Summa summae S. Thomae sive compendium theologiae

[I answer in the negative¹. Children in the state of innocence would not have been born perfect in knowledge, yet would easily have acquired it in the process of time.

Proof of the first part. Concerning things that are above nature, only authority is to be believed; hence, where authority is lacking, we ought to follow the condition of nature. But it is natural to man

not to have innate knowledge, but to acquire it gradually through the senses; nor do we have the contrary revealed concerning the descendants of innocent Adam. Therefore.

Proof of the second part. Men in the state of innocence would have had several prerogatives, both on the part of the body and on the part of the soul, by which they would be helped toward acquiring the sciences, whether by learning from their parents, or by discovering them. On the part of the body, impassibility would help, perpetual health, firmness of strength, and integrity of the senses both exterior and interior; on the part of the soul, a most keen talent, a most ready memory, a most excellent judgment, and a propensity to know. Therefore.

Hence you will infer that in the state of innocence children would not have had, from birth, the perfect use of reason². For the perfect use of reason depends on the perfect use of the sensitive powers; hence, when sense is bound and the sensitive powers are impeded, man does not have the perfect use of reason, as is clear in those who are asleep and in the delirious. But, in the state of innocence, in infants, just as now, the perfect use of the sensitive powers would have been impeded by the imperfect disposition of the brain. Therefore. They would, however, have had a more perfect use of reason than now, as regards those things which pertained to them according to their childhood state.]