Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Book Four — the creation of the first human beings

QUESTION I. Whether in the state of innocence men would have been multiplied by carnal generation

LatineEnglish

QUESTION I. Whether in the state of innocence men would have been multiplied by carnal generation.1

QVAESTIO I. An in statu innocentiae multiplicati fuissent homines per generationem carnalem.

NON me fugit, nonnullos de antiquis Patribus magnísque Doctoribus contrà sensisse, & scriptis prodidisse, si Adam non peccasset, multiplicationem hominum non vt nunc fit per carnalem copulam, sed ad eum modum quo facta est in Angelis esse futuram. Et propter hoc [verum...]
It does not escape me that some of the ancient Fathers and great Doctors thought the contrary, and handed down in writing, that if Adam had not sinned, the multiplication of men would not have been, as now it is, through carnal union, but would have been in that manner in which it took place among the Angels. And on account of this [...] [continues]2
[...Et propter hoc] verum esse quod dixit Dauid: Homo cùm in honore esset non intellexit, & comparatus est iumentis insipientibus, & similis factus est illis. Huius senténtie fuit Gregorius Nyssenus in libro de Homine, cap. 28. quem secutus est Damascenus de fide orthodoxa, lib. 4. cap. 25. & lib. 2. cap. 30, quibus consona sunt quae scribit Chrysostomus homil. 18. in Genesim super illa verba capitis 4. Adam cognouit vxorem suam, & super eo ipso loco Procopius Gazaeus, necnon & Euthymius super Psal. 50. His annumerari posset Augustinus lib. 1. de Genesi contra Manichaeos, cap. 19. & libro primo de sermone Domini in monte, exponens illa verba, Quicumque dimiserit vxorem suam, &c. scribit consanguinitates & necessitudines ex peccato & morte primorum parentum accidisse.
[...And on account of this it is] true what David said: “Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he was compared to the senseless beasts, and was made like to them.” Of this opinion was Gregory of Nyssa, in the book On Man, chapter 28, whom Damascene followed (On the Orthodox Faith, book 4, chapter 25, and book 2, chapter 30); with which agree the things Chrysostom writes (homily 18 on Genesis, on those words of chapter 4, “Adam knew his wife”), and, on that very place, Procopius of Gaza, and also Euthymius on Psalm 50. To these could be reckoned Augustine (book 1 On Genesis against the Manichees, chapter 19, and in the first book On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount), who, expounding those words, “Whoever shall dismiss his wife,” etc., writes that consanguinities and kinships arose from the sin and death of the first parents.3
VERVM tamen haec opinio diuinae Scripturae & rectae rationi contraria est. Narrat Moses hoc loco Deum ab initio creando hominem fecisse marem & foeminam: quorsum, nisi ad generandam prolem? Huius enim rei causa instituta à Deo est discretio sexus in marem & foeminam. Addit praeterea Moses, Deum benedixisse illis & dixisse, Crescite & multiplicamini; pro illo autem Crescite, Hebraeú verbum propriè significat Fructificate. Deinde Adam conspecta Eua, diuino afflatu dixit, Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, &c. Et erunt duo in carne vna; id autem fit per copulam carnalem, vt interpretatur Paulus in cap. 6. prioris epist. ad Corinth. Iam verò si Philosophiam rectámque rationem consulamus, ea quoque falsam esse istam opinionem docebit atque conuincet. Siquidem distinctio sexus & conformatio mem-[brorum...]
But nevertheless this opinion is contrary to divine Scripture and to right reason. Moses narrates in this place that God, in creating man from the beginning, made male and female: to what end, unless to generate offspring? For it is for the sake of this thing that the distinction of sex into male and female was instituted by God. Moses, moreover, adds that God blessed them and said, “Increase and multiply”; and for that “Increase,” the Hebrew verb properly signifies “Bear fruit.” Then Adam, having beheld Eve, by divine inspiration said, “This now is bone of my bones,” etc. “And they shall be two in one flesh” — and that comes about by carnal union, as Paul interprets in chapter 6 of the former epistle to the Corinthians. Now indeed, if we consult Philosophy and right reason, they too will teach and convince that this opinion is false. For the distinction of sex and the conformation of the mem[bers...] [continues]4
[...conformatio mem]brorum quae natura generationi destinauit, naturaliter insunt homini nec data sunt propter peccatum. Quemadmodú autem homo naturaliter & substantialiter est animal, ita est viuens: Naturalissimum autem opus viuentium, auctore Aristotele lib. 2. de Anima, est generare sibi simile: idemque in 4. lib. Meteororum tradit, perfectum esse vnumquodque cum simile sibi producere potest. Quid plura? Satis argumenti est ad id probandum, necessariam rationem & causam creandi foeminam in statu innocentiae non aliam fuisse perhiberi à Mose, capit. 2. nisi vt esset viro adiutorium: ad quid? non ad aliud sanè quàm ad generationem prolis: namque ad alia omnia vel melius vel certè non minus bene vir à viro iuuari posset. SED quid eos doctores in eam sententiam adduxit? Turpitudo videlicet & foeditas quae in ipso generationis actu nunc inest ac sentitur propter deformitaté libidinis & sensum immoderatae volupta-[tis...]
[...the conformation of the mem]bers which nature destined for generation are naturally in man, and were not given on account of sin. And just as man is naturally and substantially an animal, so he is a living thing: but the most natural work of living things, on Aristotle's authority (de Anima, book 2), is to generate its like; and the same he teaches (Meteorologica, book 4), that each thing is perfect when it can produce its like. What more? It is argument enough to prove this, that the necessary reason and cause of creating a woman in the state of innocence is reported by Moses (chapter 2) to have been no other than that she be a helper to the man: for what? surely for nothing other than the generation of offspring; for in all other things a man could be helped by a man either better, or certainly no less well. But what led those doctors into that opinion? Namely, the turpitude and foulness which now is, and is felt, in the very act of generation, on account of the deformity of lust and the sense of immoderate plea[sure...] [continues]5
[...immoderatae volupta]tis, quam primi nostri parentes statim post peccatum (vt verbis vtar Augustini) senserunt, erubuerunt & se operuerunt. Verùm hic ardor libidinis turpificans & deformans actum generationis non fuisset in statu innocentiae. Siquidem in eo animus fuisset omnino subiectus Deo, & pars inferior hominis perfectè subdita fuisset & obediens rationi, ita vt qua facilitate ac moderatione nunc mouemus caetera membra corporis, pedes ad ambulandum, manus ad capiendum, os & linguam ad loquendum, eadem tunc facilitate in eo statu absque pertur-[batione...]
[...immoderate plea]sure, which our first parents, immediately after sin (to use Augustine's words), felt, blushed at, and covered themselves. But this ardor of lust, defiling and deforming the act of generation, would not have existed in the state of innocence. For in it the mind would have been wholly subject to God, and the lower part of man would have been perfectly subdued and obedient to reason — so that, with the same facility and moderation with which we now move the other members of the body (the feet for walking, the hands for grasping, the mouth and tongue for speaking), with the same facility then, in that state, without distur[bance...] [continues]6
[...absque pertur]batione rationis, sine ardore libidinis, & citra omnem foeditatem mouebat homo, regebat, & moderabatur ea membra corporis quae ad generandum natura comparauit. AVGVSTINVM verò non fuisse in contraria sententia, nemo negabit qui legerit ea quae de hoc ipso copiosè & accuratè pro nostrae opinionis confirmatione ab eo disputata sunt, in lib. 9. super Genesim ad litteram, cap. 10. sed in primis lib. 14. de Ciuit. Dei, à cap. 21. vsque ad 27. & in lib. 1. Retract. cap. 10. 13. & 19. Nam quod aliubi dixit, consanguinitates & cognationes carnales profluxisse ex [peccato...]
[...without distur]bance of reason, without the ardor of lust, and free from all foulness, man would move, rule, and moderate those members of the body which nature prepared for generating. And that Augustine was not of the contrary opinion, no one will deny who reads the things copiously and accurately disputed by him on this very matter, in confirmation of our opinion, in book 9 On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter 10, but especially in book 14 On the City of God, from chapter 21 to 27, and in book 1 of the Retractations, chapters 10, 13, and 19. For as to what he said elsewhere, that consanguinities and carnal kinships flowed forth from [sin...] [continues]7
[...profluxisse ex peccato], hanc habet sententiam, eas non coepisse nisi post peccatum, post quod scilicet Adam primùm cognouit vxorem suam: in paradiso enim generationi operam non dederút, vel quòd breuissimo tempore ibi fuerint, vel quod ad id mandatum Dei expectarent, cum nec ardore libidinis vel titillatione vlla voluptatis ad maturandum generationis actum incitarentur.
[...flowed forth from sin], this is its meaning: that they did not begin except after sin, after which, namely, Adam first knew his wife: for in paradise they did not give effort to generation, either because they were there for a very short time, or because they were awaiting God's command for it, since they were not incited by the ardor of lust, or by any titillation of pleasure, to hasten the act of generation.8

Translator’s notes

  1. First question of the new disputation. ↩
  2. Decorated initial 'N.' The opposing view of some Fathers/Doctors: had Adam not sinned, men would have multiplied not carnally but in an angel-like manner. Page breaks at catchword 'verum' (signature QQ 3). RESUME PDF 535 with 'Et propter hoc [verum]...'. ↩
  3. The opposing view (continued): had Adam not sinned, propagation would be angel-like — confirmed (they say) by Ps 48/49:13. Its holders: Gregory of Nyssa (de Hom. Opif. 28), John Damascene, Chrysostom (hom. 18), Procopius of Gaza, Euthymius Zigabenus; and Augustine (de Gen. c. Manich. 1.19; de Serm. Dom.) — kinship began only after the Fall. Marginal gloss: 'Psalm. 48.' ↩
  4. Refutation: Scripture and reason are against the angel-like view. God made the sexes precisely for offspring; 'Increase and multiply' (Heb. = 'bear fruit'); 'two in one flesh' = carnal union (1 Cor 6). Philosophy agrees. Marginal gloss: 'Refellitur supradicta opinio.' ↩
  5. The generative members are natural, not penal; the most natural act of the living is to beget its like (Aristotle, de Anima 2; Meteor. 4). Moses gives no reason for the woman but 'a helper' — i.e. for generation (else a man would help better). What misled those Fathers: the shamefulness now felt in the act, from disordered lust. ↩
  6. After sin the first parents felt lust, blushed, and covered themselves (Augustine). But in innocence no such defiling ardor: mind subject to God, the lower part obedient to reason — the generative members would be moved as freely and calmly as we now move feet, hands, tongue. Page breaks at catchword 'pertur[batione].' ↩
  7. In innocence the generative members would be governed calmly, free of lust. Augustine in fact holds the same view (de Gen. ad lit. 9.10; de Civ. Dei 14.21-27; Retract. 1.10,13,19) — his remark that kinship 'flowed from sin' must be reconciled. Marginal gloss: 'Augustinum sensisse, in statu innocentiae futuram generationem carnalem.' ↩
  8. Augustine's 'kinship from sin' = it only began after the Fall, when Adam first knew Eve; in paradise they had not yet generated (whether for shortness of time, or awaiting God's command), not being driven by lust. ↩