Dist. 22
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-littera
----------------------------------------
### DISTINCTION XXII.

#### Chapter I.

#### *On the origin of that sin.*

Here it seems it must be diligently investigated what was the origin and root of that sin. — Some suppose that a certain elation preceded in the mind of man, from which he consented to the suggestion of the devil. This Augustine seems to suggest on Genesis, saying thus: “It is not to be supposed that man was cast down unless there had first been in him a certain elation to be checked, so that through the humility of sin he might know how falsely he had presumed of himself, and that nature does not stand well if it withdraws from its Maker.” Likewise in the same place: “How would the woman believe the words of the tempter, that God had forbidden her a good and useful thing, unless there were in her mind that love of her own power and a proud presumption about herself, *which* was to be convinced or destroyed by the temptation? Finally, not content with the persuasion of the serpent, she looked upon the tree as good for food and fair to the sight; and not believing that she could thereby die, she perhaps supposed that God had said that for the sake of some signification. Therefore she ate and gave to her husband, perhaps with some persuasion which Scripture has left to be understood. Or perhaps it was not necessary to persuade him, since the husband did not see her dead from that food.” “Therefore, just as the devil was not permitted to tempt the woman except through the serpent, so neither the man except through the woman,” so that, just as the precept of God came to the woman through the man, so the temptation of the devil might pass to the man through the woman. “But in the woman, who was rational, he did not himself speak, as in the serpent, but his persuasion did, although by an interior instinct he was aiding what through the serpent he carried on outwardly.” — From the foregoing the manner and progress of the temptation is intimated, and also what we said before seems to be suggested, namely that a certain elation and presumption preceded the temptation in the mind of man.

But if this was so, then he did not sin first by another’s suggestion, since authority hands down that the sin of the devil is therefore incurable, because he fell not by suggestion but by his own pride; but that of man is curable, because he fell not through himself but through another, and therefore could rise again through another. Wherefore the foresaid words of Augustine demand a devout and diligent reader, which we can soundly understand thus: man was not cast down, namely into the act of that sin, that is, that he should eat the forbidden tree, and into these miseries through the temptation of the devil, unless an elation to be checked had preceded — not indeed the temptation, but the work of the sin. For such was the process of the order: the devil in tempting said: *If you eat, you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil;* and on hearing this there crept at once into the mind of the woman a certain elation and love of her own power; from which it pleased her to do what the devil was urging, and indeed she did it. Therefore she sinned by suggestion, because the temptation preceded, from which there arose in her mind the elation, which the work of the sin followed, and the punishment of the sin.

#### Chapter II.

#### *On the elation of the woman.*

And such elation was certainly in the mind of the woman, by which she believed and willed to have the likeness of God with a certain equality, supposing that what the devil said was true. And therefore Augustine specially mentions the woman, saying: “How would the woman believe the devil, unless there were in her mind a proud presumption about herself?” And what follows there, namely, “*which* was to be convinced or destroyed by the temptation,” is to be referred to the woman, so that it is understood *who*, that is the woman, not the elation, was [to be convinced] by the temptation, etc.

#### Chapter III.

#### *On the elation of the man.*

It is wont to be asked whether such elation and love of one’s own power was in the man as in the woman. — To which we say that *Adam was not seduced* in the manner in which the woman was; for he did not suppose that what the devil was suggesting was true. Yet he can be believed to have been seduced in this, that he supposed what was deadly to be a venial offense. But he was not seduced first, nor in that in which the woman was, namely to believe that God had forbidden them to touch that tree because, if they touched it, they would become as gods. Nevertheless Adam was a transgressor, as the Apostle testifies. There could therefore have been some elation in his mind immediately after the temptation, from which he willed to try the forbidden tree, since he did not see the woman dead after that food was taken. Hence Augustine on Genesis: “Since the Apostle shows that Adam was a transgressor, saying: *After the likeness of the transgression of Adam*, yet he denies that he was seduced, where he says: *Adam was not seduced, but the woman*. Hence also, when questioned, he did not say: The woman seduced me; but: *She gave me, and I ate*. But the woman said: *The serpent seduced me*.” Now the Apostle properly called this a seduction, by which that which was urged, though false, was supposed to be true, namely that God had forbidden them to touch that tree because He knew that they, if they touched it, would be as gods, as though He envied them the divinity, He who had made them men. “But even if some desire of experiencing solicited the man on account of some elation of mind, which could not be hidden from God, when he saw the woman, after that food was taken, not to be dead; yet I do not think that he, if he was already endowed with a spiritual mind, in any way believed what the devil was suggesting.”

#### Chapter IV.

#### *Who sinned more, the man or the woman.*

From this it can be clearly observed which of them sinned more, namely Adam, or Eve. For the woman seems to have sinned more, who willed to usurp equality of divinity and, lifted up by excessive presumption, believed it would be so. “But Adam neither believed that, and thought of penance and of God’s mercy, when, complying with his wife, he consented to her persuasion, not willing to grieve her and leave her alienated from himself, lest she perish, judging that it was a venial, not a mortal, offense.” Hence Augustine: “The Apostle says: *Adam was not seduced;* which indeed can be taken so as to be understood that he was not seduced *first*, namely, or *in that in which the woman was*, that is, that he should believe that to be true: *You shall be as gods*; but he supposed that both could be done, namely that he should both comply with his wife and through penance have pardon. Therefore he sinned less who thought of penance and of God’s mercy.” “For after the woman ate and gave to him, that they might eat together, not willing to grieve her, whom he believed to pine away without his comfort and, alienated from himself, to perish utterly; not by the concupiscence of carnal food, which he had not yet felt, but by a certain friendly benevolence, by which it often happens that God is offended lest a friend be offended; and the just act of the divine sentence showed that he ought not to have done it.” “Therefore in some other manner he too was deceived.” “For, inexperienced in the divine severity, he could be deceived so as to believe the deed committed to be venial;” “but by that serpentine guile, by which the woman was seduced, in no way do I think he could have been seduced.” — From which it is given to understand that the woman sinned more, in whom there was a presumption of greater swelling; she also sinned most against herself and against God, but the man only against himself and against God. Hence also it is gathered that the woman sinned more, because she was more grievously punished, to whom it is said: *In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children*, etc.

But to this there seems contrary what Augustine on Genesis says of the man and the woman excusing their sin: “Adam said: *The woman, whom thou gavest me, gave me of the tree, and I ate;* he does not say: I have sinned. For pride has the deformity of confusion, not the humility of confession.” “Nor did the woman confess the sin, but refers it to another, saying: *The serpent deceived me, and I ate*, in unequal sex, but equal.” — Behold, here Augustine says that the woman had pride equal to the man’s; therefore they grew proud equally and sinned equally. — But this can be so determined that we say that the pride of both was equal in the occasioning of the sin and also in the eating of the forbidden tree, but equal and even in the woman much greater in this, that she believed and willed to be as God, which the man did not. — Nevertheless it is read also of the man that he willed to be as God. For Augustine says on that passage of the Psalmist: *What I took not away, then did I pay:* “Adam and Eve seized, presuming, as the devil did, concerning divinity; they willed to seize divinity, and lost felicity.” Likewise on that passage: *O God, who shall be like to thee*? “He who of himself wills to be as God, perversely wills to be like God, as the devil, who would not be under Him, and man, who as a servant would not be held to the precept, but willed, with none lording it over him, to be as it were God.” Likewise, on that passage of the Epistle: *He thought it not robbery to be equal with God:* “Because He did not usurp what was not His own, as the devil and the first man did.”

Therefore it seems to some that Adam too aspired to be as God, yet did not believe that it could be done; and therefore he knew that what the devil was promising was false. And although he coveted equality of divinity, yet he did not burn for it so greatly nor was affected with so great an ambition, as the woman, who supposed it could be done, and therefore in aspiring to it grew prouder. But some stealth of ambition perhaps moved the man, yet not so as to suppose it to be true or possible. — But to others it seems to have been said that Adam willed it because the woman taken from him willed it, just as, they say, sin is said to have *entered into the world through one man*, that is, into human nature, although the woman sinned before the man, because it entered through the woman made from the man. Or rather it is said to have entered through *man*, because, even with the woman sinning, if the man had not sinned, the human race would not have perished corrupted by sins. Therefore the man sinned less than the woman.

But to these it is wont to be objected in this way: “In three ways, as Isidore says, sin is committed, namely by *ignorance, infirmity, deliberation*. And it is more grievous to sin by *infirmity* than by *ignorance*, and more grievous by *deliberation* than by *infirmity*. But Eve seems to have sinned from *ignorance*, because she was seduced, but Adam from *deliberation*, because he was not seduced, as the Apostle says.” — To which we say that, although Eve transgressed in this by *ignorance*, that she supposed what the devil was urging to be true, yet not in this, but that she knew that it was God’s commandment, and that to act against it was a sin. And therefore she could not be excused from sin by *ignorance*.

#### Chapter V.

#### *On excusable and inexcusable ignorance.*

For there is an ignorance which *excuses* the sinner; and there is such an ignorance as *does not excuse;* and there is *vincible* ignorance and *invincible* ignorance. All excuse is taken away where the commandment is not unknown. Now ignorance is threefold: namely of those who *will not* know, when they can — which does not excuse, because it is itself a sin; and of those who *will* but cannot — which excuses and is a punishment of sin, not a sin; and of those who as it were *simply do not know*, not refusing nor proposing to know — which excuses no one fully, but perhaps so that he may be less punished. Hence Augustine to Valentinus: “The excuse which men are wont to have from ignorance is taken away from those who have known the commandments of God.” “And although it is more grievous to sin knowingly than unknowingly, not for that reason, however, is one to take refuge in the darkness of ignorance, that anyone may seek therein an excuse. For it is one thing to *have been ignorant*, another *to have been unwilling to know*,” “because in those who were unwilling to understand, the ignorance itself is a sin; but in those who could not, it is a punishment of sin.” “But the ignorance which is not of those who will not know, but of those who as it were simply do not know, excuses no one so that he should not burn in the eternal fire, but perhaps so that he should burn less.” — Therefore the woman did not have an excuse from ignorance, since she both knew the commandment and was not ignorant that to act otherwise was a sin.

#### Chapter VI.

#### *Whether the will preceded that sin.*

It is wont also to be asked, since the nature of man was without fault, whence the consent to evil proceeded. — To which it can be answered that it was from the free choice of one’s own will. For in *itself* and in *another* there was a cause that it should become worse: in *another*, because in the devil who urged; in *itself*, because it consented by the will of free choice. And since free choice is good, from a thing certainly good that evil consent came forth, and so from good evil flowed. But of this we shall treat more fully in what follows, when the origin of evil, and in what thing it takes root, shall be investigated.

But if it is asked whether the will preceded that sin; we say that the sin consisted both in the will and in the act, and the will preceded the act; but no other evil will of man preceded the will itself, and from the devil’s persuasion and man’s choice that evil will came forth, by which he forsook justice and began iniquity; and that will itself was iniquity.

---