|
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 hell"; 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.
Objection 2: Further, Anselm says (Cur Deus Homo 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 4: Further, the angels who remained faithful to God,
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 beatitude given by the clear vision of God;
and when once it has seen God, 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
God. And as soon as Adam had attained to that happy state of seeing
God 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 to Objection 1: If Adam had not sinned, he would not have
begotten "children of hell" in the sense that they would contract from
him sin which is the cause of hell: yet by sinning of their own
free-will they could have become "children of hell." If, however,
they did not become "children of hell" 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 to Objection 2: Anselm does not say this by way of
assertion, but only as an opinion, which is clear from his mode of
expression as follows: "It seems that if they had lived, etc."
Reply to Objection 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 damned. Wherefore neither would the
parents have transmitted to their descendants the necessity of not
sinning, which is only in the blessed.
Reply to Objection 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 (Question 64, Article 2).
|
|