Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 1
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/22/q/bon-sent-II-d22-a1-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article I. *On the fault of the first parents as to the disorder of affection.*
### Question I. *By what kind of sin the woman sinned.*

Concerning the first, one proceeds thus, and it is shown that the woman sinned by the sin of pride.

1. Ecclesiasticus, chapter ten: *Pride is the beginning of all sin.* And again Ecclesiasticus, chapter twenty-five: *From the woman came the beginning of sin*: therefore the woman sinned by the sin of pride.

Likewise, Augustine in the book *On Virginity*: "The devil in heaven willed to be as God; but falling, he persuaded man to the likeness of his own will": therefore if he persuaded the woman, and the woman consented to the persuader, she therefore sinned by the sin of pride.

Likewise, this seems [so] by reason. It was impossible for man to be disordered in a lower power unless he were first disordered in the higher: therefore he could not be inordinately turned to a lower or exterior good before he were turned to the higher good; but to be inordinately turned to the higher good — this is pride: therefore the first sin of the woman could be none other than pride.

Likewise, the woman willed to eat the apple: this was not on account of hunger or the appetite of taking delight in the food, since there was no disorder in her taste: therefore this was because she intended something spiritual through the eating of that food; but this was nothing other than to be as God, which the devil had promised: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**
2. It seems that the first sin of the woman was disobedience: first, because the text intimates this, Genesis chapter three: *Who told you that you were naked, unless because you have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?* —

Secondly, because the Apostle confirms this, to the Romans chapter five: *As by the disobedience of one many were made sinners etc.* And again: *By the disobedience of one death entered into the world.* — Lastly Augustine declares this more expressly in *On True Religion*, where he says: *Adam on account of the transgression of disobedience was cast out of paradise.* — If then the first sin of man was disobedience, it does not then seem that it was pride.

3. Likewise, that the first sin was gluttony seems [so]: first by this, that the text intimates it, Genesis chapter three: *The woman therefore saw the tree, that it was sweet to eat.* — Secondly the Gospel confirms this, because Christ was first tempted by the devil concerning gluttony, as is read in Matthew chapter four: *Say, that these stones* etc.; but in the same order of temptation by which he tempted Christ he tempted the first man, as the Saints say. — Lastly Ambrose declares this more expressly in that hymn: *When by the deadly bite of the apple he fell into death.* — If therefore the first sin was gluttony: then it was not pride, since the kinds of sins are diverse, and one and the same [sin] cannot be in diverse kinds at one and the same time.

4. Likewise, it seems that the first sin of the woman was avarice: first, by the text of Genesis chapter three: *You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.* This the devil promised, and this first fell into the appetite of the woman; but to desire a multitude of knowledge more than is fitting — this belongs to avarice, as Gregory says. — Then, the Apostle confirms this, in the first to Timothy, the last chapter: *The root of all evils is cupidity*; but the sin of the woman was the root of all the other sins. — Lastly, the Gloss declares this very thing expressly upon that [verse] of the Psalm: *What I took not away, then* etc., where it says that "Eve then willed to seize divinity." If then rapine is a sin of avarice, the first sin of Eve was in the genus of avarice: therefore it was not in the genus of pride.

5. Likewise, it seems that the first sin was unbelief: first, because the text insinuates this, Genesis chapter three, where the woman said: *Lest perhaps we die*; she therefore doubted concerning the word of God. If then to doubt concerning that which we ought to believe is a matter of unbelief, she first committed the sin of unbelief. — Secondly, the Gospel confirms this, Luke chapter one: *Blessed are you who have believed*; this was said to the Virgin Mary. If then salvation answers by opposition to transgression, and this [salvation] began from the faith of Mary, it seems that that [transgression] began from the unbelief of Eve. — Lastly, the Master declares this more expressly, and it was set down in the preceding distinction, in [treating of] the progress of the temptation, where he says that the woman, when she doubted, "receded from the one affirming and approached the one denying"; but this was not without the fault of unbelief: therefore unbelief was the first sin of the woman: therefore she did not first sin by the sin of pride.

If perhaps you should say that she sinned by several kinds of sins at one and the same time; this does not seem possible, since at one and the same time she cannot disorder herself by several turnings-toward and turnings-away; and whatever be the case of this, it is plain that being the first sin can belong to one alone, since it must be said [to be such] by superabundance.

> **Conclusion.** The sin of the woman was begun in pride, had its progress in a certain avarice, [and] had its consummation in gluttony and disobedience.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the text intimates and the Apostle expressly says, the principal sin of man, by which he fell, was disobedience, and by which death is derived to all his posterity. Hence to this also the devil intended to lead him: which is clear from the beginning of his interrogation: *Why has God commanded you* etc. — But since "no one works toward evil while looking [at it], nor desires evil except under the appearance of good"; therefore the devil, clearly perceiving that he could not cast the woman down into sin unless he set before her something desirable, set before her deceitfully, in tempting, those things toward which every man according to truth naturally tends.

For every man naturally desires beatitude, which is a glorious and copious and delightful good; therefore every man naturally desires excellence and sufficiency and gladness; and in the ordinate appetite of these consists justice, but in the immoderate [appetite] consists fault. For pride is nothing other than the immoderate appetite of excellence; avarice is nothing other than the immoderate appetite of sufficiency; gluttony is nothing other than the immoderate appetite of food refreshing sweetly.

The devil therefore, considering this to be the way to cast the woman down into fault, first promised the excellence of dignity: *You shall be as gods.* Secondly, he subjoined the abundance of knowledge: *Knowing good and evil.* Lastly, he held forth the experience of sweetness, when he showed the tree fair to sight and sweet to eat. Since therefore the woman consented to the diabolical suggestion, therefore first, in desiring to be as God, she was proud. Then, in desiring to know good and evil, which she ought not, and to know more than she ought, she was avaricious. Lastly, in experiencing the sweetness of the forbidden tree she was gluttonous; and in this she was guilty of transgression and involved in the fault of disobedience. — And so it is clear that the sin of the woman was begun in pride, had its progress in avarice, [and] had its consummation in gluttony. — It is also clear that she was disordered as to the threefold power, namely as to the irascible, while she desired lofty things; as to the rational, while she desired to know hidden things; as to the concupiscible, while she willed to taste sweet things. Hence from that sin the roots of all sins sprang forth.

**To the arguments:** From these things, then, the response to what was asked is clear. For the reasons showing that the first sin was pride conclude truly, because from it was the beginning. The reasons likewise showing that it was disobedience, gluttony, and avarice conclude truly, although there was not there avarice properly so called, according as it is said to be the appetite of money; yet there was avarice, according as it is the appetite of sufficiency, and in it was the progress of the sin; but in the sin of gluttony and disobedience was the consummation, namely in the act of eating. For it was gluttony, inasmuch as she willed to take inordinate delight in that food; but disobedience, when in the very act of eating she acted against the divine command. And this Gregory expressly says in a certain homily, where he shows that by three kinds of sins the devil tempted Christ, as he had earlier tempted the woman, and in those three was cast off by Christ, as by those three he had cast down the woman. — Nor is it inconsistent that several kinds of sins should, according to a progression, concur to the perpetrating of one crime. For it is most easy to rush from sin into sin, as it happens to ascend from the motion of one power to the motion of another.

To that alone, then, it remains to respond which was objected concerning unbelief; for it is not to be granted that the woman sinned by the sin of unbelief, unless unbelief be taken very broadly. — As to what is objected, that the woman said *perhaps*; it can be said that *perhaps* is there a mark of the event, not of doubt. — But since the Master says expressly that it is a mark of doubt; therefore it can be said otherwise, that in truth the woman did not doubt that what the Lord had said was true; but she doubted concerning this, in what way the Lord understood [it], namely whether he understood [it] of bodily death, or spiritual, or in some other way; and that doubt was neither punishment nor fault, but a certain not-knowing, which afforded a way to the devil tempting. — Nor does that compel [otherwise] which is objected concerning the faith of blessed Mary; for, although faith held no small place in the conception of the Son of God, it nevertheless had as a preamble the exercise of humility, by reason of which the Virgin is said to have pleased God, as she herself says: *God has regarded the humility of his handmaid*. Nor is it even necessary to respond to the destruction by the same order entirely in the reparation; rather it is frequently the contrary, just as the way of resolution and of composition have to be terminated and begun in opposite modes; so too in the matter at hand it can be understood.