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 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.

Obj. 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.

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 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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 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 damned. 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).

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part I (Prima Pars) From the Complete American Edition · 第 613 / 722 题