Breviloquium

Concerning the guilt of our first parents, the following must be held: the woman, consenting to the devil's temptation, desired knowledge and excellence in the manner of God; nevertheless, she also desired to experience the sweetness of the forbidden tree, and finally fell into transgression of the commandment. — Not content with this, by offering the fruit of the forbidden tree, she induced the man, who, unwilling to grieve his delights, did not rebuke the woman but rather gave his consent to the evil counselor; and by tasting the offered apple, became a transgressor of the divine command.¹

The reason for understanding the foregoing is this: since, as was said above², a double sense and appetite had been given to man with respect to the double book and the double good, so that according to freedom of choice man could turn toward either; the woman, having heard the serpent's outward suggestion, did not have recourse to the inner book, which presents itself as legible to the right judgment of reason; but she kept her sense directed toward the outer book and began to traffic concerning the outer good. And because her sense did not approach the infallibly true, her appetite began to turn toward changeable good. She therefore desired what the devil promised, and so consented to do what he suggested. Excellent knowledge: she was raised into pride, and, raised into pride, was thereby enticed to gluttony; and through this, thirdly, was cast down through disobedience. The first was in the mind, the second in sensuality, the third in action.³ — And just as temptation, beginning from below, reached up to the highest, because from hearing through appetite it came to consent, so conversely disorder, beginning from above, reached down to the lowest and produced one consummated sin, which in human nature is the beginning of every sin and the origin of evils.

For the woman, having been enticed, enticed the man in turn, who likewise turned toward the outer book and toward changeable good, overvaluing the woman's companionship and the comfort of her society, and wished neither to rebuke the woman nor to grieve his own delights. And because he ought to have rebuked her but did not, the woman's sin is therefore imputed to him. But because he did not wish to grieve his delights by driving the woman away from him, he began to love himself excessively, and thereby, withdrawing from divine friendship, fell into gluttony and disobedience.

The transgression of the commandment was therefore common to both, although from different causes, because it was not the man but the woman who was deceived.⁴ Yet in both, namely the man and the woman, there was disorder from the highest to the lowest, because first in the mind or reason, then in sensuality, and finally in action. Therefore each was cast down through disobedience and enticed through gluttony, because each was raised into pride: the woman by desiring and coveting what she had not yet received, the man by loving and valuing too highly what he already possessed. Hence the woman, by eating, believed she would be exalted, whereas Adam, supposing himself something great and dear to God, believed he would be punished less severely. For he had not yet experienced the rigor of divine severity.⁵ And so each, while disorderly raising himself above himself, fell miserably below himself from the state of innocence and grace to the state of guilt and misery.