Dist. 21, Art. 2, Q. 2
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/2/d/21/q/bon-sent-II-d21-a2-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether the temptation of the flesh can be separated from the temptation of the devil.*

Secondly it is asked whether it occurs that the temptation of the flesh be separated from the temptation of the devil. And that it does, seems clear.

*Foundations.*

1. Whatever things are divided in opposition, the one can be without the other, or be separated from the other; but the temptation of the flesh is divided over against the temptation of the enemy: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the devil tempted the first man and tempted Christ; but neither the flesh of Christ nor the flesh of the first man was impelling unto evil: therefore neither was being tempted by the flesh: therefore, since they were being tempted by the devil, the temptation which is from the devil is separated from the temptation which is from the flesh.

3. Likewise, granted that the devil should never suggest evils to us, nevertheless *our senses would be prone to evil from adolescence*: therefore, with every temptation of the devil set aside, man would still be tempted by his own flesh.

4. Likewise, *the defilement of the flesh* is one thing, and *the defilement of the spirit* is another; but the devil impels unto spiritual sins, while the flesh impels unto carnal sins: therefore, since a spiritual sin can exist without a carnal one, and conversely, it seems that the temptation of the flesh ought to be sequestered from the temptation of the devil.

5. Likewise, whichever two things stand thus, that in one it occurs to merit and in the other to demerit, those it occurs to be separated from one another; but the temptation of the enemy is the matter of exercising virtue, while the temptation of the flesh

is always from fault or with fault, as the Master says: therefore the one of these ought to be sequestered from the other.

6. Likewise, the temptation *of the flesh* and *of the enemy* differ, as the Master says in the text, as *exterior* and *interior* temptation; but what is *exterior* ought to be sequestered from what is *interior*: therefore also the temptation of the flesh from that which is from the devil. But should you say that the temptation which is from the *enemy* is just as interior as the temptation which is from the *flesh*; by this it is not evaded, because, since *God is faithful and does not permit a man to be tempted beyond what he can bear*, and either of these modes suffices for the exercise [of virtue], nor can a man at the same time be intent upon diverse things; it seems that the temptation of the flesh and the diabolical temptation occur about us at one and another time.

**On the contrary:**

*To the opposite, 1. concerning the temptation of the flesh.*

1. That the temptation *of the flesh* cannot exist without the temptation of the enemy seems clear. Upon that of the Psalm: *Turn away from evil and do good*, the Gloss of Jerome: « All evils proceed from the instigation of the devil, just as goods from the instigation of God »: therefore no sin occurs in which the devil does not interpose his parts; if therefore the temptation of the flesh is a way unto sin, it seems that it cannot exist without the temptation of the devil.

2. Likewise, the motion of an instrument is not without the motion of the principal mover; but the flesh is as an instrument in tempting with respect to the devil, as is said upon that of Job 9: *The earth is given into the hands of the wicked one*, that is, the flesh into the hands of the devil: therefore the titillation of the flesh is not without the impulsion of the devil: if therefore this is temptation, the rest is clear etc.

3. Likewise, even if there be no first evil which is not from another, there is nevertheless an evil which is the beginning of every evil, as is said in Ecclesiasticus 10: *The beginning of every sin is pride.* If therefore the devil *is king over all the sons of pride* and *father of every lie*, it seems that there is no sin which does not in some way proceed from him, and so the flesh does not impel unto any evil without the devil: therefore the temptation of the flesh is not separated from the temptation of the enemy.

*Likewise concerning the temptation of the enemy.*

4. Likewise, that the temptation *of the enemy* is not separated from the temptation of the flesh is similarly shown. To the Galatians 5: *The works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, adultery, contentions, emulations, wraths, strifes, envies*, etc.; there are enumerated carnal and spiritual sins: therefore it seems that all sins proceed from the flesh: therefore the temptation of the enemy inclines unto no evil without the temptation of the flesh.

5. Likewise, *generation* is transferred from corporal to spiritual things; but in corporal things it is impossible that anything be generated from a father without a mother: therefore neither in spiritual things. But the father of every sin is said to be the devil, and the mother the flesh or concupiscence: therefore etc. The first is plain in itself; the second is manifested by that which is said in Ezekiel 16: *Thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother a Cethite.* For by *Amorite* the devil is understood, and by *Cethite* concupiscence. And more expressly Gregory says on Leviticus, [book] 19: « Concupiscence is the mother of every sin, and the devil the father »: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, the devil cannot tempt a good Angel, nor an evil one, nor a separated spirit, but only a spirit joined to flesh: therefore it seems that he has no access to the mind except through the flesh: therefore without the flesh he does not tempt: therefore it does not occur that the temptation of the devil be separated from the temptation of the flesh.

> **Conclusion.** *If temptation is considered as it is from the first mover, the temptation of the flesh can never exist without the temptation of the enemy, while the temptation of the enemy is at times without the temptation of the flesh. But if temptation is considered as from the proximate mover, each can be separated from the other both formally and temporally.*

**I respond:** It must be said that when we say that temptation is from the *flesh* or from the *enemy*, this *It is understood in two ways.* can be understood in two ways: either as from the *first* mover, or as from the *proximate* and immediate mover. If as from the *first* mover, thus the temptation of the *flesh* can never *Conclusion 1.* exist without the temptation of the *enemy*, because every temptation of the flesh is from its own corruption, which had its origin from the first temptation of the enemy. The temptation of the *enemy*, however, can *Conclusion 2.* exist without the temptation of the flesh, then most of all, when he is tempted in whom there is no corruption of the flesh, as it was in Adam and in Christ, or when from that

temptation no curvature arises. But when the temptation of the *enemy* draws unto sin, since no sin is in us which does not have its origin from some concupiscence; thus the temptation of the devil cannot be separated from the temptation *Conclusion 3.* of the flesh. — Thus therefore it must be judged, according as the temptation is said to be from the flesh or from the enemy as from a *first* mover.

But if it is said to be such, as from the *proximate* and proper mover, as the Master takes it in the text, *Conclusion 4.* then they are sequestered both by *formal* distance and by *temporal* distance. By *formal* distance, because the flesh tempts in one way, and the devil in another; and the one impels unto one vice, the other unto another, and the first mover is one and another. They are sequestered also by *temporal* distance, because at one time the devil vexes and instigates unto some vice unto which the flesh does not incline; and at another it can be the converse. — And thus, taking *properly* in this last mode the temptation of the flesh and the temptation of the enemy, as the Master takes it in the text, it must be *General conclusion.* conceded that they are separated from one another, so that not only is there a difference between the one and the other, but also the one can exist without the other. — Whence the reasons which prove this are to be conceded.

*Solution of the opposing arguments.*

1. To that which is first objected on the contrary, that every evil is from the instigation of the *devil*; it is to be understood as from a *first* mover, not as from a *proximate* mover. For with the devil absent, sin can be from free will or from one's own will, or from the drawing concupiscence of the flesh.

2. To that which is objected, that the flesh moves as an instrument; it must be said that this is true when the devil vexes the flesh, and by vexing the flesh vexes the spirit; and then the temptation of the flesh and of the devil do not count for two. It happens, however, that the flesh, by means of the sensuality joined to it, inclines our spirit unto evil even when the devil is not moving; and then it does not move as an instrument, but as a *first mover*; and in this manner it has to be sequestered from the temptation of the devil.

3. To that which is objected, that the sin of the devil is the beginning of every evil; it must be said that this is not to be understood as that it be the *immediate* principle with respect to every sin, but because before his sin there was no other, and that very [sin] was the beginning of that original sin, from which there is an inclination unto every evil.

4. To that which is objected, that all sins are from the *flesh*; it must be said that *flesh* is there taken broadly for every concupiscence which has adhered to the soul from its conjunction unto the flesh; and so by the name of *flesh* is understood concupiscence, which is the mother of all evils, and without this the devil does not generate in us any sin.

5. And by this is clear the response to the following objection concerning spiritual generation. For *flesh* and *concupiscence* are there taken broadly, as has been shown. From that, however, it does not follow that the temptation of the devil cannot exist without the temptation of the flesh; for not every temptation of the devil is the generation of sin, for he frequently tempts in such a way that no fault follows.

6. To that which is objected, that he tempts no one save the carnal man; it must be said that this is not because the temptation of the devil depends upon the temptation of the flesh, but because he cannot tempt anyone except when [the man] has the convertibility of free will and is in the state of meriting or demeriting, and in which he can be seduced. And this is only when the rational spirit is joined to mortal flesh. From that account, however, it is not concluded that the flesh in the temptation of the devil is a *principal cause*, but only a *sine qua non* cause.

---