Dist. 20
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 20
DISTINCTIO XX.
Cap. I.
De modo procreationis filiorum, si non peccassent primi homines.
Post haec videndum est, qualiter primi parentes, si non peccassent, filios procreassent, et quales ipsi filii nascerentur. — Opinio quorundam. Quidam putant, ad gignendos filios primos homines in paradiso misceri non potuisse nisi post peccatum, dicentes, concubitum sine corruptione vel macula non posse fieri. Sed ante peccatum nec corruptio nec macula in homine esse poterat; quoniam ex peccato haec consecuta sunt. — Improbatur. Ad quod dicendum est, quod si non peccassent primi homines, sine omni peccato et macula in paradiso carnali copula convenissent, et esset ibi thorus immaculatus, et commixtio sine concupiscentia; atque genitalibus membris sicut ceteris imperarent, ut ibi nullum motum illicitum sentirent; et sicut alia membra corporis aliis admovemus, ut manum ori, sine ardore libidinis, ita genitalibus uterentur membris sine aliquo pruritu carnis. Haec enim lethalis aegritudo membris humanis ex peccato inhaesit. Genuissent itaque filios in paradiso per coitum immaculatum et sine corruptione.
Augustinus. Unde Augustinus super Genesim1: « Cur non credamus, primos homines ante peccatum genitalibus membris ad procreationem imperare potuisse, sicut ceteris in quolibet opere sine voluptatis pruritu utimur? Incredibile enim non est, Deum talia fecisse illa corpora, ut, si non peccassent, illis membris sicut pedibus imperarent, nec cum ardore seminarent vel cum dolore parerent; sed post peccatum motum illum meruerunt, quem nuptiae ordinant, continentia cohibet ». « Dubium 1. Infirmitas enim prona in ruinam turpitudinis excipitur honestate nuptiali, et quod sanis esset officium aegrotis est in remedium ». « Dubium 2. Emissi quidem de paradiso convenerunt et genuerunt, sed potuerunt in paradiso eis esse nuptiae honorabiles et thorus immaculatus sine ardore libidinis, sine labore pariendi ».
Cap. II.
Quare in paradiso non coierunt.
Cur ergo non coierunt in paradiso? Dubium 3. Quia, creata muliere, mox transgressio facta est, et eiecti sunt de paradiso: vel quia nondum Deus iusserat, ut coirent, et poterat divina exspectari auctoritas, ubi concupiscentia non angebat. Deus vero non iusserat, quia casum eorum praesciebat, de quibus homo propagandus erat2. — Ecce expresse habes de modo propagationis filiorum.
Cap. III.
De modo translationis in melius, si non peccassent.
De termino vero temporis, quo transferrentur ad spiritualem3 caelestemque vitam, certum aliquid Scriptura non tradit. Et ideo ambiguum est, utrum Dupliciter solvitur. parentes, genitis filiis perfectaque humani officii iustitia, ad meliorem statum transferrentur, non per mortem, sed per aliquam mutationem; an parentes in aliquo statu vitae remanerent, ligno vitae utentes, donec filii ad eundem statum pervenirent, et sic impleto numero, omnes simul ad meliora transferrentur, ut essent sicut sancti Angeli in caelis. De quo Augustinus. Augustinus ambigue disserit super Genesim4, ita inquiens: « Potuerunt primi homines in paradiso filios gignere, non ut morientibus parentibus succederent filii, sed in aliquo formae statu manentibus et de ligno vitae vigorem sumentibus, et filii ad eundem perducerentur statum, donec, impleto numero, sine morte animalia corpora Dubium 4. in aliam qualitatem transirent, in qua omnino regenti spiritui deservirent, et solo spiritu vivificante, sine corporeis alimentis viverent ». « Vel potuerunt parentes filiis cedere, ut per successiones numerus impleretur, qui, genitis filiis perfectaque humani officii iustitia, ad meliora transferrentur, non per mortem, sed per aliquam mutationem ». — Ecce hic habemus de transitu hominis ad meliora, sed incertum nobis relinquitur, utrum simul transferrentur, an per successiones.
Cap. IV.
Utrum in perfectione staturae et usu membrorum procrearentur filii.
« Si vero quaeritur, quales, si non peccasset homo, filios genuisset, utrum videlicet, sicut ipse primus homo secundum staturam corporis et usum membrorum perfectus mox conditus exstitit, ita etiam eius filii in ipso nativitatis exordio perfecti exsisterent, quia ambulare et loqui et cuncta facere possent5 »; responderi potest, quod filios parvulos nasci oportebat propter materni uteri necessitatem. Sed utrum mox nati perfectionem staturae et membrorum usum haberent; an parvuli et in minore aetate constituti uti possent membrorum officiis; an per intervalla temporum eo modo, quo nunc fit, perfectionem staturae et usum membrorum recepturi essent; de auctoritatibus definitum non habemus.
Et super hoc Augustinus. Augustinus ambigue loquitur. « Movet nos, inquit, si primi homines non peccassent, utrum tales filios essent habituri, qui nec lingua nec p. 476 manibus nec pedibus6 uterentur. Nam propter uteri necessitatem forte necesse erat, parvulos nasci; sed, quamvis exigua pars corporis sit costa, non tamen propter hoc parvulam viro coniugem fecit; unde et eius filios poterat omnipotentia Creatoris mox natos grandes facere ». « Sed ut hoc omittam, poterat certe eis praestare quod multis animalibus praestitit, quorum pulli, quamvis sint parvuli, tamen mox, ut nascuntur, currunt et matres sequuntur. Econtra homini nato nec ad incessum pedes idonei sunt nec manus, saltem ad scalpendum, habiles, et iuxta se mammis positis, nascentes magis possunt esurientes flere quam sugere, propriaeque infirmitati mentis congruit haec infirmitas carnis7 ». — His verbis videtur insinuari, quod filii, etiam parvuli, officiis membrorum valerent uti.
Aliorum opinio. « Sed cum Augustinus sub assertione de his nihil tradat, non irrationabiliter quibusdam placuit, primorum parentum filios nascituros parvos, ac deinde per intervalla temporum eadem lege, qua et nunc nativitatem humanam ordinatam cernimus, staturae incrementum et membrorum usum recepturos, ut in illis Dubium 5. exspectaretur aetas ad ambulandum et loquendum, sicut modo in nobis; quod utique non esset vitio deputandum, sed conditioni naturae, sicut a cibo non penitus abstinere valebant, nec tamen illud erat ex vitio, sed ex natura conditionis8 ».
« Opponitur. Ad hoc autem opponitur ita: si non peccarent, nec morerentur; sed non peccarent, si non comederent: poterant ergo sine alimonia vivere. — Responsio. Ceterum, sicut supra9 diximus, non solum peccarent, si de ligno vetito ederent, sed etiam, si concessis non uterentur, quia, sicut erat eis praeceptum, non illo ligno vesci, ita aliis vesci. Praeterea, contra naturalem rationem facerent, qua intelligebant, de illis esse edendum, quod et naturaliter appetebant. — Alia obiectio. Item opponitur: cum fames sit poena peccati, si non peccarent, famem non sentirent; sed sine fame superfluum videretur comedere ». « Unde putant quidam, eos cibis non indiguisse ante peccatum, quia non poterant esurire, si non peccassent. — Responsio. Ad quod dici potest, quod fames vere defectus est et poena peccati. Est enim immoderatus appetitus edendi, cui non subiacuisset homo, si non peccasset; sed procul dubio peccaret, nisi hunc defectum cibo praeveniret. Habebat enim naturalem appetitum et moderatum, cui ita satisfaciendum erat, ne defectum famis sentiret. Sicut igitur non ex vitio, sed ex naturae conditione erat, quod ante peccatum homo cibis indigebat, ita non ex vitio esset, sed de natura, si hominis conditio in principio suo, id est in primo parente, a perfecto inchoata, in subsequenti propagatione a modico ad maiora proficeret, ut scilicet per intervalla temporis staturae corporeae incrementa usumque membrorum susciperet ».
Cap. V.
Utrum etiam in sensu parvuli nascerentur.
« Et cum de corpore humano non sit absurdum vel inconveniens hoc existimare, quaeri solet, utrum de sensu animae et cognitione veritatis eodem modo sentiendum sit, ut scilicet hi qui sine peccato nascerentur, sensu et intelligentia mentis imperfecti exsisterent et per accessum temporis in his proficerent usque ad perfectionem; an mox conditi perfectionem sensus et cognitionis perciperent. — Sententia quorundam. Illi qui sentiunt, parvulos natos in statura corporis et usu membrorum per accessum temporis profecturos, non diffitentur, eosdem in exordio nativitatis sensu imperfectos exsistere et per Dubium 6. intervallum temporis in sensu et cognitione proficere usque ad perfectum11 ».
« Opponitur. Ad quod quidam opponunt dicentes: si mox nati non haberent perfectionem sensus et intelligentiae, ignorantia in eis esset; ignorantia autem peccati est poena. — Replicatur. Sed qui hoc dicunt, non satis diligenter considerant, quia non omnis, qui aliquid nescit vel minus perfecte aliquid scit, statim ignorantiam habere sive in ignorantia10 esse dicendus est, quia ignorantia non dicitur, nisi cum id quod sciri et non ignorari debet, nescitur. Talisque ignorantia poena peccati est, cum mens vitio obscuratur, ne cognoscere valeat ea quae scire deberet ».
Cap. VI.
De duobus bonis, altero hic dato, altero promisso.
« Talis erat hominis institutio ante peccatum secundum corporis conditionem. De hoc autem statu transferendus erat cum universa posteritate sua ad meliorem digniorem que statum, ubi caelesti et aeterno bono in caelis sibi parato frueretur. Sicut enim ex duplici natura compactus est homo, ita illi duo bona Conditor a principio praeparavit: unum temporale, alterum aeternum; unum visibile, alterum invisibile; unum carni, alterum spiritui ». « Et quia primum est quod est animale, deinde quod est spirituale12, temporale ac visibile bonum prius dedit. Invisibile autem et aeternum promisit et meritis quaerendum proposuit. Ad illius autem custodiam, quod dederat, et ad aliud promerendum13, quod promiserat, naturali rationi in creatione animae hominis inditae, qua poterat inter bonum et malum discernere, praeceptum Dubium 7. addidit obedientiae, per cuius observantiam datum non perderet et promissum obtineret, ut14 per meritum veniret ad praemium ».
---
DISTINCTION XX.
Cap. I.
On the mode of procreating children, if the first parents had not sinned.
After these things it must be seen how the first parents, if they had not sinned, would have procreated children, and what manner of children would have been born to them. — Opinion of certain ones. Some think that the first men could not have been joined together in paradise for the begetting of children except after sin, saying that intercourse cannot happen without corruption or stain. But before sin neither corruption nor stain could be in man, since these things followed from sin. — It is refuted. To which it must be said that, if the first parents had not sinned, they would have come together in carnal union in paradise without any sin or stain, and there would have been an undefiled marriage-bed, and intercourse without concupiscence; and they would have commanded their genital members as the others, so that they would feel no illicit motion there; and just as we move other members of the body to others — the hand to the mouth — without the burning of lust, so they would have used their genital members without any itching of the flesh. For this deadly sickness has clung to the members of man from sin. They would therefore have begotten children in paradise through immaculate intercourse and without corruption.
Augustine. Hence Augustine on Genesis1: « Why should we not believe that the first men, before sin, were able to command their genital members for procreation, just as we use the others in any work whatever without the itching of pleasure? For it is not incredible that God made those bodies such that, if they had not sinned, they would command those members as their feet, neither would they sow with burning nor bear with sorrow; but after sin they earned that motion which marriage orders and continence restrains ». « Doubt 1. For weakness prone to a downfall of turpitude is taken up by the honor of marriage, and what would be a duty in the sound is a remedy in the sick ». « Doubt 2. Once dismissed from paradise they did indeed come together and beget, but in paradise they could have had honorable nuptials and an undefiled bed without the burning of lust, without the labor of bringing forth ».
Cap. II.
Why they did not have intercourse in paradise.
Why then did they not have intercourse in paradise? Doubt 3. Because, the woman having been created, transgression at once took place, and they were cast out of paradise: or because God had not yet commanded that they have intercourse, and the divine authority could be awaited where concupiscence did not press. But God had not commanded it, because he foreknew their fall, from whom man was to be propagated2. — Here you have expressly concerning the mode of propagation of children.
Cap. III.
On the mode of translation to a better state, if they had not sinned.
But concerning the terminus of the time at which they were to be translated to the spiritual3 and heavenly life, Scripture does not hand on anything certain. And therefore it is ambiguous It is resolved two ways. whether the parents, with children begotten and the justice of the human office being made perfect, would be translated to a better state, not through death, but through some change; or whether the parents would remain in some state of life, using the tree of life, until the children should attain the same state, and thus, the number being filled, all together would be translated to better things, so that they might be like the holy Angels in heaven. Concerning which Augustine. Augustine discusses ambiguously on Genesis4, speaking thus: « The first men in paradise could have begotten children, not so that the parents dying the children might succeed them, but with the parents remaining in some state of form and drawing vigor from the tree of life, and the children would be led to the same state, until, the number being filled, animal bodies without death Doubt 4. would pass into another quality, in which they would serve entirely the ruling spirit, and, with the spirit alone vivifying, would live without bodily nourishments ». « Or the parents could yield to the children, so that through successions the number might be filled, who, with children begotten and the justice of the human office made perfect, would be translated to better things, not through death, but through some change ». — Behold, here we have something about the passage of man to better things, but it is left uncertain to us whether they were translated all at once or by successions.
Cap. IV.
Whether the children would be procreated in the perfection of stature and use of members.
« But if it be asked what sort of children, if man had not sinned, he would have begotten — namely, whether, just as the first man himself stood forth as perfect at once when made according to the stature of body and use of members, so also his children would exist perfect in the very beginning of birth, since they could walk and speak and do all things5 »; it can be answered that it was fitting that the children be born small on account of the necessity of the maternal womb. But whether, once born, they would have the perfection of stature and the use of members; or whether as small ones and set in a lesser age they could use the offices of the members; or whether through intervals of time, in that manner in which it now happens, they would receive perfection of stature and use of members; we have nothing defined from authorities.
And concerning this Augustine. Augustine speaks ambiguously. « It moves us, he says, whether the first men, if they had not sinned, would have had such children as would use neither tongue nor p. 476 nor hands nor feet6. For perhaps on account of the necessity of the womb it was necessary that small ones be born; but, although the rib is a small part of the body, he did not on this account make a small wife for the man; whence also the omnipotence of the Creator could make his children great as soon as born ». « But to omit this, he could certainly have granted them what he granted to many animals, whose young, although small, nevertheless as soon as they are born run and follow their mothers. On the contrary, for a man newly born neither are his feet fit for walking nor are his hands at all dexterous, even for scratching, and with breasts placed beside them, those being born can rather, when hungry, cry than suck, and to the proper weakness of mind this weakness of flesh is congruent7 ». — By these words it seems to be hinted that the children, even though small, would be able to use the offices of the members.
Opinion of others. « But since Augustine hands on nothing as assertion concerning these things, it has pleased certain ones not unreasonably that the children of the first parents were to be born small, and then through intervals of time, by the same law by which we now see human birth ordered, would receive increase of stature and use of members, so that in them Doubt 5. the age for walking and speaking would be awaited, just as now in us; which certainly would not be imputed to fault, but to the condition of nature, just as they were not able to abstain altogether from food, yet that was not from fault, but from the nature of their condition8 ».
« It is objected. Against this however it is objected thus: if they had not sinned, they would not have died; but they would not have sinned, if they had not eaten: they could therefore live without nourishment. — Response. But, as we have said above9, they would not only have sinned if they had eaten of the forbidden tree, but also if they had not used the permitted ones, because, just as it had been commanded to them not to feed on that tree, so to feed on the others. Moreover, they would have acted against natural reason, by which they understood that they were to eat of those which they also naturally desired. — Another objection. Likewise it is objected: since hunger is the punishment of sin, if they had not sinned, they would not feel hunger; but without hunger it would seem superfluous to eat ». « Whence some think that they did not need foods before sin, because they could not be hungry, if they had not sinned. — Response. To which it can be said that hunger truly is a defect and the punishment of sin. For it is an immoderate appetite of eating, to which man would not have been subject, if he had not sinned; but without doubt he would sin, unless he forestalled this defect with food. For he had a natural and moderate appetite, which had to be so satisfied that he might not feel the defect of hunger. As therefore it was not from fault, but from the condition of nature, that before sin man needed foods, so neither would it be from fault, but from nature, if man's condition, begun from the perfect in its beginning, that is in the first parent, in subsequent propagation should advance from little to greater, namely that through intervals of time it should take on increments of bodily stature and use of members ».
Cap. V.
Whether they would also be born as small ones in sense.
« And since concerning the human body it is not absurd or unfitting to estimate this, it is wont to be asked whether concerning the sense of the soul and the cognition of truth it must be thought in the same way, namely whether those who would be born without sin would exist imperfect in the sense and understanding of mind and through the accession of time would progress in these things up to perfection; or whether, once made, they would at once perceive the perfection of sense and cognition. — The opinion of certain ones. Those who think that the small ones born were to advance in the stature of body and use of members through the accession of time do not deny that the same ones in the beginning of birth exist imperfect in sense and through Doubt 6. an interval of time advance in sense and cognition up to the perfect11 ».
« It is objected. Against which some object, saying: if those newly born did not have the perfection of sense and intelligence, ignorance would be in them; but ignorance is the punishment of sin. — Reply. But those who say this do not consider diligently enough, because not everyone who does not know something or knows something less perfectly is at once to be said to have ignorance or to be in ignorance10, because ignorance is not so called except when that which ought to be known and not ignored is not known. And such ignorance is the punishment of sin, when the mind is darkened by vice so that it cannot recognize the things it ought to know ».
Cap. VI.
On the two goods, the one given here, the other promised.
« Such was the institution of man before sin according to the condition of body. From this state, however, he was to be translated with all his posterity to a better and worthier state, where he would enjoy the heavenly and eternal good prepared for him in heaven. For just as man is compacted from a twofold nature, so the Creator from the beginning prepared two goods for him: one temporal, the other eternal; one visible, the other invisible; one for the flesh, the other for the spirit ». « And because the first is that which is animal, then that which is spiritual12, he first gave the temporal and visible good. But the invisible and eternal he promised and proposed to be sought by merits. And for the custody of that which he had given, and for meriting the other13, which he had promised, to the natural reason placed in the creation of man's soul, by which he could discern between good and evil, he added a precept Doubt 7. of obedience, by whose observance he would not lose the given and would obtain the promised, that14 through merit he might come to the reward ».
---
- Libr. IX. c. 10. n. 18. Sequens locus ibid. c. 7. n. 12, et tertius ibid. c. 3. n. 6. — In primo textu codd. cum edd. 4, 6, 8, 9 utuntur pro utimur. In originali habetur: sicut ceteris, quae in quolibet opere anima sine ulla molestia et quasi pruritu voluptatis movet. — Bis respicitur illud ad Hebr. 13, 4: Honorabile connubium in omnibus, et thorus immaculatus.Bk. IX, ch. 10, n. 18 [of Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter]. The next passage is ibid. ch. 7, n. 12, and the third ibid. ch. 3, n. 6. — In the first text codd. with edd. 4, 6, 8, 9 have utuntur for utimur. In the original is found: just as the others, which the soul moves in any work whatever without any trouble and as it were itching of pleasure. — Twice that of Hebrews 13:4 is alluded to: Marriage honorable in all, and the bed undefiled.
- August., ibid. c. 4. n. 8, sententialiter.Augustine, ibid. ch. 4, n. 8, in substance.
- Codd. BCE aeternam. Paulo inferius pro an parentes in aliquo codd. cum plurimis edd. an patres in aliquo.Codd. BCE read aeternam [eternal, for spiritualem]. A little below, for an parentes in aliquo the codd. with most editions read an patres in aliquo.
- Ibid. c. 3. n. 6., et seq. locus ibid. c. 6. n. 10.Ibid. ch. 3, n. 6, and the following passage ibid. ch. 6, n. 10.
- Hugo, Sum. Sent. tr. 3. c. 4, ubi et seq. locus, de quo cfr. August., de Peccat. merit. et Bapt. parvul. I. c. 37. n. 68.Hugh [of St. Victor], Summa Sententiarum, tr. 3, ch. 4, where also the following passage is found; concerning which compare Augustine, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins and on the Baptism of Little Ones, bk. I, ch. 37, n. 68.
- Codd. BCDE et edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 omittunt nec pedibus.Codd. BCDE and edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 omit nec pedibus [nor feet].
- Hugo, ibid., et August., loc. cit. c. 38. n. 69.Hugh, ibid., and Augustine, the cited place, ch. 38, n. 69.
- Hugo, loc. cit., ubi et loci seqq.Hugh, the cited place, where also the following passages are found.
- Dist. XIX. c. 4. — Paulo post pro ligno vesci Vat. cum solo cod. A et nonnullis aliis edd. ligno uti.Distinction XIX, ch. 4. — A little after, for ligno vesci [to feed on the tree], the Vatican edition with only cod. A and several other editions reads ligno uti [to use the tree].
- Pro in ignorantia edd. 1, 8, 9 ignorans.For in ignorantia [in ignorance] edd. 1, 8, 9 read ignorans [being ignorant].
- Hugo, I. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 26, ubi et seq. loc.Hugh [of St. Victor], On the Sacraments, bk. I, pt. VI, ch. 26, where also the following passage is found.
- Ibid. c. 6, et seq. loc. c. 27, sententialiter. Locus Scripturae est I. Cor. 15, 46.Ibid. ch. 6, and the following passage ch. 27, in substance. The Scripture passage is 1 Corinthians 15:46.
- Codd. ABD et ed. 1 merendum.Codd. ABD and ed. 1 read merendum [to be earned].
- Ed. 1 ut.Edition 1 reads ut [so that ut per meritum veniret ad praemium]. ---