Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Prima Pars·Q97. The preservation of the individual in the primitive state
Source context
- Theme
- Conditions for bodily incorruptibility and individual perseverance in the prelapsarian state
Steiner
not engaged in the GA corpus
Cross-tradition
- Vedantic doctrine of the immortal subtle body (sukshma-sharira)Cross-tradition congruence appears in the Vedantic teaching that the subtle body, prior to karmic entanglement, subsists in a state of ordered integration with higher principles — structurally parallel to Aquinas's claim that the individual's preservation in the primitive state depended on the soul's subordination to God sustaining the body's integrity.
- Neoplatonic doctrine of the incorruptible pneumatic bodyPlotinus and Iamblichus describe a higher vehicle that remains immune to dissolution so long as the soul is oriented toward the One, offering a structural parallel to Aquinas's account of grace-sustained incorruptibility in the state of original justice.
Q97. The preservation of the individual in the primitive state
Article 3
[I.q.97.a.3.arg.1] It would seem that in the state of innocence man did not require food. For food is necessary for man to restore what he has lost. But Adam's body suffered no loss, as being incorruptible. Therefore he had no need of food.
[I.q.97.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod homo in statu innocentiæ non indigebat cibis. Cibus enim necessarius est homini ad restaurationem deperditi. Sed in corpore Adæ nulla fiebat deperditio, quia incorruptibile erat. Ergo non erat ei cibus necessarius.
[I.q.97.a.3.arg.2] Further, food is needed for nourishment. But nourishment involves passibility. Since, then, man's body was impassible; it does not appear how food could be needful to him.
[I.q.97.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, cibus est necessarius ad nutriendum. Sed nutritio non est sine passione. Cum ergo corpus hominis esset impassibile, non erat ei cibus necessarius, ut videtur.
[I.q.97.a.3.arg.3] Further, we need food for the preservation of life. But Adam could preserve his life otherwise; for had he not sinned, he would not have died. Therefore he did not require food.
[I.q.97.a.3.arg.3] 3. Præterea, cibus dicitur esse nobis necessarius ad vitæ conservationem. Sed Adam aliter vitam poterat conservare, quia si non peccaret, non moreretur. Ergo cibus non erat ei necessarius.
[I.q.97.a.3.arg.4] Further, the consumption of food involves voiding of the surplus, which seems unsuitable to the state of innocence. Therefore it seems that man did not take food in the primitive state.
[I.q.97.a.3.arg.4] 4. Præterea, ad sumptionem cibi sequitur emissio superfluitatum, quæ habent quam-dam turpitudinem non convenientem dignitati primi status. Ergo videtur quod homo in primo statu cibis non uteretur.
[I.q.97.a.3.sc] It is written (Genesis 2:16): "Of every tree in paradise ye shall [Vulgate 'thou shalt'] eat."
[I.q.97.a.3.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur Genes., ii, 16: De omni ligno quod est in paradiso comedetis*.
[I.q.97.a.3.co] In the state of innocence man had an animal life requiring food; but after the resurrection he will have a spiritual life needing no food. In order to make this clear, we must observe that the rational soul is both soul and spirit. It is called a soul by reason of what it possesses in common with other souls--that is, as giving life to the body; whence it is written (Genesis 2:7): "Man was made into a living soul"; that is, a soul giving life to the body. But the soul is called a spirit according to what properly belongs to itself, and not to other souls, as possessing an intellectual immaterial power.
Thus in the primitive state, the rational soul communicated to the body what belonged to itself as a soul; and so the body was called "animal" [From 'anima', a soul; Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:44 seqq.], through having its life from the soul. Now the first principle of life in these inferior creatures as the Philosopher says (De Anima ii, 4) is the vegetative soul: the operations of which are the use of food, generation, and growth. Wherefore such operations befitted man in the state of innocence. But in the final state, after the resurrection, the soul will, to a certain extent, communicate to the body what properly belongs to itself as a spirit; immortality to everyone; impassibility, glory, and power to the good, whose bodies will be called "spiritual." So, after the resurrection, man will not require food; whereas he required it in the state of innocence.
[I.q.97.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod homo in statu innocentiæ habuit vitam animalem cibis indigentem; post resurrectionem vero habebit vitam spiritualem cibis non indigentem. Ad cujus intellectum considerandum est quod anima rationalis et anima est et spiritus. Dicitur autem esse anima secundum illud quod est commune ipsi et aliis animabus, quod est vitam corpori dare. Unde dicitur Genes., ii, 7: Factus est homo in animam viventem, id est, vitam corpori dantem; sed spiritus dicitur secundum illud * Omne lignum paradisi comedes. 1 Augustinus, Bonaventura, Richardus, sicut et ipse Thomas, concedunt quod ante lapsum Adam Evam non cognovit, et præter D. Thomæ rationes concupiscentiæ ligationem adducunt. Juxta Bonaventuram, major est modo in actu generationis delectatio quam pro statu innocentiæ fuisset. — Adamitæ, Armeni et Almaricus nuptias negant, Adamo non peccante. quod est proprium ipsi et non aliis animabus, quod scilicet habeat virtutem intellectivam immaterialem. In primo igitur statu anima rationalis communicabat corpori id quod competit ei inquantum est anima; et ideo corpus illud dicebatur animale, inquantum scilicet habebat vitam ab anima. Primum autem principium vitæ in istis inferioribus, ut dicitur in lib. II De anima, text. 34 et 49, est anima vegetabilis; cujus opera sunt alimento uti, et generare, et augeri; et ideo hæc opera homini in primo statu competebant. In ultimo vero statu post resurrectionem anima communicabit quodammodo corpori ea quæ sunt sibi propria inquantum est spiritus: immortalitatem qui dem quantum ad omnes; impassibilitatem vero et gloriam et virtutem quantum ad bonos, quorum corpora spiritualia dicentur. Unde post resurrectionem homines cibis non indigebunt; sed in statu innocentiæ eis indigebant.
[I.q.97.a.3.ad.1] As Augustine says (QQ. Vet. et Nov. Test. qu. 19 [Works of an anonymous author, among the supposititious works of St. Augustine): "How could man have an immortal body, which was sustained by food? Since an immortal being needs neither food nor drink." For we have explained (1) that the immortality of the primitive state was based on a supernatural force in the soul, and not on any intrinsic disposition of the body: so that by the action of heat, the body might lose part of its humid qualities; and to prevent the entire consumption of the humor, man was obliged to take food.
[I.q.97.a.3.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Augustinus in lib. De quæstion. Vet. et Novi Testam. 4, q. xix, col. 2227, t. 3, « quomodo immortale corpus habebat, quod cibo sustentabatur? immortalis enim non eget esca neque potu. » Dictum est enim supra, quod immortalitas primi status erat secundum vim quamdam supernaturalem in anima residentem, non autem secundum aliquam dispositionem corpori inhærentem. Unde per actionem caloris aliquid de humido illius corporis poterat deperdi; et ne totaliter consumeretur, necesse erat per assumptionem cibi homini subveniri.
[I.q.97.a.3.ad.2] A certain passion and alteration attends nutriment, on the part of the food changed into the substance of the thing nourished. So we cannot thence conclude that man's body was passible, but that the food taken was passible; although this kind of passion conduced to the perfection of the nature.
[I.q.97.a.3.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod in nutritione est quidem passio et alteratio, sed ex parte 2 alimenti quod convertitur in substantiam ejus quod alitur. Unde ex hoc non potest concludi quod corpus hominis fuerit passibile, sed quod cibus assumptus erat passibilis; quamvis etiam talis passio esset ad perfectionem naturæ.
[I.q.97.a.3.ad.3] If man had not taken food he would have sinned; as he also sinned by taking the forbidden fruit. For he was told at the same time, to abstain from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and to eat of every other tree of Paradise.
[I.q.97.a.3.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod si homo sibi non subveniret de cibo, peccaret, sicut pecavit sumendo vetitum cibum. Simul enim ei præceptum fuit ut a ligno scientiae boni et mali abstineret, et ut de omni alio ligno paradisi vesceretur.
[I.q.97.a.3.ad.4] Some say that in the state of innocence man would not have taken more than necessary food, so that there would have been nothing superfluous; which, however, is unreasonable to suppose, as implying that there would have been no faecal matter. Wherefore there was need for voiding the surplus, yet so disposed by God as to be decorous and suitable to the state.
[I.q.97.a.3.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod quidam dicunt, quod homo in statu innocentiæ non assumpsisset de cibo nisi quantum fuisset ei necessarium. Unde non fuisset ibi superfluitatum emissio. Sed hoc irrationabile videtur, quod in cibo assumpto non esset aliqua fæculentia, quæ non esset apta ut converteretur in hominis nutrimentum; unde oportebat superfluitates emitti. Tamen fuisset divinitus provisum, ut nulla ex hoc indecentia esset.
JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/prima-pars/q097.json