Summa summae S. Thomae sive compendium theologiae

[That someone is immortal can be understood in two ways: 1° that he cannot die; thus the angels, thus the blessed in heaven; 2° that he is able not to die. — It is certain that Adam was not immortal in the first sense, since he did die: unless it be understood in the composite sense of the state of innocence, namely that, had he persevered in it, he could not have died. The question, then, proceeds concerning immortality taken in the second sense.

This the Pelagians denied to our first parents, saying that independently of sin they were mortal, just as we now are. Against whom

I say: Our first parents were immortal in such a way that, if they had persevered in innocence, they would never have died¹.

Proof 1°. It is of faith. The Council of Milevis, can. 1, thus defines: « Whoever shall say that Adam, the first man, was made mortal, so that, whether he sinned or did not sin, he would die in the body, not by reason of the merit of sin but by the necessity of nature; let him be anathema. » Likewise the Council of Trent, sess. V, can. 1: « If anyone does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the command of God in paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted, and incurred, through the offense of this transgression, the wrath and indignation of God, and therefore death, which

God had before threatened him with, and together with death, captivity under the power of him who thereafter held the empire of death, that is, of the devil, and that the whole Adam, through that offense of transgression, was changed for the worse as to body and soul; let him be anathema. »

Proof² 2° from that passage, Genes., II, 17: In whatsoever day thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death, that is, thou shalt be mortal. That the discourse there is about the death of the body is clear from cap. seq., 17, 19, where God, in execution of this threat, says to Adam the sinner: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat..., in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return to the earth out of which thou wast taken; for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.

It is confirmed from the Apostle, who, when he had said, Rom., V, 12: By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death, and cap. VI, 23: The wages of sin is death, clearly shows that he understands this of bodily death in cap. VIII, 10, where he says: The body indeed is dead, that is, subject to death, because of sin, but the spirit liveth because of justification. And I Cor., XV, 21: By a man, he says, namely Adam, came death, and by a man, namely by Christ, the resurrection of the dead: where he plainly speaks of bodily death, which he opposes to the resurrection of bodies.

Add: Sap., I, 13, it is said: God did not make death, that is, God did not so fashion man that he would be subject to death, if he had persevered in that state in which He created him. And cap. II, 23 and 24: God created man incorruptible... but by the envy of the devil death entered into the world; that is, God created man immortal — in Greek, in incorruption — if he had not consented to the devil tempting him; for through his envy death entered into the world.

Proof 3° from the authority of the Holy Fathers. Augustine says, Epist. 157³, n. 19: « [Infants] are held bound by original sin alone, by which the kingdom of death would drag them to condemnation... Temporal death itself is also propagated from the original offense. » The same, lib. I de Peccatorum meritis et remissione, c. 2, n. 2: « If Adam had not sinned, he was not to be despoiled of the body, but to be clothed over with immortality and incorruption, so that what was mortal might be absorbed by life, that is, might pass from the animal into the spiritual. » And in the same place, c. 4, n. 4: « The body, [the Apostle] says, is dead, not because of earthly frailty, since it was made from the dust of the earth, but because of sin. What more do we seek? And most watchfully he does not say, « mortal, » but, dead. » Elsewhere he teaches the same thing many times. One should also read Athanasius, orat. Contra gentes; Jerome, in Quaest. Hebraic.; Gregory, lib. XI Moral., c. 27. In this all the rest agree.

You will ask 1° whence immortality came to the first man in the state of innocence.

It is certain that it did not come from nature or from what is intrinsic to man; for since the body of Adam was, like ours, composed of dissimilar elements, from which contrary qualities arose, which continually struggle against one another, from this struggle the dissolution of the body ought naturally to follow, as happens in the other animals, which were not endowed with immortality. It must therefore be asked what was the other cause of this immortality, besides innocence.

I answer. There were several causes concurring together for the immortality of our first parents in the state of innocence.

St. Thomas⁴ thus states the first and chief cause: « His body was not indissoluble through any vigor of immortality [naturally] existing in it; but there was in the soul a certain power, supernaturally and divinely given, by which it could preserve the body from all corruption, as long as it remained subject to God. » But the holy Doctor seems to understand by this supernaturally implanted power original justice itself. For indeed, in 1^a 2^ae, q. 85, a. 5, o, he says: « Something is per accidens the cause of another, if it is a cause removing an impediment... And in this way the sin of the first

parent is the cause of death and of all defects of this kind in human nature, insofar as by the sin of the first parent original justice was taken away, through which not only were the lower powers of the soul contained under reason without any disorder, but the whole body was contained under the soul without any defect. And therefore, this original justice having been withdrawn through the sin of the first parent, just as human nature was wounded as to the soul through the disorder of the powers, so also it was made corruptible through the disorder of the body itself. But the withdrawal of original justice has the character of a punishment, just as also the withdrawal of grace. Hence also death and all the consequent bodily defects are certain punishments of original sin, and although defects of this kind are not intended by the sinner, they are nevertheless ordained according to the justice of God who punishes. »

The second cause was the good disposition or constitution of the body, by which indeed it was not made indissoluble, but fit to be preserved from mortality by the soul, through the supernatural power implanted in the soul itself.

The third was the eating of the fruit of the tree which is called, Genes., II, 9, the tree of life in the midst of paradise: of which more shortly.

The fourth was the knowledge and prudence of innocent man.

The fifth, the singular providence of God concerning innocent man⁵.

But these last two causes chiefly regard the preservation of innocent man from violent death, that is, from external harmful things, such as fire, lightning, water, the sword, poison, and the like.

You will ask 2° how the eating of the tree of life contributed to the immortality of innocent man.

I answer. The eating of the tree contributed to the immortality of our first parents insofar as it strengthened for a time the active power of the species, or the nutritive power, lest it be weakened by the taking of extraneous food⁶. I say, for a time,

for it did not cause immortality absolutely, but only in a certain respect, because it could not confer upon the body that it could never be dissolved. For since the power of any body whatsoever is finite, this power of the tree of life was finite, nor could it give the body the power of enduring for infinite time; for the greater or lesser the power is, the greater or lesser the durability it impresses upon its effect. The tree of life, therefore, once eaten, preserved from corruption and weakness only for a determined time, at the end of which either man would have been transferred to a spiritual and eternal life, or he would have needed to eat again of the tree of life.

Hence you will gather that our first parents in the state of innocence needed food and drink⁷. This is clear from that passage, Genes., II, 16 and 17: And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat; but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat. This hunger and thirst, however, was not tormenting, or such as to bring on distress, but was the bare appetite for necessary food and drink. Add that food is not unwelcome to one who is not hungry. But there is no doubt that food was pleasing to the first man. Therefore he hungered. — What, therefore, St. Augustine says, lib. XIV de Civit., c. 26: « Food was at hand, lest he should hunger; drink, lest he should thirst, » must be understood of tormenting hunger and thirst, that is, such as brings on distress. Hence in the same place, lib. XIII, c. 20, he says: « They were nourished by the other [trees] which they took, lest their animal bodies should feel any distress from hunger and thirst. »]