Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Book Five — the state of innocence

QUESTION V. Whether in the state of innocence more grace would have been given to men than in the state of the Evangelical law

LatineEnglish

QUESTION V. Whether in the state of innocence more grace would have been given to men than in the state of the Evangelical law.1

QUAESTIO V. Vtrum in statu innocentiae fuisset plus gratiae datum hominibus, quam in statu legis Evangelicae.

Restat illud extremo loco quaerendum, utrum in statu innocentiae maior homini data fuisset gratia quam datur in statu legis Evangelicae: fit igitur in hac quaestione comparatio, quod attinet ad gratiam, inter statum innocentiae et statum legis Evangelicae. Nos, quae super hac quaestione disputare ac docere volumus, quo brevius et distin-...
It remains, in the last place, to inquire whether in the state of innocence a greater grace would have been given to man than is given in the state of the Evangelical law: in this question, therefore, a comparison is made, as regards grace, between the state of innocence and the state of the Evangelical law. The things which we wish to dispute and teach on this question, that we may [set them forth] more briefly and more dis-[tinctly]...2
...distinctius atque enucleatius dicantur, ea libuit in quatuor propositiones conferre: quibus explicatis probatisque, quid nobis de proposita quaestione sentiendum videatur, enotescet. Prima Propositio: In statu innocentiae fere homines plus gratiae acquisivissent, quam acquiritur in statu legis Evangelicae. Hoc probari potest dupliciter. Etenim homines in statu innocentiae suapte natura propensissimi fuissent ad bonum, et ad bene agendum paratissimi ac promptissimi: tum propter abundantiam gratiae quam omnes a primo ortu suo accepissent, tum propter sanitatem, integritatem, vigoremque naturae: caruissent enim omnibus impedimentis et difficultatibus bene agendi, quibus nunc implicati et impediti a bene agendo vehementer avocamur et deterremur. Tunc igitur omnes bene egissent, praeclaraque virtutum opera, et ardentiori studio maiorique conatu fecissent: plus igitur illi tunc in gratia profecissent.
...may be said more distinctly and clearly, I have chosen to gather them into four propositions: which, once explained and proved, what we are to think about the proposed question will become clear. First Proposition: In the state of innocence men would, for the most part, have acquired more grace than is acquired in the state of the Evangelical law. This can be proved in two ways. For men in the state of innocence would by their very nature have been most inclined to good, and most ready and prompt for doing well: both on account of the abundance of grace which all would have received from their first origin, and on account of the health, integrity, and vigor of nature: for they would have been free of all the impediments and difficulties of doing well, by which we, now entangled and hindered, are vehemently called away and deterred from doing well. Then, therefore, all would have done well, and would have performed splendid works of the virtues, and with more ardent zeal and greater effort: therefore they would then have advanced more in grace.3
Accedit altera ratio ad idem persuadendum. In illo statu longiorem trigeculo vitam degissent homines quam nunc degimus: vixissent enim (ut verisimile est) ad tria vel quatuor annorum millia. Nec mirum: cum post peccatum, vitiata et labefactata debilitataque natura et mortis supplicio addicta, qui ante diluvium fuerunt, eos prope millesimum annum vixisse legamus. In tanta igitur vitae longitudine maximam habuissent facultatem et opportunitatem exercendi virtutes, augendi gratiam, et aeternae vitae merita multiplicandi: multo igitur plus gratiae acquisivissent quam nunc in tantis vitae humanae angustiis et brevitate acquiri possit. Non inficior tamen aliqua ex parte et aliqua ratione gratiam, qua sancti viri nunc pollent, maiorem dici posse, habito videlicet respectu ad imbecillitatem naturae humanae, et ad plurima gravissimaque impedimenta et difficultates bene agendi, quibus omnes undique circumvallamur et circumplicati sumus. Plurimi enim aestimari debet idem opus, vel etiam aliquanto minus, ab aegro et infirmo homine quam a sano et valenti perfici: quemadmodum etiam Dominus noster dixit, viduam illam quae duo tantum minuta in Gazophylacium miserat, plus dedisse quam ceteros omnes, tametsi ampliora illi munera obtulissent: habita scilicet utrorumque facultatis ratione.
A second reason is added to persuade the same. In that state men would have lived a life thirty times longer than we now live: for they would have lived (as is likely) to three or four thousand years. And no wonder: since after sin, nature being vitiated, weakened, and impaired, and condemned to the penalty of death, we read that those who lived before the Flood lived nearly to the thousandth year. In so great a length of life, therefore, they would have had the greatest faculty and opportunity of exercising the virtues, increasing grace, and multiplying the merits of eternal life: much more grace, therefore, would they have acquired, than can now be acquired in such great straits and brevity of human life. Yet I do not deny that in some respect and by some reasoning the grace by which holy men now are strong can be called greater—namely, having regard to the weakness of human nature, and to the very many and grievous impediments and difficulties of doing well, by which we are on all sides hemmed in and entangled. For the same work, or even somewhat less, ought to be highly esteemed [when] performed by a sick and infirm man rather than by a healthy and vigorous one: just as our Lord too said that that widow, who had put only two mites into the treasury, had given more than all the rest, even though they had offered larger gifts—having regard, namely, to the faculty of each.4
Secunda Propositio: In statu innocentiae qui minimam habuisset gratiam, longe maiorem habuisset quam plurimi nunc habent in statu legis Evangelicae. Facilis est et prompta huius rei probatio: siquidem in eo statu nemo esset mortuus ante usum rationis, sed integrum omnes vitae suae cursum confecissent, quinimo nullus hominum tunc mortem obiisset: quapropter gratiam quam quisque in primo suo ortu accepisset, per bonum usum liberi arbitrii multum auxisset. At in statu legis Evangelicae plurimi cum sola prima gratia moriuntur, uti infantes baptizati ante usum rationis decedentes.
Second Proposition: In the state of innocence, he who had the least grace would have had far more than very many now have in the state of the Evangelical law. The proof of this is easy and ready: since in that state no one would have died before the use of reason, but all would have completed the whole course of their life—indeed, no man would then have undergone death: wherefore the grace which each had received at his first origin he would have much increased by the good use of free will. But in the state of the Evangelical law very many die with only the first grace, such as baptized infants departing before the use of reason.5
Tertia Propositio: Si Adam non peccasset, et Filius Dei non...
Third Proposition: If Adam had not sinned, and the Son of God had not...6
...non fuisset in statu innocentiae incarnatus, ut placet B. Thomae, equidem probabili coniectura arbitror plus gratiae dari hominibus in statu legis Evangelicae propter Christi adventum ac meritum, quam in statu innocentiae fuisset datum: plus, inquam, gratiae, non extensive (in illo enim statu plures fuissent boni et sancti quam sunt nunc), sed intensive, quia in statu legis Evangelicae multi fuere viri feminaeque praestantia divinae gratiae ac virtutum quam ullus fuisset eorum qui in statu innocentiae vixissent excellentiores. Et ut nihil dicam de Christo domino, sine ulla dubitatione ausim dicere, multo plus gratiae tributum esse beatissimae Virgini, necnon et Ioanni Baptistae atque Apostolis, quam ulli hominum in statu innocentiae concessum fuisset.
...had not been incarnate in the state of innocence, as it pleases the Blessed Thomas, I for my part judge, by probable conjecture, that more grace is given to men in the state of the Evangelical law, on account of Christ's advent and merit, than would have been given in the state of innocence: more grace, I say, not extensively (for in that state there would have been more good and holy men than there are now), but intensively, because in the state of the Evangelical law there have been many men and women more excellent in the eminence of divine grace and the virtues than any would have been of those who lived in the state of innocence. And to say nothing of Christ the Lord, I would dare to say without any doubt that much more grace was bestowed on the most blessed Virgin, and also on John the Baptist and the Apostles, than would have been granted to any of men in the state of innocence.7
Si enim dignitas status innocentiae requirebat ut multum gratiae daretur hominibus in eo statu versantibus, multo sane magis id exigebat dignitas status Evangelici, cuius auctor et conditor erat mediator Dei et hominum verusque homo ac Deus Christus, cuius infinitas meriti iure suo poscebat ut plus gratiae propter ipsum daretur homini quam fuisset ei propter dignitatem status innocentiae tribuendum: pluris enim apud Deum erat dignitas et meritum Christi quam dignitas et perfectio status innocentiae. Ex quo illud etiam recte quispiam concluserit, in statu legis Evangelicae plus gratiae infantibus per baptismum renatis conferri, quam in statu innocentiae infantibus generatis datum fuisset. Et ratio est, quia nunc datur infantibus gratia propter meritum Christi; tunc autem data fuisset gratia infantibus propter decentiam, dignitatem, ac perfectionem status innocentiae: illud autem infinitis partibus apud Deum quam hoc praeponderasset.
For if the dignity of the state of innocence required that much grace be given to men dwelling in that state, much more surely did the dignity of the Evangelical state demand it—whose author and founder was the mediator of God and men, true man and God, Christ, the infinity of whose merit by its own right demanded that more grace be given to man on his account than would have been bestowed on him on account of the dignity of the state of innocence: for the dignity and merit of Christ was of more worth before God than the dignity and perfection of the state of innocence. From which one might also rightly conclude that in the state of the Evangelical law more grace is conferred on infants reborn through baptism than would have been given to infants generated in the state of innocence. And the reason is that now grace is given to infants on account of the merit of Christ; but then grace would have been given to infants on account of the becomingness, dignity, and perfection of the state of innocence: and the former would have outweighed the latter before God by infinite degrees.8
Quarta Propositio: Si Adam non peccasset, et nihilominus tamen Christus fuisset incarnatus (ut multis, mihique in primis placet), licet probabile videatur plus gratiae tunc datum iri hominibus, quod ad gratiae copiam et abundantiam hominibus dandam duo simul concurrebant, et dignitas status innocentiae, et dignitas Christi qui tunc fuisset incarnatus, non ut hominis redemptor ac liberator, sed ut gloriae eius perfector atque consummator: attamen mihi quidem similius vero fit, plus gratiae dari hominibus in statu legis Evangelicae propter meritum passionis et mortis Christi, quam fuisset tunc datum propter eundem Christum. Nec huius rei causa et ratio ex dignitate vel merito Christi peti debet: utrumque enim in utroque statu par fuisset; sed ex Dei voluntate ac decreto, cum summo tamen consilio et ratione plurimum congruenti.
Fourth Proposition: If Adam had not sinned, and Christ had nevertheless been incarnate (as it pleases many, and me chiefly), although it seems probable that more grace would then have been given to men—because for giving men the fullness and abundance of grace two things concurred at once, both the dignity of the state of innocence and the dignity of Christ, who would then have been incarnate, not as the redeemer and liberator of man, but as the perfecter and consummator of his glory—nevertheless to me it seems more like the truth that more grace is given to men in the state of the Evangelical law on account of the merit of Christ's passion and death, than would have been given then on account of the same Christ. Nor ought the cause and reason of this to be sought from the dignity or merit of Christ—for both would have been equal in either state—but from the will and decree of God, with the highest counsel, however, and a most fitting reason.9
...statu innocentiae, in quo Christus immortalis et impassibilis fuisset. Quemadmodum etiam, licet qualibet Christi actione, quia erat Dei simul et hominis infinitique vigoris ac meriti, redemptio humani generis promerita fuerit, eam tamen Scriptura merito passionis et mortis eius potissimum attribuere solet. Nam et Paulus obedientiae eius usque ad perpessionem mortis crucis progressae assignat exaltationem eius super omnes creaturas; et Dominus ipse dixit: Cum exaltatus fuero a terra, omnia traham ad me ipsum; et: Sicut Moyses exaltavit serpentem in deserto, ita exaltari oportet Filium hominis, ut omnis qui credit in ipsum non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam. Et de se ac de sua morte loquens, sub grani frumenti similitudine, dixit: Nisi granum frumenti cadens in terram mortuum fuerit, ipsum solum manet; si autem mortuum fuerit, multum fructum affert. Et Isaias de eo: Si posuerit pro peccato animam suam, videbit semen longaevum; et: Pro eo quod laboravit anima eius, videbit semen longaevum; et: In scientia iustificabit ipse iustus servos meos multos, et iniquitates eorum ipse portabit. Denique ipsemet dixit: Nonne haec oportuit pati Christum, et ita intrare in gloriam suam? Et vero maxime consentaneum videtur Dei sapientiae, bonitati, ac potentiae, ut ex peccato primi hominis plus eliceret boni quam eius culpa fuerat amissum. Scitum enim est illud Augustini, non passurum Deum mala fieri, nisi adeo sapiens, potens, ac bonus esset, ut malum ipsum in maius bonum convertere posset.
...[than would have been given in] the state of innocence, in which Christ would have been immortal and impassible. Just as also, although by any action of Christ whatever the redemption of the human race was merited—because he was at once of God and of man, and of infinite vigor and merit—Scripture nevertheless is wont to attribute it especially to the merit of his passion and death. For Paul too assigns his exaltation above all creatures to his obedience, carried even to the suffering of the death of the cross; and the Lord himself said: ‘When I shall be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all things to myself’; and: ‘As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but have life everlasting.’ And speaking of himself and of his death, under the likeness of a grain of wheat, he said: ‘Unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, itself remaineth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.’ And Isaiah of him: ‘If he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed’; and: ‘Because his soul hath labored, he shall see a long-lived seed’; and: ‘By his knowledge shall this my just servant justify many, and he shall bear their iniquities.’ Finally he himself said: ‘Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory?’ And indeed it seems most consonant with the wisdom, goodness, and power of God, that from the sin of the first man he should draw out more good than had been lost by his fault. For that saying of Augustine is well known, that God would not permit evils to be done, unless he were so wise, powerful, and good that he could turn the very evil into a greater good.10
Confirmat hanc sententiam Beatus Paulus in illa divina disputatione, quam in capite quinto epistolae ad Romanos tractat de comparatione peccati Adae cum gratia Christi, affirmans non sicut delictum Adae ita fuisse Christi donum: sed hoc fuisse illo abundantius, et ubi abundavit delictum superabundasse gratiam, plusque boni accepisse nos propter obedientiam et mortem Christi, quam perdideramus propter inobedientiam et peccatum Adami. Et ipse Dominus dixit apud Ioannem: Ego veni ut vitam habeant, et abundantius habeant. Quapropter Gregorius culpam Adae felicem appellare non dubitavit: quod eius expiandae ac diluendae causa tam beneficum nobis ac honorificum habuerimus redemptorem.
The Blessed Paul confirms this opinion in that divine disputation which, in the fifth chapter of the epistle to the Romans, he treats concerning the comparison of Adam's sin with Christ's grace, affirming that Christ's gift was not as Adam's offense: but that this was more abundant than that, and that where the offense abounded, grace superabounded, and that we received more good through the obedience and death of Christ than we had lost through the disobedience and sin of Adam. And the Lord himself said in John: ‘I am come that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly.’ Wherefore Gregory did not hesitate to call the fault of Adam happy: because, for the sake of expiating and washing it away, we have had so beneficent and honorific a Redeemer.11
Sanctus Bernardus item in sermone super illis verbis quae sunt in capite 12 libri Apocalypsis, Signum magnum apparuit in coelo: Vehementer, inquit, nobis, dilectissimi, vir unus et mulier una nocuere: sed gratia Deo; per unum nihilominus virum et mulierem unam omnia restaurantur, nec sine magno foenore gratiarum. Neque enim sicut delictum ita et donum: sed excedit damni aestimationem beneficii magnitudo. Sic nimirum prudentissimus et clementissimus artifex quod quassatum fuerat non confregit, sed utilius omnino refecit: ut nobis novum formaret Adam ex veteri, et Evam transfunderet in Mariam. Ex his Pauli et Patrum sententiis concluditur quod docere volumus, plus scilicet gratiae dari hominibus in statu legis Evangelicae, quam eis in statu innocentiae datum fuisset. Si enim nos plus boni adepti sumus propter mortem Christi quam perdideramus propter peccatum Adae, et quam habituri fuissemus si Adam non peccasset: ergo minor...
Saint Bernard likewise, in a sermon on those words which are in the twelfth chapter of the book of the Apocalypse, ‘A great sign appeared in heaven’: ‘Greatly,’ he says, ‘beloved, did one man and one woman harm us: but thanks be to God; through one man, nonetheless, and one woman all things are restored, and not without great interest of graces. For the gift is not as the offense: but the magnitude of the benefit exceeds the estimation of the loss. Thus indeed the most prudent and most clement Artificer did not break what had been shattered, but altogether remade it more usefully: that he might form for us a new Adam from the old, and transfuse Eve into Mary.’ From these sentences of Paul and of the Fathers is concluded what we wish to teach: namely, that more grace is given to men in the state of the Evangelical law than would have been given to them in the state of innocence. For if we have obtained more good through the death of Christ than we had lost through the sin of Adam, and than we would have had if Adam had not sinned: therefore less...12
...fuisset gratia in illo statu quam est in hoc nostro: nam si fuisset maior in illo statu futura, non igitur per Christum plus acquisivimus boni quam perdidimus propter Adamum, et quam consecuturi eramus si is non peccasset. Et hactenus quidem de Gratia gratum faciente disputatum est. De Gratia autem gratis data breviter dici potest, eam longe maiorem esse in statu legis Evangelicae quam fuisset in illo statu innocentiae. Huius enim gratiae gratis datae praecipuum triplex genus est: unum, Gratia curationum; alterum, Gratia linguarum; tertium, Gratia miraculorum. Priora duo in statu innocentiae non fuissent: nam nec fuisset morbus qui curatione indigeret, et una omnium fuisset lingua. Tertium autem genus ad miracula pertinens vel nullum tunc fuisset (nullis enim miraculis ad persuadendum hominibus verum Dei cultum ac religionem opus fuisset), vel certe tam crebrum, tam varium et multiplex, tam illustre et admirabile nequaquam fuisset. Siquidem illuminatio caeci nati, et mortuorum hominum ad vitam revocatio, quae primas inter miracula tenent, nullum tunc usum nullumque locum habere potuissent.
...grace would have been in that state than is in this our own: for if it would have been greater in that state, then we have not acquired through Christ more good than we lost on account of Adam, and than we were to attain if he had not sinned. And thus far indeed it has been disputed concerning Sanctifying Grace. But concerning Grace freely given (gratia gratis data) it can be said briefly that it is far greater in the state of the Evangelical law than it would have been in that state of innocence. For of this grace freely given there is a chief threefold kind: one, the Grace of healings; another, the Grace of tongues; the third, the Grace of miracles. The first two would not have existed in the state of innocence: for there would have been no disease needing healing, and there would have been one language for all. But the third kind, pertaining to miracles, would either have been none then (for there would have been no need of miracles to persuade men of the true worship and religion of God), or certainly would by no means have been so frequent, so varied and manifold, so illustrious and admirable. For the illumination of one born blind, and the recalling of dead men to life, which hold the first place among miracles, could then have had no use and no place.13

Translator’s notes

  1. Question divider opening the fifth and final running question of the disputation on grace (its subject—more grace than under the Gospel—corresponds to the third item of the disputation's prefatory list on p.545, so it is placed last in the running order). ↩
  2. Opening of the fifth and final question of the disputation: a comparison of grace in the state of innocence versus the state of the Gospel. Continues to next page (catchword 'distinctius'). Colophon at foot: 'Comm. in Gen. Tom. 1.' with signature 'BBB'. ↩
  3. Marginal gloss: 'In statu innocentiae fere homines plus gratiae acquisivissent, quam acquiritur in statu Evangelii' (in the state of innocence men would mostly have acquired more grace than is acquired under the Gospel). Q5 is answered via four propositions. First Proposition: men in innocence would have acquired more grace (by their inclination to good and freedom from impediments). Continues from p.561 catchword 'distinctius'. ↩
  4. Second reason: the immense longevity of the innocent state (3,000-4,000 years; cf. the near-millennium lives before the Flood, Gen 5) would have multiplied merits. Yet present-day grace can be called greater in one respect (achieved despite weakness). Luke 21:1-4 (the widow's mites, valued by the giver's means; marginal ref 'Luc. 21'). ↩
  5. Second Proposition: the least grace in innocence would exceed what most now have, since no one would die before the use of reason (unlike baptized infants who die with only first grace). ↩
  6. Opening of the Third Proposition (the case where Adam had not sinned and the Son of God was not incarnate). Continues to next page (catchword 'non'). ↩
  7. Marginal gloss: 'Plus gratiae dari homini in statu legis Evangelicae, quam datum fuisset in statu innocentiae, si Filius Dei non esset in eo statu incarnatus' (more grace given under the Gospel than would have been in innocence, if the Son of God had not been incarnate in that state). Third Proposition (per Aquinas, the case of no Incarnation in innocence): more grace now—intensively (the Virgin, John the Baptist, the Apostles surpass all of the innocent state). ↩
  8. Argument from Christ's infinite merit, which surpasses the dignity of the state of innocence—so even baptized infants now receive more grace than infants generated in innocence would have. ↩
  9. Marginal gloss: 'An si Filius Dei in statu innocentiae fuisset incarnatus, plus gratiae tunc homini datum esset, quam datur in statu legis Evangelicae' (whether, if the Son of God had been incarnate in the state of innocence, more grace would then have been given to man than under the Gospel). Fourth Proposition (Pererius's own view, that Christ would have become incarnate even without the Fall): yet more grace is given now, by God's decree, on account of Christ's passion and death. ↩
  10. Christ's passion and death especially merit the redemption: Philippians 2:8-9 (marginal 'Philip.2'); John 12:32 ('When I shall be lifted up'; marginal 'Ioannis 12'); John 3:14-15 ('As Moses lifted up the serpent'; marginal 'Supra 3'); John 12:24 (the grain of wheat; marginal 'Ioan.12'); Isaiah 53:10-11 (marginal 'Isaiae 53'); Luke 24:26 ('Ought not Christ to have suffered'; marginal 'Luc. ult.'). Augustine: God permits evil only because he can turn it to greater good. ↩
  11. Romans 5:15-20 (Adam's sin vs. Christ's grace: 'where sin abounded, grace superabounded'). John 10:10 ('I am come that they may have life'; marginal 'Ioannis 10'). Gregory's 'felix culpa' (the happy fault of Adam). ↩
  12. Bernard, sermon on Apocalypse 12:1 ('A great sign appeared in heaven'): the new Adam from the old, Eve transfused into Mary; the benefit exceeds the loss. Conclusion: more grace under the Gospel than would have been in innocence. Continues to next page (catchword 'fuisset'). ↩
  13. Conclusion of Q5 and of the whole disputation on sanctifying grace ('Et hactenus quidem de Gratia gratum faciente disputatum est'): less grace would have been in innocence than now. Then on 'gratia gratis data' (the charismatic graces—of healings, tongues, miracles, cf. 1 Cor 12): greater under the Gospel, none/less in innocence (no disease, one tongue, no need of miracles). ↩