Part I (Prima Pars) Part 152 (1/2)

Obj. 2: Further, Anselm says (Cur Deus h.o.m.o i, 18): ”If our first parents had lived so as not to yield to temptation, they would have been confirmed in grace, so that with their offspring they would have been unable to sin any more.” Therefore the children would have been born confirmed in righteousness.

Obj. 3: Further, good is stronger than evil. But by the sin of the first man there resulted, in those born of him, the necessity of sin.

Therefore, if the first man had persevered in righteousness, his descendants would have derived from him the necessity of preserving righteousness.

Obj. 4: Further, the angels who remained faithful to G.o.d, while the others sinned, were at once confirmed in grace, so as to be unable henceforth to sin. In like manner, therefore, man would have been confirmed in grace if he had persevered. But he would have begotten children like himself. Therefore they also would have been born confirmed in righteousness.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 10): ”Happy would have been the whole human race if neither they--that is our first parents--had committed any evil to be transmitted to their descendants, nor any of their race had committed any sin for which they would have been condemned.” From which words we gather that even if our first parents had not sinned, any of their descendants might have done evil; and therefore they would not have been born confirmed in righteousness.

_I answer that,_ It does not seem possible that in the state of innocence children would have been born confirmed in righteousness.

For it is clear that at their birth they would not have had greater perfection than their parents at the time of begetting. Now the parents, as long as they begot children, would not have been confirmed in righteousness. For the rational creature is confirmed in righteousness through the beat.i.tude given by the clear vision of G.o.d; and when once it has seen G.o.d, it cannot but cleave to Him Who is the essence of goodness, wherefrom no one can turn away, since nothing is desired or loved but under the aspect of good. I say this according to the general law; for it may be otherwise in the case of special privilege, such as we believe was granted to the Virgin Mother of G.o.d.

And as soon as Adam had attained to that happy state of seeing G.o.d in His Essence, he would have become spiritual in soul and body; and his animal life would have ceased, wherein alone there is generation.

Hence it is clear that children would not have been born confirmed in righteousness.

Reply Obj. 1: If Adam had not sinned, he would not have begotten ”children of h.e.l.l” in the sense that they would contract from him sin which is the cause of h.e.l.l: yet by sinning of their own free-will they could have become ”children of h.e.l.l.” If, however, they did not become ”children of h.e.l.l” by falling into sin, this would not have been owing to their being confirmed in righteousness, but to Divine Providence preserving them free from sin.

Reply Obj. 2: Anselm does not say this by way of a.s.sertion, but only as an opinion, which is clear from his mode of expression as follows: ”It seems that if they had lived, etc.”

Reply Obj. 3: This argument is not conclusive, though Anselm seems to have been influenced by it, as appears from his words above quoted.

For the necessity of sin incurred by the descendants would not have been such that they could not return to righteousness, which is the case only with the d.a.m.ned. Wherefore neither would the parents have transmitted to their descendants the necessity of not sinning, which is only in the blessed.

Reply Obj. 4: There is no comparison between man and the angels; for man's free-will is changeable, both before and after choice; whereas the angel's is not changeable, as we have said above in treating of the angels (Q. 64, A. 2).

_______________________

QUESTION 101

OF THE CONDITION OF THE OFFSPRING AS REGARDS KNOWLEDGE (In Two Articles)

We next consider the condition of the offspring as to knowledge.

Under this head there are two points of inquiry:

(1) Whether in the state of innocence children would have been born with perfect knowledge?

(2) Whether they would have had perfect use of reason at the moment of birth?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 101, Art. 1]

Whether in the State of Innocence Children Would Have Been Born with Perfect Knowledge?

Objection 1: It would seem that in the state of innocence children would have been born with perfect knowledge. For Adam would have begotten children like himself. But Adam was gifted with perfect knowledge (Q. 94, A. 3). Therefore children would have been born of him with perfect knowledge.

Obj. 2: Further, ignorance is a result of sin, as Bede says (Cf.

I-II, Q. 85, A. 3). But ignorance is privation of knowledge.

Therefore before sin children would have had perfect knowledge as soon as they were born.

Obj. 3: Further, children would have been gifted with righteousness from birth. But knowledge is required for righteousness, since it directs our actions. Therefore they would also have been gifted with knowledge.

_On the contrary,_ The human soul is naturally ”like a blank tablet on which nothing is written,” as the Philosopher says (De Anima iii, 4). But the nature of the soul is the same now as it would have been in the state of innocence. Therefore the souls of children would have been without knowledge at birth.