Summa summae S. Thomae sive compendium theologiae

[The sense of the question is: whether, just as the body of the son is produced by the power of the father, so too his soul would be produced, as other substantial forms are produced; or rather, whether, when the body is organized, it is infused into it immediately by God — not indeed by emanation, but by way of creation.

On the testimony of Theodoret, bk. V on Divinis decretis, Cerdon and Marcion said that the human soul was something of the substance of God¹, from the fact that it is said in Gen., II, 7, that God breathed, or as another version has it, breathed into the face of man the breath of life, which breath they contended to be a communication of the divine spirit itself. This error Augustine attributes to the Manicheans, de Haeresib., heresy 46; and the Council of Braga I, ch. 5, and Pope Leo, Epist. 91, otherwise 93, ch. 5, condemn it in the Priscillianists — Leo adding that this error flowed from the opinion of certain philosophers and of the Manicheans.

The production of souls by traduction was upheld by Tertullian, Apollinaris and several westerners, on the testimony of St. Jerome, though more obscure ones. About this manner of production St. Augustine was in doubt, and following him in his doubt were St. Gregory, Eucherius, Salvian and Rabanus Maurus; because it seemed difficult to them to conceive how otherwise the soul of an infant would contract original sin in the instant of conception, since God is not the author of sin.

I say: The rational soul is not of the divine substance, nor is it transmitted from the parents, but it is created by God and united to the body².

Proof 1° from Holy Scripture. Genes., II, 7, it is said: The Lord God formed man from the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. That is, God formed the body of man from the earth, as from pre-existing matter, and infused into it a soul produced from nothing. Eccles., XII, 7: Let the dust return into its earth, from whence it was, and the spirit return to God, who gave it. Now, if the spirit were from the seed, God would no more have given it than the body. Hebr., XII, 9, parents are called fathers of the flesh, but God is called the Father of spirits. If souls were transmitted from the parents, the parents would likewise be fathers of spirits, and God would be no more the father of spirits than of flesh. Zach., XII, 1, God is said to be forming the spirit of man within him. Nothing could be clearer. Likewise Psal. XXXII, 15: Who fashioned their hearts one by one. By the name of heart Holy Scripture is accustomed to understand the soul.

Proof 2° from the councils and the Fathers. The Council of Toledo I, in its assertion of faith, says, « that the soul of man is not of the divine substance, or of God the Father, but we declare it to be a creature created by the will of God. » Lateran V, under Leo X, session 8, defines the soul to be immortal, and « multipliable singularly according to the multitude of bodies into which it is infused, and multiplied, and to be multiplied. » Which signifies that each soul is produced or created singularly from without, for constituting human nature in each individual.

St. Ambrose, bk. on Arca et Noe, ch. 4, says: « Souls are generated from no man. » St. Jerome, on ch. XII of Eccles.: « They are worthy enough to be laughed at who think that souls come to be along with bodies, and are generated not by God, but by the parents of the bodies. » St. Hilary, bk. X on Trinit., proves that Christ did not assume a soul from the Blessed Virgin, because « the soul of man is the work of God, whereas the generation of flesh is always from flesh...; the soul is never furnished by man from the origins of those who beget. » St. Bernard, sermon ii on Nativ., n. 1 and 6: « Flesh and soul are compacted and joined together in you: the former formed, the latter breathed in... That the creature of the rational soul is united to the earthly body..., it is sent in by being created, and is created by being sent in. » In this the Greek Fathers agree with the Latin.

From all of which it now seems to many, together with the Author, that our conclusion pertains to the faith and that the opposite is heretical, who here, q. 118, a. 2, o, says: « Therefore it is heretical to say that the intellective soul is transmitted with the seed. »

Proof 3° from reason³. 1° If there were a power left by the soul of the parent in the seed for producing a soul, it would be either material or spiritual. But neither can be said. Therefore. — Proof of the minor 1° It is not material. For no active power acts outside its own genus. Therefore a material power cannot produce a spiritual substance. 2° It is not spiritual, both because it is not from the soul as it is spiritual, but as it is the act of the body, in which respect it belongs to the order of material things; and because it could not be permanently subjected in the bodily seed, until the body were sufficiently organized; for what is received permanently in a subject, is received according to the mode of that subject. Therefore.

2° Of things that are of one genus, the mode of coming forth into being is the same⁴. But the soul is of the genus of intellectual substances, which cannot be understood to come forth into being otherwise than by way of creation, as is evident in the angels. Therefore.

If you should object that it is affirmed many times in Holy Scripture that souls came forth from the father, as Genes., XLVI, 26: All the souls that went with Jacob into Egypt and came forth from his thigh, — I answer with the Angelic Doctor⁵, that in that authority, and in similar ones, the part is put for the whole by synecdoche, that is, the soul for the man, as being the nobler part. It is not, however, to be understood that the whole man thus comes forth from the father's thigh, but only that which pertains per se to carnal generation, that is, the flesh.

You will object against the first testimony of Scripture: 1° The inspiration or insufflation by which man was made into a living soul regards Adam alone, and does not prove

the individual souls of his descendants to be truly created by a positive act of God, and not to be brought to existence by traduction. Therefore this passage is outside the question and cannot be suitably alleged here.

I answer. I deny the antecedent. 1° This passage is interpreted by Aquinas himself just as we understand it. After he proved, II Contra gent., c. 87, « that the human soul is produced into being by God through creation, » pronouncing this of any soul whatsoever, he adds: « This too Sacred Scripture seems to hint. For when, speaking of the institution of the other animals, it ascribes their souls to other causes, as when it says, Gen., I, 20: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and likewise concerning the others, coming to man, it shows that his soul is created by God, saying, ibid., II, 7: God formed man from the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life. » What is here, according to the Angelic Doctor, at least hinted at, is that any human soul whatsoever is produced into being by God through creation. 2° If the human soul could be produced otherwise than by creation, God would probably in the beginning have produced it in the same way as he produced the souls of the other animals, namely, by a power implanted and inherent in each nature. But, once the body of Adam was formed, God created his soul by a distinct and special act. Therefore by this very fact it is demonstrated that the human soul cannot be produced otherwise. And since by its very essence the soul had to be created in Adam, it follows that the text adduced hints that the other human souls, which are of the same essence, are created immediately by God. 3° Thus was that text interpreted by the ancient writers. Theodoret, Quaest. xxiii on Gen., thus sets forth the opinion of the heretics whom he attacks: « If the soul was created from the breathing of God, then the soul will indeed be of the substance of God. » And he answers: « Such an opinion is of extreme impiety and blasphemy. For by this the divine Scripture demonstrated the ease of creating, and declared not obscurely the nature of the soul itself, namely, that it is a spirit capable of being created, invisible and intellective, devoid of bodily grossness. »

You will object against the texts of the councils: The Council of Toledo indeed defines « that the soul of man is a creature created by the will of God, » and the Council of Lateran, that it is « multiplied according to the multitude of bodies into which it is infused. » But in these definitions the mode of creation and multiplication is not determined. Therefore they cannot legitimately be invoked in the present question.

I answer. I distinguish the minor. The mode of creation and multiplication is not determined explicitly, I concede; it is not determined implicitly, I deny. For 1° the Council of Toledo pronounces that every human soul is created by the will of God. But a production of this kind cannot be understood except of creation properly so called, and if it were interpreted in the sense that the human soul is brought to being by traduction, it would no more be created than the body is, which, insofar as it is produced by the material power of the seed, cannot properly be said to be created, but only in a broad sense. Therefore the decree of the council expresses creation taken in the strict sense. 2° The Council of Lateran defines the soul « to be multiplied singularly according to the multitude of bodies into which it is infused. » But this is not verified unless, for each body produced by the power of the seed, one soul in no way pre-existing is multiplied, that is, is produced by creation. Therefore as before. And it suffices that creation be implicitly contained in the above decrees, for them to be rightly invoked in support of our proposition.]