Dist. 17, Art. 2, Q. 3
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/2/d/17/q/bon-sent-II-d17-a2-q3
----------------------------------------
### 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; 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 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; 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; 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.

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. 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, 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, 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 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, 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.