Objection 1: It would seem that the production of the human body is not fittingly described in Scripture. For, as the human body was made by G.o.d, so also were the other works of the six days. But in the other works it is written, "G.o.d said; Let it be made, and it was made."
Therefore the same should have been said of man.
Obj. 2: Further, the human body was made by G.o.d immediately, as explained above (A. 2). Therefore it was not fittingly said, "Let us make man."
Obj. 3: Further, the form of the human body is the soul itself which is the breath of life. Therefore, having said, "G.o.d made man of the slime of the earth," he should not have added: "And He breathed into him the breath of life."
Obj. 4: Further, the soul, which is the breath of life, is in the whole body, and chiefly in the heart. Therefore it was not fittingly said: "He breathed into his face the breath of life."
Obj. 5: Further, the male and female s.e.x belong to the body, while the image of G.o.d belongs to the soul. But the soul, according to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. vii, 24), was made before the body. Therefore having said: "To His image He made them," he should not have added, "male and female He created them."
_On the contrary,_ Is the authority of Scripture.
Reply Obj. 1: As Augustine observes (Gen. ad lit. vi, 12), man surpa.s.ses other things, not in the fact that G.o.d Himself made man, as though He did not make other things; since it is written (Ps.
101:26), "The work of Thy hands is the heaven," and elsewhere (Ps.
94:5), "His hands laid down the dry land"; but in this, that man is made to G.o.d"s image. Yet in describing man"s production, Scripture uses a special way of speaking, to show that other things were made for man"s sake. For we are accustomed to do with more deliberation and care what we have chiefly in mind.
Reply Obj. 2: We must not imagine that when G.o.d said "Let us make man," He spoke to the angels, as some were perverse enough to think.
But by these words is signified the plurality of the Divine Person, Whose image is more clearly expressed in man.
Reply Obj. 3: Some have thought that man"s body was formed first in priority of time, and that afterwards the soul was infused into the formed body. But it is inconsistent with the perfection of the production of things, that G.o.d should have made either the body without the soul, or the soul without the body, since each is a part of human nature. This is especially unfitting as regards the body, for the body depends on the soul, and not the soul on the body.
To remove the difficulty some have said that the words, "G.o.d made man," must be understood of the production of the body with the soul; and that the subsequent words, "and He breathed into his face the breath of life," should be understood of the Holy Ghost; as the Lord breathed on His Apostles, saying, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost" (John 20:22). But this explanation, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii, 24), is excluded by the very words of Scripture. For we read farther on, "And man was made a living soul"; which words the Apostle (1 Cor.
15:45) refers not to spiritual life, but to animal life. Therefore, by breath of life we must understand the soul, so that the words, "He breathed into his face the breath of life," are a sort of exposition of what goes before; for the soul is the form of the body.
Reply Obj. 4: Since vital operations are more clearly seen in man"s face, on account of the senses which are there expressed; therefore Scripture says that the breath of life was breathed into man"s face.
Reply Obj. 5: According to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iv, 34), the works of the six days were done all at one time; wherefore according to him man"s soul, which he holds to have been made with the angels, was not made before the sixth day; but on the sixth day both the soul of the first man was made actually, and his body in its causal elements. But other doctors hold that on the sixth day both body and soul of man were actually made.
_______________________
QUESTION 92
THE PRODUCTION OF THE WOMAN (In Four Articles)
We must next consider the production of the woman. Under this head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the woman should have been made in that first production of things?
(2) Whether the woman should have been made from man?
(3) Whether of man"s rib?
(4) Whether the woman was made immediately by G.o.d?
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 92, Art. 1]
Whether the Woman Should Have Been Made in the First Production of Things?
Objection 1: It would seem that the woman should not have been made in the first production of things. For the Philosopher says (De Gener. ii, 3), that "the female is a misbegotten male." But nothing misbegotten or defective should have been in the first production of things. Therefore woman should not have been made at that first production.
Obj. 2: Further, subjection and limitation were a result of sin, for to the woman was it said after sin (Gen. 3:16): "Thou shalt be under the man"s power"; and Gregory says that, "Where there is no sin, there is no inequality." But woman is naturally of less strength and dignity than man; "for the agent is always more honorable than the patient," as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16). Therefore woman should not have been made in the first production of things before sin.
Obj. 3: Further, occasions of sin should be cut off. But G.o.d foresaw that the woman would be an occasion of sin to man. Therefore He should not have made woman.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Gen. 2:18): "It is not good for man to be alone; let us make him a helper like to himself."
_I answer that,_ It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a _helper_ to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of generation. This can be made clear if we observe the mode of generation carried out in various living things. Some living things do not possess in themselves the power of generation, but are generated by some other specific agent, such as some plants and animals by the influence of the heavenly bodies, from some fitting matter and not from seed: others possess the active and pa.s.sive generative power together; as we see in plants which are generated from seed; for the n.o.blest vital function in plants is generation.
Wherefore we observe that in these the active power of generation invariably accompanies the pa.s.sive power. Among perfect animals the active power of generation belongs to the male s.e.x, and the pa.s.sive power to the female. And as among animals there is a vital operation n.o.bler than generation, to which their life is princ.i.p.ally directed; therefore the male s.e.x is not found in continual union with the female in perfect animals, but only at the time of coition; so that we may consider that by this means the male and female are one, as in plants they are always united; although in some cases one of them preponderates, and in some the other. But man is yet further ordered to a still n.o.bler vital action, and that is intellectual operation.
Therefore there was greater reason for the distinction of these two forces in man; so that the female should be produced separately from the male; although they are carnally united for generation. Therefore directly after the formation of woman, it was said: "And they shall be two in one flesh" (Gen. 2:24).
Reply Obj. 1: As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine s.e.x; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature"s intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on G.o.d, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, G.o.d formed not only the male but also the female.
Reply Obj. 2: Subjection is twofold. One is servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit; and this kind of subjection began after sin. There is another kind of subjection which is called economic or civil, whereby the superior makes use of his subjects for their own benefit and good; and this kind of subjection existed even before sin. For good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates. Nor is inequality among men excluded by the state of innocence, as we shall prove (Q. 96, A. 3).
Reply Obj. 3: If G.o.d had deprived the world of all those things which proved an occasion of sin, the universe would have been imperfect.
Nor was it fitting for the common good to be destroyed in order that individual evil might be avoided; especially as G.o.d is so powerful that He can direct any evil to a good end.
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 92, Art. 2]
Whether Woman Should Have Been Made from Man?
Objection 1: It would seem that woman should not have been made from man. For s.e.x belongs both to man and animals. But in the other animals the female was not made from the male. Therefore neither should it have been so with man.
Obj. 2: Further, things of the same species are of the same matter.
But male and female are of the same species. Therefore, as man was made of the slime of the earth, so woman should have been made of the same, and not from man.
Obj. 3: Further, woman was made to be a helpmate to man in the work of generation. But close relationship makes a person unfit for that office; hence near relations are debarred from intermarriage, as is written (Lev. 18:6). Therefore woman should not have been made from man.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ecclus. 17:5): "He created of him,"
that is, out of man, "a helpmate like to himself," that is, woman.
_I answer that,_ When all things were first formed, it was more suitable for the woman to be made from man than (for the female to be from the male) in other animals. First, in order thus to give the first man a certain dignity consisting in this, that as G.o.d is the principle of the whole universe, so the first man, in likeness to G.o.d, was the principle of the whole human race. Wherefore Paul says that "G.o.d made the whole human race from one" (Acts 17:26). Secondly, that man might love woman all the more, and cleave to her more closely, knowing her to be fashioned from himself. Hence it is written (Gen. 2:23, 24): "She was taken out of man, wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife." This was most necessary as regards the human race, in which the male and female live together for life; which is not the case with other animals. Thirdly, because, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii, 12), the human male and female are united, not only for generation, as with other animals, but also for the purpose of domestic life, in which each has his or her particular duty, and in which the man is the head of the woman. Wherefore it was suitable for the woman to be made out of man, as out of her principle. Fourthly, there is a sacramental reason for this. For by this is signified that the Church takes her origin from Christ. Wherefore the Apostle says (Eph. 5:32): "This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church."
Reply Obj. 1 is clear from the foregoing.
Reply Obj. 2: Matter is that from which something is made. Now created nature has a determinate principle; and since it is determined to one thing, it has also a determinate mode of proceeding. Wherefore from determinate matter it produces something in a determinate species. On the other hand, the Divine Power, being infinite, can produce things of the same species out of any matter, such as a man from the slime of the earth, and a woman from out of man.
Reply Obj. 3: A certain affinity arises from natural generation, and this is an impediment to matrimony. Woman, however, was not produced from man by natural generation, but by the Divine Power alone.
Wherefore Eve is not called the daughter of Adam; and so this argument does not prove.
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 92, Art. 3]
Whether the Woman Was Fittingly Made from the Rib of Man?
Objection 1: It would seem that the woman should not have been formed from the rib of man. For the rib was much smaller than the woman"s body. Now from a smaller thing a larger thing can be made only--either by addition (and then the woman ought to have been described as made out of that which was added, rather than out of the rib itself)--or by rarefaction, because, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x): "A body cannot increase in bulk except by rarefaction." But the woman"s body is not more rarefied than man"s--at least, not in the proportion of a rib to Eve"s body. Therefore Eve was not formed from a rib of Adam.
Obj. 2: Further, in those things which were first created there was nothing superfluous. Therefore a rib of Adam belonged to the integrity of his body. So, if a rib was removed, his body remained imperfect; which is unreasonable to suppose.