Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 164 [<< | >>]
| Deinde considerandum est de poena primi peccati. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. | We must now consider the punishments of the first sin; and under this head there are two points of inquiry: |
| Primo, de morte, quae est poena communis. | (1) Death, which is the common punishment; |
| Secundo, de aliis particularibus poenis quae in Genesi assignantur. | (2) the other particular punishments mentioned in Genesis. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 164 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod mors non sit poena peccati primorum parentum. Illud enim quod est homini naturale, non potest dici poena peccati, quia peccatum non perficit naturam, sed vitiat. Mors autem est homini naturalis, quod patet ex hoc quod corpus eius ex contrariis componitur; et ex hoc etiam quod mortale ponitur in definitione hominis. Ergo mors non est poena peccati primorum parentum. | Objection 1: It would seem that death is not the punishment of our first parents' sin. For that which is natural to man cannot be called a punishment of sin, because sin does not perfect nature but vitiates it. Now death is natural to man: and this is evident both from the fact that his body is composed of contraries, and because "mortal" is included in the definition of man. Therefore death is not a punishment of our first parents' sin. |
| Praeterea, mors et alii corporales defectus similiter inveniuntur in homine sicut et in aliis animalibus, secundum illud Eccle. III, unus interitus est hominis et iumentorum, et aequa utriusque conditio. Sed in animalibus brutis mors non est poena peccati. Ergo etiam neque in hominibus. | Objection 2: Further, death and other bodily defects are similarly found in man as well as in other animals, according to Eccles. 3:19, "The death of man and of beasts is one, and the condition of them both equal." But in dumb animals death is not a punishment of sin. Therefore neither is it so in men. |
| Praeterea, peccatum primorum parentum fuit specialium personarum. Sed mors consequitur totam humanam naturam. Ergo non videtur esse poena peccati primorum parentum. | Objection 3: Further, the sin of our first parents was the sin of particular individuals: whereas death affects the entire human nature. Therefore it would seem that it is not a punishment of our first parents' sin. |
| Praeterea, omnes aequaliter derivantur a primis parentibus. Si igitur mors esset poena peccati primorum parentum, sequeretur quod omnes homines aequaliter mortem paterentur. Quod patet esse falsum, quia quidam citius aliis, et gravius moriuntur. Ergo mors non est poena primi peccati. | Objection 4: Further, all are equally descended from our first parents. Therefore if death were the punishment of our first parents' sin, it would follow that all men would suffer death in equal measure. But this is clearly untrue, since some die sooner, and some more painfully, than others. Therefore death is not the punishment of the first sin. |
| Praeterea, malum poenae est a Deo, ut supra habitum est. Sed mors non videtur esse a Deo, dicitur enim Sap. I, quod Deus mortem non fecit. Ergo mors non est poena primi peccati. | Objection 5: Further, the evil of punishment is from God, as stated above (FP, Question [48], Article [6]; FP, Question [49], Article [2]). But death, apparently, is not from God: for it is written (Wis. 1:13): "God made not death." Therefore death is not the punishment of the first sin. |
| Praeterea, poenae non videntur esse meritoriae, nam meritum continetur sub bono, poena autem sub malo. Sed mors quandoque est meritoria, sicut patet de morte martyrum. Ergo videtur quod mors non sit poena | Objection 6: Further, seemingly, punishments are not meritorious, since merit is comprised under good, and punishment under evil. Now death is sometimes meritorious, as in the case of a martyr's death. Therefore it would seem that death is not a punishment. |
| Praeterea, poena videtur esse afflictiva. Sed mors non potest esse afflictiva, ut videtur, quia quando mors est, homo non sentit; quando autem non est, sentiri non potest. Ergo mors non est poena peccati. | Objection 7: Further, punishment would seem to be painful. But death apparently cannot be painful, since man does not feel it when he is dead, and he cannot feel it when he is not dying. Therefore death is not a punishment of sin. |
| Praeterea, si mors esset poena peccati, statim fuisset ad peccatum consecuta. Sed hoc non est verum, nam primi parentes post peccatum diu vixerunt, ut patet Gen. IV. Ergo mors non videtur esse poena peccati. | Objection 8: Further, if death were a punishment of sin, it would have followed sin immediately. But this is not true, for our first parents lived a long time after their sin (Gn. 5:5). Therefore, seemingly, death is not a punishment of sin. |
| Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Rom. V, per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit, et per peccatum mors. | On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rm. 5:12): "By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, si aliquis propter culpam suam privetur aliquo beneficio sibi dato, carentia illius beneficii est poena culpae illius. Sicut autem in primo dictum est, homini in prima sui institutione hoc beneficium fuit collatum divinitus, ut quandiu mens eius esset Deo subiecta, inferiores vires animae subiicerentur rationali menti, et corpus animae subiiceretur. Sed quia mens hominis per peccatum a divina subiectione recessit, consecutum est ut nec inferiores vires totaliter rationi subiicerentur, unde tanta est rebellio carnalis appetitus ad rationem; nec etiam corpus totaliter subiiceretur animae, unde consequitur mors, et alii corporales defectus. Vita enim et incolumitas corporis consistit in hoc quod subiiciatur animae, sicut perfectibile suae perfectioni, unde, per oppositum, mors et aegritudo, et quilibet corporalis defectus, pertinet ad defectum subiectionis corporis ad animam. | I answer that, If any one, on account of his fault, be deprived of a favor bestowed on him the privation of that favor is a punishment of that fault. Now as we stated in the FP, Question [95], Article [1]; FP, Question [97], Article [1], God bestowed this favor on man, in his primitive state, that as long as his mind was subject to God, the lower powers of his soul would be subject to his rational mind, and his body to his soul. But inasmuch as through sin man's mind withdrew from subjection to God, the result was that neither were his lower powers wholly subject to his reason, whence there followed so great a rebellion of the carnal appetite against the reason: nor was the body wholly subject to the soul; whence arose death and other bodily defects. For life and soundness of body depend on the body being subject to the soul, as the perfectible is subject to its perfection. Consequently, on the other hand, death, sickness, and all defects of the body are due to the lack of the body's subjection to the soul. |
| Unde patet quod, sicut rebellio carnalis appetitus ad spiritum est poena peccati primorum parentum, ita etiam et mors et omnes corporales defectus. | It is therefore evident that as the rebellion of the carnal appetite against the spirit is a punishment of our first parents' sin, so also are death and all defects of the body. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod naturale dicitur quod ex principiis naturae causatur. Naturae autem per se principia sunt forma et materia. Forma autem hominis est anima rationalis, quae de se est immortalis. Et ideo mors non est naturalis homini ex parte suae formae. Materia autem hominis est corpus tale quod est ex contrariis compositum, ad quod sequitur ex necessitate corruptibilitas. Et quantum ad hoc, mors est homini naturalis. Haec tamen conditio in materia humani corporis est consequens ex necessitate materiae, quia oportebat corpus humanum esse organum tactus, et per consequens medium inter tangibilia; et hoc non poterat esse nisi esset ex contrariis compositum, ut patet per philosophum, in II de anima. Non autem est conditio secundum quam materia adaptetur formae, quia, si esset possibile, cum forma sit incorruptibilis, potius oporteret materiam incorruptibilem esse. Sicut quod serra sit ferrea, competit formae et actioni ipsius, ut per duritiem sit apta ad secandum, sed quod sit potens rubiginem contrahere, consequitur ex necessitate talis materiae, et non secundum electionem agentis; nam si artifex posset, faceret ex ferro serram quae rubiginem non posset contrahere. Deus autem, qui est conditor hominis, omnipotens est. Unde ademit suo beneficio ab homine primitus instituto necessitatem moriendi ex tali materia consequentem. Quod tamen beneficium subtractum est per peccatum primorum parentum. Et sic mors et est naturalis, propter conditionem materiae, et est poenalis, propter amissionem divini beneficii praeservantis a morte. | Reply to Objection 1: A thing is said to be natural if it proceeds from the principles of nature. Now the essential principles of nature are form and matter. The form of man is his rational soul, which is, of itself, immortal: wherefore death is not natural to man on the part of his form. The matter of man is a body such as is composed of contraries, of which corruptibility is a necessary consequence, and in this respect death is natural to man. Now this condition attached to the nature of the human body results from a natural necessity, since it was necessary for the human body to be the organ of touch, and consequently a mean between objects of touch: and this was impossible, were it not composed of contraries, as the Philosopher states (De Anima ii, 11). On the other hand, this condition is not attached to the adaptability of matter to form because, if it were possible, since the form is incorruptible, its matter should rather be incorruptible. In the same way a saw needs to be of iron, this being suitable to its form and action, so that its hardness may make it fit for cutting. But that it be liable to rust is a necessary result of such a matter and is not according to the agent's choice; for, if the craftsman were able, of the iron he would make a saw that would not rust. Now God Who is the author of man is all-powerful, wherefore when He first made man, He conferred on him the favor of being exempt from the necessity resulting from such a matter: which favor, however, was withdrawn through the sin of our first parents. Accordingly death is both natural on account of a condition attaching to matter, and penal on account of the loss of the Divine favor preserving man from death [*Cf. FS, Question [85], Article [6]]. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod similitudo illa hominis ad alia animalia attenditur quantum ad conditionem materiae, idest quantum ad corpus ex contrariis compositum, non autem quantum ad formam. Nam anima hominis est immortalis, brutorum vero animalium animae sunt mortales. | Reply to Objection 2: This likeness of man to other animals regards a condition attaching to matter, namely the body being composed of contraries. But it does not regard the form, for man's soul is immortal, whereas the souls of dumb animals are mortal. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod primi parentes fuerunt instituti a Deo non solum sicut quaedam personae singulares, sed sicut quaedam principia totius humanae naturae ab eis in posteros derivandae simul cum beneficio divino praeservante a morte. Et ideo per eorum peccatum tota humana natura in posteris tali beneficio destituta, mortem incurrit. | Reply to Objection 3: Our first parents were made by God not only as particular individuals, but also as principles of the whole human nature to be transmitted by them to their posterity, together with the Divine favor preserving them from death. Hence through their sin the entire human nature, being deprived of that favor in their posterity, incurred death. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod aliquis defectus ex peccato consequitur dupliciter. Uno modo, per modum poenae taxatae a iudice. Et talis defectus aequalis debet esse in his ad quos aequaliter pertinet peccatum. Alius autem defectus est qui ex huiusmodi poena per accidens consequitur, sicut quod aliquis pro sua culpa excaecatus, cadat in via. Et talis defectus culpae non proportionatur, nec ab homine iudice pensatur, qui non potest fortuitos eventus praecognoscere. Sic igitur poena taxata pro primo peccato, proportionaliter ei respondens, fuit subtractio divini beneficii quo rectitudo et integritas humanae naturae conservabatur. Defectus autem consequentes subtractionem huius beneficii, sunt mors et aliae poenalitates praesentis vitae. Et ideo non oportet huiusmodi poenas aequales esse in his ad quos aequaliter pertinet primum peccatum. Verum quia Deus praescius est omnium futurorum eventuum, ex dispensatione divinae providentiae huiusmodi poenalitates diversimode in diversis inveniuntur, non quidem propter aliqua merita praecedentia hanc vitam, ut Origenes posuit (hoc enim est contra id quod dicitur Rom. IX, cum nondum aliquid boni aut mali egissent; est etiam contra hoc quod in primo ostensum est, quod anima non est creata ante corpus); sed vel in poenam paternorum peccatorum, inquantum filius est quaedam res patris, unde frequenter parentes puniuntur in prole; vel etiam propter remedium salutis eius qui huiusmodi poenalitatibus subditur, ut scilicet per hoc a peccatis arceatur, vel etiam de virtutibus non superbiat, et per patientiam coronetur. | Reply to Objection 4: A twofold defect arises from sin. One is by way of a punishment appointed by a judge: and such a defect should be equal in those to whom the sin pertains equally. The other defect is that which results accidentally from this punishment; for instance, that one who has been deprived of his sight for a sin he has committed, should fall down in the road. Such a defect is not proportionate to the sin, nor does a human judge take it into account, since he cannot foresee chance happenings. Accordingly, the punishment appointed for the first sin and proportionately corresponding thereto, was the withdrawal of the Divine favor whereby the rectitude and integrity of human nature was maintained. But the defects resulting from this withdrawal are death and other penalties of the present life. Wherefore these punishments need not be equal in those to whom the first sin equally appertains. Nevertheless, since God foreknows all future events, Divine providence has so disposed that these penalties are apportioned in different ways to various people. This is not on account of any merits or demerits previous to this life, as Origen held [*Peri Archon ii, 9]: for this is contrary to the words of Rm. 9:11, "When they . . . had not done any good or evil"; and also contrary to statements made in the FP, Question [90], Article [4]; FP, Question [118], Article [3], namely that the soul is not created before the body: but either in punishment of their parents' sins, inasmuch as the child is something belonging to the father, wherefore parents are often punished in their children; or again it is for a remedy intended for the spiritual welfare of the person who suffers these penalties, to wit that he may thus be turned away from his sins, or lest he take pride in his virtues, and that he may be crowned for his patience. |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod mors dupliciter potest considerari. Uno modo, secundum quod est quoddam malum humanae naturae. Et sic non est ex Deo, sed est defectus quidam incidens ex culpa humana. Alio modo potest considerari secundum quod habet quandam rationem boni, prout scilicet est quaedam iusta poena. Et sic est a Deo. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro Retractat., quod Deus non est auctor mortis, nisi inquantum est poena. | Reply to Objection 5: Death may be considered in two ways. First, as an evil of human nature, and thus it is not of God, but is a defect befalling man through his fault. Secondly, as having an aspect of good, namely as being a just punishment, and thus it is from God. Wherefore Augustine says (Retract. i, 21) that God is not the author of death, except in so far as it is a punishment. |
| Ad sextum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, XIII de Civ. Dei, quemadmodum iniusti male utuntur non tantum malis, verum etiam bonis; ita iusti bene utuntur non tantum bonis, sed etiam malis. Hinc fit ut et mali male lege utantur, quamvis sit lex bonum, et boni bene moriantur, quamvis sit mors malum. Inquantum igitur sancti bene morte utuntur, fit eis mors meritoria. | Reply to Objection 6: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii, 5), "just as the wicked abuse not only evil but also good things, so do the righteous make good use not only of good but also of evil things. Hence it is that both evil men make evil use of the law, though the law is good, while good men die well, although death is an evil." Wherefore inasmuch as holy men make good use of death, their death is to them meritorious. |
| Ad septimum dicendum quod mors dupliciter accipi potest. Uno modo, pro ipsa privatione vitae. Et sic mors sentiri non potest, cum sit privatio sensus et vitae. Et sic non est poena sensus, sed poena damni. Alio modo, secundum quod nominat ipsam corruptionem quae terminatur ad privationem praedictam. De corruptione autem, sicut et de generatione, dupliciter loqui possumus. Uno modo, secundum quod est terminus alterationis. Et sic in ipso instanti in quo primo privatur vita, dicitur inesse mors. Et secundum hoc etiam, mors non est poena sensus. Alio modo corruptio potest accipi cum alteratione praecedente, prout dicitur aliquis mori dum movetur in mortem; sicut dicitur aliquid generari dum movetur in generatum esse. Et sic mors potest esse afflictiva. | Reply to Objection 7: Death may be considered in two ways. First, as the privation of life, and thus death cannot be felt, since it is the privation of sense and life. In this way it involves not pain of sense but pain of loss. Secondly, it may be considered as denoting the corruption which ends in the aforesaid privation. Now we may speak of corruption even as of generation in two ways: in one way as being the term of alteration, and thus in the first instant in which life departs, death is said to be present. In this way also death has no pain of sense. In another way corruption may be taken as including the previous alteration: thus a person is said to die, when he is in motion towards death; just as a thing is said to be engendered, while in motion towards the state of having been engendered: and thus death may be painful. |
| Ad octavum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, super Gen. ad Litt., quamvis annos multos primi parentes postea vixerint, illo tamen die mori coeperunt quo mortis legem, qua in senium veterascerent, acceperunt. | Reply to Objection 8: According to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. [*De Pecc. Mer. et Rem. i, 16. Cf. Gen. ad lit. ii. 32]), "although our first parents lived thereafter many years, they began to die on the day when they heard the death-decree, condemning them to decline to old age." |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 164 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter particulares poenae primorum parentum determinentur in Scriptura. Non enim debet assignari ut poena peccati id quod etiam sine peccato esset. Sed dolor in pariendo esset, ut videtur, etiam sine peccato, hoc enim requirit dispositio feminei sexus, ut proles nasci non possit sine dolore parientis. Similiter etiam subiectio mulieris ad virum consequitur perfectionem virilis sexus et imperfectionem muliebris. Germinatio etiam spinarum et tribulorum ad naturam terrae pertinet, quae fuisset etiam sine peccato. Non ergo huiusmodi sunt convenientes poenae primi peccati. | Objection 1: It would seem that the particular punishments of our first parents are unsuitably appointed in Scripture. For that which would have occurred even without sin should not be described as a punishment for sin. Now seemingly there would have been "pain in child-bearing," even had there been no sin: for the disposition of the female sex is such that offspring cannot be born without pain to the bearer. Likewise the "subjection of woman to man" results from the perfection of the male, and the imperfection of the female sex. Again it belongs to the nature of the earth "to bring forth thorns and thistles," and this would have occurred even had there been no sin. Therefore these are unsuitable punishments of the first sin. |
| Praeterea, illud quod pertinet ad dignitatem alicuius, non videtur ad poenam eius pertinere. Sed multiplicatio conceptus pertinet ad dignitatem mulieris. Ergo non debet poni quasi mulieris poena. | Objection 2: Further, that which pertains to a person's dignity does not, seemingly, pertain to his punishment. But the "multiplying of conceptions" pertains to a woman's dignity. Therefore it should not be described as the woman's punishment. |
| Praeterea, poena peccati primorum parentum ad omnes derivatur, sicut de morte dictum est. Sed non omnium mulierum multiplicantur conceptus, nec omnes viri in sudore vultus sui pane vescuntur. Non ergo ista sunt convenientes poenae primi peccati. | Objection 3: Further, the punishment of our first parents' sin is transmitted to all, as we have stated with regard to death (Article [1]). But all "women's conceptions" are not "multiplied," nor does "every man eat bread in the sweat of his face." Therefore these are not suitable punishments of the first sin. |
| Praeterea, locus Paradisi propter hominem factus erat. Sed nihil debet esse frustra in rerum ordine. Ergo videtur quod non fuerit conveniens hominis poena quod a Paradiso excluderetur. | Objection 4: Further, the place of paradise was made for man. Now nothing in the order of things should be without purpose. Therefore it would seem that the exclusion of man from paradise was not a suitable punishment of man. |
| Praeterea, locus ille Paradisi terrestris de se dicitur esse inaccessibilis. Frustra ergo apposita sunt alia impedimenta, ne homo illuc reverteretur, scilicet Cherubin et gladius flammeus atque versatilis. | Objection 5: Further, this place of the earthly paradise is said to be naturally inaccessible. Therefore it was useless to put other obstacles in the way lest man should return thither, to wit the cherubim, and the "flaming sword turning every way." |
| Praeterea, homo post peccatum statim necessitati mortis fuit addictus, et ita beneficio ligni vitae non poterat ad immortalitatem reparari. Frustra ergo ei esus ligni vitae interdicitur. Cum dicitur Gen. III, videte, ne forte sumat de ligno vitae, et vivat in aeternum. | Objection 6: Further, immediately after his sin man was subject to the necessity of dying, so that he could not be restored to immortality by the beneficial tree of life. Therefore it was useless to forbid him to eat of the tree of life, as instanced by the words of Gn. 3:22: "See, lest perhaps he . . . take . . . of the tree of life . . . and live for ever." |
| Praeterea, insultare misero videtur misericordiae et clementiae repugnare, quae maxime in Scriptura Deo attribuitur, secundum illud Psalmi, miserationes eius super omnia opera eius. Ergo inconvenienter ponitur dominum insultasse primis parentibus per peccatum iam in miseriam deductis, ubi dicitur, ecce, Adam quasi unus ex nobis factus est, sciens bonum et malum. | Objection 7: Further, to mock the unhappy seems inconsistent with mercy and clemency, which are most of all ascribed to God in Scripture, according to Ps. 144:9, "His tender mercies are over all His works." Therefore God is unbecomingly described as mocking our first parents, already reduced through sin to unhappy straits, in the words of Gn. 3:22, "Behold Adam is become as one of Us, knowing good and evil." |
| Praeterea, vestitus ad necessitatem hominis pertinet, sicut et cibus, secundum illud I ad Tim. ult., habentes alimenta et quibus tegamur, his contenti sumus. Ergo, sicut cibus primis parentibus fuit attributus ante peccatum, ita etiam et vestitus attribui debuit. Inconvenienter ergo post peccatum dicitur eis Deus tunicas pelliceas fecisse. | Objection 8: Further, clothes are necessary to man, like food, according to 1 Tim. 6:8, "Having food, and wherewith to be covered, with these we are content." Therefore just as food was appointed to our first parents before their sin, so also should clothing have been ascribed to them. Therefore after their sin it was unsuitable to say that God made for them garments of skin. |
| Praeterea, poena quae peccato alicui adhibetur, debet plus habere in malo quam emolumentum quod quis ex peccato consequitur, alioquin, per poenam non deterreretur aliquis a peccato. Sed primi parentes ex peccato consecuti sunt quod eorum oculi aperirentur, ut dicitur Gen. III. Hoc autem praeponderat in bono omnibus malis poenalibus quae ponuntur ex peccato consecuta. Inconvenienter igitur describuntur poenae peccatum primorum parentum consequentes. | Objection 9: Further, the punishment inflicted for a sin should outweigh in evil the gain realized through the sin: else the punishment would not deter one from sinning. Now through sin our first parents gained in this, that their eyes were opened, according to Gn. 3:7. But this outweighs in good all the penal evils which are stated to have resulted from sin. Therefore the punishments resulting from our first parents' sin are unsuitably described. |
| In contrarium est quod huiusmodi poenae sunt divinitus taxatae, qui omnia facit in numero, pondere et mensura, ut dicitur Sap. XI. | On the contrary, These punishments were appointed by God, Who does all things, "in number, weight, and measure [*Vulg.: 'Thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight.']" (Wis. 11:21). |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, primi parentes propter suum peccatum privati sunt beneficio divino quo humanae naturae integritas in eis conservabatur, per cuius subtractionem humana natura in defectus poenales incidit. Et ideo dupliciter puniti fuerunt. Primo quidem, quantum ad hoc quod subtractum fuit eis id quod integritatis statui competebat, scilicet locus terrestris Paradisi, quod significatur Gen. III, cum dicitur, et emisit eum Deus de Paradiso voluptatis. Et quia ad illum statum primae innocentiae per seipsum redire non poterat, convenienter apposita sunt impedimenta ne rediret ad ea quae primo statui competebant, scilicet a cibo, ne sumeret de ligno vitae; et a loco, collocavit Deus ante Paradisum Cherubin et flammeum gladium. Secundo autem puniti fuerunt quantum ad hoc quod attributa sunt eis ea quae naturae conveniunt tali beneficio destitutae. Et hoc quidem et quantum ad corpus, et quantum ad animam. Quantum quidem ad corpus, ad quod pertinet differentia sexus, alia poena attributa est mulieri, alia viro. Mulieri quidem attributa est poena secundum duo propter quae viro coniungitur, quae sunt generatio prolis, et communicatio operum pertinentium ad domesticam conversationem. Quantum autem ad generationem prolis, punita fuit dupliciter. Primo quidem, quantum ad taedia quae sustinet portando prolem conceptam, et hoc significatur cum dicitur, multiplicabo aerumnas tuas et conceptus tuos. Et quantum ad dolorem quem patitur in pariendo, et quantum ad hoc dicitur, in dolore paries. Quantum vero ad domesticam conversationem, punitur secundum hoc quod subiicitur dominationi viri, per hoc quod dicitur, sub viri potestate eris. | I answer that, As stated in the foregoing Article, on account of their sin, our first parents were deprived of the Divine favor, whereby the integrity of human nature was maintained in them, and by the withdrawal of this favor human nature incurred penal defects. Hence they were punished in two ways. In the first place by being deprived of that which was befitting the state of integrity, namely the place of the earthly paradise: and this is indicated (Gn. 3:23) where it is stated that "God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure." And since he was unable, of himself, to return to that state of original innocence, it was fitting that obstacles should be placed against his recovering those things that were befitting his original state, namely food (lest he should take of the tree of life) and place; for "God placed before . . . paradise . . . Cherubim, and a flaming sword." Secondly, they were punished by having appointed to them things befitting a nature bereft of the aforesaid favor: and this as regards both the body and the soul. With regard to the body, to which pertains the distinction of sex, one punishment was appointed to the woman and another to the man. To the woman punishment was appointed in respect of two things on account of which she is united to the man; and these are the begetting of children, and community of works pertaining to family life. As regards the begetting of children, she was punished in two ways: first in the weariness to which she is subject while carrying the child after conception, and this is indicated in the words (Gn. 3:16), "I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions"; secondly, in the pain which she suffers in giving birth, and this is indicated by the words (Gn. 3:16), "In sorrow shalt thou bring forth." As regards family life she was punished by being subjected to her husband's authority, and this is conveyed in the words (Gn. 3:16), "Thou shalt be under thy husband's power." |
| Sicut autem ad mulierem pertinet ut subdatur viro in his quae ad domesticam conversationem pertinent, ita ad virum pertinet quod necessaria vitae procuret. Et circa hoc punitur tripliciter. Primo quidem, per terrae sterilitatem, cum dicitur, maledicta terra in opere tuo. Secundo, per laboris anxietatem, sine qua fructus terrae non percipit, unde dicitur, in labore comedes de ea cunctis diebus vitae tuae. Tertio, quantum ad impedimenta quae proveniunt terram colentibus, unde dicitur, spinas et tribulos germinabit tibi. | Now, just as it belongs to the woman to be subject to her husband in matters relating to the family life, so it belongs to the husband to provide the necessaries of that life. In this respect he was punished in three ways. First, by the barrenness of the earth, in the words (Gn. 3:17), "Cursed is the earth in thy work." Secondly, by the cares of his toil, without which he does not win the fruits of the earth; hence the words (Gn. 3:17), "With labor and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life." Thirdly, by the obstacles encountered by the tillers of the soil, wherefore it is written (Gn. 3:18), "Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee." |
| Similiter etiam ex parte animae triplex eorum poena describitur. Primo quidem, quantum ad confusionem quam passi sunt de rebellione carnis ad spiritum, unde dicitur, aperti sunt oculi amborum, et cognoverunt se esse nudos. Secundo, quantum ad increpationem propriae culpae, per hoc quod dicitur, ecce, Adam factus est quasi unus ex nobis. Tertio, quantum ad commemorationem futurae mortis, secundum quod ei dictum est, pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris. Ad quod etiam pertinet quod Deus fecit eis tunicas pelliceas, in signum mortalitatis eorum. | Likewise a triple punishment is ascribed to them on the part of the soul. First, by reason of the confusion they experienced at the rebellion of the flesh against the spirit; hence it is written (Gn. 3:7): "The eyes of them both were opened; and . . . they perceived themselves to be naked." Secondly, by the reproach for their sin, indicated by the words (Gn. 3:22), "Behold Adam is become as one of Us." Thirdly, by the reminder of their coming death, when it was said to him (Gn. 3:19): "Dust thou art and into dust thou shalt return." To this also pertains that God made them garments of skin, as a sign of their mortality. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in statu innocentiae fuisset partus absque dolore. Dicit enim Augustinus, XIV de Civ. Dei, sic ad pariendum non doloris gemitus, sed maturitatis impulsus feminea viscera relaxaret, sicut ad concipiendum non libidinis appetitus, sed voluntarius usus naturam utramque coniungeret. | Reply to Objection 1: In the state of innocence child-bearing would have been painless: for Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 26): "Just as, in giving birth, the mother would then be relieved not by groans of pain, but by the instigations of maturity, so in bearing and conceiving the union of both sexes would be one not of lustful desire but of deliberate action" [*Cf. FP, Question [98], Article [2]]. |
| Subiectio autem mulieris ad virum intelligenda est in poenam mulieris esse inducta, non quantum ad regimen, quia etiam ante peccatum vir caput mulieris fuisset et eius gubernator existeret, sed prout mulier, contra propriam voluntatem, necesse habet viri voluntati parere. | The subjection of the woman to her husband is to be understood as inflicted in punishment of the woman, not as to his headship (since even before sin the man was the "head" and governor "of the woman"), but as to her having now to obey her husband's will even against her own. |
| Spinas autem et tribulos terra germinasset, si homo non peccasset, in cibum animalium, non autem in hominis poenam, quia scilicet per eorum exortum nullus labor aut punctio homini operanti in terra accideret, ut Augustinus dicit, super Gen. ad Litt. Quamvis Alcuinus dicat quod ante peccatum terra omnino spinas et tribulos non germinasset. Sed primum melius est. | If man had not sinned, the earth would have brought forth thorns and thistles to be the food of animals, but not to punish man, because their growth would bring no labor or punishment for the tiller of the soil, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. iii, 18). Alcuin [*Interrog. et Resp. in Gen. lxxix], however, holds that, before sin, the earth brought forth no thorns and thistles, whatever: but the former opinion is the better. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod multitudo conceptuum inducitur in poenam mulieris, non propter ipsam procreationem prolis, quae etiam ante peccatum fuisset, sed propter multitudinem afflictionum, quae mulier patitur ex hoc quod portat fetum conceptum. Unde signanter coniungitur, multiplicabo aerumnas tuas et conceptus tuos. | Reply to Objection 2: The multiplying of her conceptions was appointed as a punishment to the woman, not on account of the begetting of children, for this would have been the same even before sin, but on account of the numerous sufferings to which the woman is subject, through carrying her offspring after conception. Hence it is expressly stated: "I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod illae poenae aliqualiter ad omnes pertinent. Quaecumque enim mulier concipit, necesse est quod aerumnas patiatur et cum dolore pariat, praeter beatam virginem, quae sine corruptione concepit et sine dolore peperit, quia eius conceptio non fuit secundum legem naturae a primis parentibus derivata. Si autem aliqua non concipit neque parit, patitur sterilitatis defectum, qui praeponderat poenis praedictis. Similiter etiam oportet ut quicumque terram operatur, in sudore vultus comedat panem. Et qui ipsi per se agriculturam non exercent, in aliis laboribus occupantur, homo enim nascitur ad laborem, ut dicitur Iob V, et sic panem ab aliis in sudore vultus elaboratum manducant. | Reply to Objection 3: These punishments affect all somewhat. For any woman who conceives must needs suffer sorrows and bring forth her child with pain: except the Blessed Virgin, who "conceived without corruption, and bore without pain" [*St. Bernard, Serm. in Dom. inf. oct. Assum. B. V. M.], because her conceiving was not according to the law of nature, transmitted from our first parents. And if a woman neither conceives nor bears, she suffers from the defect of barrenness, which outweighs the aforesaid punishments. Likewise whoever tills the soil must needs eat his bread in the sweat of his brow: while those who do not themselves work on the land, are busied with other labors, for "man is born to labor" (Job 5:7): and thus they eat the bread for which others have labored in the sweat of their brow. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod locus ille Paradisi terrestris, quamvis non serviat homini ad usum, servit tamen ei ad documentum, dum cognoscit propter peccatum se tali loco fuisse privatum; et dum per ea quae corporaliter in illo Paradiso sunt, instruuntur de his quae pertinent ad Paradisum caelestem, quo aditus homini praeparatur per Christum. | Reply to Objection 4: Although the place of the earthly paradise avails not man for his use, it avails him for a lesson; because he knows himself deprived of that place on account of sin, and because by the things that have a bodily existence in that paradise, he is instructed in things pertaining to the heavenly paradise, the way to which is prepared for man by Christ. |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod, salvis spiritualis sensus mysteriis, locus ille praecipue videtur esse inaccessibilis propter vehementiam aestus in locis intermediis ex propinquitate solis. Et hoc significatur per flammeum gladium, qui versatilis dicitur, propter proprietatem motus circularis huiusmodi aestum causantis. Et quia motus corporalis creaturae disponitur ministerio Angelorum, ut patet per Augustinum, III de Trin.; convenienter etiam simul cum gladio versatili Cherubin adiungitur, ad custodiendam viam ligni vitae. Unde Augustinus dicit, XI super Gen. ad Litt., hoc per caelestes potestates etiam in Paradiso visibili factum esse credendum est, ut per angelicum ministerium esset illic quaedam ignea custodia. | Reply to Objection 5: Apart from the mysteries of the spiritual interpretation, this place would seem to be inaccessible, chiefly on account of the extreme heat in the middle zone by reason of the nighness of the sun. This is denoted by the "flaming sword," which is described as "turning every way," as being appropriate to the circular movement that causes this heat. And since the movements of corporal creatures are set in order through the ministry of the angels, according to Augustine (De Trin. iii, 4), it was fitting that, besides the sword turning every way, there should be cherubim "to keep the way of the tree of life." Hence Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 40): "It is to be believed that even in the visible paradise this was done by heavenly powers indeed, so that there was a fiery guard set there by the ministry of angels." |
| Ad sextum dicendum quod homo, si post peccatum de ligno vitae comedisset, non propter hoc immortalitatem recuperasset, sed beneficio illius cibi potuisset vitam magis prolongare. Unde quod dicitur, et vivat in aeternum, sumitur ibi aeternum pro diuturno. Hoc autem non expediebat homini, ut in miseria huius vitae diutius permaneret. | Reply to Objection 6: After sin, if man had ate of the tree of life, he would not thereby have recovered immortality, but by means of that beneficial food he might have prolonged his life. Hence in the words "And live for ever," "for ever" signifies "for a long time." For it was not expedient for man to remain longer in the unhappiness of this life. |
| Ad septimum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, XI super Gen. ad Litt., verba Dei non tam sunt primis parentibus insultantis, quam ceteros, ne ita superbiant, deterrentis, propter quos ista conscripta sunt, quia scilicet non solum Adam non fuit factus qualis fieri voluit, sed nec illud quod factus fuerat, conservavit. | Reply to Objection 7: According to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xi, 39), "these words of God are not so much a mockery of our first parents as a deterrent to others, for whose benefit these things are written, lest they be proud likewise, because Adam not only failed to become that which he coveted to be, but did not keep that to which he was made." |
| Ad octavum dicendum quod vestitus necessarius est homini secundum statum praesentis miseriae, propter duo, primo quidem, propter defectum ab exterioribus nocumentis, puta intemperie caloris et frigoris; secundo, ad tegumentum ignominiae, ne turpitudo membrorum appareat in quibus praecipue manifestatur rebellio carnis ad spiritum. Haec autem duo in primo statu non erant. Quia in statu illo corpus hominis non poterat per aliquid extrinsecum laedi, ut in primo dictum est. Nec etiam erat in statu illo aliqua turpitudo in corpore hominis quae confusionem induceret, unde dicitur Genesi, erat autem uterque nudus, Adam scilicet et uxor eius, et non erubescebant. Alia autem ratio est de cibo, qui est necessarius ad fomentum caloris naturalis et ad corporis augmentum. | Reply to Objection 8: Clothing is necessary to man in his present state of unhappiness for two reasons. First, to supply a deficiency in respect of external harm caused by, for instance, extreme heat or cold. Secondly, to hide his ignominy and to cover the shame of those members wherein the rebellion of the flesh against the spirit is most manifest. Now these two motives do not apply to the primitive state. because then man's body could not be hurt by any outward thing, as stated in the FP, Question [97], Article [2], nor was there in man's body anything shameful that would bring confusion on him. Hence it is written (Gn. 2:23): "And they were both naked, to wit Adam and his wife, and were not ashamed." The same cannot be said of food, which is necessary to entertain the natural heat, and to sustain the body. |
| Ad nonum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, XI super Gen. ad Litt., non est credendum quod primi parentes essent producti clausis oculis, praecipue cum de muliere dicatur quod vidit lignum, quod esset pulchrum et bonum ad vescendum. Aperti ergo sunt oculi amborum ad aliquid intuendum et cogitandum quod antea nunquam adverterant, scilicet ad invicem concupiscendum, quod ante non fuerat. | Reply to Objection 9: As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 31), "We must not imagine that our first parents were created with their eyes closed, especially since it is stated that the woman saw that the tree was fair, and good to eat. Accordingly the eyes of both were opened so that they saw and thought on things which had not occurred to their minds before, this was a mutual concupiscence such as they had not hitherto." |