Dist. 21, Divisio Textus
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-divisio
----------------------------------------
### Chap. VI.
### *On the twofold species of temptation.*

“Further, it must be known that there are two species of temptation, namely *interior* and *exterior*. Exterior temptation is when evil is suggested to us from outside, visibly, by a word or by some sign, so that the one to whom it happens may incline to consent to sin; and such temptation occurs only from the adversary. *Interior* temptation, however, is when evil is suggested to us inwardly, invisibly; and this temptation sometimes occurs from the *enemy*, sometimes from the *flesh*. For the devil suggests evils invisibly, and from the corruption of the flesh there arises illicit motion and depraved titillation; therefore the temptation which is from the *flesh* does not occur without sin, whereas that which is from the *enemy*, unless one consents to it, has no sin, but is matter for exercising virtue. The interior temptation of the *flesh*, however, is more difficult to overcome, because what assails from within is strengthened against us out of what is our own.”

### Chap. VII.
### *Why the sin of man — and not that of the angel — is remediable.*

“Man therefore, who fell when struck only by *exterior* temptation, deserved to be punished the more gravely, the lighter the impulse by which he had been prostrated. And yet, because he had some occasion for falling — modest though it was — he could on that account be helped by the grace of God to pardon, so that he who had fallen through another might be raised up through another. He, then, who had an inciter to evil, not unjustly had a repairer to good. The devil, however, because he sinned without anyone’s tempting him, neither ought to be helped by another in order to rise nor could he by himself, and therefore his sin remained irremediable. The sin of man, however, just as it had its beginning through another, so not incongruously had its remedy through another.”

Furthermore the angelic nature, because not the whole of it had perished, but had partly remained, was not redeemed; whereas human nature had wholly perished, and therefore, lest it should perish utterly, it has been partly redeemed, so that thereby the angelic ruin might be supplied. Whence Augustine in the *Enchiridion*: “It pleased the Creator and Governor of the universe that, since not the whole multitude of the angels had perished by deserting God, that part which had perished should remain in perpetual perdition; whereas that part which, while the other deserted, had stood firm with God, should rejoice forever in its felicity, known to it with full certainty. But the rational creature which was in human beings, since it had wholly perished through sins and punishments, could be partly repaired, so that what that ruin had diminished might be supplied to the angelic society. For this is promised to the saints, that they shall be equal to the *angels of God*.”

### Chap. VIII.
### *That the precept was not given to the man alone.*

It must also be noted that the precept appears not to have been given to the man alone, since the woman herself testifies that it was commanded to her too, saying: *God has commanded us* etc. Yet above it is read that, before the woman was made, God said to the man: *Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat*. He did not say: *you shall not eat* (plural). Perhaps because He was about to make the woman, He gave the precept thus, so that the command might come to the woman by way of the man; for the woman, who was subject to the man, was to receive the divine precept only through the man’s mediation. Whence the Apostle: *If women wish to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home.*

*If it is asked:* how could they speak, or understand the one speaking, who had not learned among speakers by growing up or by instruction? — “we say that God had made them such that they could speak and learn from others, if there were others.”

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXI.
### *On the temptation of our first parents wrought by the devil.*

> *Now the devil, seeing the man,* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

The first principal part of this whole book having been brought to a close — that in which the Master treats of the constitution of man — there follows the second principal part, in which he treats of the Fall. And since man’s fall is through sin, and the sin of man is threefold — one in which the person corrupts the nature, and this was the sin of the first man; another in which the nature corrupts the person, and this is original sin; another in which the person corrupts itself, and this is actual sin — therefore this part has three sections. In the first he determines

about the sin of the first parents (i.e. the Master does). In the second he determines about original sin, which was caused by that first sin, below at distinction thirty: *In superioribus insinuatum est* etc. In the third about actual sin, below at distinction thirty-four: *Post praedicta de peccato actuali* etc.

The first section, in which he determines about the sin of the first parents, has two parts. In the first he determines the mode of transgressing. In the second, however, in order that man’s fault may be made plain, he shows that man had the power to resist. — Or rather: in the first he determines the fault by which he fell; in the second the power by which he could have stood firm, below at distinction twenty-four: *Nunc diligenter investigari oportet* etc.

And since the fault or sin of Adam has a relation to the devil who tempted, to the man who fell, and to God who permitted, therefore the first section has three parts. In the first he determines about the devil’s temptation. In the second he determines about man’s transgression, below at distinction twenty-two: *Hic videtur diligenter investigandum* etc. In the third he determines about God’s permission, below at distinction twenty-three: *Praeterea solet quaeri* etc.

The first part contains the present distinction and can be divided into three sections. In the first the Master determines in what way the first parents were tempted. In the second he determines generally the modes of tempting, at the place: *Further, it must be known that there are two species of temptation*. In the third he concludes, on account of the preceding temptation, the remissibility of the human sin, at: *Therefore man, who being struck by exterior temptation alone* etc. The last two sections remaining undivided, the first section has three parts. In the first he determines about the temptation of the first man as to the *motive*, namely in the first chapter. In the second as to the *instrument*, at: *But because by violence* etc. In the third as to the *progress*, at: *The temptation, however, was made in this manner*. — And thus in this section three things are determined: the mode of the first temptation in particular; the modes of every temptation in general; and finally the quality and quantity of human sin, at: *Therefore man, who being struck by exterior temptation alone* etc.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

Now for the understanding of this section a question arises here on three heads.

First it is asked about the temptation of the first parents.

Second it is asked about the diversity of temptations.

Third a question arises here about the quantity and quality of the sin which followed from that temptation.

About the first three things are asked.

First it is asked about the temptation of the first parents as to the *motive*.

Second, as to the *instrument*.

Third, as to the *order and progress*.

---