title: Dist. 17, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 420 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum corpus Adae constitutum fuerit ex natura pure elementari.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum corpus primi hominis constitutum fuerit de natura pure elementari, an simul cum natura elementari concurrerit natura caelestis ad eius constitutionem. Et quod simul cum elementari concurrat natura caelestis ad corporis humani constitutionem, videtur:

<!-- page 421 -->

*Ad oppositum.*

1. *Primo* per Augustinum *super Genesim ad litteram*[^1], qui dicit, quod anima mediante luce corpus vivificat et administrat; et eadem est sententia Avicennae. Si ergo corpus humanum sic conditum est, ut natum esset ab anima vivificari, videtur, quod ad eius constitutionem concurrerit natura lucis; et haec est natura caelestis: ergo etc.

2. Item, Philosophus *in decimo sexto*[^2] *de Animalibus* dicit, quod in nobis est «calor igneus et calor caelestis, qui quidem est calor vitalis»; sed non est accidens sine substantia: ergo de constitutione corporis nostri est caelestis natura.

3. Item, impossibile est, contraria venire ad conformitatem et unitatem nisi per unum, quod sit elevatum a contrarietate; quia si illud haberet contrarietatem, potius discordiam faceret, quam conciliaret. Si igitur natura corporalis a contrarietate elevata non est nisi natura caelestis, et in corpore vivificabili necesse est contraria elementa conciliari maxime: videtur ergo, quod de constitutione primi hominis fuerit natura caelestis[^3].

4. Item, omne corpus mediante anima rationali quodam modo habet beatificari[^4]; sed non pertingunt ad beatitudinem mediante anima, nisi quae ei uniuntur; nulla tamen corpora ei coniunguntur, nisi quae sunt de constitutione sui corporis: videtur ergo, quod corpus primi hominis non tantum constitutum sit de natura elementari, verum etiam de natura caelesti.

5. Item, in quolibet organo cuiuslibet sensus dominatur aliquod corpus simplicium, sicut ostendit Augustinus *super Genesim ad litteram*[^5]: cum igitur quinque sensus sint in homine, videtur, quod quinque corpora sint de eius constitutione: ergo non solum natura elementaris, sed etiam caelestis.

6. Item, ordo est in ascendendo et in descendendo, ita quod ab infimo pervenitur ad supremum per media, et e converso; sed substantia spiritualis maxima distantia distat a natura corporea et opaca, et minus a natura perspicua, et adhuc minus a natura luminosa, quae est natura caelestis: ergo videtur, quod nec corpus animae, nec anima corpori uniri debeat, nisi natura lucis interveniente; videtur ergo, quod corpus primi hominis non tantum de elementari, sed etiam de caelesti natura constitutum fuerit.

**Contra:**

*Fundamenta.*

1. Ex nullis corporibus constituitur corpus mixtum, nisi quae possunt ad invicem agere et pati; haec autem sola sunt habentia contrarietatem[^6]: cum igitur natura quinti corporis talis sit, ut non habeat contrarietatem, non videtur, quod veniat ad constitutionem corporis mixti: ergo nec ad constitutionem corporis primi hominis.

2. Item, nihil venit ad constitutionem mixti nisi corpus, quod est miscibile; miscibile autem non est nisi corpus rarefactibile et condensabile, et omne tale est corruptibile, natura autem quinti corporis est incorruptibilis: ergo non potuit venire ad constitutionem humani corporis.

3. Item, corpus humanum secundum se totum est propagabile, ergo secundum se totum est generabile et corruptibile per naturam; sed natura quinti corporis non recipit generationem nec corruptionem: ergo non videtur esse de constitutione humani corporis.

<!-- page 422 -->

4. Item, si est de constitutione, quaero, unde sumta sit illa natura; aut enim de *caelo* aut de *terra*. Si de *caelo:* ergo videtur, quod ab ipso caelo fiat aliquarum partium sequestratio, cum generatur homo. Si de *terra;* sed *contra:* nihil est de terra, quod non sit natum ex ipsa produci; sed natura quinti corporis non est nata produci de natura alicuius elementi: ergo nec de caelo nec de terra potest sumi illa natura: ergo non est de constitutione corporis humani. *Si tu dicas*, quod de caelo venit per radiorum immissionem; hoc non videtur conveniens, quia impossibile est, per radium separari a sua origine; impossibile est etiam venire ad alterius constitutionem, cum lumen in medio sit per modum speciei et idoli, quae nullo modo veniunt ad constitutionem alicuius rei naturalis[^7].

5. Item, si natura quinti corporis venit ad constitutionem corporis hominis, quaero, quid fiat de ea[^8], quando corpus humanum resolvitur. Aut enim tendit *sursum*, aut in propria natura manet *deorsum*, aut *corrumpitur in aliquod elementum*. Sed in *aliquod elementum* non potest *cedere*, cum sit per naturam incorruptibilis. *Deorsum* in propria natura non convenit sibi manere, cum eius locus proprius sit esse in circumferentia, non in centro. Si *sursum* tendit: ergo videtur, spatium orbium caelestium aliquando ampliari aut condensari. *Quod si tu dicas*, quod cedit in constitutionem alterius corporis nec habet corrumpi; cum ergo ex corpore hominis generentur vermes et bufones et serpentes, poneretur natura quinti corporis esse de constitutione vermium, sicut de constitutione hominum.

6. Item, quaero, propter quid natura quinti corporis veniat ad constitutionem humani corporis; aut enim propter *mixtionem*, aut propter *animationem*, aut propter *sensum*, aut propter *intellectum*. Si propter *mixtionem:* ergo tunc esset de compositione cuiuslibet mixti. Si propter *animationem:* tunc esset de natura cuiuslibet plantae. Si propter *sensificationem:* tunc esset de natura cuiuslibet animalis bruti. Si ergo venit, hoc est propter *intellectum solum*. *Sed contra:* «intellectus nullius partis corporis est actus»[^9]: ergo quantum est de se, non magis exigit corpus suum componi de natura caelesti quam de elementari.

> **Conclusio.** Natura quinti corporis non venit ad constitutionem corporis humani secundum substantiam, sed secundum virtutem et per quandam conformitatem.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod circa hoc est triplex modus dicendi.

*Opinio 1.* Quidam enim dicere voluerunt, quod natura caelestis venit ad constitutionem humani corporis sicut *elementum*, pro eo quod natura caelestis non est alia quam natura *ignis;* et ideo, cum constet, ignem ad constitutionem humani corporis venire, dicunt, corpus humanum ex natura caelesti constitutum esse. Haec autem natura ignis, etsi, prout aliis permiscetur, habeat agere et pati, et corrumpi et generari, et hoc, prout est hic inferius; prout tamen est in sphaera sua, tranquillitatem et quietem habet nec suscipit corruptiones nec peregrinas impressiones. Et istam suam positionem per verba Augustini[^10] muniunt, qui negat, esse quintum corpus praeter quatuor corpora mundi. — *Improbatur.* Sed haec positio viae philosophicae et communi aperte repugnat, quae praeter quatuor corpora mundi ponit essentiam quintam, supra omnem contrarietatem elevatam; quod valde rationabile est, sicut ostensum fuit supra, distinctione decima quarta[^11]. Nec huic repugnat sententia Augustini, si recte intelligatur, sicut ibidem expositum est.

*Opinio 2.* Ideo aliter alii voluerunt dicere, quod natura caelestis venit ad constitutionem humani corporis, non sicut unum ex elementis, sed sicut *medium* ligans omnia elementa et illa concilians. Et hoc dicunt exigere dignitatem complexionis humanae, per quam corpus humanum in sua prima constitutione habuit elementa in optima conciliatione; habuit etiam idoneitatem ad hoc, ut post meriti consummationem inhabitaret in caelesti mansione. Et sic debuit habere naturam *caelestem* et *elementarem* de sui constitutione: *elementarem* propter statum viae, in quo competebat ipsum habere corpus passibile[^12]; *caelestem* propter statum patriae, in quo competebat ipsum habere corpus clarum et impassibile. Et quemadmodum in statu viae natura elementaris praedominatur, sic in statu patriae erit e contrario. — *Non probatur.* Hoc autem etsi videatur satis probabile esse dictum, tamen non modicam habet calumniam, qualiter illa natura quinti corporis, cum sit incorruptibilis et carens contrarietate, veniat ad commixtionem cum aliis elementis. *Et iterum*, si venit, unde venit et in quid cedit, difficile est assignare.

*Opinio 3. cum distinctione.* Et ideo est tertius modus dicendi, quod dupliciter est loqui de natura caelesti: aut per *proprietatem*, aut per *conformitatem*. — Per *proprietatem*, *Membrum 1 distinctionis.* natura caelestis dicitur esse natura quinti corporis, quae sic *perfecta* est sua forma, ut nullo modo habeat appetitum ad aliam formationem[^13], sic est *activa*, quod nullo modo potest pati et corrumpi; et sic est natura orbium et stellarum et firmamenti. *Conclusio 1.* Haec autem non venit ad constitutionem humani corporis secundum *substantiam* et veritatem, sed solum venit

<!-- page 423 -->

secundum *virtutem*, quia virtus stellarum et orbium influendo facit elementorum conciliationem, quae veniunt ad humani corporis constitutionem secundum *rem*, dum actio elementorum regimen et directionem habet ab influentia corporum superiorum. — *Membrum 2.* Alio modo dicitur natura caelestis per *conformitatem;* et sic *large* accipitur et vocatur natura caelestis illud quod est conforme caelo in *subtilitate* et in *claritate* et in quadam *sublevatione*[^14] a contrarietate. Et per hunc modum *spiritus*, qui sunt de constitutione corporis viventis, et maxime hominis, dicuntur esse naturae caelestis propter subtilitatem et luminositatem, et propter hoc etiam, quod sublevationem habent a natura contrarietatis, dum consurgunt ex commixtione elementorum in quadam harmonia et consonantia. Et quoniam in corpore humano, sicut infra[^15] patebit, maior est harmonia quam in aliquo corpore mixto; hinc est, quod eius calor et spiritus et complexio magis conformantur naturae caelesti. *Conclusio 2.* Et hoc modo, accipiendo naturam lucis sive naturam caelestem *large* sive per conformitatem, intrat constitutionem humani corporis secundum *virtutem*[^16] magis quam constitutionem alicuius alterius mixti propter humanae complexionis aequalitatem et dignitatem. Secundum *veritatem* tamen tam spiritus quam calor, qui dicuntur naturae caelestis, sunt de natura elementari, quia deperduntur et restaurantur, secundum quod expresse physici dicunt.

Iuxta hanc tertiam viam, quae probabilior est et planior, patet responsio ad quaestionem propositam[^16a], patet etiam responsio ad obiecta. Nam rationes ostendentes, quod natura quinti corporis non venit ad constitutionem corporis humani, loquuntur de natura caelesti *proprie* dicta, quae est incorruptibilis et inalterabilis et immiscibilis; et ideo non est miscibilis ad constitutionem tertii. Rationes vero ad oppositum inductae procedunt vel de natura caelesti dicta per *conformitatem*, sicut duae primae auctoritates; vel, si concludunt de natura quinti corporis *proprie* dicta, non ostendunt, quod veniat ad constitutionem corporis humani secundum *substantiam*, sed secundum *virtutem*. Aliter non concludunt, sicut patet discurrendo per singulas.

**Ad argumenta ad oppositum:**

*Solutio oppositorum.*

*Ad 1.* Nam ad illud quod primo obiicitur de luce, dicendum, quod est lux *quinti corporis*, et lux *ignea*, et lux *ex aequalitate complexionis generata* sive *consurgens;* et haec est illa lux, quae facit corpus *Triplex lux.* esse susceptibile vitae; aliae vero minime.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de calore, dicendum, quod calor *caelestis* non dicitur, quia sit in natura caelesti, sicut in subiecto, quia illa neque calida est neque frigida; sed quia est a natura caelesti secundum debitam proportionem, ita quod facit ad conservationem; et talis calor in corpore humano est. Sed ex hoc non sequitur, quod natura caelestis veniat ad constitutionem corporis humani secundum *substantiam*, sed solum, quod *influat*.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de conciliatione, iam patet responsio, quia non conciliat veniens *intra*, sed sufficit ad conciliandum, influens *extra*.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de beatificatione, dicendum, quod corpora beatificari dicuntur in homine[^16b] *Notandum.* non per *veritatem*, sed per *conformitatem;* et ideo ex hoc non sequitur, quod de constitutione humani corporis sit natura caelestis secundum *veritatem*, sed sufficit, quod sit secundum *conformitatem*, ita quod aliquid ei conforme respondeat in humano corpore.

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de quinque sensibus, dicendum, quod sicut idem Augustinus dicit, unum elementum dominatur in duobus, sicut aqua sub ratione vaporis dominatur in olfactu, sub ratione humoris dominatur in gustu, sicut ipse dicit tertio *super Genesim*[^16-bis].

*Ad 6.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de ordine, dicendum, *Notandum.* quod, etsi natura caelestis sit excelsior inter corpora simplicia secundum se considerata, non tamen excellit in gradu in comparatione ad ulteriorem formam suscipiendam; sed is est ordo, quod forma *elementaris* unitur animae mediante forma *mixtionis*, et forma *mixtionis* disponit ad formam *complexionis*. Et quia haec[^17b], cum est in aequalitate et harmonia, conformatur naturae caelesti; ideo habilis est ad susceptionem nobilissimae influentiae, scilicet vitae. Et sic in unione animae ad corpus rectus servatur ordo. Magna etiam est dignitas humani corporis propter magnam harmoniam et proportionalem coniunctionem suarum partium, ob quam in statu *viatoris* conformis fit naturae caelesti; in statu autem *comprehensoris* perficietur a Deo, non tantum, ut sit conformis, sed etiam, ut supra naturam caelestem sit *exaltata* et *sublimata*, ut ei congruat potissime habitatio caeli empyrei[^17].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the body of Adam was constituted from a purely elemental nature.*

Secondly, it is asked whether the body of the first man was constituted of a purely elemental nature, or whether together with the elemental nature there concurred a celestial nature in his constitution. And that together with the elemental there concurs a celestial nature in the constitution of the human body, it seems:

*To the contrary [side affirming celestial nature].*

1. *First*, by Augustine *on Genesis according to the letter*[^1], who says that the soul, by the mediation of light, vivifies and administers the body; and the same is the opinion of Avicenna. If therefore the human body has been so fashioned that it is born to be vivified by the soul, it seems that there concurred in its constitution the nature of light; and this is the celestial nature: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the Philosopher in book sixteen[^2] *On Animals* says that in us there is "an igneous heat and a celestial heat, which indeed is the vital heat"; but an accident does not exist without a substance: therefore the celestial nature pertains to the constitution of our body.

3. Likewise, it is impossible that contraries come to conformity and unity except through some one thing which is elevated above contrariety; for if that thing had contrariety, it would rather cause discord than reconcile. If therefore the corporeal nature elevated from contrariety is none other than the celestial nature, and in a body able to be vivified it is necessary that contrary elements be reconciled to the highest degree: therefore it seems that the celestial nature was in the constitution of the first man[^3].

4. Likewise, every body, by mediation of the rational soul, is in some manner able to be beatified[^4]; but they do not attain to beatitude through the soul, except those which are united to it; yet no bodies are joined to it, except those which are of the constitution of its body: therefore it seems that the body of the first man was constituted not only of an elemental nature, but also of a celestial nature.

5. Likewise, in every organ of every sense some one of the simple bodies dominates, as Augustine shows *on Genesis according to the letter*[^5]: since therefore there are five senses in man, it seems that five bodies are of his constitution: therefore not only the elemental but also the celestial nature.

6. Likewise, there is order in ascending and in descending, so that from the lowest one arrives at the highest through means, and conversely; but spiritual substance is at a maximum distance from corporeal and opaque nature, and at less from perspicuous nature, and at still less from luminous nature, which is the celestial nature: therefore it seems that neither could the body be united to the soul, nor the soul to the body, except by the mediation of the nature of light; it seems therefore that the body of the first man was constituted not only of the elemental but also of the celestial nature.

**On the contrary:**

*Foundations.*

1. From no bodies is a mixed body constituted, except such as can act and be acted upon by one another; and these alone are such as have contrariety[^6]: since therefore the nature of the fifth body is such that it does not have contrariety, it does not seem that it comes to the constitution of a mixed body: therefore neither to the constitution of the body of the first man.

2. Likewise, nothing comes to the constitution of a mixture except a body which is miscible; but the miscible is nothing but a body that is rarefiable and condensable, and every such body is corruptible, whereas the nature of the fifth body is incorruptible: therefore it could not come to the constitution of the human body.

3. Likewise, the human body according to its whole self is propagable, and therefore according to its whole self it is generable and corruptible by nature; but the nature of the fifth body does not admit generation nor corruption: therefore it does not seem to be of the constitution of the human body.

4. Likewise, if it is of the constitution, I ask, whence is that nature taken; for either from *heaven* or from *earth*. If from *heaven:* then it seems that from heaven itself there happens a setting-apart of certain parts when a man is generated. If from *earth;* but *on the contrary:* nothing is of the earth which is not born to be produced from it; but the nature of the fifth body is not born to be produced from the nature of any element: therefore that nature cannot be taken either from heaven or from earth: therefore it is not of the constitution of the human body. *If you say* that it comes from heaven by the emission of rays, this does not seem fitting, because it is impossible for a ray to be separated from its origin; it is also impossible for it to come to the constitution of another, since light in a medium is by way of species and image, which in no way come to the constitution of any natural thing[^7].

5. Likewise, if the nature of the fifth body comes to the constitution of the body of man, I ask, what becomes of it[^8] when the human body is dissolved. For either it tends *upward*, or remains in its proper nature *downward*, or *is corrupted into some element*. But into *any element* it cannot *yield*, since by nature it is incorruptible. To remain *downward* in its proper nature does not suit it, since its proper place is to be in the circumference, not in the center. If it tends *upward:* then it seems that the space of the celestial orbs is at times enlarged or condensed. *But if you say* that it yields to the constitution of another body and is not corrupted; since therefore from the body of man worms and toads and serpents are generated, the nature of the fifth body would be placed as belonging to the constitution of worms, as to the constitution of men.

6. Likewise, I ask on account of what the nature of the fifth body comes to the constitution of the human body; for either because of *mixture*, or because of *animation*, or because of *sense*, or because of *intellect*. If because of *mixture:* then it would be of the composition of any mixture whatsoever. If because of *animation:* then it would be of the nature of any plant whatsoever. If because of *sensification:* then it would be of the nature of any brute animal whatsoever. If therefore it comes, this is on account of the *intellect alone*. *But on the contrary:* "the intellect is the act of no part of the body"[^9]: therefore so far as itself is concerned, it does not demand its body to be composed of a celestial nature any more than of an elemental.

> **Conclusion.** The nature of the fifth body does not come to the constitution of the human body according to substance, but according to virtue and through a certain conformity.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing, it must be noted that concerning this there is a threefold manner of speaking.

*Opinion 1.* For some have wished to say that the celestial nature comes to the constitution of the human body as an *element*, on the ground that the celestial nature is no other than the nature of *fire;* and therefore, since it is established that fire comes to the constitution of the human body, they say that the human body is constituted from a celestial nature. This nature of fire, however, although, insofar as it is mingled with others, has acting and being acted upon, and being corrupted and generated — and this insofar as it is here below; yet insofar as it is in its own sphere, it has tranquillity and quiet, and admits neither corruptions nor foreign impressions. And they fortify this position of theirs by the words of Augustine[^10], who denies that there is a fifth body beyond the four bodies of the world. — *It is disproven.* But this position openly contradicts the philosophical and common way, which beyond the four bodies of the world posits a fifth essence, elevated above all contrariety; which is highly reasonable, as was shown above, in distinction fourteen[^11]. Nor does the opinion of Augustine contradict this, if it be rightly understood, as has been there expounded.

*Opinion 2.* Therefore others have otherwise wished to say that the celestial nature comes to the constitution of the human body, not as one of the elements, but as a *mean* binding all the elements together and reconciling them. And they say that this is required by the dignity of the human complexion, through which the human body in its first constitution had the elements in optimal reconciliation; it also had a fitness for this, that after the consummation of merit it might dwell in the celestial mansion. And thus it had to have a *celestial* and an *elemental* nature in its constitution: *elemental* on account of the state of the way, in which it was fitting for it to have a passible body[^12]; *celestial* on account of the state of the homeland, in which it was fitting for it to have a clear and impassible body. And just as in the state of the way the elemental nature predominates, so in the state of the homeland it will be the reverse. — *It is not proved.* But this, although it seems to be sufficiently probable a saying, has nonetheless no small difficulty, as to how that nature of the fifth body, since it is incorruptible and lacking contrariety, can come into commixture with the other elements. *And again*, if it comes, whence it comes and into what it yields, is difficult to assign.

*Opinion 3, with distinction.* And therefore there is a third manner of speaking, namely, that of the celestial nature one may speak in two ways: either according to *property*, or according to *conformity*. — According to *property*, *First member of the distinction.* the celestial nature is said to be the nature of the fifth body, which is so *perfect* in its form that it in no way has an appetite for another formation[^13], so *active* that it can in no way suffer or be corrupted; and such is the nature of the orbs and stars and firmament. *Conclusion 1.* And this does not come to the constitution of the human body according to *substance* and truth, but only comes according to *virtue*, since the virtue of the stars and orbs by its influence brings about the reconciliation of the elements, which come to the constitution of the human body according to the *thing*, while the action of the elements has its rule and direction from the influence of the higher bodies. — *Second member.* In another way the celestial nature is spoken of according to *conformity;* and thus it is taken *broadly*, and there is called a celestial nature whatever is conformed to heaven in *subtlety* and in *clarity* and in a certain *elevation*[^14] from contrariety. And in this manner the *spirits*, which are of the constitution of the living body, and most of all of man, are said to be of a celestial nature on account of their subtlety and luminosity, and on this account also, that they have an elevation from the nature of contrariety, while they arise from the commixture of the elements in a certain harmony and consonance. And since in the human body, as will appear below[^15], there is greater harmony than in any other mixed body; hence it is that its heat and spirits and complexion are more conformed to the celestial nature. *Conclusion 2.* And in this manner, taking the nature of light or the celestial nature *broadly* or according to conformity, it enters the constitution of the human body according to *virtue*[^16] more than the constitution of any other mixture, on account of the equality and dignity of the human complexion. According to *truth*, however, both the spirits and the heat which are said to be of a celestial nature, are of an elemental nature, because they are lost and restored, as the natural philosophers expressly say.

According to this third way, which is more probable and more straightforward, the response to the question proposed is plain[^16a], and the response to the objections is also plain. For the reasons showing that the nature of the fifth body does not come to the constitution of the human body speak of the celestial nature *properly* so called, which is incorruptible and unalterable and immiscible; and therefore it is not miscible into the constitution of a third [thing]. But the reasons brought to the contrary side proceed either of the celestial nature said according to *conformity*, as do the first two authorities; or, if they conclude concerning the nature of the fifth body *properly* so called, they do not show that it comes to the constitution of the human body according to *substance*, but according to *virtue*. Otherwise they do not conclude, as is plain by going through them one by one.

**Solution of the opposing arguments:**

*Solution of the opposing arguments.*

*To 1.* For to that which is first objected concerning light, it must be said that there is the light of the *fifth body*, the *igneous* light, and the light *generated* from the equality of the complexion, or *arising* therefrom; and this is that light which makes the body *Threefold light.* able to receive life; the others, by no means.

*To 2.* To that which is objected concerning heat, it must be said that the heat is not called *celestial* because it is in a celestial nature as in a subject — for that nature is neither hot nor cold — but because it is from a celestial nature according to due proportion, so that it tends to preservation; and such heat is in the human body. But from this it does not follow that the celestial nature comes to the constitution of the human body according to *substance*, but only that it *influences*.

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning the reconciliation [of contraries], the response is already plain, because what comes *within* does not reconcile, but it suffices for reconciling to influence from *without*.

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning beatification, it must be said that bodies are said to be beatified in man[^16b] *Note.* not by *truth*, but by *conformity;* and therefore from this it does not follow that the celestial nature is of the constitution of the human body according to *truth*, but it suffices that it be according to *conformity*, so that something conformed to it should answer in the human body.

*To 5.* To that which is objected concerning the five senses, it must be said that, as the same Augustine says, one element dominates in two, as water under the notion of vapor dominates in smell, and under the notion of moisture dominates in taste, as he himself says in the third book *On Genesis*[^16-bis].

*To 6.* To that which is objected concerning order, it must be said, *Note.* that, although the celestial nature is more excellent among the simple bodies considered in themselves, nevertheless it does not excel in degree in comparison to the further form to be received; but this is the order, that the *elemental* form is united to the soul by mediation of the form of *mixture*, and the form of *mixture* disposes to the form of *complexion*. And since this latter[^17b], when it is in equality and harmony, is conformed to the celestial nature, therefore it is fitted for the reception of the most noble influence, namely of life. And thus in the union of the soul to the body the right order is preserved. Great also is the dignity of the human body on account of the great harmony and proportional conjunction of its parts, by reason of which in the state of the *wayfarer* it is made conformed to the celestial nature; and in the state of the *comprehensor* it will be perfected by God, not only that it be conformed, but also that beyond the celestial nature it be *exalted* and *sublimated*, so that to it most especially befits the habitation of the empyrean heaven[^17].

---

la: Libr. VII. c. 13. n. 21; c. 19. n. 25. Cfr. supra pag. 319, nota 8. — Avicenna, *de Anima sive Sexto Naturalium*, p. IV. c. 6, ubi agit de complexione sive temperamento elementorum corporis, requisito ad recipiendam vitam, sic ait: *Cum vero temperatissimum fuerit, ita ut contraria aequalia sint in eo et operentur aequaliter, coaptabitur perfectioni vitae rationalis, similis vitae caelestis; haec autem aptitudo est in spiritu humano. Spiritus vero humanus omnino est quoddam, quod generatur ex elementis et effigiat vultus ad similitudinem caelestium corporum; unde iudicant de eo dicentes, quod sit substantia lucida; et ideo spiritus visibilis vocatur radius et lux; unde et anima gratulatur, cum videt lucem, et molestatur in tenebris. Ipsa enim lux est comparata eius vehiculo et confortatur propter eam vehiculum eius, quod est spiritus, cui tenebra est contraria.* — Vat. *Et eadem est ratio Avicennae: Si enim corpus etc.*

en: Book VII, c. 13, n. 21; c. 19, n. 25. Cf. above p. 319, note 8. — Avicenna, *On the Soul, or Sixth of the Naturals*, pt. IV, c. 6, where he treats of the complexion or tempering of the elements of the body required for the reception of life, speaks thus: *When it is most fully tempered, so that contraries are equal in it and act equally, it will be adapted to the perfection of rational life, like to celestial life; and this aptitude is in the human spirit. The human spirit moreover is entirely a certain thing which is generated from the elements and forms countenances after the likeness of celestial bodies; whence men judge of it, saying that it is a luminous substance; and therefore the visible spirit is called ray and light; whence also the soul is gladdened when it sees light, and is grieved in darkness. For light itself is compared to its vehicle, and on its account its vehicle, which is the spirit, is strengthened, to which darkness is contrary.* — Vat.: *And the same is the reason of Avicenna: For if the body etc.*

la: Haec sententia secundum antiquam divisionem operum de Animalibus reperitur in libro 12. et 16, secundum recentiorem in 11. de Partib. animal. c. 7. et 11. de Generat. animal. c. 3. In primo loco Aristoteles contra eos qui dicunt, «animam esse ignem aut aliquam eiusmodi vim», docet: «Melius fortasse dixeris, animam in quodam eiusmodi corpore constare; cuius rei causa est, quod ad exsequenda animae officia calor omnium maxime administrandi vim obtinet». In secundo loco ait: «Inest... videlicet quod calor vocatur, idque non ignis... sed spiritus... proportione respondens elemento stellarum. Quamobrem ignis nullum animal generat... at vero solis calor et animalium... principium habet vitale. Ceterum calorem in animalibus contentum nec ignem esse neque ab igne originem ducere, apertum ex his est». Virgilius etiam, *Aeneid.* 6. v. 730. ait: *Igneus est ollis vigor et caelestis origo.* — Vat. *calor igneus, et calor animalis et calor caelestis.* — De minori cfr. Aristot., VII. Metaph. text. 3. (VI. c. 1.), ubi de accidentibus dicit, quod per se existere non possunt: «Quoniam subiectum eis determinatum est; hoc autem substantia et singulare est». Et Porphyr., *de Praedicab.* penult. c. ait: *Oportet enim esse subiectum, ut illi aliquid accidat.*

en: This sentence, according to the ancient division of the works *On Animals*, is found in book 12 and 16; according to the more recent, in book 11 of *On the Parts of Animals*, c. 7, and book 11 of *On the Generation of Animals*, c. 3. In the first place Aristotle, against those who say that "the soul is fire or some such force," teaches: "You will perhaps speak better if you say the soul to consist in some such body; the cause of which is that for carrying out the offices of the soul, heat of all things has the greatest power of administration." In the second place he says: "There is in [animals]... namely what is called heat, and this not fire... but a spirit... corresponding proportionately to the element of the stars. For which reason fire generates no animal... but in truth the heat of the sun and of animals... has a vital principle. As to the heat contained in animals, that it is not fire nor draws its origin from fire is plain from these things." Virgil too, *Aeneid* 6, v. 730, says: *Fiery is their vigor and celestial their origin.* — Vat.: *igneous heat, and animal heat and celestial heat.* — On the minor [premise], cf. Aristotle, VII *Metaphysics*, text 3 (VI, c. 1), where on accidents he says that they cannot exist *per se*: "Since their subject is determined for them; and this is substance and the singular." And Porphyry, *de Praedicab.*, penultimate chapter, says: *For there must be a subject, for something to be an accident in it.*

la: De principiis huius arg. vide supra d. 14. p. I. a. I. q. 2. et p. II. a. 2. q. 2.

en: On the principles of this argument see above d. 14, p. I, a. 1, q. 2, and p. II, a. 2, q. 2.

la: Cfr. Alanus ab Insulis, II. *de Articul. cath. fidei*, prop. 13, in qua dicitur, quod propter caritatem Dei «oportuit, quod omni rei aut alicui habenti cum omni re communem naturam etiam gloriam suam communicaret. Sed omni non debuit hoc facere. Gloria enim Dei inutilis esset in insensatis et brutis. Ergo aliquid oportuit esse, quod haberet cum omni re aliquid commune ratione necessitatis ad illam gloriam capessendam... Ergo de terra formatus est homo, rationalis ut Angelus, cum inanimatis vivens, et constat ex quatuor elementis, supremam gloriam suscepturus.»

en: Cf. Alan of Lille, II *On the Articles of the Catholic Faith*, prop. 13, in which it is said that on account of God's charity "it was fitting that to every thing, or to some thing having a common nature with every thing, He should communicate also His glory. But He ought not to do this for every thing. For God's glory would be useless in senseless and brute things. Therefore something had to be which would have something in common with every thing by reason of necessity for grasping that glory... Therefore man was formed from the earth, rational as an Angel, living with the inanimate, and is constituted from the four elements, about to receive supreme glory."

la: Libr. III. c. 4. n. 6. seq. Cfr. supra pag. 319, nota 8.

en: Book III, c. 4, n. 6 and following. Cf. above p. 319, note 8.

la: Hae propositiones sunt Aristot., I. *de Generat. et corrupt.* text. 87. seqq. (c. 10.). — De proprietatibus *corporis quinti* sive caeli, quae in hoc et in seqq. argg. proferuntur, vide Aristot., I. *de Caelo et mundo*, ex quo iam supra d. 8. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. plura allegata sunt.

en: These propositions are from Aristotle, I *On Generation and Corruption*, text 87 and following (c. 10). — On the properties of the *fifth body* or heaven, which are brought forward in this and the following arguments, see Aristotle, I *On the Heaven and the World*, from which above at d. 8, p. I, a. 2, q. 2, many things have already been cited.

la: Cfr. de hoc supra d. 13. a. 3. q. 1. seq. — Paulo superius plures codd. cum edd. 2, 3 et Vat. *radium* pro *per radium*.

en: Cf. on this above d. 13, a. 3, q. 1 and following. — A little above, several codices with edd. 2, 3 and Vat. read *the ray* instead of *through the ray*.

la: Cod. cc et ed. 1 *eo*.

en: Codex cc and ed. 1: *eo*.

la: Aristot., II. *de Anima*, text. 11. et 21. (c. 1. seq.). Cfr. III. text. 4. seqq. (c. 4.). — Paulo superius codd. V W *sensum* pro *sensificationem*.

en: Aristotle, II *On the Soul*, text 11 and 21 (c. 1 and following). Cf. III, text 4 ff. (c. 4). — A little above, codices V W read *sense* instead of *sensification*.

la: Libr. VII. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 21. n. 27. Cfr. supra d. 14. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. arg. 2. ad opp.

en: Book VII *On Genesis according to the letter*, c. 21, n. 27. Cf. above d. 14, p. I, a. 1, q. 2, argument 2 of the opposing side.

la: Part. I. a. 1. q. 2. in corp.

en: Part I, a. 1, q. 2, in the body.

la: Nonnulli codd. *animale*.

en: Some codices: *animal*.

la: Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. *formam*.

en: Vat. with one or another codex: *formam* [form].

la: Multi codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 sibi non constantes, hic tantum *sublimatione*.

en: Many codices with edd. 1, 2, 3, not consistent with themselves, here only *sublimatione* [sublimation].

la: Quaest. seq.

en: Following question.

la: Ita codd. D O Y cc et ed. 1; alii *secundum veritatem*, sed contra contextum. Vat. omittit *secundum virtutem*. Dein non pauci codd. post *magis quam* perperam subnectunt *secundum*.

en: Thus codices D O Y cc and ed. 1; others read *according to truth*, but against the context. Vat. omits *according to virtue*. Then not a few codices after *more than* wrongly add *according to*.

la: Cap. 5. n. 7. Vide supra pag. 319, nota 8.

en: Chapter 5, n. 7. See above p. 319, note 8.

la: Vat., interpunctione variata, *Et quia cum haec in aequalitate et harmonia conformatur.*

en: Vat., with varied punctuation: *And since this, when [it is] in equality and harmony, is conformed.*

la: Fide codd. et ed. 1 supplevimus verba *responsio ad quaestionem propositam, patet etiam.*

en: On the faith of the codices and ed. 1 we have supplied the words *responsio ad quaestionem propositam, patet etiam* ("response to the question proposed, [the response] is also plain").

la: Vat. *mediante anima rationali* pro *in homine*.

en: Vat.: *by the mediation of the rational soul* for *in man*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
- **Page span**: p.420 R band 2 bottom (QUAESTIO II header + italic title + opener `Secundo quaeritur…`) → p.421 (Ad opp 1–6 + Contra/Fundamenta args 1–2) → p.422 (Fundamenta args 3–6 + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo opener with *Opinio 1.* + *Improbatur.* + *Opinio 2.* + *Non probatur.* + *Opinio 3 cum distinctione.* + *Membrum 1*) → p.423 (Conclusio 1 close + *Membrum 2* + *Conclusio 2.* + response to question + *Solutio oppositorum* ad 1–6 closing at *habitatio caeli empyrei*). Closes immediately before `QUAESTIO III.` on p.423 R band 2 at raw 29847.
- **Apparatus**: 19 entries (17 numbered [^1]–[^17] plus two page-restart extras). Page-split map: p.421 L footers 1–4 = [^1]–[^4]; p.421 R footers 5–6 = [^5]–[^6]; p.422 L footers 1–3 = [^7]–[^9]; p.422 R / p.423 L footers 4–7 = [^10]–[^13]; p.423 L footers 1–3 = [^14]–[^16] (= the local p.423 footer numbering); p.423 footers 4–8 (continuous L→R local numbering, printed superscripts ⁴–⁸) = [^16a] (local 4, keyed on *propositam* in the "Iuxta hanc tertiam viam" paragraph), [^16b] (local 5, keyed on *in homine* in *Ad 4*), [^16-bis] (local 6, keyed on *super Genesim* in *Ad 5*), [^17b] (local 7, keyed on *haec* in *Ad 6*), [^17] (local 8, keyed on *empyrei* at the chunk's close — the closing *Vide scholion* pointer).
- **2026-07-17 J4 Class D/E repair**: health scan found `defs=19 la=20 en=20` — `[^17]` was anchored twice in both bodies (once at *propositam* mid-page, once at *empyrei* end-of-chunk) but its single def entry was a silent merge of THREE distinct printed footers (local 4, 5, and 8 on p.423 — confirmed by 450 dpi PDF column-band read of p.423, matching printed superscripts ⁴/⁵/⁸ against the page's footer block). Local footer 5 (`Vat. mediante anima rationali pro in homine`) had **no body anchor at all** — a genuine missing marker, not just a mislabel: it is a textual-variant note on *in homine* in *Ad 4*'s reply, which previously carried no anchor in either language. Fix: split the merged def into `[^16a]` (local 4, content unchanged, new anchor placed at *propositam*/*proposed*), `[^16b]` (local 5, content unchanged, NEW anchor added at *in homine*/*in man* in *Ad 4*), and `[^17]` (now solely local 8, the *Vide scholion* pointer, at its original second anchor position). No Latin/English wording changed — only marker tokens split and one added, and the def entry divided along its existing em-dash boundaries. Verified against PDF: `raw/vision/vol2/p-423.png` (450 dpi) → `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p423-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`.
- **Cross-chunk hand-off received from d17-a2-q1**: none — p.420 R band 2 footers ⁴ (Gen. 2, 8), ⁵ (Dist. 49 p. II), ⁶ (defectum) all anchor in q1 body and were consumed as q1 [^15]–[^17].
- **Forward hand-off to d17-a2-q3**: none — p.423 R band 2 footer ⁸ (*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*) is the closing pointer to q1's SCHOLION I and is captured here as [^17]; q3 opens p.423 R band 2 with its own opener + fresh per-page footers on p.424.
- **No scholion of its own**. Per the locked Vol II sibling-shared-scholion pattern (cf. d16-a1-q2 / d16-a2-q2), q2's closing apparatus entry [^17] explicitly points back to q1's SCHOLION I: *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* `has_scholion: false`.
- **Marginal labels preserved inline** per locked Vol II convention: *Ad oppositum.*, *Fundamenta.*, *Opinio 1.*, *Improbatur.*, *Opinio 2.*, *Non probatur.*, *Opinio 3 cum distinctione.*, *Membrum 1 distinctionis.*, *Conclusio 1.*, *Membrum 2.*, *Conclusio 2.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Triplex lux.*, *Notandum.* (×2).
- **No `[?]` flags** — all 17 anchors + 15 marginal labels crisp at 450 dpi across pp.420–423. OCR around raw 29621–29846 is two-column cascade-fragmented (CONCLUSIO splice at raw line ~147 of the auto-chunk + diagonal token reorder around Opinio 3 *Membrum 1*); column-band PDF read authoritative per Vol II Override.
- **Pars-split**: confirmed NO pars split for d.17 (`DIST. XVII. ART. II.` running heads only). PDF offset +22 → pdf_pages [442, 443, 444, 445].


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 17, Art. 2, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 424 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum corpus Adae constitutum fuerit ex elementis in complexione et compositione aequali.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum corpus primi hominis constitutum fuerit ex elementis in complexione et compositione aequali. Et quod sic, videtur.

**Argg. pro parte affirmativa.**

1. Quanto complexio et compositio magis accedit ad aequalitatem, tanto nobilior est, et quanto nobilior est, tanto nobilioris formae est susceptiva[^1]; sed complexio corporis primi hominis fuit susceptibilis nobilissimae formae per naturam, quae etiam non erat depravata per culpam: ergo fuit complexio maxime nobilis; et si hoc: ergo maxime aequalis.

2. Item, tanto res complexionata est ad durandum habilior, quanto eius complexio est aequalior — inaequalitas enim miscibilium est via in corruptionem — sed corpus Adae habile erat ad durandum in sempiternum, quantum est ex sua prima constitutione: ergo videtur, quod in perfecta aequalitate complexionis et compositionis fuerit constitutum.

3. Item, ubi est inaequalitas complexionis, ibi necessario est pugna; ubi vero pugna est, forma non sic potest gubernare materiam, sicut si esset ibi pax et tranquillitas; ubi autem hoc est, ibi est aliqua poenalitas: ergo aut in corpore primi hominis fuit perfecta elementorum aequalitas, aut ante peccatum fuit in eo aliqua poenalitas. Sed nullo modo poena praecessit culpam: ergo etc.

4. Item, corpus Adae debuit fieri proportionabile animae, et ideo, quamdiu anima fuit immunis a morte culpae, corpus eius fuit immune a morte naturae: ergo pari ratione, quamdiu anima fuit aequalis in voluntate, corpus fuit aequale in complexione. Sed in anima primi hominis nulla erat obliquitas iustitiae[^2] in prima constitutione, immo perfecta innocentia: ergo nec in corpore erat aliqua inaequalitas, sed concordia et amicitia perfecta.

**Sed contra:**

**Pro parte negativa.**

1. Vita est per calidum et humidum, et omnis operatio animae in corpore est per calorem, sicut dicunt naturales et medici[^3]; sed in corpore Adae anima habebat expeditas operationes: ergo magna erat ibi abundantia caloris, ergo praedominabatur calidum; et si hoc: ergo non erat perfecta aequalitas complexionis.

2. Item, etsi complexio hominis est deteriorata, tamen non est totaliter corrupta; sed nos videmus, quod cor per naturam est calidissimum, et hepar similiter[^4]; et quaedam sunt alia membra, in quibus regnat phlegma et melancholia: ergo et tunc ita erat. Si ergo in corpore Adae erat praedominatio humorum, pari ratione et qualitatum elementarium: ergo non erat ibi perfecta adaequatio miscibilium.

3. Item, si esset ibi mixtio secundum omnimodam aequalitatem, ergo tantum esset ibi de gravi, quantum de levi: ergo corpus illud esset indifferens ad gravitatem et levitatem, ergo et ad motum et ad quietem. Si igitur nec esset natum moveri nec quiescere nec sursum nec deorsum esse: ergo non esset corpus naturale[^5].

4. Item, si corpus illud esset constitutum secundum omnimodam aequalitatem, tunc quantum unum elementum ageret, tantum reliquum resisteret et ipsum repelleret: ergo unum virtutem suam et actionem in alterum non profundaret; et si hoc, non esset ibi alteratio nec transmutatio, ac per hoc nec mixtio[^6]. Aut ergo corpus Adae non fuit mixtum, aut si mixtum, non in perfecta aequalitate constitutum.

5. Item, si corpus Adae fuisset constitutum in perfecta aequalitate, ergo ignis sive calor in eo non consumeret, ergo alimento non indiguisset; sed constans est secundum Sanctos, et maxime secundum Augustinum[^7], quod alimento indiguit: ergo

<!-- page 425 -->

in aequalitate miscibilium corpus illud constitutum non fuit.

6. Item, cum Adam peccavit, non fuit ei ablatum aliquid, quod esset ex parte corporis: ergo si prius erat compositus complexione aequali, postea fuit similiter: ergo post peccatum nulla fuit in corpore eius pugna: ergo nec infirmitas nec mortalitas; quod si hoc falsum est, restat etc.

### Conclusio.

> Corpus primi hominis non fuit constitutum ex elementis in complexione aequalitatis a pondere, quia talis est impossibilis, sed in complexione aequalitatis a iustitia.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, sicut distinguunt naturales et medici[^8], duobus modis dicitur aequalitas miscibilium in mixto, scilicet *a pondere* et *a iustitia*. *Aequalitas a pondere*, ut dicunt, non est possibilis in rerum natura.

*Duplex aequalitas miscibilium.*

*Aequalitas a pondere modo 1.* Aequalitas enim *a pondere* potest dici tripliciter. Uno modo dicitur aequalitas *a pondere*, quando miscibilia adaequantur et quantum ad quantitatem *molis* et quantum ad quantitatem *virtutis*; et haec duo sunt incompossibilia non solummodo secundum *rem*, sed etiam secundum *intellectum*, hoc intellecto, quod elementum, quod plus habet de *materia*, minus habet de *specie*, et e converso. Sicut enim impossibile est, quod verum aurum aequetur argento in quantitate et valore; sic impossibile est, elementa *activa* et *passiva* aequari ad invicem aequalitate *ponderis* in aliqua mixtione.

*Modo 2.* Alio modo potest dici aequalitas *a pondere* secundum adaequationem miscibilium in quantitate *molis* solum; et adhuc est impossibilis. Primum, quia corpus illud non esset *durabile*; elementa enim activa statim passiva consumerent. Si enim adaequarentur in *substantia*, adeo activa excederent in *virtute*, ut potius esset consumtio quam mixtio. Nec tantum corpus illud non esset *durabile*, immo etiam nec esset *leve* nec *grave*, cum motus gravis vel levis sequatur praedominans quantum ad quantitatem *molis*; et si non esset *durabile* nec *leve* nec *grave*, non esset de *naturae intentione* nec *naturae possibile*.

*Modo 3.* Tertio modo dicitur aequalitas *a pondere* aequalitas a quantitate *virtutis*; et sic adhuc dicunt, talem aequalitatem non esse in natura *possibilem*. Primo, quia si esset omnimoda *aequalitas virtutum*, virtus unius tantum resisteret, quantum virtus alterius ageret; et sic non esset profundatio et confractio usque ad minima, ac per hoc non esset mixtio. Item, si hoc esset, corpus illud careret operatione[^9] calidi et frigidi et aliarum qualitatum elementarium: ergo frustra esset ex diversis constitutum. Tale igitur corpus nec est naturae *possibile*, quia repugnat naturae mixtionis; nec etiam est ex *intentione naturae*, quia careret sibi debita operatione.

*Conclusio 1.* — Et sic quocumque modo accipiatur aequalitas *a pondere*, non potuit esse nec debuit in corpore Adae. Et hoc satis apparet, cum corpus Adae magis esset grave quam leve, magis esset idoneum ad agendum quam ad patiendum: ergo non habuit aequalitatem miscibilium nec quantum ad quantitatem *molis*, nec quantum ad quantitatem *virtutis*: et ita non habuit aequalitatem *a pondere*.

*Ad rationes pro parte negativa.* — Unde concedendae sunt rationes hoc ostendentes, quoniam procedunt ista via, sicut patet consideranti.

*Aequalitas a iustitia.* Est et alia aequalitas *a iustitia*, et haec aequalitas attenditur in *commensuratione miscibilium* secundum proportionem debitam et secundum exigentiam formae introducendae. Et haec aequalitas reperitur in his quae miscentur naturaliter[^10], et inter omnia potissime reperitur in homine, quia nobilior debet esse in eius corpore proportio et harmonia miscibilium, secundum quod disponitur ad nobiliorem formam. Haec autem aequalitas non est aequalitas *punctalis*, sed latitudinem habet et gradus, et hoc secundum diversos status.

*Triplex est aequalitas secundum 3 status.* Est enim status *gloriae*, et est status *miseriae*, et est status *innocentiae*. Secundum statum *gloriae*, qui est perfectus, debetur corpori humano aequalitas *a iustitia*, aequalitas, inquam, *perfecta*, in qua nec cadit discordia nec repugnantia, nec actu nec potentia. — Secundum statum *miseriae*, qui est status imperfectus, debetur corpori hominis aequalitas, sed *diminuta*, quae permisceri habet inaequalitati et discordiae, non solum possibilitate, sed etiam quadam necessitate. — Secundum statum vero *medium*, scilicet innocentiae, debetur corpori hominis aequalitas *media*, quae a discordia et repugnantia miscibilium erat aliena in *actu* per adiutorium intrinsecum animae gubernantis, et per adiutorium extrinsecum alimenti nutrientis. Erat tamen haec aequalitas *possibilis* ad inaequalitatem, sive ob defectum virtutis contentivae, sive etiam ob defectum alimoniae. Nullus autem horum defectuum esse poterat in homine, nisi praecederet transgressio inobedientiae.

*Conclusio 2.* Et sic patet, quod corpus primi hominis constitutum fuit in aequalitate *a iustitia*, quasi media inter aequalitatem, quae erit in *gloria*, et aequalitatem, quae nunc est in *miseria*, secundum quod status animae exigebat. — Et hanc aequalitatem pro-

<!-- page 426 -->

*Ad rationes pro parte affirm.* bant fuisse in corpore primi hominis rationes inductae ad astruendam partem istam; et ideo concedendae sunt, quia verum concludunt. Si autem ex eis velint concludere *omnimodam* aequalitatem *a pondere*, rationes illae non valent, quia illa aequalitas ad nobilitatem non spectat. Si autem velint concludere aequalitatem omnimodam *a iustitia*, adhuc non concludunt, quia, etsi corpus illud haberet nobilissimam formam, non tamen adhuc erat in statu suo nobilissimo, sicut erit in gloria. Hoc autem solummodo concludunt, quod ibi erat tanta *aequalitas a iustitia*, quod non erat ibi miscibilium actualis repugnantia; et hoc quidem est verum. Et ita patet responsio ad totum.

english:
### Question III. *Whether the body of Adam was constituted out of the elements in an equal complexion and composition.*

Thirdly it is asked whether the body of the first man was constituted out of the elements in an equal complexion and composition. And that it was so, it seems.

**Arguments for the affirmative.**

1. The more a complexion and composition approaches equality, the nobler it is, and the nobler it is, the more capable it is of receiving a nobler form[^1]; but the complexion of the body of the first man was capable of receiving the noblest form by nature, which was also not depraved by sin: therefore it was a most noble complexion; and if so, then most equal.

2. Likewise, the more a complexioned thing is fit for enduring, the more equal its complexion is — for the inequality of mixables is a path to corruption — but the body of Adam was fit for enduring forever, as far as concerns its first constitution: therefore it seems that it was constituted in perfect equality of complexion and composition.

3. Likewise, where there is inequality of complexion, there is necessarily strife; but where there is strife, the form cannot govern matter as it could if there were peace and tranquillity there; and where this is so, there is some penalty: therefore either in the body of the first man there was perfect equality of the elements, or before sin there was in him some penalty. But in no way did penalty precede fault: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the body of Adam ought to have been made proportionable to the soul, and therefore, so long as the soul was immune from the death of fault, his body was immune from the death of nature: therefore by parity of reasoning, so long as the soul was equal in will, the body was equal in complexion. But in the soul of the first man there was no obliquity of justice[^2] in its first constitution, but rather perfect innocence: therefore there was not in the body either any inequality, but perfect concord and friendship.

**On the contrary:**

**For the negative side.**

1. Life is by what is hot and moist, and every operation of the soul in the body is through heat, as the natural philosophers and physicians say[^3]; but in the body of Adam the soul had unimpeded operations: therefore there was a great abundance of heat there, therefore the hot was predominant; and if so, then there was not perfect equality of complexion.

2. Likewise, although the complexion of man is deteriorated, yet it is not totally corrupted; but we see that the heart by nature is the hottest, and the liver likewise[^4]; and there are certain other members in which phlegm and melancholy reign: therefore so was it then too. If therefore in the body of Adam there was a predominance of humors, by parity of reasoning also of elementary qualities: therefore there was not there a perfect equating of the mixables.

3. Likewise, if there were there a mixture according to total equality, therefore there would be just as much of the heavy as of the light: therefore that body would be indifferent to heaviness and lightness, therefore also to motion and rest. If therefore it were not born either to be moved or to be at rest, nor to be upward or downward: therefore it would not be a natural body[^5].

4. Likewise, if that body were constituted according to total equality, then as much as one element acted, so much would the remaining one resist and repel it: therefore one would not pour forth its power and action into another; and if so, there would be in it neither alteration nor transmutation, and through this no mixture[^6]. Therefore either the body of Adam was not mixed, or, if mixed, was not constituted in perfect equality.

5. Likewise, if the body of Adam had been constituted in perfect equality, then fire or heat in it would not consume, therefore he would not have needed food; but it is constant according to the Saints, and most of all according to Augustine[^7], that he did need food: therefore

that body was not constituted in equality of mixables.

6. Likewise, when Adam sinned, nothing was taken from him that was on the side of the body: therefore if he was previously composed in an equal complexion, afterwards he was so likewise: therefore after sin there was no strife in his body: therefore neither infirmity nor mortality; and since this is false, the rest follows etc.

### Conclusion.

> The body of the first man was not constituted out of the elements in a complexion of equality *by weight*, because such is impossible, but in a complexion of equality *by justice*.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the natural philosophers and physicians distinguish[^8], equality of mixables in a mixture is said in two ways, namely *by weight* and *by justice*. *Equality by weight*, as they say, is not possible in the nature of things.

*A twofold equality of mixables.*

*Equality by weight, mode 1.* For equality *by weight* can be said in three ways. In one way equality is called *by weight* when the mixables are made equal both as to quantity of *mass* and as to quantity of *power*; and these two are incompossible not only as to *thing*, but also as to *understanding*, given that an element which has more of *matter* has less of *species*, and conversely. For just as it is impossible for true gold to be equated to silver in quantity and value, so it is impossible for *active* and *passive* elements to be equated to one another by an equality of *weight* in any mixture.

*Mode 2.* In another way equality *by weight* can be said according to an equating of the mixables in quantity of *mass* alone; and this too is impossible. First, because that body would not be *durable*; for the active elements would at once consume the passive. For if they were equated in *substance*, the active would so exceed in *power* that there would be consumption rather than mixture. Nor only would that body not be *durable*, but it would not even be *light* or *heavy*, since the motion of the heavy or the light follows what is predominant as to the quantity of *mass*; and if it were neither *durable* nor *light* nor *heavy*, it would be neither of *nature's intention* nor *naturally possible*.

*Mode 3.* In a third way equality *by weight* is said to be equality from quantity of *power*; and thus too they say that such an equality is not *possible* in nature. First, because if there were a total *equality of powers*, the power of one would resist just as much as the power of another would act; and so there would be no penetration or breaking down to the smallest parts, and through this no mixture. Likewise, if this were so, that body would lack the operation[^9] of heat and cold and the other elementary qualities: therefore it would be constituted of diverse things in vain. Therefore such a body is neither *naturally possible*, because it is repugnant to the nature of mixture; nor is it from the *intention of nature*, because it would lack its due operation.

*Conclusion 1.* — And so in whatever way equality *by weight* is taken, it could not be nor ought it to have been in the body of Adam. And this appears sufficiently, since the body of Adam was more heavy than light, more apt for acting than for being acted upon: therefore it did not have equality of mixables either as to quantity of *mass* or as to quantity of *power*: and so it did not have equality *by weight*.

*To the arguments for the negative side.* — Hence the arguments showing this are to be conceded, since they proceed in this way, as is plain to one considering them.

*Equality by justice.* There is also another equality *by justice*, and this equality is attended to in the *commensuration of the mixables* according to the due proportion and according to the requirement of the form to be introduced. And this equality is found in those things which are mixed naturally[^10], and among all things it is most found in man, because the proportion and harmony of the mixables in his body ought to be nobler, according as it is disposed to a nobler form. But this equality is not a *point-like* equality, but has latitude and degrees, and this according to diverse states.

*A threefold equality according to three states.* For there is the state of *glory*, and there is the state of *misery*, and there is the state of *innocence*. According to the state of *glory*, which is perfect, there is owed to the human body equality *by justice*, equality, I say, *perfect*, in which neither discord nor repugnance falls, neither in act nor in potency. — According to the state of *misery*, which is the imperfect state, there is owed to the body of man an equality, but *diminished*, which has to be intermingled with inequality and discord, not only by possibility but also by a certain necessity. — But according to the *middle* state, namely of innocence, there is owed to the body of man a *middle* equality, which was alien from the discord and repugnance of the mixables in *act* through the intrinsic help of the soul governing it, and through the extrinsic help of nourishing food. Yet this equality was *possible* of being made unequal, either because of a defect of the retentive power, or also because of a defect of nourishment. But none of these defects could be in man unless the transgression of disobedience preceded.

*Conclusion 2.* And thus it is plain that the body of the first man was constituted in equality *by justice*, as if a mean between the equality which will be in *glory*, and the equality which now is in *misery*, according as the state of the soul required. — And this equality

*To the arguments on the affirmative side.* the arguments adduced to establish that side prove to have been in the body of the first man; and therefore they are to be conceded, because they conclude truly. But if they wish from them to conclude *total* equality *by weight*, those arguments are not valid, because that equality does not pertain to nobility. But if they wish to conclude total equality *by justice*, they still do not conclude it, because, even if that body had the noblest form, it was not yet in its noblest state, as it will be in glory. They conclude only this, that there was so great an *equality by justice* there that there was no actual repugnance of the mixables; and this indeed is true. And thus the response to the whole is plain.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 380, nota 1.

en: Cf. above page 380, note 1.

la: Vat. *iniustitiae*.

en: The Vatican edition reads *iniustitiae* (of injustice).

la: Cfr. supra pag. 379, nota 6; et Avicenna, *Canon.* l. I. Fen 1. doctr. 3. c. 1, ubi principium vitae reponitur in corde et spiritu, « quae quidem ambo vehementer calida existunt ad superfluitatem declinantia; et vita quidem existit per caliditatem et augmentum per humiditatem, et etiam caliditas in humiditate existit et ab ea nutritur ». Et ibid. doctr. 6. c. 3. ait: « Et frigiditas quidem est paralyticum faciens et mortificans et ab omnibus prohibens operationibus ». Ibid. Fen 2. doctr. 3. c. 3: Calor igitur innatus virtutum omnium est instrumentum, sed frigiditas est ei inconveniens.

en: Cf. above page 379, note 6; and Avicenna, *Canon* bk. I, Fen 1, doctr. 3, c. 1, where the principle of life is placed in the heart and the spirit, « both of which are vehemently hot, inclining to superfluity; and life indeed exists through heat, and growth through moisture, and heat too exists in moisture and is nourished by it ». And ibid., doctr. 6, c. 3, he says: « Coldness indeed is what causes paralysis and brings death, and prohibits all operations ». Ibid., Fen 2, doctr. 3, c. 3: Innate heat therefore is the instrument of all the powers, but coldness is inappropriate to it.

la: Vide Aristot., II. *de Partib. animal.* c. 7. et III. c. 4. et 7; *de Sensu et sens.* c. 2. — De phlegmate et melancholia, quae sunt duae species humorum animalium, dicit Avicenna, *Canon.* l. I. Fen 1. doctr. 4. c. 1: Naturale [phlegma] est, quod est aptum, ut in aliquo tempore fiat sanguis; quoniam est sanguis non plene coctus... hoc namque phlegma sanguini propinquam habet similitudinem, et egent eo membra omnia, ideoque fecit natura, ut cum sanguine vadat... Naturalis [cholera nigra sive melancholia] est boni sanguinis faex et turbulentia et superfluitas, cuius sapor inter dulcedinem et ponticitatem existit, quae, cum in hepate generatur, in duas separatur partes, quarum una in sanguinem penetrat, et alia ad splenem transmittitur.

en: See Aristotle, *On the Parts of Animals* bk. II c. 7 and bk. III c. 4 and 7; *On Sense and the Sensible* c. 2. — Concerning phlegm and melancholy, which are two species of animal humors, Avicenna says, *Canon* bk. I, Fen 1, doctr. 4, c. 1: Natural [phlegm] is that which is apt at some time to become blood; for it is blood not yet fully concocted... for this phlegm has a likeness close to blood, and all the members have need of it, and so nature made it so as to go with the blood... Natural [black bile, or melancholy] is the dregs and turbulence and superfluity of good blood, whose taste exists between sweetness and pontic sharpness, which, when it is generated in the liver, is separated into two parts, of which the one penetrates into the blood, and the other is transmitted to the spleen.

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. *de Caelo et mundo*, text. 7. (c. 2.), in cuius expositione Averroes hoc arg. proponit. Cfr. et ibid. IV. text. 1. seqq. — Supra cod. aa sic *igitur* pro *si igitur*.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Heavens and the World* bk. I, text 7 (c. 2), in whose exposition Averroes proposes this argument. Cf. also ibid. bk. IV, text 1 and following. — Above, codex aa reads *igitur* for *si igitur*.

la: Hac ratione Averroes in II. *de Generat. et corrupt.* text. 18; IV. *Meteor.* text. 10; X. *Metaph.* text. 23 impugnat sententiam Galeni (I. *de Temperam.* c. 9.) ponentis « temperantiam, quae est secundum extrema, quae sunt in fine, non temperantiam, quae est secundum extrema complexionis speciei ». — Paulo inferius post *aut si mixtum, non* Vat. supplet *fuit*.

en: By this argument Averroes in bk. II *On Generation and Corruption*, text 18; bk. IV *Meteorologica*, text 10; bk. X *Metaphysics*, text 23, impugns the opinion of Galen (bk. I *On Temperaments* c. 9) who posits « a temperance which is according to the extremes that are at the end, not the temperance which is according to the extremes of the complexion of the species ». — A little below, after *aut si mixtum, non* the Vatican edition supplies *fuit*.

la: Libr. XIII. *de Civ. Dei*, c. 20. et 23. n. 1; XIV. c. 26; I. *de Peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvul.* c. 3. n. 3. Cfr. infra dub. 4. et d. 19. a. 2. et 3.

en: Augustine, *City of God* bk. XIII c. 20 and 23 n. 1; bk. XIV c. 26; bk. I *On the Merits and Remission of Sins and on the Baptism of Little Ones* c. 3 n. 3. Cf. below dub. 4 and d. 19 a. 2 and 3.

la: Avicenna, *Canon.* l. I. Fen 1. doctr. 3. c. 1. ait: Debes autem scire, quod aequale, de quo medici in suis inquisitionibus tractant, non est denominatum ab aequalitate, in qua aequalitas cum pondere aequaliter existit, sed denominatur a iustitia in divisione. Et hoc est, quod in complexionato in primis attenditur, sive sit corpus totum, sive sit membrum unum, ut sit in eo de elementis cum suis quantitatibus et qualitatibus mensura, quam humana natura habere debet secundum meliorem proportionis et divisionis aequalitatem.

en: Avicenna, *Canon* bk. I, Fen 1, doctr. 3, c. 1, says: But you ought to know that the equal, of which the physicians treat in their inquiries, is not named from the equality in which equality with weight equally exists, but is named from justice in division. And this is what is attended to first in a complexioned thing, whether it be the whole body or one member, namely that there be in it of the elements with their quantities and qualities a measure which human nature ought to have according to the better equality of proportion and of division.

la: Vat. *ratione*.

en: The Vatican edition reads *ratione* (by reason).

la: In edd. 2, 3, 4 et Vat. deest *reperitur in his quae miscentur naturaliter, et inter omnia potissime*.

en: In editions 2, 3, 4 and the Vatican edition the words *reperitur in his quae miscentur naturaliter, et inter omnia potissime* are lacking. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Distinctio inter aequalitatem *a pondere* et aequalitatem *a iustitia*, immo tota fere huius quaestionis doctrina sumta est ex scriptis Avicennae de medicina, ut ex adiectis nostris notis videri potest. Illam distinctionem Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 2. a. 2.) sic explicat: « Duplex est aequalitas componentium: aut *ponderis*, aut *iustitiae*, cuius exemplum est in modico auro et multo plumbo; aequivalet enim ei secundum aequalitatem iustitiae, non ponderis. Aequalitas ponderis est aequalitas aequiparantiae... Aequalitas vero *iustitiae* est aequalitas proportionis in comparatione unius ad alterum et omnium ad formam suam ».

**II.** De hac quaestione specialiter tractant Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 77. m. 2. a. 1. 2. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. 4. — Alios auctores vide in scholio ad q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The distinction between equality *by weight* and equality *by justice*, indeed nearly the whole doctrine of this question, has been taken from the writings of Avicenna on medicine, as can be seen from our added notes. Petr. a Tar. (here q. 2 a. 2) explains that distinction thus: « The equality of components is twofold: either *of weight* or *of justice*, of which the example is in a little gold and much lead; for it is equivalent to it according to the equality of justice, not of weight. The equality of weight is the equality of equiparation... But the equality of *justice* is the equality of proportion in the comparison of one to another and of all to their form ».

**II.** On this question Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 77. m. 2. a. 1. 2 treats specially. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. — Richard. a Med., here a. 2 q. 3. 4. — See the other authors in the scholion to q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
- **Page span p.424–426.** Q3 opens at p.424 L band 0 (`QUAESTIO III.` header + italic title + opener *Tertio quaeritur, utrum corpus primi hominis constitutum fuerit ex elementis in complexione et compositione aequali*) immediately after the q2 closing line *habitatio caeli empyrei* at p.423 R band 1 bottom. Q3 closes at p.426 R band 0 with *ita patet responsio ad totum.*; SCHOLION I–II follow on p.426 L band 1 → R band 1, closing immediately before `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` opener on p.426 R band 1. (The OCR raw 29847 `QUAESTIO 111.` line is the printed-page-424 header, not p.423; the apparent contradiction with raw-line ordering is the Vol II two-column cascade pulling the p.424 header into the OCR stream above the p.423 R-2 footer block — column-band PDF read authoritative per Vol II Override.)
- **No cross-chunk footer migration received** from d17-a2-q2 (q2 closes p.423 R band 1 at *habitatio caeli empyrei*; p.423 R band 2 footer notes 4–8 all anchor in q2 body).
- **No forward hand-off to d17-dubia:** p.426 R band 2 footer notes 4–5 (Vers. 43 + Isidor. XIV *Etymol.* c. 3 n. 2 + Origenes *Periarch.* IV n. 16) all anchor in DUB I/II body, which belongs to d17-dubia.
- **10 apparatus entries [^1]–[^10].** Page-split map: p.424 L footers 1–4 = [^1]–[^4]; p.424 R footers 5–7 = [^5]–[^7]; p.425 L footer 1 = [^8]; p.425 R footers 2–3 = [^9]–[^10]. p.426 carries no body-side apparatus footer for q3 (the L/R band 2 footer block holds DUB I/II notes which migrate to d17-dubia).
- **Marginal labels preserved inline** per locked Vol II convention: *Argg. pro parte affirmativa.*, *Pro parte negativa.*, *Duplex aequalitas miscibilium.*, *Aequalitas a pondere modo 1.*, *Modo 2.*, *Modo 3.*, *Conclusio 1.*, *Ad rationes pro parte negativa.*, *Aequalitas a iustitia.*, *Triplex est aequalitas secundum 3 status.*, *Conclusio 2.*, *Ad rationes pro parte affirm.*
- **`has_scholion: true`** — SCHOLION I substantial doctrinal scholion citing Avicenna *de medicina* as the source for the *a pondere* / *a iustitia* distinction + Petr. a Tar. exposition (gold/lead exemplum + equiparation vs. proportion gloss); II = q3-specific commentator list (Alex. Hal. + Petr. a Tar. + Richard. a Med. + back-pointer to q. 1 scholion for further authors).
- **No `[?]` flags** — all 10 anchors + 12 marginal labels crisp at 450 dpi across pp.424–426. OCR around raw 29847–30009 is two-column cascade-fragmented (`QUAESTIO 111.` header + diagonal token reorder around CONCLUSIO/Respondeo splice + `lll`/`III` Roman numeral garble); column-band PDF read authoritative per Vol II Override.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0