit, Augustinus super Genesim7 quaestionem movens sic ait: « Quaeritur, quomodo immortalis factus sit homo prae aliis animantibus; et quomodo cum illis communem acceperit alimoniam. Sed alia est immortalitas carnis, quam in Adam accepimus; alia, quam in resurrectione speramus per Christum. Ille factus est homo immortalis, ut non posset mori8, si non peccaret, moreretur autem, si peccaret; filii vero resurrectionis nec poterunt ultra peccare nec mori. Caro nostra non tunc egebit refectione ciborum, quia nulla poterit esse defectio. Caro Adae ante peccatum ita immortalis creata est, ut per alimoniam adiuta, esset mortis et doloris expers. Sic ergo immortalis et incorruptibilis condita est caro hominis, ut suam immortalitatem et incorruptionem per observantiam mandatorum Dei custodiret. In quibus mandatis hoc continebatur, ut de illis lignis concessis manducaret et ab interdicto abstineret; per horum edulium immortalitatis dona conservaret, donec corporalibus incrementis perductus ad aetatem, quae Conditori placeret, multiplicata progenie, ipso iubente, sumeret de ligno vitae, quo perfecte immortalis factus cibi alimenta non ulterius requireret ». — Ecce his verbis videtur Augustinus tradere, quod caro primi hominis immortalitatem in se habuerit, quae per alimoniam ciborum conservaretur usque ad tempus suae translationis in melius, quando de ligno vitae comederet et fieret omnino immortalis, ita ut non posset mori.
Ideo aliqui dicunt, quod immortalitatem de natura Opinio quorundam. habebat, qua poterat non mori, quae aliorum lignorum esu poterat conservari; sed non poterat consummari nisi per assumtionem ligni vitae. Quod videtur Augustinus sentire super Genesim9 dicens: « Hoc quoque Augustinus. addo, talem cibum illam arborem praestitisse, quo corpus hominis stabili sanitate firmaretur, non sicut ex alio cibo, sed inspiratione salubritatis occulta ». Hic innuere videtur, quod cum aliis cibis posset corpus sustentari, hoc cibo indeficente sanitate firmaretur. Ex quo consequi videtur, quod sicut in natura sua habuit mortalitatem quandam, scilicet aptitudinem moriendi; ita aliquam immortalitatem in natura sua habuit, id est aptitudinem, qua poterat non mori, cibis adiutus; sed si perstitisset, immortalitatis perfectio esset ei de ligno vitae. — Sed qui hoc tradunt, quomodo Non apparet. superiora Augustini verba10, quibus dicit, quod erat immortalis ex ligno vitae, huic sententiae non contradicant, diligenter inquirant.
---
# DISTINCTION XIX.
Chapter I.
On the state of man before sin — what it was according to the body, and what it was after sin.
Many things are customarily inquired into concerning the first state of man before sin: namely, what sort of man he was, before he sinned, both in body and in soul — whether mortal or immortal, passible or impassible; concerning the term of his lower life and the transition to the higher; concerning the manner of the propagation of his children, and many other things which are not unprofitably known, although they are sometimes asked out of curiosity. And before we go on to what pertains to the quality of his soul, let us look at the quality of his body, and the manner of the propagation of his children, and certain other things.
« The first man, then, according to the nature of his earthly body, Twofold sense of "mortal" and "immortal." was also immortal in a certain way according to one respect — because he could not die — and mortal in a certain way, because he could die. For in that first state he had the power to die and the power not to die. And this was the first immortality of the human body, namely the power not to die. But in the second state, after sin, he had the power to die and not the power not to die, because in this state there is a necessity of dying. In the third state he will have the power not to die and not the power to die, because to that state belongs the impossibility of dying — which will be from grace, not from nature1 ».
Chapter II.
How man is said to have been made into a living soul.
In the first state, the body of man was animal, Doubt 1. that is, in need of the nourishments of food; whence also man is said to have been made into a living soul — not a spiritual one — that is, into a soul giving sense to the body, which was as yet animal, not spiritual, which needed foods, that it might live through the soul. He was made therefore into a living soul, that is, into one giving life to the body, but by means of the supports of food; and at that time the body was both mortal and immortal, because it could die and could not die. — « After sin, however, Doubt 2. Differently after sin and in the resurrection. it was made dead, as the Apostle says2: The body is dead because of sin — that is, it has in itself the necessity of dying. — But in the resurrection it will be Doubt 3. spiritual, that is, agile and not needing food, and immortal, not as it was in the first state only, namely that it could not die, but also that it will not be able to die. Whence Augustine on Genesis3: « The Apostle Augustine. says: Indeed the body is dead because of sin, etc. First the animal body — not the spiritual — was formed from the slime of the earth, with which we shall rise and shall be renewed from oldness, not into an animal body such as it was, but into something better — that is, spiritual — when this mortal shall put on immortality4; into which Adam was to be changed, had he not by sinning merited the death of his animal body. The Apostle does not say: the mortal body is because of sin, but: the dead one ».
Chapter III.
The body of man before sin was both mortal and immortal; after sin, dead.
« For that [body] before sin was both mortal and immortal, because it could die and could not die. But it is one thing not to be able to die, and another thing to be able not to die. Therefore by sin it was made not mortal, which it already was, but dead — which would not have come about, had he not sinned. For this body too is animal, just as the first man's was, but now it is worse; for it has the necessity of dying ». — Behold, here Augustine clearly discloses that the body of man before sin was mortal and immortal, but not in the manner in which it shall be in the resurrection. On the same subject Bede5 Bede. on Genesis says: « It is not to be believed that bodies, before sin, were dead in the way they are now. For the Apostle says: The body is dead because of sin; but, although they were animal and not yet spiritual, still they were not dead — they would, however, necessarily have to die ».
Chapter IV.
Whether the immortality which he then had was from the condition of nature, or from the gift of grace.
It is customarily asked here, since the first man had a body both mortal and immortal, whether he had both from the condition of the body's nature, or whether one of them — namely immortality, that is, the power not to die — was a benefit of grace. — To which it can be said that one of them he had in the nature of the body, namely the power to die; the other, however — namely the power not to die — was his from the tree of life, that is, from the gift of grace. Whence Augustine on Genesis6: « In a certain Augustine. way man was created immortal — which belonged to him from the tree of life, not from the condition of nature. He was mortal in the condition of his animal body, immortal by the gift of the Creator. For he was not immortal in such a way as to be wholly incapable of dying; which will not be the case until he has become spiritual »: — He plainly says that not from nature, but from the tree of life, he had the power not to die. On account of this, some say Opinion of certain ones. that, had he not used that tree of life, he would not have lived for ever, because he would have sinned. For he would have sinned, had he not used that tree, since it was commanded him to eat of every tree of paradise, except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As, therefore, he sinned by eating what was forbidden, so likewise he would have sinned, had he not eaten what was commanded.
Chapter V.
Whether the man could have lived for ever using the other trees and not the tree of life, with God not commanding him to eat of it.
But it is still asked, if there had been no precept that he eat of the tree of life, and he were to feed on the others and not on it, could he have lived without dying? If he were to live always, not using that tree, the power not to die would not have been his from that tree. But if he could not live always, that power was his from that tree. — Some say Opinion 1. that, if it had not been commanded him to feed on that tree, and he were to feed on the others and not on it, he would have lived always; thus determining what Augustine said above, namely: « It was his from the tree of life, not from the condition of nature » — only [as restrictive], that is, as though it were not his from the condition of nature alone, but also from that tree. — But to others it seems Opinion 2. that the power not to die was his from the tree of life, not from nature. For he is said to have been able not to die because he was able to use that tree, by eating of which he would not die.
Chapter VI.
On the first and second immortality of the body.
Concerning this immortality of man, of what sort it was, Augustine on Genesis7 raising the question speaks thus: « It is asked how man was made immortal beyond the other animals; and how with them he received a common food. But there is one immortality of the flesh which we received in Adam; another, which in the resurrection we hope for through Christ. He was made an immortal man, so as not to be able to die8, if he did not sin, but so as to die if he did sin; but the children of the resurrection neither shall be able to sin further nor to die. Our flesh will then not be in need of the refreshment of food, because there will be no failing of it possible. The flesh of Adam before sin was so created immortal that, aided by nourishment, it would be free of death and pain. Thus, therefore, was the flesh of man founded immortal and incorruptible, in order that it might guard its immortality and incorruption by the observance of God's commandments. Among which commandments this was contained: that he should eat of those trees which were granted, and abstain from the forbidden one; that by the eating of these he might preserve the gifts of immortality, until, brought by bodily growth to the age that should please the Creator, his progeny having been multiplied, he should at the Creator's bidding take of the tree of life, by which, made perfectly immortal, he would no longer require the nourishments of food ». — Behold, by these words Augustine seems to hand down that the flesh of the first man had immortality in itself, which was to be preserved by the nourishment of food until the time of its translation into something better, when he would eat of the tree of life and become wholly immortal, so that he could not die.
Hence some say that he had immortality from nature Opinion of certain ones. — by which he was able not to die — which could be preserved by the eating of the other trees; but it could not be brought to completion except by the taking of the tree of life. Which Augustine seems to mean on Genesis9, saying: Augustine. « This too I add: that this tree provided such a food whereby the body of man might be strengthened in steady health, not as by other food, but by a hidden inspiration of wholesomeness ». Here he seems to hint that, while the body could be sustained by the other foods, it would be strengthened by this food in unfailing health. From which it seems to follow that, just as in his own nature he had a certain mortality — namely an aptitude for dying — so too in his own nature he had a certain immortality, that is, an aptitude by which he was able not to die, aided by foods; but if he had stood firm, the perfection of immortality would have been his from the tree of life. — But those who hand down this view should diligently inquire how the Not apparent. preceding words of Augustine10, by which he says that he was immortal from the tree of life, do not contradict this position.
---
- Hugo, de Sacram. I. p. 6. c. 18. Cfr. August., VI. de Gen. ad lit. c. 25. 26. Paulo inferius respicitur Gen. 2, 7. et 1. Cor. 15, 45. Cfr. Glossa interlin. ad ultimum locum.Hugh, De Sacramentis, book I, part 6, ch. 18. Compare Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter, book VI, chs. 25, 26. A little below, reference is made to Genesis 2:7 and 1 Corinthians 15:45. Compare the interlinear Gloss at the last passage.
- Rom. 8, 10.Romans 8:10.
- Libr. VI. c. 22, ubi et quae praecedunt. Quae hic sequuntur et in cap. seq. habentur ibid. c. 24. 25. 26, multis omissis et mutatis.Book VI, ch. 22, where what precedes is also found. What follows here, and in the following chapter, is contained in the same place, chs. 24, 25, 26, with many things omitted and altered.
- Cfr. I. Cor. 15, 44-54. Paulo ante auctoritate codd. BDE et edd. 1, 8 correximus lectionem Vat., quae, omissa vocula et, pro renovabimur substituit Renovabitur, et subinde adiungit enim.Compare 1 Corinthians 15:44–54. A little above, on the authority of codices BDE and editions 1, 8, we have corrected the reading of the Vatican edition, which, omitting the particle et, substitutes Renovabitur (it shall be renewed) for renovabimur (we shall be renewed), and immediately adds enim (for).
- Libr. I. Hexaem. ad Gen. 2, 17, et habetur in Glossa ord.Book I of the Hexaemeron on Genesis 2:17, and it is contained in the Glossa ordinaria.
- Libr. VI. c. 25. n. 36.On Genesis according to the Letter, book VI, ch. 25, n. 36.
- Libr. III. c. 21. n. 33, et Quaest. veter. et nov. Test. q. 19, et alibi, sententialiter; sed fere ad verbum, paucis a Magistro mutatis et transpositis, apud Bedam, Hexaem. l. et in Glossa ord. ad Gen. 1, 26.Book III, ch. 21, n. 33, and Questions on the Old and New Testaments, q. 19, and elsewhere, substantially; but almost verbatim — with a few things changed and transposed by the Master — in Bede, Hexaemeron book I, and in the Glossa ordinaria on Genesis 1:26.
- Ed. 1: ut posset non mori; est quidem bona lectio, sed non convenit cum lect. codd. et aliarum edd. nec non cum Glossa.Edition 1 reads ut posset non mori (so as to be able not to die); it is indeed a good reading, but it does not agree with the reading of the codices and the other editions, nor with the Gloss.
- Libr. VIII. c. 3. n. 11, nonnullis omissis et transpositis.On Genesis according to the Letter, book VIII, ch. 3, n. 11, with several things omitted and transposed.
- Cfr. c. IV. huius dist.Compare ch. IV of this distinction.