|
State of the question. Besides sanctifying grace our
first parents received the gift of integrity, by which
they were perfected beyond the requirements of the order of
nature. This gift of integrity comprises four
preternatural gifts, namely, with regard to the body
immunity from death and pain and some dominion over animals
and the forces of nature, and with regard to the soul
immunity from concupiscence and ignorance. We shall
consider these four gifts separately with regard both to
their essence and to their gratuitousness, beginning with
those that are more certain according to revelation, that
is, with the immunity from death and pain and then
ascending to the higher gifts, for if God made the body
of the first man perfect, He certainly also perfected his
soul. Gradually we shall see the threefold harmony found
in the state of original justice, namely, the threefold
subjection of the soul to God by grace, of the lower
powers to the soul illumined by faith and to the will
elevated by charity, and of the body to the soul. We
shall also see, as St. Augustine and St. Thomas have
shown, how the two other subordinations depend on the
higher harmony between God and the soul, and how, when
the first is destroyed by sin, the other two also are
lost.
By a privilege our first parents were constituted immune
from death. Although they were naturally mortal, they.
were immune from the necessity of dying, that is, they
would be preserved from death if they remained in grace and
after the period of their probation they would have entered
alive into heavenly bliss, as would also their posterity.
This doctrine is of faith according to various
councils.[1436] The Council of Trent declared
that the first man had incurred "the anger and indignation
of God and consequently that death which God had
threatened."[1437]
Sacred Scripture explicitly affirms the existence of this
gift. We read that the death of the body is the
punishment for sin: "For in what day soever thou shalt
eat of it, thou shalt die the death";[1438] "In
the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return
to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou
art, and into dust thou shalt return."[1439] We
read further: "For God created man incorruptible, and
to the image of His own likeness He made him. But by
the envy of the devil, death came into the
world."[1440] Finally, the New Testament
frequently affirms that death is the penalty for
sin.[1441] Sacred Scripture emphasizes this
privilege more than the other privileges since its loss is
more keenly felt by all, and thus this privilege throws
light on the other privileges.
Tradition also unanimously affirms that our first parents
were immune from the necessity of dying.[1442] St.
Augustine says of the first man: "He was therefore
mortal because of the condition of his animal body, but he
was immortal through the beneficence of the
Creator."[1443]
St. Thomas explains the congruity and gratuity of this
gift as follows: As long as the soul remained perfectly
subject to God "it was fitting that in the beginning a
power should be given the soul by which the body could be
preserved better than the nature of corporeal matter."
As a material composite the body was by nature mortal,
like the bodies of the animals; death would follow
naturally either from some extrinsic cause or by age or
natural corruption. Hence corporeal immortality was
gratuitous and not owing to the nature of the body. Hence
St. Thomas says: "His (Adam's) body was not
indissoluble by some force of immortality existing in him,
but there was in the soul a certain supernatural power,
divinely given, by which the soul was able to preserve the
body from all corruption as long as the soul remained
subject to God."[1444]
Perpetual preservation from bodily death was a miracle
like the resurrection of the body, by which the natural
life of the body is supernaturally restored; nature can of
course produce life by generation but it cannot preserve
the body, in itself corruptible, from death. This
immunity from death, however, was not as perfect as in
the glorified body, for Adam still required nourishment,
which the glorified body does not need.
The gratuity of this gift is more explicitly affirmed in
the condemnation of many of Baius'
propositions.[1445]
By a privilege our first parents were immune from pain and
the miseries of this life. This teaching is generally
regarded as theologically certain.[1446]
We find it expressed in Sacred Scripture, according to
which our first parents enjoyed an abundance of good things
in the terrestrial paradise, were active without becoming
weary, ruled over animals and inferior
beings,[1447] and were untouched by all those
sorrows that are explained as the penalty of
sin.[1448] Moreover, immortality presupposes the
immunity from the pain and disease that dispose to death.
This teaching is affirmed by tradition.[1449]
The congruity of this doctrine is explained by St.
Thomas as follows: Man's body, since it is a material
composite, is by its nature passible and mortal, like the
bodies of brute animals, but as long as the soul remained
subject to God "divine providence protected his body so
that nothing unforeseen should occur to harm
it."[1450]
According to St. Thomas[1451] it is sufficiently
clear from the first chapter of Genesis that the first man
had dominion over all animals, not only with regard to
right and power but also with regard to the exercise and
use of that power, so that he was able to command them and
they would obey. As less perfect beings, all animals are
naturally subject to man. But now, after sin, the
exercise and use of this dominion has been greatly
weakened, and man is able to rule over only a few
animals, and these obey only with difficulty.
By a special privilege our first parents were immune from
inordinate concupiscence. This is theologically certain.
The Council of Trent declared that the Apostle often
calls concupiscence sin,[1452] because "it comes
from sin and inclines to sin," but that concupiscence is
not truly and properly a sin in those who are
reborn.[1453]
Sacred Scripture tells us that our first parents did not
blush before the Fall, but afterward they were aware of
their nakedness because of their disobedience.[1454]
The Fathers of the Church, especially St. John
Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and St. Cyril of
Alexandria, explain these passages from Holy Scripture
as follows: Before the Fall our first parents were
immune from concupiscence and from the tumult of inordinate
passions.[1455]
St. Thomas explains the congruity and gratuitousness in
these words: "As long as reason remained subject to
God, the lower powers were subject to it, as Augustine
says.[1456] It is clear however that the subjection
of the body to the soul and of the lower powers to reason
was not natural, otherwise this subjection would have
remained after man sinned."[1457] The
gratuitousness of this gift is made more manifest by the
fact that "reason is influenced by the political dominion
of the irascible and concupiscible parts, because the
sensitive appetite has its own nature and is therefore able
to resist the command of reason. The sensitive appetite
is moved not only by the knowledge that is under the
direction of universal reason but also by the imagination
and the senses. Hence we have the experience that the
irascible and concupiscible parts oppose reason because we
feel and imagine something delectable, which reason
forbids, or something unpleasant, which reason
commands."[1458]
Hence it is a privilege if man is preserved from the
inordinate movements of sensibility.
By a special privilege our first parents were immune from
ignorance. This too is theologically
certain.[1459]
State of the question. Ignorance is the privation of
that knowledge that one should have in view of his age and
state in life. From the preceding article it is clear
that Adam had infused faith and the necessary supernatural
knowledge to attain his supernatural end. We now ask
whether he had natural knowledge proportionate to his state
for the perfect government of himself and for the easy
instruction of his children. In other words, did he
have, as one created in adult age and as the head of the
human race, adequate natural knowledge, acquired not by
experience and study but infused "per accidens",
although such knowledge is "per se" acquirable?
That he had such knowledge is commonly admitted.
From its mode of speaking, Sacred Scripture indicates
that Adam was created not as an infant but as an adult,
and therefore with a formed intellect. We read, "And
the Lord God....brought them (all the animals and
birds) to Adam to see what he would call them: for
whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its
name. And Adam called all the beasts by their
names."[1460] At least, therefore, Adam had
sufficient knowledge to distinguish the various animals and
give them a fitting name. He did not, however, acquire
this knowledge gradually by experience; it was therefore
infused.
Similarly Adam knew the meanings of the parts of speech,
the proper meaning of noun, verb, and adjective, and
thus he had rather advanced knowledge not only of grammar
but also of philosophy if he was able to make the
distinction between the meaning of the verb "to be" and
"to have," and so he could understand that God alone is
His own being and subsisting being itself, whereas a
creature, no matter how perfect, had being but was not
its own being. He would also have had a rather advanced
knowledge if he understood the meaning, the necessity,
and universality of the first principles of reason and
being, namely, the principles of contradiction,
efficient causality, and finality, by which the human
mind naturally ascends to the knowledge of the supreme
cause and the ultimate end.
Finally, as the head of the human race, and living in
familiar friendship with God, as the biblical narrative
tells us, he should have had a certain knowledge of moral
and religious matters in order to impart the necessary
instruction to his children. Sacred Scripture tells us,
"He gave them counsel,....and a heart to devise:
and He filled them with the knowledge of understanding.
He created in them the science of the spirit, He filled
their heart with wisdom, and showed them both good and
evil. He set his eye upon their hearts to show them the
greatness of His works, that they might praise the name
which He hath sanctified: and glory in His wondrous
acts."[1461]
Tradition affirms the truth that Adam's knowledge was of
the highest order.[1462]
St. Thomas explains the congruity and gratuitousness of
this gift in this way: "Since the first things were
established by God not only so that they might exist in
themselves but that they might be the principles for other
things, they were produced in such a perfect state that
they might be the principles for other things. Therefore
the first man was established in a perfect state with
regard to his body....and with regard to his soul, so
that he would be able immediately to instruct and
rule..... The first man received such knowledge of
supernatural things as was necessary to govern the human
race in that perfect state."[1463] This knowledge
was beyond what was owing to nature. But Adam did not
see God or the angels in their essences, nor did he know
future contingents or the secrets of hearts.
St. Thomas says further: "The righteousness of that
first state was not compatible with any deception in the
intellect,"[1464] and "the seduction (or
deception) of the woman, even though it preceded the sin
in deed, nevertheless followed the sin of internal
elation" which the woman conceived immediately after
hearing the words of the serpent.[1465] Further,
if the innocent Adam was created so perfect with regard to
his body as to be preserved from death, it is all the more
true that he was created perfect with regard to his
intellect.
According to St. Thomas, Adam foreknew the
incarnation of God, although he did not know he was to
sin; he had a more excellent knowledge of God and the
angels than we have; his knowledge was midway between our
knowledge and that of the blessed. In his knowledge Adam
needed the phantasm.[1466]
Conclusion. With regard to the gratuitousness of these
four privileges of the state of innocence we can easily
understand why the following propositions of Baius were
condemned: "The integrity of the first creation was not
an undeserved exaltation of human nature but its natural
condition"; "God could not have created such a human
being in the beginning as is now born."[1467] This
second proposition was condemned in Baius' sense, that
is, a human being without grace and the gift of
integrity. By this the Church affirms that God could
have created a man without grace and the gift of
integrity, that is, with some ignorance, concupiscence,
certain weaknesses, and subject to death.
Corollary. A state of nature, without grace, without
the gift of integrity, and without sin, is therefore
possible. This follows from the condemnation of Baius'
propositions.[1468] Theological reason supports
this conclusion, as Billuart explained at great
length.[1469] St. Thomas explains, "In the
beginning, when God made man, He could also have made
another man out of the slime of the earth, leaving him in
the condition of his nature, so that he would be passible
and mortal, knowing the war of concupiscence against
reason; and in this man there would be no derogation of
human nature, because these things follow from the
principles of his nature."[1470] God was not
obliged to give man anything more, because grace and the
preternatural gifts are not owing to man.[1471]
The Augustinians Noris and Berti were akin to Baius
when they said that the state of pure nature is possible by
God's absolute power but not God's power as ordered by
wisdom and goodness. If this were true, the grace given
our first parents was due them from the Creator in
propriety. This teaching has not been condemned by the
Church, but it seems to approach too closely to Baius'
doctrine.
We conclude with St. Thomas: "If anyone considers
this matter carefully, he can at least probably conclude
that if there is a divine providence that adapts suitable
perfectibles to each of the perfections, God joined the
higher nature of the soul to the lower nature of the body
that the soul might rule the body, and, if some obstacle
to this rule should arise from the defect of nature, it
would be removed by God's special and supernatural
beneficence."[1472]
|
|