Obj. 3: Further, a rib cannot be removed from man without pain. But there was no pain before sin. Therefore it was not right for a rib to be taken from the man, that Eve might be made from it.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Gen. 2:22): "G.o.d built the rib, which He took from Adam, into a woman."
_I answer that,_ It was right for the woman to be made from a rib of man. First, to signify the social union of man and woman, for the woman should neither "use authority over man," and so she was not made from his head; nor was it right for her to be subject to man"s contempt as his slave, and so she was not made from his feet.
Secondly, for the sacramental signification; for from the side of Christ sleeping on the Cross the Sacraments flowed--namely, blood and water--on which the Church was established.
Reply Obj. 1: Some say that the woman"s body was formed by a material increase, without anything being added; in the same way as our Lord multiplied the five loaves. But this is quite impossible. For such an increase of matter would either be by a change of the very substance of the matter itself, or by a change of its dimensions. Not by change of the substance of the matter, both because matter, considered in itself, is quite unchangeable, since it has a potential existence, and has nothing but the nature of a subject, and because quant.i.ty and size are extraneous to the essence of matter itself. Wherefore multiplication of matter is quite unintelligible, as long as the matter itself remains the same without anything added to it; unless it receives greater dimensions. This implies rarefaction, which is for the same matter to receive greater dimensions, as the Philosopher says (Phys. iv). To say, therefore, that the same matter is enlarged, without being rarefied, is to combine contradictories--viz. the definition with the absence of the thing defined.
Wherefore, as no rarefaction is apparent in such multiplication of matter, we must admit an addition of matter: either by creation, or which is more probable, by conversion. Hence Augustine says (Tract.
xxiv in Joan.) that "Christ filled five thousand men with five loaves, in the same way as from a few seeds He produces the harvest of corn"--that is, by transformation of the nourishment.
Nevertheless, we say that the crowds were fed with five loaves, or that woman was made from the rib, because an addition was made to the already existing matter of the loaves and of the rib.
Reply Obj. 2: The rib belonged to the integral perfection of Adam, not as an individual, but as the principle of the human race; just as the s.e.m.e.n belongs to the perfection of the begetter, and is released by a natural and pleasurable operation. Much more, therefore, was it possible that by the Divine power the body of the woman should be produced from the man"s rib.
From this it is clear how to answer the third objection.
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 92, Art. 4]
Whether the Woman Was Formed Immediately by G.o.d?
Objection 1: It would seem that the woman was not formed immediately by G.o.d. For no individual is produced immediately by G.o.d from another individual alike in species. But the woman was made from a man who is of the same species. Therefore she was not made immediately by G.o.d.
Obj. 2: Further, Augustine (De Trin. iii, 4) says that corporeal things are governed by G.o.d through the angels. But the woman"s body was formed from corporeal matter. Therefore it was made through the ministry of the angels, and not immediately by G.o.d.
Obj. 3: Further, those things which pre-exist in creatures as to their causal virtues are produced by the power of some creature, and not immediately by G.o.d. But the woman"s body was produced in its causal virtues among the first created works, as Augustine says (Gen.
ad lit. ix, 15). Therefore it was not produced immediately by G.o.d.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says, in the same work: "G.o.d alone, to Whom all nature owes its existence, could form or build up the woman from the man"s rib."
_I answer that,_ As was said above (A. 2, ad 2), the natural generation of every species is from some determinate matter. Now the matter whence man is naturally begotten is the human s.e.m.e.n of man or woman. Wherefore from any other matter an individual of the human species cannot naturally be generated. Now G.o.d alone, the Author of nature, can produce an effect into existence outside the ordinary course of nature. Therefore G.o.d alone could produce either a man from the slime of the earth, or a woman from the rib of man.
Reply Obj. 1: This argument is verified when an individual is begotten, by natural generation, from that which is like it in the same species.
Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ix, 15), we do not know whether the angels were employed by G.o.d in the formation of the woman; but it is certain that, as the body of man was not formed by the angels from the slime of the earth, so neither was the body of the woman formed by them from the man"s rib.
Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ix, 18): "The first creation of things did not demand that woman should be made thus; it made it possible for her to be thus made." Therefore the body of the woman did indeed pre-exist in these causal virtues, in the things first created; not as regards active potentiality, but as regards a potentiality pa.s.sive in relation to the active potentiality of the Creator.
_______________________
QUESTION 93
THE END OR TERM OF THE PRODUCTION OF MAN (In Nine Articles)
We now treat of the end or term of man"s production, inasmuch as he is said to be made "to the image and likeness of G.o.d." There are under this head nine points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the image of G.o.d is in man?
(2) Whether the image of G.o.d is in irrational creatures?
(3) Whether the image of G.o.d is in the angels more than in man?
(4) Whether the image of G.o.d is in every man?
(5) Whether the image of G.o.d is in man by comparison with the Essence, or with all the Divine Persons, or with one of them?
(6) Whether the image of G.o.d is in man, as to his mind only?
(7) Whether the image of G.o.d is in man"s power or in his habits and acts?
(8) Whether the image of G.o.d is in man by comparison with every object?
(9) Of the difference between "image" and "likeness."
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 93, Art. 1]
Whether the Image of G.o.d Is in Man?
Objection 1: It would seem that the image of G.o.d is not in man. For it is written (Isa. 40:18): "To whom have you likened G.o.d? or what image will you make for Him?"
Obj. 2: Further, to be the image of G.o.d is the property of the First-Begotten, of Whom the Apostle says (Col. 1:15): "Who is the image of the invisible G.o.d, the First-Born of every creature."
Therefore the image of G.o.d is not to be found in man.
Obj. 3: Further, Hilary says (De Synod [*Super i can]. Synod.
Ancyr.) that "an image is of the same species as that which it represents"; and he also says that "an image is the undivided and united likeness of one thing adequately representing another." But there is no species common to both G.o.d and man; nor can there be a comparison of equality between G.o.d and man. Therefore there can be no image of G.o.d in man.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Gen. 1:26): "Let Us make man to Our own image and likeness."
_I answer that,_ As Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 74): "Where an image exists, there forthwith is likeness; but where there is likeness, there is not necessarily an image." Hence it is clear that likeness is essential to an image; and that an image adds something to likeness--namely, that it is copied from something else. For an "image" is so called because it is produced as an imitation of something else; wherefore, for instance, an egg, however much like and equal to another egg, is not called an image of the other egg, because it is not copied from it.
But equality does not belong to the essence of an image; for as Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 74): "Where there is an image there is not necessarily equality," as we see in a person"s image reflected in a gla.s.s. Yet this is of the essence of a perfect image; for in a perfect image nothing is wanting that is to be found in that of which it is a copy. Now it is manifest that in man there is some likeness to G.o.d, copied from G.o.d as from an exemplar; yet this likeness is not one of equality, for such an exemplar infinitely excels its copy.
Therefore there is in man a likeness to G.o.d; not, indeed, a perfect likeness, but imperfect. And Scripture implies the same when it says that man was made "to" G.o.d"s likeness; for the preposition "to"
signifies a certain approach, as of something at a distance.
Reply Obj. 1: The Prophet speaks of bodily images made by man.
Therefore he says pointedly: "What image will you make for Him?" But G.o.d made a spiritual image to Himself in man.
Reply Obj. 2: The First-Born of creatures is the perfect Image of G.o.d, reflecting perfectly that of which He is the Image, and so He is said to be the "Image," and never "to the image." But man is said to be both "image" by reason of the likeness; and "to the image" by reason of the imperfect likeness. And since the perfect likeness to G.o.d cannot be except in an identical nature, the Image of G.o.d exists in His first-born Son; as the image of the king is in his son, who is of the same nature as himself: whereas it exists in man as in an alien nature, as the image of the king is in a silver coin, as Augustine says explains in _De decem Chordis_ (Serm. ix, al, xcvi, De Tempore).
Reply Obj. 3: As unity means absence of division, a species is said to be the same as far as it is one. Now a thing is said to be one not only numerically, specifically, or generically, but also according to a certain a.n.a.logy or proportion. In this sense a creature is one with G.o.d, or like to Him; but when Hilary says "of a thing which adequately represents another," this is to be understood of a perfect image.
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 93, Art. 2]
Whether the Image of G.o.d Is to Be Found in Irrational Creatures?
Objection 1: It would seem that the image of G.o.d is to be found in irrational creatures. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ii): "Effects are contingent images of their causes." But G.o.d is the cause not only of rational, but also of irrational creatures. Therefore the image of G.o.d is to be found in irrational creatures.