|
Objection 1: It would seem there would have been no generation in
the state of innocence. For, as stated in Phys. v, 5,
"corruption is contrary to generation." But contraries affect the
same subject: also there would have been no corruption in the state of
innocence. Therefore neither would there have been generation.
Objection 2: Further, the object of generation is the preservation
in the species of that which is corruptible in the individual.
Wherefore there is no generation in those individual things which last
for ever. But in the state of innocence man would have lived for
ever. Therefore in the state of innocence there would have been no
generation.
Objection 3: Further, by generation man is multiplied. But the
multiplication of masters requires the division of property, to avoid
confusion of mastership. Therefore, since man was made master of the
animals, it would have been necessary to make a division of rights when
the human race increased by generation. This is against the natural
law, according to which all things are in common, as Isidore says
(Etym. v, 4). Therefore there would have been no generation in
the state of innocence.
On the contrary, It is written (Gn. 1:28): "Increase and
multiply, and fill the earth." But this increase could not come
about save by generation, since the original number of mankind was two
only. Therefore there would have been generation in the state of
innocence.
I answer that, In the state of innocence there would have been
generation of offspring for the multiplication of the human race;
otherwise man's sin would have been very necessary, for such a great
blessing to be its result. We must, therefore, observe that man, by
his nature, is established, as it were, midway between corruptible
and incorruptible creatures, his soul being naturally incorruptible,
while his body is naturally corruptible. We must also observe that
nature's purpose appears to be different as regards corruptible and
incorruptible things. For that seems to be the direct purpose of
nature, which is invariable and perpetual; while what is only for a
time is seemingly not the chief purpose of nature, but as it were,
subordinate to something else; otherwise, when it ceased to exist,
nature's purpose would become void.
Therefore, since in things corruptible none is everlasting and
permanent except the species, it follows that the chief purpose of
nature is the good of the species; for the preservation of which
natural generation is ordained. On the other hand, incorruptible
substances survive, not only in the species, but also in the
individual; wherefore even the individuals are included in the chief
purpose of nature.
Hence it belongs to man to beget offspring, on the part of the
naturally corruptible body. But on the part of the soul, which is
incorruptible, it is fitting that the multitude of individuals should
be the direct purpose of nature, or rather of the Author of nature,
Who alone is the Creator of the human soul. Wherefore, to provide
for the multiplication of the human race, He established the begetting
of offspring even in the state of innocence.
Reply to Objection 1: In the state of innocence the human body was
in itself corruptible, but it could be preserved from corruption by the
soul. Therefore, since generation belongs to things corruptible, man
was not to be deprived thereof.
Reply to Objection 2: Although generation in the state of innocence
might not have been required for the preservation of the species, yet
it would have been required for the multiplication of the individual.
Reply to Objection 3: In our present state a division of
possessions is necessary on account of the multiplicity of masters,
inasmuch as community of possession is a source of strife, as the
Philosopher says (Politic. ii, 5). In the state of innocence,
however, the will of men would have been so ordered that without any
danger of strife they would have used in common, according to each
one's need, those things of which they were masters---a state of
things to be observed even now among many good men.
|
|