[I.q.99.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that in the state of innocence children would have had perfect strength of the body, as to the use of its members, immediately after birth. For Augustine says (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i, 38): \"This weakness of the body befits their weakness of mind.\" But in the state of innocence there would have been no weakness of mind. Therefore neither would there have been weakness of body in infants.
\n[I.q.99.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod pueri in statu innocentiæ mox nati virtutem perfectam habuissent ad motum membrorum. Dicit enim Augustinus in lib. I De bapt. parvul., cap. xxxviii, col. 150, t. 10, quod « infirmitati mentis congruit hæc infirmitas corporis, » quæ scilicet in pueris apparet. Sed in statu innocentiæ nulla fuisset infirmitas mentis. Ergo neque talis infirmitas corporis fuisset in parvulis.
\n[I.q.99.a.1.arg.2] Further, some animals at birth have sufficient strength to use their members. But man is nobler than other animals. Therefore much more is it natural to man to have strength to use his members at birth; and thus it appears to be a punishment of sin that he has not that strength.
\n[I.q.99.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, quædam animalia statim cum nascuntur habent virtutem sufficientem ad usum membrorum. Sed homo est nobilior aliis animalibus. Ergo multo magis est naturale homini quod statim natus virtutem habeat ad usum membrorum: et ita videtur esse pœna ex peccato consequens quod hanc virtutem non habeat.
\n[I.q.99.a.1.arg.3] Further, inability to secure a proffered pleasure causes affliction. But if children had not full strength in the use of their limbs, they would often have been unable to procure something pleasurable offered to them; and so they would have been afflicted, which was not possible before sin. Therefore, in the state of innocence, children would not have been deprived of the use of their limbs.
\n[I.q.99.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, non posse consequi delectabile propositum, afflictionem inducit. Sed si pueri non habuissent virtutem ad movendum membra, frequenter accidisset quod non possent consequi aliquod delectabile eis propositum. Ergo fuisset in eis afflictio, quæ non poterat esse ante peccatum. Non ergo in statu innocentiæ defuisset pueris virtus ad movendum membra.
\n[I.q.99.a.1.arg.4] Further, the weakness of old age seems to correspond to that of infancy. But in the state of innocence there would have been no weakness of old age. Therefore neither would there have been such weakness in infancy.
\n[I.q.99.a.1.arg.4] 4. Præterea, defectus senectutis videtur correspondere defectui pueritiæ. Sed in statu innocentiæ non fuisset defectus senectutis. Ergo neque etiam pueritiæ.
\n[I.q.99.a.1.sc] Everything generated is first imperfect. But in the state of innocence children would have been begotten by generation. Therefore from the first they would have been imperfect in bodily size and power.
\n[I.q.99.a.1.sc] Sed contra est, quod omne generatum prius est imperfectum quam perficiatur. Sed pueri in statu innocentiæ fuissent per generationem producti. Ergo a principio imperfecti fuissent et quantitate et virtute corporis.
\n[I.q.99.a.1.co] By faith alone do we hold truths which are above nature, and what we believe rests on authority. Wherefore, in making any assertion, we must be guided by the nature of things, except in those things which are above nature, and are made known to us by Divine authority. Now it is clear that it is as natural as it is befitting to the principles of human nature that children should not have sufficient strength for the use of their limbs immediately after birth. Because in proportion to other animals man has naturally a larger brain. Wherefore it is natural, on account of the considerable humidity of the brain in children, that the nerves which are instruments of movement, should not be apt for moving the limbs. On the other hand, no Catholic doubts it possible for a child to have, by Divine power, the use of its limbs immediately after birth.
\nNow we have it on the authority of Scripture that \"God made man right\" (Ecclesiastes 7:30), which rightness, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 11), consists in the perfect subjection of the body to the soul. As, therefore, in the primitive state it was impossible to find in the human limbs anything repugnant to man's well-ordered will, so was it impossible for those limbs to fail in executing the will's commands. Now the human will is well ordered when it tends to acts which are befitting to man. But the same acts are not befitting to man at every season of life. We must, therefore, conclude that children would not have had sufficient strength for the use of their limbs for the purpose of performing every kind of act; but only for the acts befitting the state of infancy, such as suckling, and the like.
\n[I.q.99.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod ea quæ sunt supra naturam, sola fide tenemus; quod autem credimus auctoritati debemus. Unde in omnibus asserendis sequi debemus naturam rerum, præter ea quæ auctoritate divina traduntur, quæ sunt supra naturam. Manifestum est autem naturale hoc esse, ut pote et principiis humanæ naturæ competens, quod pueri mox nati non habeant sufficientem virtutem ad movendum membra; quia homo naturaliter habet cerebrum majus in quantitate secundum proportionem sui corporis quam cætera animalia. Unde naturale est quod, propter maximam humiditatem cerebri in pueris, nervi, qui sunt instrumenta motus, non sunt idonei ad movendum membra. Ex alia vero parte nulli catholico dubium est quin divina virtute fieri possit ut pueri mox nati perfectam virtutem habeant ad motum membrorum. Constat Plenius et paulo mutatis verbis in textu D. Auautem per auctoritatem Scripturæ, Eccle., vii, 30, quod Deus fecit hominem rectum; et hæc rectitudo consistit, ut Augustinus dicit in lib. De correptione et gratia, c. xi, col. 933, t. 10, in perfecta subjectione corporis ad animam. Sicut ergo in primo statu non poterat esse in membris hominis aliquid quod repugnaret ordinatæ hominis voluntati; ita membra hominis deficere non poterant humanæ voluntati. Voluntas autem hominis ordinata est quæ tendit in actus sibi convenientes. Non sunt autem iidem actus convenientes homini secundum quamlibet ætatem. Dicendum est ergo, quod pueri mox nati non habuissent sufficientem virtutem ad movendum membra ad quoslibet actus, sed ad actus pueritiæ convenientes, puta ad sugendum ubera et ad alia hujusmodi.
\n[I.q.99.a.1.ad.1] Augustine is speaking of the weakness which we observe in children even as regards those acts which befit the state of infancy; as is clear from his preceding remark that \"even when close to the breast, and longing for it, they are more apt to cry than to suckle.\"
\n[I.q.99.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod femina dicitur « mas occasionatus, » quia est praeter intentionem naturæ particularis; non autem praeter intentionem naturæ universalis, ut supra dictum est.
\n[I.q.99.a.1.ad.2] The fact that some animals have the use of their limbs immediately after birth, is due, not to their superiority, since more perfect animals are not so endowed; but to the dryness of the brain, and to the operations proper to such animals being imperfect, so that a small amount of strength suffices them.
\n[I.q.99.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod generatio feminæ non solum contingit ex defectu virtutis activæ, vel indispositione materiæ, ut objectio tangit; sed quandoque quidem ex aliquo accidenti extrinseco, sicut Philosophus dicit in lib. II De anima, vel De gener. animal., c. 11, quod « ventus septentrionalis coadjuvat ad generationem masculorum, australis vero ad generationem femina-rum; » quandoque etiam ex conceptione animæ, ad quam de facili immutatur corpus. Et praecipue in statu innocentiæ hoc esse poterat, quando corpus magis erat animæ subjectum, ut scilicet secundum voluntatem generantis distingueretur sexus in prole.
\n[I.q.99.a.1.ad.3] is clear from what we have said above. We may add that they would have desired nothing except with an ordinate will; and only what was befitting to their state of life.
\n[I.q.99.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod proles fuisset genita vivens vita animali, ad quam sicut pertinet alimento uti, sic etiam generare. Unde conveniebat quod omnes generarent, et non solum primi parentes; ad quod consequens videtur, quod tot fuissent generatæ feminæ quot mares.
\n[I.q.99.a.1.ad.4] In the state of innocence man would have been born, yet not subject to corruption. Therefore in that state there could have been certain infantile defects which result from birth; but not senile defects leading to corruption.
\n[I.q.99.a.1.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod homo in statu innocentiæ generatus fuisset, sed non fuisset corruptus. Et ideo in statu illo potuisent esse aliqui defectus pueriles qui consequuntur generationem; non autem defectus seniles, qui ordinantur ad corruptionem. 1 In loco citato nulla mentio fit de textu sanctæ Scripturæ, sed hujus explicationem dat Augustinus, XIV De civ. Dei, c. xi, col. 418, t. 7, et V Operis imperfecti contra Julianum, § 61, col. 1497, t. 10. Scholastici quærunt utrum ante lapsum homines genuissent pueros parvulos, vel magnos? et respondent: parvulos. Addunt Richardus, Bonaventura et alii quod tunc sine vagitu nati fuissent parvuli, nec balneis, fasciis, sedulitate obstetricum et hujusmodi indiguissent. Successu tamen temporis ad perfectam quantitatem pervenissent. Juxta Guillelmum, Richardum, Bonaventuram et alios habuissent defectus non qui ad vitæ terminum ordinantur, sed qui principium originis consequuntur naturaliter: secus de pœnalibus defectibus. Celerius et perfectius et crevissent, et ad actus membrorum potentes fuissent. Deus autem sic progressum hominis ordinavit, quia curam diligentem, custodiamque parentum parvulis hominum deesse non voluit, nec hominem superbire se vinci videntem a brutis in omnibus sensibus; unde versus: Nos aper auditu præcellit, aranea tactu, Lynx visu, vultur odoratu, simia gustu. autem ad perfectionem universi pertinent diversi gradus rerum, ita etiam diversitas sexus est ad perfectionem humanæ naturæ. Et ideo in statu innocentiæ uterque sexus per generationem productus fuisset.
\n[I.q.99.a.2.arg.1] It would seem that in the primitive state woman would not have been born. For the Philosopher says (De Gener. Animal. ii, 3) that woman is a \"misbegotten male,\" as though she were a product outside the purpose of nature. But in that state nothing would have been unnatural in human generation. Therefore in that state women would not have been born.
\n[I.q.99.a.2.arg.2] Further, every agent produces its like, unless prevented by insufficient power or ineptness of matter: thus a small fire cannot burn green wood. But in generation the active force is in the male. Since, therefore, in the state of innocence man's active force was not subject to defect, nor was there inept matter on the part of the woman, it seems that males would always have been born.
\n[I.q.99.a.2.arg.3] Further, in the state of innocence generation is ordered to the multiplication of the human race. But the race would have been sufficiently multiplied by the first man and woman, from the fact that they would have lived for ever. Therefore, in the state of innocence, there was no need for women to be born.
\n[I.q.99.a.2.sc] Nature's process in generation would have been in harmony with the manner in which it was established by God. But established male and female in human nature, as it is written (Genesis 1-2). Therefore also in the state of innocence male and female would have been born.
\n[I.q.99.a.2.co] Nothing belonging to the completeness of human nature would have been lacking in the state of innocence. And as different grades belong to the perfection of the universe, so also diversity of sex belongs to the perfection of human nature. Therefore in the state of innocence, both sexes would have been begotten.
\n[I.q.99.a.2.ad.1] Woman is said to be a \"misbegotten male,\" as being a product outside the purpose of nature considered in the individual case: but not against the purpose of universal nature, as above explained (92, 1, ad 2).
\n[I.q.99.a.2.ad.2] The generation of woman is not occasioned either by a defect of the active force or by inept matter, as the objection proposes; but sometimes by an extrinsic accidental cause; thus the Philosopher says (De Animal. Histor. vi, 19): \"The northern wind favors the generation of males, and the southern wind that of females\": sometimes also by some impression in the soul (of the parents), which may easily have some effect on the body (of the child). Especially was this the case in the state of innocence, when the body was more subject to the soul; so that by the mere will of the parent the sex of the offspring might be diversified.
\n[I.q.99.a.2.ad.3] The offspring would have been begotten to an animal life, as to the use of food and generation. Hence it was fitting that all should generate, and not only the first parents. From this it seems to follow that males and females would have been in equal number.
\nThe Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
\n