Part I (Prima Pars) Part 151 (2/2)
Reply Obj. 1: Woman is said to be a ”misbegotten male,” as being a product outside the purpose of nature considered in the individual case: but not against the purpose of universal nature, as above explained (Q. 92, A. 1, ad 2).
Reply Obj. 2: The generation of woman is not occasioned either by a defect of the active force or by inept matter, as the objection proposes; but sometimes by an extrinsic accidental cause; thus the Philosopher says (De Animal. Histor. vi, 19): ”The northern wind favors the generation of males, and the southern wind that of females”: sometimes also by some impression in the soul (of the parents), which may easily have some effect on the body (of the child). Especially was this the case in the state of innocence, when the body was more subject to the soul; so that by the mere will of the parent the s.e.x of the offspring might be diversified.
Reply Obj. 3: The offspring would have been begotten to an animal life, as to the use of food and generation. Hence it was fitting that all should generate, and not only the first parents. From this it seems to follow that males and females would have been in equal number.
_______________________
QUESTION 100
OF THE CONDITION OF THE OFFSPRING AS REGARDS RIGHTEOUSNESS (In Two Articles)
We now have to consider the condition of the offspring as to righteousness. Under this head there are two points of inquiry:
(1) Whether men would have been born in a state of righteousness?
(2) Whether they would have been born confirmed in righteousness?
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 100, Art. 1]
Whether Men Would Have Been Born in a State of Righteousness?
Objection 1: It would seem that in the state of innocence men would not have been born in a state of righteousness. For Hugh of St.
Victor says (De Sacram. i): ”Before sin the first man would have begotten children sinless; but not heirs to their father's righteousness.”
Obj. 2: Further, righteousness is effected by grace, as the Apostle says (Rom. 5:16, 21). Now grace is not transfused from one to another, for thus it would be natural; but is infused by G.o.d alone.
Therefore children would not have been born righteous.
Obj. 3: Further, righteousness is in the soul. But the soul is not transmitted from the parent. Therefore neither would righteousness have been transmitted from parents, to the children.
_On the contrary,_ Anselm says (De Concep. Virg. x): ”As long as man did not sin, he would have begotten children endowed with righteousness together with the rational soul.”
_I answer that,_ Man naturally begets a specific likeness to himself.
Hence whatever accidental qualities result from the nature of the species, must be alike in parent and child, unless nature fails in its operation, which would not have occurred in the state of innocence. But individual accidents do not necessarily exist alike in parent and child. Now original righteousness, in which the first man was created, was an accident pertaining to the nature of the species, not as caused by the principles of the species, but as a gift conferred by G.o.d on the entire human nature. This is clear from the fact that opposites are of the same genus; and original sin, which is opposed to original righteousness, is called the sin of nature, wherefore it is transmitted from the parent to the offspring; and for this reason also, the children would have been a.s.similated to their parents as regards original righteousness.
Reply Obj. 1: These words of Hugh are to be understood as referring, not to the habit of righteousness, but to the execution of the act thereof.
Reply Obj. 2: Some say that children would have been born, not with the righteousness of grace, which is the principle of merit, but with original righteousness. But since the root of original righteousness, which conferred righteousness on the first man when he was made, consists in the supernatural subjection of the reason to G.o.d, which subjection results from sanctifying grace, as above explained (Q. 95, A. 1), we must conclude that if children were born in original righteousness, they would also have been born in grace; thus we have said above that the first man was created in grace (Q. 95, A. 1).
This grace, however, would not have been natural, for it would not have been transfused by virtue of the s.e.m.e.n; but would have been conferred on man immediately on his receiving a rational soul. In the same way the rational soul, which is not transmitted by the parent, is infused by G.o.d as soon as the human body is apt to receive it.
From this the reply to the third objection is clear.
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 100, Art. 2]
Whether in the State of Innocence Children Would Have Been Born Confirmed in Righteousness?
Objection 1: It would seem that in the state of innocence children would have been born confirmed in righteousness. For Gregory says (Moral. iv) on the words of Job 3:13: ”For now I should have been asleep, etc.”: ”If no sinful corruption had infected our first parent, he would not have begotten 'children of h.e.l.l'; no children would have been born of him but such as were destined to be saved by the Redeemer.” Therefore all would have been born confirmed in righteousness.
<script>