Dist. 22, Art. 1, 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/22/q/bon-sent-II-d22-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether the man also desired that which the woman desired.*

Secondly it is asked whether the man also desired that which the woman desired. And that he did not [desire it] seems [so].

1. First to Timothy, chapter two: *The man was not seduced, but the woman*; but if Adam had willed to be as God, in the manner that the woman [did], he would surely have been circumvented: if therefore he was not circumvented or seduced, he did not desire that which the woman desired.

2. Likewise, Augustine *On Genesis to the Letter*: "I do not think that the man, if he was already endowed with a spiritual mind, believed what the devil was promising": if therefore Adam had grace, it is clear, etc.

3. Likewise, if Adam desired to be as God: since he yet had a much lesser likeness [to God] than Lucifer, it seems that Adam sinned more grievously than Lucifer: therefore if the sin of Lucifer was irremissible, the sin of man too would have been irremissible; which above has been disproved.

4. Likewise, if Adam desired to be as God: then [it was] either at the suggestion of the woman, or at the suggestion of the serpent. Not at the suggestion of the serpent, because Adam himself does not complain of the serpent, but of the woman, Genesis chapter three: *The woman, whom you gave me* etc. If at the suggestion of the woman: then as the woman was deceived by the serpent, so [was] the man by the woman. As therefore the woman said: *The serpent seduced me*, so the man would have said: *The woman deceived me*; but he did not say this, but said: *The woman gave me* etc. — But if you should say that it was so, although Scripture does not express it; this plainly appears improbable; for if the woman had said: *Eat, because you shall be as God*; when she herself had eaten, and without doubt was not as God; in no way does it seem probable that the man would have believed her.

**On the contrary:**
1. Upon that [verse] of the Psalm: *The proud* etc., the Gloss [says]: "Unless man, by the suggestion of the serpent, had willed to be as God, the inheritance of a deadly fault would not have passed to us." If you should say that this was said with respect to the woman; the objection is raised concerning the man through that which Gregory says in the *Morals*, and which is found in the Gloss, on Job chapter forty-one: "Adam believed that he received divinity by himself, and lost the glory of immortality": therefore Adam desired the same thing that the woman [did].

2. Likewise, upon that [verse] to the Philippians, chapter two: *He did not count [it] robbery*, the Gloss [says]: "He did not usurp what was not his own, namely equality with God, as the devil did and the first man": therefore the first man willed to be as God, and the woman willed this: therefore etc. If you should say that "the first man" stands there for the woman; on the contrary: upon that [verse] of the Psalm: *What I took not away* etc., "Adam and Eve willed to seize divinity, and lost felicity": behold, it is said expressly of both.

3. Likewise, this seems [so] by reason. The man had a greater likeness to God than the woman: therefore if likeness is the mother of falsehood, it seems that it was much more credible that the man should desire to be as God than the woman.

4. Likewise, Lucifer was much wiser than the first man was: therefore if with all his wisdom Lucifer willed to be as God, nor did wisdom impede [his] pride; much less does it seem that human wisdom would impede this. If therefore the woman desired this, it is not improbable that the man desired [it], especially since the Glosses and the authorities seem to say this.

> **Conclusion.** Adam, when he sinned, did not desire to be as God, in the manner that the woman [did].

**I respond:** It must be said that, since this is a question of fact, concerning which man cannot reason very effectively, and Scripture does not determine [it] ex-

pressly, and the Saints speak variously upon this; therefore there are here diverse opinions.

For some, on account of the authorities adduced, say that Adam desired the very same thing that the woman desired, but did not believe [it], as the woman [did]; and on account of this he was made proud, but nevertheless is not said to have been seduced. For someone can desire something, and yet not believe that he will attain to it; for indeed we desire many things which we do not hope to attain, because the wickedness of ambition attends not to what may be possible, but to what it wills. — And in sustaining this position they respond to the reasons on both sides.

But since this opinion does not accord with the words of blessed Augustine — rather, it seems expressly to hold the contrary, as is clear from his authorities adduced in the text; nor does it seem credible that the man should desire something to which he believed he could not attain, since before that sin he was very well-ordered: therefore there is another position, that the man, in the desirable [object] and the principal motive, was not conformed to the woman in transgressing, although he was conformed to her in the transgression of the divine command. For each was disobedient; but the man fell into the fault of disobedience otherwise than the woman. For the man did not eat the apple on account of the appetite of *excellence* in his being made like to God, nor on account of the appetite of *sufficiency* in the knowledge of many things, nor on account of the appetite of *sweetness* in the tasting of the food, as the woman did. — Yet there was in the man a certain *pride*, a certain *avarice*, and a certain *lasciviousness*, by which he was led to disobedience.

For in a certain way he was proud, while he esteemed himself to be of too great a price before God; and of such [great price], that on account of the eating of that food he would not incur the gravity of any punishment, but would easily obtain pardon for the offense. — There was also a certain *avarice*, while he curiously willed to know what would happen to him, when he should taste the forbidden food. — There was also a certain *lasciviousness*, not of carnal delight, but of a certain friendly affection, by which it frequently happens that God is offended, lest the neighbor be saddened; and this Adam did, while he willed to eat, lest he should sadden his delight, that is, lest he should offend the woman. Hence also the Lord rebuked him, that he obeyed the voice of the woman; and through this he was led to disobedience and the transgression of the command of God. And these three are drawn from the words of Augustine *On Genesis to the Letter*, which the Master adduces in the text. For first he says that "it is not to be thought that man would be cast down, unless there had preceded in him a certain elation needing to be repressed." And again he says: "Adam willed to try the forbidden tree, since he did not see the woman dead, that food having been taken." And again: "He was unwilling to sadden her, whom he believed would waste away without solace and would perish, alienated from him."

It must therefore be granted that Adam did not desire to be as God, in the manner that the woman [did], as the reasons adduced for this show. — But if it be said somewhere that he desired to be as God, this can be said for a threefold reason: either because he contemned the divine command, and preferred his own will to the divine injunction, and willed to subject himself to himself as to God and from this to be made equal to God. — Or it was said because the woman, taken from him, desired to be as God, and by synecdoche that which belongs to the part is attributed to the whole. Hence the Saints, [as to] what the one desired, frequently speak by synecdoche and attribute [it] to both. — Or this can be understood as said in a third way, because he himself, since he was set over the woman, did not restrain her, whence the fault of the woman is imputed to him. But the woman is to be understood to have desired to be as God, not by an entire equality, but by a certain exaltation in dignity above the human mode; which when the man did not restrain, but rather obeyed her will, the sin of the woman is imputed to him, and he is reported to have willed to be as God.

**To the arguments:**
*To 1 and 2.* And so the response to the authorities which were adduced before is clear; and by this way [those things] can be determined, if any others similar concerning this matter be found.

*To 3.* To that, then, which is objected, that the man had a greater likeness than the woman; it must be said that, although he had a greater likeness, he nevertheless had a preeminence of virtue and of knowledge with respect to the woman, which two [things] did not allow [him], man, to be drawn from a slight likeness as [was] the woman.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that the Angel was wiser than man; it must be said that this is true of *innate* knowledge, yet it is not true of *gratuitous* knowledge. For it is believed by the doctors that the first man before the fall had grace, as will be better shown below; but of Lucifer it is believed that he did not have sanctifying grace, as was determined above.

---