|
Objection 1: It would seem that in the state of innocence man was
passible. For "sensation is a kind of passion." But in the state
of innocence man would have been sensitive. Therefore he would have
been passible.
Objection 2: Further, sleep is a kind of passion. Now, man slept
in the state of innocence, according to Gn. 2:21, "God cast a
deep sleep upon Adam." Therefore he would have been passible.
Objection 3: Further, the same passage goes on to say that "He
took a rib out of Adam." Therefore he was passible even to the
degree of the cutting out of part of his body.
Objection 4: Further, man's body was soft. But a soft body is
naturally passible as regards a hard body; therefore if a hard body had
come in contact with the soft body of the first man, the latter would
have suffered from the impact. Therefore the first man was passible.
On the contrary, Had man been passible, he would have been also
corruptible, because, as the Philosopher says (Top. vi, 3):
"Excessive suffering wastes the very substance."
I answer that, "Passion" may be taken in two senses. First, in
its proper sense, and thus a thing is said to suffer when changed from
its natural disposition. For passion is the effect of action; and in
nature contraries are mutually active or passive, according as one
thing changes another from its natural disposition. Secondly,
"passion" can be taken in a general sense for any kind of change,
even if belonging to the perfecting process of nature. Thus
understanding and sensation are said to be passions. In this second
sense, man was passible in the state of innocence, and was passive
both in soul and body. In the first sense, man was impassible, both
in soul and body, as he was likewise immortal; for he could curb his
passion, as he could avoid death, so long as he refrained from sin.
Thus it is clear how to reply to the first two objections; since
sensation and sleep do not remove from man his natural disposition, but
are ordered to his natural welfare.
Reply to Objection 3: As already explained (Question 92,
Article 3, ad 2), the rib was in Adam as the principle of the
human race, as the semen in man, who is a principle through
generation. Hence as man does not suffer any natural deterioration by
seminal issue; so neither did he through the separation of the rib.
Reply to Objection 4: Man's body in the state of innocence could
be preserved from suffering injury from a hard body; partly by the use
of his reason, whereby he could avoid what was harmful; and partly
also by Divine Providence, so preserving him, that nothing of a
harmful nature could come upon him unawares.
|
|