LatineEnglish
QUESTION VIII. Why Moses does not mention the creation of the woman's soul.1
QVAESTIO VIII. Cur Moses non memoret creationem animae mulieris.
SED quaerat aliquis, Cur, quemadmodum de formatione corporis Euae facta est mentio, non itidem fiat de insufflatione spiritus vitae in eam, per quam significatur creatio animae rationalis, vti suprà de Adamo traditum est? Ad hoc responderi potest, id quo differebat productio Adae & Euae, modum scilicet quo vtriusque corpus effectum est, separatim ac distinctè fuisse explicatum; creandi verò vtriusque animam [ratio...]
But someone may ask: Why, just as mention is made of the formation of Eve's body, is the same not made of the inbreathing of the spirit of life into her — by which the creation of the rational soul is signified — as was related above of Adam? To this it can be answered: that wherein the production of Adam and Eve differed — namely, the manner in which the body of each was made — was explained separately and distinctly; but the [manner] of creating the soul of each [continues]2
[...creandi verò vtriusque animam ratio], quia plane similis fuerat ratio, propterea nihil attinebat bis hoc edocere, sed erat satis in generatione viri semel indicasse. Nec sinit nos Scriptura dubitare quin Eua animam rationalem aequè habuerit atque Adamus: id enim non obscurè ipsa demonstrat, cú inducit Deum dicentem, Faciamus ei adiutorium simile sibi: neque enim mulier aut similis Adamo fuisset, aut idoneum ei adiutorium, si anima rationali caruisset. Similitudo quoque vtriusque corporum similitudinem animorum declarauit. Quomodo ité Euae, si expers rationis fuisset, à Deo esset lex imposita, vel legis violatae tam grauis poena fuisset irrogata? Vtrum verò, quemadmodum corpus Euae ex corpore Adami factum est, ita ex huius anima illius anima sit creata, Eucherius super hoc loco scribit quaestionem esse ad definiendum difficilem, cùm nihil super ea sit vel à Patribus definitum, vel Ecclesiae auctoritate constitutum. At enim, creationem cuiusque animae rationalis à solo Deo immediatè proficisci, iampridem apud Theologos & in Ecclesia Catholica extra controuersiam est.
[...but the manner of creating the soul of each], because the manner had been quite similar, therefore it was not needful to teach this twice, but it was enough to have indicated it once in the generation of the man. Nor does Scripture allow us to doubt that Eve had a rational soul equally with Adam: for it demonstrates this not obscurely, when it introduces God saying, “Let us make him a helper like himself”: for the woman would neither have been similar to Adam, nor a suitable helper for him, if she had lacked a rational soul. The likeness, too, of the bodies of both declared the likeness of their souls. Likewise, how, if Eve had been devoid of reason, would a law have been imposed on her by God, or so grave a penalty for the violated law have been inflicted? But whether, just as Eve's body was made from Adam's body, so from his soul her soul was created — Eucherius, on this place, writes that the question is difficult to determine, since nothing concerning it is either defined by the Fathers or established by the authority of the Church. But indeed, that the creation of each rational soul proceeds immediately from God alone has long been beyond controversy among the Theologians and in the Catholic Church.3
Translator’s notes
- Eighth question of the disputation. ↩
- Decorated initial 'S.' The question: why no inbreathing-of-life narrated for Eve (signifying the rational soul) as for Adam? Answer begins: what differed (the making of each body) was told distinctly, but the soul-creation... ↩
- Soul-creation was told once (in Adam) since identical for both; that Eve had a rational soul is plain ('a helper like himself'; bodily likeness shows soul-likeness; law and penalty presuppose reason). Whether her soul came from Adam's soul (as her body from his body) Eucherius calls undetermined — but that every rational soul is created immediately by God alone is settled doctrine. Catchword 'QVAE' opens Question IX (signature PP). ↩