Scotus Academicus, Tomus quintus: De Creaturarum Corporalium et de Homine

There is no one who does not know, says St. Chrysostom, Sermon 32, which is on the fall of man:

that man was so fashioned by God as to be instructed in prudence, strengthened by counsel, and rendered by divine providence capable of reason. Instructed, I say, in prudence, whereby he might avoid the cunning of the enemy: by counsel, whereby he might seek out what was salutary and right: > by reason, whereby he might know that he must obey God his father: for the Lord God, seeing the man whom He had made innocent, instructed him, admonished him, and armed him; since he was about to do battle with the devil, he had to be equipped as it were with certain arms, that is, with prudence, counsel, and reason. Shortly after: Adam stood between his wife and the devil; between Eve and the enemy, between the woman and the serpent: the devil persuades in order to harm, Eve consents in order to perish: the devil circumvents the woman by the craftiness of deception, the unwary woman receives the serpent's venom, and the devil, what he could not accomplish by himself, he accomplished against Adam the first-formed man through his wife; but Adam through his wife found the destruction of her whom he had received from God as a help. O grief! Prosperous things turn into their contraries. Useful things work ruin. In short, Adam is wounded more by the javelins of his own household than by those of enemies; he is destroyed more by his own sword than by a hostile one; he is wounded more by the woman than by an external blade.

But that fall of our first Parent into sin is all the more to be lamented by us, because it was calamitous not for him alone, or for many nations, but ruinous for all men whatsoever — as many as are, as many as shall be, and as many as have hitherto been. For as the Apostle says to the Romans 5: by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. Hence each of us can say with mellifluous Bernard, or with any other Author of Meditations, chapter 2, in a mournful voice: According to the outward man I was born of those parents who made me condemned before I was born: sinners gave birth to me, a sinner, in sin, and nourished me out of sin: miserable men brought forth a miserable son into this misery of light. For that fatal fall of our parents introduced and opened the abyss of all miseries and evils, by which from that time onward the whole race of mankind is miserably afflicted and assailed. Our theological exercise therefore proceeds in due order: whereas in the smiling and gently breathing season of spring and autumn, delightful to body and soul, we have delineated and tasted the delights of the earthly Paradise, and the supreme felicity of the first man dwelling therein; now that the storms of winter press in, and the brumal severity of a harsher tempest spurs us on to penance, let us revolve and bewail the sorrowful end of that former happiness, the fall, I say, of the first men. — But in order that, as we run through the densest gloom of sins, the light of our theological method may shine upon us and, as it were, hold forth a torch, we shall divide this Disputation, like those preceding it, into three Articles, to be subdivided into as many Sections: the first of which will treat of the temptations and ambushes of the devil, the conflict of Adam and Eve with him, and finally their fatal fall and ruin; the Second, of sin derived to all the posterity of Adam through vitiated propagation and origin; the Third will set forth and expound the various species and distributions of personal sin. The First will disclose how the person corrupted nature; the Second, how nature infected the person; the Third, how the person vitiated and perverts himself.---

Most patient of men said with good reason that the warfare of man is his life upon the earth: for scarcely had the first parents of mankind greeted the day, when the devil, lying in wait for their happiness and innocence, declared against them a deadly war. For the devil, seeing — as the Master of the Sentences says, dist. 21.

that man by humble obedience could ascend whither he himself had fallen through pride, envied him: and he who before had been through pride a devil, that is, fallen from above, through the zeal of envy became Satan, that is, an adversary. Hence he tempted the woman, in whom he knew reason flourished less than in the man: for his malice, timid in assaulting virtue, attacked human nature in that part where it seemed weaker: that if perchance he should in some measure prevail there, he might afterward ascend with greater confidence to assail, or rather to overthrow, the other part, which was the stronger.

— The conflict, therefore, of this virulent and pestilential adversary of mankind with the First Parents we undertake in this Article to relate and delineate: which will plainly appear in the three following Sections: the first of which will set forth the instrument, motive, and conflict of the tempter: the Second will relate the caution laid upon the First Parents, their transgression, and the vengeance thereof: the Third, lastly, will expound the punishment inflicted by God upon them and their posterity on account of their rebellion.

Three things come above all to be discussed in this Section: First, what sort of instrument the tempter made use of: Second, by what motive he was led to tempt: Third, what fraud and cunning he employed in the temptation, and what order he observed, whereby he might the more easily lead our First Parents

Note 1. That Moses, the chief interpreter of things divine and human, delineated the encounter of the devil with the First Parents in chapter 3 of Genesis, in these words: But the serpent was more subtle than all the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made, etc. Or as the Septuagint render it, the serpent was the most prudent of all the beasts which were upon the earth: or as the Chaldean has it, the serpent was wiser than all the beasts of the field: in which words three things are above all signified: First indeed, that the devil used the serpent as an instrument for assailing and deceiving the first men. Second, that the demon infected the serpent itself, and thrust himself into its body, in such wise that through the mouth and tongue of the beast, as through an organ, he might emit voices, and hold converse with the first woman. Whence St. Augustine, book 11. De Civitate, chapter 11. writes: The devil chose the serpent in Paradise, a corporeal one, that is, a slippery animal, mobile in tortuous windings, and suited to his work, through whom he might speak: and him, subjected to himself by his angelic presence and his pre-eminent nature of spiritual wickedness, abusing as it were an instrument, he uttered his deceit in speech to man. Thirdly, finally, that serpent is said to have been more subtle than all the beasts of the earth: by which is designated that he was a true, and not a masked serpent, inasmuch as he is compared with other earthly beasts; otherwise the account would altogether limp, and that comparison would be utterly incongruous.

Note 2. That although the devil was the sole architect of this lamentable temptation: nevertheless Moses prudently called the tempter, not the devil, but the serpent; namely, that he might take away from the Jewish people — rude indeed, and of a grosser genius — every occasion of idolatry: since heretics have not been wanting who, judging that all knowledge of good and evil had been suggested to the first parents by the serpent, held and worshipped it as a Divinity, whence they were called Ophites: perhaps also there would not have been wanting some of the Jews who would have held the devil, endowed with spiritual nature, as a divinity; seeing that by his own prudence, even against the will of God, he had drawn over the First Parents to his party, as Anastasius Synaita learnedly observes, book 10. Hexaemeron. If you ask, he says, why God then did not speak this nakedly, but named the serpent in place of the devil: learn openly, that when speaking with much and wanton indulgence, he would not open to Israel either those things which pertain to the Angels, nor those which pertain to Satan, who trampled Eve underfoot, lest they should conspire with him and adore him as stronger than God, he who by his own prudence had been able to draw the first-formed men away from God to himself. — Another reason is subjoined by Severianus Gabalitanus, bishop, oration 6, namely that Moses undertook to relate the deeds done at the beginning of the world in a ruder style and popular narration, because he was undertaking to instruct not only the unlearned vulgar in hidden matters: but that was the age of the nascent and yet infantile Church, which could not yet receive a deeper doctrine. Nothing therefore absurd, if he fed them with milk who for that time were as it were infants. The Apostle used a like precaution, 2. ad Cor. chapter 11, when addressing virgins he writes: For I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtlety, so your senses should be corrupted. Whence Severianus: Paul indeed, he says, as a faithful minister and guardian of the sacred Scriptures, did not invert the diction, but indicated the sense. But who lay hid under the serpent and breathed into him, Christ manifested when addressing the Jews. John 8. he said they were sprung from their father the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning; namely, that he lethally wounded the whole human race in the first parent, and led it into the death of sin.

Note 3. From the Seraphic Bonaventure in 2. dist. 20. art. 1. q. 2. that that manner of tempting was not from diabolical election, as St. Augustine says, book 11. de Genesi, chapter 5, but also from divine permission: for it was not lawful for the devil to tempt in every manner that he wished, and could; but in that manner in which the Lord would permit: moreover divine wisdom (which orders, and governs, and permits all things) granted that the devil should tempt man under the likeness of a brute animal, and not of any whatsoever, but of a serpent: for thus did the congruence of order require. For > man to be tempted by the devil under the likeness of a brute animal was congruous: both in respect of the work; and in respect of the end; and also in respect of the divine judgment. 1. In respect of the work, because man was born to be inclined to good at that time chiefly on the sensible and brutish side, and therefore it was congruous that he be tempted under the likeness of a brute animal. 2. In respect of the end likewise it was similarly congruous, because the temptation was ordered to this, that man should be made like a brute animal, when, having despised the immutable good, he should adhere to a changeable good, and rest therein: and therefore to insinuate this, he ought to be tempted in the species of a brute animal. 3. In respect of the divine Judgment also it was congruous, since the Lord just and faithful does not permit man to be tempted beyond that which he can bear: and therefore he suffered the devil to lie hidden in the temptation in such wise that nevertheless he could be detected by man, and therefore he did not suffer the devil to tempt man altogether in a similar species, namely in the human species or likeness, but rather in a brutish one.

These things thus premised, two things are here above all to be resolved: First, why the devil took up the serpent as the instrument of temptation: Second, why he made use of it in that temptation.

First Conclusion. — The devil congruously took up the serpent as the instrument of his temptation by divine permission.

This truth the Seraphic Doctor proves in the place cited, by a threefold reason: First indeed, he says, by the reason of the work: for since the temptation was being wrought, and the ingress of suggestion, which enters into the heart after the manner of a serpent, and there diffuses the venom of sin, from which man has spiritually to die, therefore, that the exterior likeness might answer to the interior work, it was congruous that man be tempted by the devil under the likeness of the serpent, whose property it is to creep, and to diffuse poison, and by diffusing it to destroy man. — 2. In respect also of the end it was likewise congruous: for since the devil intended to turn the face of man, and the head, and the higher mind downward, and to prostrate the whole, and thus by prostrating to lead him to an evil end, proposing to himself some delightful reward, therefore it was permitted that he tempt in the serpent, which according to its whole body has the earth cleaving to it in its going. — 3. It was also congruous in respect of the divine judgment: for since from that temptation the divine judgment ought to raise up enmity between the tempted and the tempter, therefore the temptation of man ought to be made in the serpent, whom he dreads exceedingly after the Fall, and who lies in wait above all by his subtlety, that he may harm man. Such are the words of Bonaventure. — Nor however ought we to opine, says St. Augustine, book 11. De Genesi ad litteram, that the devil swallowed the serpent, whom he persuaded to be the prey through which he would tempt: but since there was in him, by reason of a perverse and infirm will, the cupidity of deceiving: he could not except through that animal through which he was permitted to be able: for the cupidity of harming can be proper even to his own spirit: but power is not except from God, and this in hidden and lofty justice, since there is no iniquity with God. Moreover the Master of the Sentences teaches, dist. 21. that if the demon had been permitted, perhaps he would have come more gladly in the form of a dove: For the devil, he says, has the cupidity of harming, but the faculty only such as is given him, either for subverting and destroying by cause of wrath, or for humbling or proving by cause of mercy. But God did not permit, says our Lyranus, man to be tempted by the devil in a gracious and noble species, through which he could more easily deceive: but rather in a horrible species, in which the deceitfulness of the demon could the sooner be detected; or, as Moses Bar-Cepha says, book De Paradiso, chapter 27, the devil was permitted to abuse no other animal for deceiving the woman; partly that there might appear therein the vileness, and abjection of the demon: partly also that by the aspect of the tortuous and malignant animal, Eve might the more easily detect the fraud. St. Thomas the Angelic Doctor adds in his commentary on Genesis that God permitted the devil to tempt in the species of the serpent for this reason, that by this, that it is a foul and venomous animal, Eve might somewhat detect his deceit; that namely the temptation might be less violent, and if she fell, Eve might be less excusable. Whence God seems thereby also to have provided for himself, lest afterwards the woman, having collapsed into sin, should allege some grave violence which she could not easily have withstood, impelled to the deed by another animal, or one more potent for deceiving, inciting by bulk of body, or beauty of mouth; and should thereupon cast back the whole cause of her fault upon God, for not resisting so great and so strong an adversary.

You will say. The more hidden a temptation is, the more efficacious it is for deceiving: therefore it seemed more congruous that man be tempted by some spiritual temptation than in a corporeal species, whereby namely his observance toward God might the better be proved. Moreover, the more efficacious is a temptation, the more affable the tempter is in suggesting: but a temptation, and speech, had it been made in an assumed human species and likeness, would have been far more affable than that which was touched upon through the serpent: therefore this seems less to accord with the intention of the tempter. Finally, the greater a species of sanctity the tempter assumes, the more he prevails in tempting: but there are many animals which by their properties present sanctity more than the serpent, as for instance the dove and the lamb: therefore it seems that the devil the tempter ought to have assumed those very animals. — I answer, these forms indeed perhaps the devil would have assumed, if it had been permitted him by God; for he could attempt nothing except what was permitted: but why God did not permit the temptation to be made in any other than the serpentine species we have already said; namely, that the temptation might be lighter, and that serpentine species would the more easily draw away the woman from the tempter.

Second Conclusion. — In truth the devil was infused into the body of the serpent, and through the mouth and tongue of the beast, as through an organ, he uttered human voices. So St. Augustine, book 11., De Civitate Dei, chapter 11. and likewise book 11. De Genesi ad litteram, chapter 29. where he says: The devil himself spoke in the serpent, using it as it were an organ, and moving its nature in that manner in which he himself could move it, and it be moved, to express the sounds of words, and bodily signs, through which the woman might understand the will of him persuading her. He did not himself err in the very woman, because she was a rational creature, which by her own motion could use herself to make words, but his operation, and persuasion, though with an occult instinct he aided inwardly what he had wrought outwardly through the serpent. I judge therefore that the serpent, by those little blandishments of motion, and certain quasi gesticulations and sweetly-winding turnings, but wholly poisonous and deadly, the demon moving within, crept into familiarity with the woman, and first offered itself to be looked upon. Nearly all sacred Interpretes agree that that serpent, which as an instrument the devil used, by the varied beauty of its skin enticed the woman to look upon it, that he might the more easily induce her to conversation. But since the kinds of serpents are various, many dream which one it was that was assumed by the demon: for in a matter so uncertain, and most remote from all human conjecture, of which Moses expressed not so much as any trace, who would dare affirm anything for certain? Yet some are found to have been of opinion it was a basilisk: but they seem less congruously to conjecture: for the most loathsome aspect, and most pestilent breath of this serpent would not invite Eve to conversation, but rather avert her: of it Pliny writes, book 8. chapter 21.: The Cyrenaic Province produces the basilisk, of a size of not more than two digits, distinguished by a white spot on its head, as it were a certain diadem: by its hiss it puts all serpents to flight, nor does it impel its body with multiplied flexions, as the rest: but goes along elevated and straight from the middle, it kills shrubs not merely touched, but even breathed upon. It burns up herbs, and breaks rocks, etc. — Some conjecture it to have been a Scytale, led by its beauty and magnitude doubtless: For the Scytale, says Solinus, chapter 30., shines with so great a variety of back, that by the grace of its markings it retards beholders, and since it is slower in creeping, it desires that what it cannot attain, beholders should stand stupefied at the wonder of itself. This description of Solinus Delrio confirms upon the first verse of the third chapter of Genesis, wherein he testifies that he once saw the spoils of a Scytale; which indeed was seven feet long, variegated throughout by the artifice of most beautiful nature, radiant with the splendor of gold and the sheen of silver. — Rupertus asserts that the serpent assumed by the demon was one of those which they say are reported to bear a face like a virgin's; but our Lyranus rightly laughs to scorn that such a serpent was ever seen in the world, as an old wives' fable. Wherefore I should judge it better to say, that that serpent was our common snake, or coluber; whose nature it is to be bloodthirsty, greedy of milk, covered with a bark or shell, shining with variety of back, retarding beholders by the grace of its azure markings. But why that serpent is called more subtle, or more prudent, or wiser than all the beasts of the earth, St. Augustine renders the reason, book 11. De Genesi ad litteram, chapter 2. By transferred speech, he says, it was said most prudent, or as most Latin codices have, most wise, not in the proper sense in which wisdom is wont to be taken in reference to good, whether of God, or of the Angels, or of the rational soul: as if we should say wise bees also, and ants, on account of works as it were imitating wisdom. Although that serpent, not by its own irrational soul, but by another spirit already, that is, a diabolical one, could be called wisest of all beasts. However much the prevaricating Angels by their own perversity and pride have merited to be cast down from supernal seats: nevertheless by nature they excel all beasts, on account of the eminence of reason. What wonder therefore, if by his own instinct the devil, already filling the serpent, and mingling his own spirit with it, after that manner in which the demon is wont to fill the lares, rendered it wisest of all beasts according to the living but irrational soul of the creature? For wisdom is so said in evil after the manner of the name, as astuteness is in good: since properly, and more customarily in the Latin tongue only, the wise are commendatorily called: but the astute are understood as ill-affected.

Note 1. That although the devil is infected with all vices of which created spiritual substance is capable; for which cause the Apostle to the Ephesians 6. calls demons spiritual wickednesses in heavenly places: nevertheless he is agitated by three movements of sins above all. He excels chiefly in pride, wrath, and envy: pride indeed: For every high thing shall fall, says Job chapter 11. He is King over all the children of pride: hence that of Psalm 73. must above all be understood of demons: The pride of them that hate thee ascendeth continually. Wrath likewise: for he is a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, says St. Peter: whence Christ the Lord, John 8., addressing the Pharisees says: You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do, he was a murderer from the beginning: wherefore St. John rightly admonished, Apocalypse 12.¹ Woe to the earth, and to the sea, because the devil is gone down unto you, having great wrath. Envy lastly. for the Wise Man says, chapter 2. By the envy of the devil death came into the world. — It is asked moreover by which of those movements the demon was led to assail and assault the first parents.

Note 2. From Hugh of St. Victor in the Annotations upon Matthew, chapters 3. and 4. that pride is love of one's own excellence: envy is the spite at another's felicity; wrath is an irrational perturbation of the mind... Through pride a good is loved as one's own property: for the proud man rejoices that he has what another has not; or that he may have what another has not: therefore, because he loves excellence as his own property, he hates communion, and envy is born, the daughter of pride. For envy is hatred of another's felicity, which is born of pride; for it could not displease thee that another have it, unless thou hadst before willed to have it alone thyself: therefore it wounds thee, and another's felicity is burdensome to thee, because in it thine own defect is shown to thee, and thou art reproved by it that thou art not that which thou didst rejoice to be, or hadst coveted to be. In pride therefore thou dost delight unjustly: in envy thou art tormented justly: in pride it pleases thee perversely that thou art what thou art; in envy it displeases thee iniquitously that another is what he is.... In this envy is known to have something of justice, that he who acts unjustly is punished justly. After this follows wrath, that is, an irrational perturbation of the mind, by which it is called wrath, when thou dost disdain to suffer an inflicted evil, and art therefore troubled, agitated by impatience, because thou dost not sustain adversity. There is however a good wrath, by which thou dost disdain to do evil: but an evil one, by which thou dost disdain to suffer evil: the former rejects guilt, the latter does not receive justice: wherefore evil wrath is troubled by adversity occurring, and by impatience disturbs the quiet of the mind: nor does the soul any longer wish to stand firm in the toleration of punishment, which is just, as before it would not stand firm through continence of guilt, which is unjust. For it increases misery, while it receives the torment of the flesh to the grief of the mind.

Note 3. That of the three foresaid vices envy is the more cruciating and afflicting: whence St. Bernard rightly warns, treatise On the interior house, chapter 33. Nothing is sadder than envy, which straightway torments and crucifies its very bearer. Therefore it is wholly to be fled and abhorred: since in it God is offended, the neighbor wounded, the mind afflicted: For envy always torments the mind of its possessor, although often it cannot wound its neighbor, against whom it rages. Wherefore St. Augustine, book De disciplina Christiana, chapter 1. calls envy a diabolical vice. May God, he says, discern the pest of envy from the souls of all, nay of Christians: for it is a diabolical vice, by which alone the devil is guilty, and inexplicably guilty: for it is not said to the devil, Thou art condemned, because thou hast committed adultery, hast committed theft, hast ravished another's life: but because thou, fallen thyself, hast straightway stumbled upon man standing. These things thus briefly premised, let there be

Only Conclusion. — The devil was moved by two vices of the soul to tempt man in Paradise, namely pride and envy. Such is the teaching of the Seraphic Doctor in 2. dist. 20. q. 1. where he says: the mind of the devil possessed by these two vices, namely pride and envy, seeing man in that state in which he could fall under diabolical power, and in which he could ascend to the supernal felicity from which he himself had fallen, was moved by pride, and by envy, that he might impede him from supernal felicity. Pride indeed was the first motive, but envy the proximate and immediate: for even suppose he could not acquire dominion over man, still he would have studied to impede him from the joys of Paradise. Such are the words of the Seraphic Doctor. Which St. wonderfully explains and confirms, book 11. De Genesi ad litteram, chapter 14. Some, he says, say that that fall from supernal seats befell him because it fell upon man made to the image of God; moreover envy follows pride, it does not precede it: for envying is not the cause of boasting: but pride is the cause of envying. Since therefore pride is the love of one's own excellence: but envy the hatred of another's felicity, that it is born thence is sufficiently manifest: for each one loving his own excellence, envies either equals, that they be made equal to him: or inferiors, lest they be made equal to himself: or superiors, that he be not made equal to them: therefore by boasting he is envious, not by envying proud. — But for what cause the devil envied man, various authors bring forward various things. For St. Bernard judges that the object of this diabolical envy against men was that cognition which the demon had received, God revealing it. That the divine Word was to become incarnate, that God-Man might be at once Head of men and of Angels. — There are those who judge that the devil envied man for this reason, that God constituted him Monarch of the whole world. Thus judges Anastasius Synaita, chapter 1. Since therefore God, he says, was fashioning this visible world, that is Heaven, and Earth, and whatever things the earth contains, the devil judged, as a certain Doctor says, that he would be constituted by God King and Lord of visible Creation. But after he saw man produced, and dominion over all earthly things conferred upon him by God, bearing this hardly, and envying man, he deceived him. To this sentiment subscribes Tertullian, book De patientia, chapter 5. though he ascribed it to impatience, which others to envy: Therefore, he says, I detect the nativities of impatience in the very devil, that even then he bore impatiently that the Lord God had subjected to His image, that is, to man, all the works which He had made: for neither would he have been lost, had he sustained: nor would he have envied man, had he not grieved. Therefore he deceived him, because he had envied; but he had envied, because he had grieved; he had grieved, because he certainly had not borne patiently, etc. All which Prudentius elegantly weighs in the Hamartigenia, where he teaches that the devil blazed out in envy against man newly created:

For from the tinder of zeal a spark of hatred burned, And sudden grief established his wit iniquitous. He had poured forth the clay, and the fragile image set To grow warm with the heat of God: and the Lord too, by condition, Who should rule the whole World by his own moderating sway, Imposed upon the nature of Soil, of sea, and sky, That, serving man, it knew how to pour forth its opulent issue, And, poured forth, devote it to the earthly King: With the ferment of a chafing spirit the Beast pressed on Its swelling rage, and drew bitter force from its acid marrow.

Others affirm, and indeed, as it seems to me, more rightly, that the daemon for this reason blazed out in envy against man, because he saw that he was to be conducted into Heaven, whence he himself had been cast down. Which St. Ambrose excellently explains, book De Paradiso, chapter 12. where weighing that word of Wisdom 2. By the envy of the devil death came into the world, he says: Envy moreover was the cause of the beatitude of man placed in Paradise: and therefore he himself, the devil, unable to endure the grace received as a punishment, envied man, for that from clay he was elected to be an inhabitant of Paradise. For the devil considered that he himself, who had been of superior nature, had fallen into these secular and worldly things: but man of inferior nature hoped for eternal things. This therefore is that which he envies, saying: Shall this inferior attain that which I could not keep? Shall he depart from earthly things to Heaven, while I, fallen from Heaven, am upon the earth? Many ways have I whereby I may deceive man: he was made of clay, earth is his mother, he is wrapped in corruptible things: although his soul is of superior nature, yet even it can lie liable to fall, constituted in the prison of the body, when I could not avoid falling. — So subscribes St. Gregory the Pope in the book Pastoralis, part 3. c. 11. likewise weighing the same words of Wisdom: But the envy of the devil, etc. For since, he says, that malignant spirit himself our adversary lost Heaven, he envied man created for this end, and lost himself, he yet accumulated his damnation by losing others. To these equally accords St. Augustine, book 10. Confessionum, c. 36. Our adversary presses upon our true beatitude: everywhere scattering his snares, Well done, well done, that while we greedily gather, we may be caught lying in wait... and in that manner, having made them like himself, he holds them with him, not for concord of charity, but for fellowship of punishment. — Alcimus Avitus, bishop of Vienna, elegantly describes all these things, book 2. of his Poems, where he describes the spite and envy of the demon against men newly created in this manner:

When he saw that these new men in tranquil seat Were leading a happy life without distinction, That under a law accepted they served the Lord of the Orb, And enjoyed placid joys amid subject things:

The sudden spark of zeal stirred up his rapine, And burning spite grew hot into savage conflagrations. Near then by chance was he by whose lofty fall, Slipping, he had drawn the whole train headlong undeserving. Recalling this, and pressing the fresh fall in his heart, He grieved more that another possessed what he had lost. Then shame mingled with gall thus sought utterance in his breast, And unfolds it, and relaxes sighs with such a voice: O grief! that to us this sudden plasma should arise, And a hated race have grown from our ruin! Virtue held me exalted; now behold, rejected I am driven forth, and clay succeeds to angelic honor, Earth holds Heaven, raised upon a vile frame The clod reigns, and translated power perishes for us. Yet not altogether does it perish: a great part retains; Nor does it help to delay: now now with bland contest Will I engage, while prime safety, knowing no guile, Untried of any deceits, shall lie open to my weapons. And better shall they be caught by guile alone, before They send forth a fertile progeny into eternal ages. Nothing immortal must be suffered to proceed from earth: Let the fountain of the race perish; the casting down of the vanquished head Shall be the seed of death: let it bring forth the beginning Of a life of perilous distinction: let all be smitten in one: A slain root shall make no wine-bearing top. These solaces at length remain to me cast down, If I cannot again ascend the closed heavens. These also shall be shut: it must be thought lighter to have fallen, If new substance perish by a like fall, If a companion of my ruin enter the fellowships of my punishment, And share with us the fires whom I foresee. But lest the cause of deceiving seem difficult, This way must be shown, which long ago of its own accord he ran headlong in his prone fall: which pride, casting me from the kingdom Thrust down, this thrusts man from the threshold of Paradise. Thus he spoke, and closed his voice with the groan of grieving.

You will say 1. Envy is in respect of a good which the envious can acquire: but the devil could not attain eternal beatitude: therefore he did not envy man on account of its attainment. — I deny the major: because, as the Seraphic Doctor says in the place cited, ad secundum, one envies not only that which he can obtain; but also that which he is born to have, although he cannot; as the maimed and blind envy others sight and progress. And although the devil cannot arrive at beatitude, he has nonetheless a natural inclination to it, and therefore envies those who are destined to obtain it.

You will object 2. Envy is in respect of a good desired; for no one envies another on account of anything unless because he loves and covets it: but the devil did not covet to obey the commandments of God, nor to ascend to the supernal fatherland, nor to become a friend of God: since he fell into despair: therefore for this cause he could not envy man. — I answer there the Seraphic Doctor, that envy is not only in respect of a desired good, but also in respect of that good by whose obtaining the desired good is diminished, or judged to be diminished: but since the devil desired to be carried aloft and sublime through pride, therefore he judged that by the exaltation of man his own good was impeded, and therefore he envied, and out of envy assaulted the first Parents.

You urge. Envy, as has been said, is only in respect of that which is born to diminish one's own good: but the acquisition of beatitude can diminish no one's good: therefore it cannot be a motive of envy. — I answer that although the beatification and exaltation of man truly diminishes no one's good, nevertheless according to the estimation made (says the Seraphic Doctor there) it could be believed that that glorification of man was diminutive of the good desired by the demon, and out of that false estimation envy could arise: for the affections arise not only from certain judgments, but also from suspicions, and false estimations.

Note 1. From Hugh of St. Victor, Annotation on book 4. of Kings, chapter 11, that there are, in general, four modes of temptation:

For first, he says, temptation is light but hidden, namely when someone is lightly tempted, and yet does not yet understand whether that thing about which he is tempted be evil: e.g. when someone is lightly tempted concerning an office or prelacy; the temptation is light and hidden, because he knows not whether what he desires is expedient for him. Another temptation is light but manifest, when someone is lightly, but manifestly, tempted concerning evil: e.g. when someone is lightly tempted concerning fornication; the temptation is light, because he is lightly tempted, and manifest, because it is manifestly concerning evil. Another is a grave and hidden temptation, when someone is gravely tempted, and yet knows not whether that about which he is tempted is harmful to him: e.g. when someone is gravely tempted concerning prelacy or some ministry; the temptation is grave, because he is gravely tempted; but hidden while he knows not that a diabolical snare lies hidden there, for the devil tempts concerning exaltation in order that through exaltation he may fall more grievously into damnation. Finally, another temptation is grave and manifest, when someone is gravely and manifestly tempted concerning evil: e.g. when someone is gravely tempted concerning fornication; the temptation is grave, because he is gravely tempted; and manifest, because it is manifestly concerning evil. The Psalmist well designates all these modes of temptation, where he says in Psalm 90: Thou shalt not fear from the fear of the night: from the arrow that flieth in the day: from the business that walketh about in the dark: from invasion and the midday demon: for the temptation light but hidden is the fear of the night: the temptation light and manifest, the arrow flying in the day: the temptation grave and hidden, the business walking in the dark: but the temptation grave and manifest, the invasion and the midday demon.

Note 2. From the Seraphic Doctor, in 2. dist. 21. ad dubium 3.

Temptation can be considered in five ways: namely as regards the motive, as regards the instrument, as regards the effect, as regards the degree, and as regards the mode. First indeed, as regards the motive, it can be considered either generally or specially. If generally, temptation is thus divided into that which is from the enemy, and from the flesh, and from the world, as is said in a certain Sequence: The world, the flesh, the demons, stir up diverse battles. If specially, so that the motive is said to be not only that which moves by way of object, but also that which induces and excites by way of impelling cause, temptation is rightly divided into that which is from the enemy, and that which is from the flesh, since each inflames unto evil. — Likewise as regards the instrument, temptation can be considered in two ways: first indeed generally, and thus is that division of St. Gregory, namely that some temptation is through vices, some through scourges: secondly specially, and thus is that division of temptation which the Gloss sets forth upon that verse, Every abominable food, etc., where it is said that temptation is fourfold: of which the first is error, or ignorance by the force of truth: the second, the difficulty of overcoming concupiscences: the third, weariness of the good: the fourth, the tempest of the age. — In the third way, namely as regards the effect, temptation is likewise considered, either generally, and thus it is twofold: namely one diabolical, the other human: of which the first terminates in mortal sin: the second truly, either in none, or only in venial, as the Gloss has it upon that verse: Let not temptation take hold of you, etc. If specially, thus is that division of St. Augustine, saying in the book On Christian Doctrine, that the devil tempts, either by recalling the flesh, or by infusing natural things, or by despoiling of graces. — But if temptation be considered as regards its degree, this can also be done in two ways: if generally, one temptation is exterior, another interior: if specially, temptation is accomplished in a threefold manner, namely by suggestion, by delectation, and by consent, as St. Gregory says upon that verse of James: Every one is tempted by concupiscence, etc. — Finally, if temptation be considered as regards the mode of tempting, this consideration can be made either generally or specially. If generally, it is done either explicitly or implicitly. If implicitly, thus are the four degrees of temptation assigned above by Hugh. But if explicitly, thus is that which St. Bernard sets forth through seven members: of which the first is importune, namely whereby he insolently presses. The second doubtful, namely whereby he involves the mind in the fog of doubt. The third is sudden, namely that which forestalls the judgment of reason. The fourth hidden, namely that which escapes the order of deliberation. The fifth violent, whereby our strength is transcended. The sixth fraudulent, whereby namely he seduces the mind. The seventh perplexed, which is impeded by various vices. But if temptation be considered specially, insofar as it is restricted to the temptation of the devil, its modes can be assigned in two ways: either implicitly, and thus St. Augustine divides it, saying in a certain sermon, that the devil tempts as a lion, tempts as a Dragon: or explicitly, and thus is that division of Gregory upon Job, where he says: Against the faithful servant the enemy insinuates all the machinations of his cunning, namely, that by oppressing he seizes, by lying in wait he surrounds, by threatening he terrifies, by persuading he flatters, by driving to despair he breaks, by promising he deceives.

Note 3. That although Eve, newly formed by God, adorned with the divine gifts of grace and the endowments of human wisdom, and moreover instituted Queen of the sublunary world, princess of living creatures, mother-to-be of the whole human race, rival of the supernal Angels, and candidate for Heaven and the everlasting fruition of God: nevertheless her perfection was far less than Adam's, for it did not pertain to her to have the most certain and most perfect knowledge of all animals, and of all their properties, virtues, and faculties: but to have a knowledge of the things to be done, and of those which pertain to the administration of the household, and to all the duties which were to be discharged and fulfilled toward her husband and children: hence it is no wonder that she did not stand astonished at the serpent speaking with her; for, as SS. Bonaventure and Thomas teach in 2. dist. 21., she could have judged that some Angelic spirit lurking in the serpent was benevolent toward her, and was consulting well for her advantage. Or, because newly created she knew not that the faculty of speaking was naturally given to no animal: for both the novelty of the things, and the inexperience of Eve herself, and the fact that the perfection of the female condition would by no means require a perfect knowledge of all natural things, were the cause of her ignorance. But why the devil lurking in the serpent attacked Eve before Adam, and by what art he overcame her, is here to be determined.

First Conclusion. — The devil, cunning in deceiving, first tempted the woman, that, she being overcome, he might the more easily attack and cast down Adam.

This is evident plainly from Sacred Scripture, and stands openly from the narration of Moses, who relates in Gen. 3. the colloquy of Eve with the serpent, and adds: The woman therefore saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold, and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband. Whence it is written in Ecclesiasticus chapter 25: From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die. Now the devil tempted Eve before Adam, because he knew her first, more ready to believe, secondly weaker to resist; thirdly more prone as to the cause. This moreover was known to him from the weaker and less noble constitution of her body, and the nature of her sex, from the lesser excellence and perfection of her natural endowments, and because God had made the woman for the man: but he knew that Adam himself was more instructed in all things, and firmer in resisting: whence he judged that, the woman being persuaded and deceived, he would easily through her impel Adam to sin.

The holy Fathers explain this truth luminously, above all St. Augustine lib. 14. De Civit. Dei, cap. 11. The female, he says, that is, the inferior part of that human union, began, that she might reach by degrees to the whole, not judging the man easily credulous, nor capable of being deceived by erring: but while she yielded to another's error. Hence St. Ambrose in Sermon 15. upon Psalm 118. teaches that it seemed to the devil that the love of woman would be stronger for undermining a manly soul than his own poisons and diabolical assaults: That serpent, cunning and crafty, he says, to accustom his arts of wickedness, committed himself rather to feminine enticements than to his own poisons. And so the woman drew the man, whom the serpent had not dared to tempt, with a certain soft and alluring amorous sedulousness of affection.

Odo subscribes, book 3. of the Moralia on Job; where he seems to intimate that temptation through a woman is more vehement than through the devil; for, speaking of the temptation of Job made by a woman, after he had been tempted by the devil, he says: The ancient enemy was accustomed to tempt the human race in two ways, namely that he may either break the hearts of those standing by tribulations, or soften them by persuasions: therefore in both ways he exercised himself vehemently against blessed Job: for he brought losses of goods upon the father of a family: and he turned to subtle arguments of tempting: therefore he held the heart of the woman, and found in her as it were a ladder by which he might ascend to the heart of the man.

The Seraphic Doctor proves the same in 2. dist. 21. q. 3. by a twofold reason; of which the first is sought on the part of the wisdom of God: the second on the part of the cunning of the devil. The first, I say, on the part of the wisdom of God:

For the Lord permitted the devil to tempt in such an order: both on account of the man's exercise; and also lest the woman should have an excuse: and also on account of our instruction. On account of the man's exercise, because he himself was so strong, and endowed with a spiritual mind, that he could not only resist the temptation of the serpent, but also the suggestion of the woman; and therefore he was permitted to be tempted with a stronger temptation. On account of doing away with the woman's excuse, the temptation ought first to begin from her: for if the man had sinned first, since the man is the head of the woman, and has dominion over her, it would not be much to be wondered at, if the woman should consent to him: nay, she would have a great color of excuse. On account of our instruction also this was permitted: for in that sensible mode of tempting we come to know the mode and progress of the invisible temptation: and as that one came from the serpent to the man through the mediation of the woman; so this one comes from sensuality to the higher portion of reason through the mediation of the interior.

Likewise on the part of the cunning of the devil the reason can be taken:

The devil attended to the woman being 1. of lesser wisdom. 2. of weaker constancy. 3. of more importunate adherence. Because she was of lesser wisdom, she was easier to seduce; and therefore the devil, the seducer, willed through her to make for himself a passage to the man. Because she was of weaker constancy, she was easier to pervert: and therefore the devil, the assailant, attacked the city of man from that side from which the approach was less fortified. But because she was of more importunate adherence, the devil thought that if she were first conquered, she would not rest until she had perverted the man: whence it is said of the woman, that she is a snare to those who pass by, and her bands are the cords of her love. Therefore the devil, the cunning instigator, began from the feminine sex. And thus it is evident that, as Scripture says, it was in every way congruous that the temptation begin from the woman: both because the cunning of the devil expected this: and because the divine providence disposed this.

Thus the Seraphic Doctor.

You will say 1. Eve had no greater propensity to sinning than Adam; since she was endowed with an equal innocence, grace, and wisdom with him; nor did her sensitive appetite strive against the soul in her: therefore it was not easier for the devil to overcome Eve by tempting than Adam: therefore no reason appears why the devil ought rather to have tempted the woman than the man. — I answer, indeed Eve had not a greater propensity to sinning than Adam; yet she did not obtain an equal stability and firmness with him; for, as the Seraphic Doctor says, she had not corruption in effecting, nor deception in sight. Yet she could fall more easily than the man, in whom nature was stronger, and grace is believed to have been more abundant.

You will say 2. It is a greater disgrace and reproach to be conquered by a woman than by a man, and it is far more glorious for a man to conquer than a woman: since therefore the devil, with an affection of proud glory, most greedily seeks after, it seemed more congruous that he should first attack the man rather than assault the woman. — I answer, indeed a victory won over a man is nobler than over a woman: but it is more laudable to overcome a woman by wrestling than to succumb to a man by attacking: since however the devil had to fear lest, if he began his temptation from the man, he should find him resisting him constantly, the same, with cunning prudence and malice, judged it better to begin the temptation from the woman, whom he judged easier to overcome.

You will say 3. It belongs to a bold and generous soul to attack the stronger adversaries: but the devil is most bold and most insolent, and above all presuming upon his own strength: therefore he ought not to have assailed the woman, but the man, as being far stronger than his wife. — I answer, it shows a greater truly generous soul when one attacks an adversary in open combat: but not where the battle is waged more by cunning than by boldness: but the devil is not only bold and insolent, as the Seraphic Doctor says, nay he is also cunning and deceitful: and the same in tempting did not undertake the more difficult way, but rather the more efficacious: and therefore he judged the weaker part should first be attacked, that, she being conquered, he might overcome the stronger with less trouble.

You ask 1. Why did God permit the first Parents to be tempted by the devil, whom He knew would be cast down by the temptation?

St. Augustine answers, book 11. On Genesis according to the letter, chapter 6, that therefore God permitted it, that now, he says, by temptation the virtue be proved and opened, and the palm is more glorious, not that the tempted one did not consent, but that he could not tempt. Since also they who, having forsaken the Creator, go after the tempter, tempt more and more those who abide in the word of God, and set before them an example against the dereliction of concupiscence, and instil a pious fear against pride. Hence the Apostle says: Attending to thyself, lest thou also be tempted. For humble is that humility, as much as any humility is, whereby one is subjected to the Creator, lest we presume upon our own strength as needing not His aid, by all the divine Scriptures it is commended to all with continual care. Since therefore even by the unjust the just profit, and by the impious the pious, it is said in vain: God would not create those whom He foreknew would profit evil men, since they are born both that their goods may be admitted for exercising good wills, and that justly they may be punished for their evil will.

You ask 2. How did the serpent approach Eve: namely, whether in Paradise, or outside Paradise?

Rupertus answers, book 3. On the works of the Trinity, chapter 2, that the serpent was outside Paradise; For, he says, Paradise was the proper dwelling of man, given to him by the great grace of the Creator, with the condition of good work and most diligent guardianship interposed: now if Paradise was common to serpents, it follows that that place of delights was not without wolves and lions and other beasts: and the same would not be judged of such beatitude that it might deservedly be called the Paradise of pleasure, and be said to have been planted by God Himself. Therefore the serpent, especially possessed by the devil corporally invading, was not in Paradise: but the woman, for the sake of the body and its culture, while she walked incontinently, perhaps looking out what was outside Paradise, and gaping more closely and ambitiously upon the serpent as cunning, and upon the sweetness of that land, a place was given to the devil, and an occasion briefly proffered, whence he might tempt Eve. Thus Rupertus. — But the opinion of nearly all the holy Fathers and Theologians cries out against this, and the very narration of Moses seems to indicate quite plainly that that serpent was within the place of Paradise, inasmuch as he conversed with Eve with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil present and in view.

You ask 3. How was the very colloquy of the serpent with the woman not known to Adam?

I answer, perhaps Eve, newly formed, withdrew from Adam and wandered through the garden, at that time namely when Adam himself was wholly detained by the sight of the celestial orbs, and the consideration of the whole of nature, or by the contemplation of God Himself the Creator of all things, and therefore did not diligently care for and contain the woman delivered to him by God, as befitted a pastor and husband. By this example other wives are taught not easily to withdraw from their husbands, lest perchance they fall in with serpents and tempters. Whence St. Gregory Nazianzen wrote to Olympias not less prudently than piously: Commit outward business to the man; do not often put forth thy foot beyond the threshold, lest thou set out to public games and an unbridled crowd: for thence modesty is shaken out even from the bashful, and joined to no eyes; but the loss of modesty is the most certain parent of all disgraceful deeds. Let thy house be to thee as the city and the groves; make not the sight of thee copious to others than to thy kinsfolk, even to the most pleasing and honest, and to the priest, and to old age excelling in youth; nay, do not even show thyself in the sight of pious men, whom however thy husband does not bar from his house, although otherwise thou holdest them dear and honorest them. For what so great utility can anything bring, as a good husband, if in him alone thou hast fastened thy love? Take care also that thou blushest at the sight of men, having eyes blind, and brow depressed to the ground. This moreover must thou guard against with the utmost zeal, lest thy tongue be borne along with headlong and unbridled impulse: it is better to be silent, when to speak is useful: than to speak when time imposes silence with indecorous and dishonest speech. Would that this first woman had observed these things, that she might neither put forth her foot beyond the sight of her husband, nor incautiously have begun a discourse with the serpent! would that she had neither given the serpent the opportunity of seeing her, nor had she herself seen the serpent! for from the sight to the speech, from the speech to disobedience, and from disobedience to ruin, she advanced with fatal step.

IMMEDIATELY after God had formed the first parents and established them in Paradise, in order to test their observance, He laid upon them this law, addressing Adam, Gen. chap. 2: Of every tree of Paradise thou shalt eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat: for in whatsoever day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die the death. This law indeed Tertullian elegantly calls the fountain of all laws and as it were their matrix, in the book against the Jews, c. 1: The primordial, he says, law is that which was given to Adam and Eve in Paradise, as it were the mother of all the commandments of God: For if they had loved their God, they would not have acted against His commandment: if they had loved their neighbor, that is, themselves, they would not have believed the persuasion of the serpent, and so would not have committed homicide upon themselves, by falling from immortality, by acting against the commandment of God: they would also have abstained from theft, and would not have secretly tasted of the fruit of the tree, nor would they have wished to hide themselves beneath the tree from the sight of the Lord, nor, the devil falsely asserting it, would they have been made partakers by believing him that they were to be like God; and so neither would they have offended God as a father, who had fashioned them out of the clay of the earth as it were from the womb of a mother. If they had not coveted what was another's, they would not have tasted of the illicit fruit. Therefore we recognize that under this general and primordial law of God, which God had sanctioned to be observed in the fruit of the tree, all the commandments of the later law were specially implanted, which sprang forth in due season: for it belongs to the same one afterwards to give the law who before had set forth the commandment, since it belongs also to the same to instruct afterwards who before had undertaken to form the just. For what wonder if He augments discipline who instituted it? if He perfects who begins? Of this primordial law, then, the mother of all, we must treat in the present section: resolving first, for what cause God prescribed the law to the first parents: secondly, how they transgressed this divine law: thirdly, how grave a sin this transgression was.

Note 1. That five kinds of divine laws can be assigned. The first indeed is the Natural Law, which God instilled into all men together with nature itself, which is made known to all men by the innate light of reason, and binds all alike: whose general precepts are, that some supreme Divinity is to be worshipped, and that one is not to do to another what he would not have done to himself. The second is the supernatural Law of faith, hope, and charity, binding indeed all men, and at all time simply, yet given to men not in a natural manner but by the supernatural gift and grace of God. The third was the Mosaic Law, which God gave not to all, but to the one people of the Hebrews only: whose observance plainly did not at all bind the other nations.

I speak, moreover, of the law of Moses as regards its ceremonial and judicial precepts. The fourth is a divine Law binding not indeed at all times, nor simply, but binding all nations only by institution of God after the promulgation of the Gospel, such as the law of receiving baptism. The fifth is the private Law, which God imposed upon one or another, or upon a few men: and of this kind was that law by which God forbade Adam to eat of that tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for by this law it is certain the first parents of mankind were bound.

Note 2. That although the precept of not eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil seems to have been given to Adam alone; nevertheless it was enjoined also upon Eve. Wherefore Eve, speaking to the serpent, Gen. 3, says: Of the fruit of the trees that are in Paradise we eat; but of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of Paradise God hath commanded us not to eat, etc. She confesses therefore that that precept had been laid upon her and her husband by God. — Now it can be conceived in three ways that that commandment was enjoined upon both parents: either because both heard God commanding and forbidding; or because that precept was first given to Adam, and signified through him to Eve; or finally, because it had first been intimated to Adam, and afterwards announced both to him and his wife. St. Augustine affirms that the second way commends itself more to him, lib. 8. De Genesis ad litteram, cap. 17, and this seems consonant with the narration of divine Scripture, which, when it related that man had been placed by God in Paradise, straightway subjoins that this precept had been laid upon him, and thereafter commemorates the formation of Eve, whereby it seems signified that this precept had been imposed upon Adam before Eve was formed. — Nevertheless some hold that that precept was given to both parents at once, and this seems signified in the Version of the 70. Interpreters, where, whereas our Vulgate reports that precept in the singular number, it renders it in the plural, writing: Eat not, ye shall die the death: and this seems demonstrated in chapter 1. of Genesis, where Moses narrates that God said to Adam and Eve: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed over the earth, etc., that they may be for food for you. From this one may thus argue: when God said these things to them, either the precept concerning not eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had already been given, or not. Not the former, otherwise by these latter words, whereby He permits the eating of all fruits and herbs without any restriction, God would have seemed to abrogate the former law of not eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If the latter, therefore Eve had already been formed when this precept was given: and so it could have been signified to both parents at once. But Moses named only Adam, to whom the precept had been given, according to our Vulgate edition, because plainly it had been given principally to Adam alone, seeing that upon the observance or transgression of that precept hung the preservation or loss of the felicity received, both for Adam himself and for his posterity.

Note 3. That it was fitting that the precept imposed upon the first parents should be partly difficult, partly easy, of observance. Difficult indeed, that it might furnish man with suitable matter for meriting well of God: easy truly it ought to have been, lest if it had been too arduous and hard it would have brought sadness and trouble upon man, which least befitted a most happy state of innocence. — Now the difficulty of this precept consisted chiefly in two things: First, that the prohibition of not eating from that tree seemed to diminish man's liberty and dominion over bodily things: Secondly, from this, that by the very interdict man was forbidden the eating of the tree most splendid to behold and most beautiful in sight, unto the coveting of whose fruit the mind of man was carried away by very many enticements; and abstinence from that tree seemed the more difficult, the more it provoked man's appetite by the greater allurements of its beauty. — The facility of that precept consisted in three things: First indeed, because the eating of only one tree was forbidden, since elsewhere man had the faculty of eating of all the other trees with which that garden of delights was planted and filled. Next, the facility of keeping that interdict appears from this, that the other trees, from which the faculty of eating was permitted, were equal to that forbidden tree in beauty, sweetness, and usefulness: nay even far more excellent: for better and more excellent was the tree of life granted to man, or certainly soon to be granted. Thirdly, finally, the lightness and facility of this precept appears from the comparison of Adam's trial with the temptation and trial of Abraham, or Job, or the Martyrs. — And the easier was the observance of this precept, so much the graver and more inexcusable was its transgression, as St. Augustine elegantly weighs and expounds lib. 14. De Civit. Dei, cap. 15. Whosoever says the condemnation is excessive, or deems it unjust, certainly knows not how to measure how great was the iniquity in sinning, where there was so great a facility of not sinning. For as great obedience is not undeservedly celebrated in Abraham, because a thing most difficult was commanded him, to slay his son: so disobedience was the greater in the man made in Paradise, insofar as what was commanded was of no difficulty. And as the obedience of the second man was so much the more praiseworthy, in that He was made obedient even unto death: so the disobedience of the first man was so much the more detestable, in that he was made disobedient even unto death. — Alcimus Avitus, praised above, describes the equity and easy observance of this law in these verses:

Meanwhile the first parents, whom the Supreme Author had joined, Are placed in the paradisal seat. Then the Ruler proposes rewards in such a law: O supreme work of thy maker, whom our hand alone Created, when I bade the rest be born by my word, Behold ye how most beautiful in fertile richness is the grove Served by many riches? All these things shall be given Unto your foods without end, hence let food be sought: Take the granted harvests, and pluck the fruits. Here let secure rest abide in sweet devotion of labor, Enjoying delights in long-lived life. Yet there is in the midst of the wood the tree which ye behold, Bearing in bud the knowledge of right and wrong: From approach to this let the touch be forbidden and restrained Nor let perhaps rash care press upon you to learn What the Teacher forbids: better for the blessed not to know Than that seeking harm: I swear by the world which we made, That if anyone shall take the forbidden fruit from the tree, The crime committed hangs by the peril of death. I speak not of things immense; easy is the custody of right; The keeper also shall live, the violator shall find an end.

These things being premised, three things remain to be resolved in the present Question: First, what is the reason of the law imposed upon the first parents, or for what cause God imposed the law upon them: Second, what is the caution of the same law, that is, what it forbade: Thirdly, finally, what is the sanction of that law, or what punishments it portended to transgressors. Which three will be unfolded in the following Conclusions.

First Conclusion. — THE HOLY FATHERS PROPOSE VARIOUS CAUSES OF THIS INTERDICT, SOME OF WHICH SEEM LESS APPROVABLE.

First indeed seems to be disapproved Theophilus of Antioch, in the second book to Autolycus, where he affirms that the eating of that tree was forbidden for this reason, that Adam, since he was still an infant and unknowing, did not yet perceive the usefulness of that tree: For, he says, during that time he is said to have been still an infant; and therefore less fit to take in that knowledge. For even a little child, when first born, cannot yet properly take food, but is first nourished with milk: then, as age advances, he comes to more solid food: something of this kind, therefore, must have befallen Adam. But this reason can by no means be approved; since we demonstrated above that Adam was endowed by God, from the very beginning of his formation, with surpassing wisdom, and with knowledge both of himself and of all other things.

It profits us therefore to hear first Tertullian, book 2. against Marcion, writing that the law was prescribed to the first parents by God for this reason, that they might live uprightly and justly. For He had not, he says, brought forth man merely unto living, so as not to bring him unto living rightly, that is, with respect to God and His law. To live indeed He had conferred upon him when He made him a living soul; but to live rightly He had enjoined upon him with the help of obedience to the law. — St. Chrysostom, Homily 16. on Genesis, affirms that the fruit was the primary end of that divine commandment, that man might feel himself subject and liable to God as his Lord; and that he ought not to live by his own right and arbitrament, but to obey another's power and command. By that small precept, he says, He wished to show him his dominion over him. Which indeed he straightway explains by an elegant similitude. Just as, he says, some munificent lord, granting to someone ample and magnificent houses to enjoy, wishes to receive not their full price, but only its slight portion, that he may both reserve to himself the entire right of ownership, and that this user may know for certain that he is not the master of the house, but that he has received it by that man's benefit and liberality, to be used by him; so our Lord, since He had committed to man whatsoever is visible, and had assigned to him both a dwelling in Paradise and its delights for the refreshment of his spirit: lest, being little by little carried away sidewise in mind, he should believe that those very things which are seen exist of themselves and rashly, and should think of himself above the measure of his dignity, He forbade him the use of that one tree. — To him accords St. Augustine, lib. 8. De Genesis ad litteram, cap. 13. Finally, he says, by the sinner nothing else is coveted than not to be under the dominion of God, when that is committed in which, lest it be committed, the command alone of the ruler ought to be regarded. And if that alone were regarded, what else would be regarded than the will of God? Why indeed the Lord commanded, He Himself shall see: it is for the servant to do what He commanded, and perhaps for him who merits to ask hereafter why He commanded. But yet, that we may no longer seek the cause of this commandment, if this tree is good, why is it forbidden? If it is bad, why, being bad, did He make it? ... It is therefore in Paradise because it is good, but I will not have thee touch it. Wherefore shall I not touch it? Because I wish thee obedient, not contradicting Me. ... Serve, hear first the command of the Lord, and then learn the counsel of Him who commands: Good is the tree, touch it not. Wherefore? because I am the Lord, and thou art the servant: this is the whole cause. If it is small, dost thou disdain to be a servant: but what profits thee except to be under the Lord? how shalt thou be under the Lord, unless thou be under precept? — St. Cyril of Alexandria teaches that this was the scope of the giving of the law: that man might know himself subject to another, and lest the abundance of so many good things and pleasures make him insolent. To him subscribes Basil of Seleucia, Oration 2. On Adam: That when thou understandest Him forbidding, thou mayest at once know the Bestower, he says: and He suggests to thee the record of that one transgression, from whom are all things. Accords also Procopius in his Commentary on this passage: When God wished, he says, to render man immortal, lest he should attribute that benefit to his own or proper virtue, He acted in this manner: He willed that he should give thanks to Him, from whom he had received not only that he is, but that he is well. To him also He appointed the present life as a palestra, and as it were a lesson of the life to come. — But St. Augustine confirms that that precept was given to Adam for the praise of obedience alone: and thence that the evil of disobedience was known to be so great, since, whereas that tree was not in itself evil and harmful, no other evil existed in the tasting of its fruit besides the evil of disobedience. Nor could it, he says, be better or more diligently commended how great an evil disobedience alone is, since man was made guilty of iniquity for this reason, because he touched the thing against the prohibition, whereas if he had touched it not forbidden, he certainly would not have sinned. Thence lib. 14. De Civit. Dei, cap. 12. he writes: if anyone be asked, as I said (namely, why human nature was so greatly corrupted by the prevarication of Adam), it ought not on that account to be thought that obedience was commended in the precept: which virtue in a rational creature is in a manner the mother of all virtues and their guardian. Inasmuch as it was so made, that to submit itself to Him is profitable for it: but to do its own will, pernicious both to itself and to Him by whom it was created. Therefore concerning the not eating of one kind of food, where so great abundance of others lay at hand, the precept was so brief and to be kept, so brief and to be held in memory; especially since covetousness did not yet resist the will, as happened after the transgression in regard to the punishment: it was judged with so much greater injustice, by how much more easily could the observance have been kept. He adds in book 1. against Faustus the Manichee concerning the Law and the Prophets, chapter 1., that the first man was prohibited from the food of that tree that obedience might be commended, which is the greatest virtue, and, so to speak, the origin and mother of all virtues, in that nature to which it was so given an arbitrium of free will, that nevertheless it must needs live under the power of a better.

— Here must not be passed over the impious cavil and subtlety of Porphyry and other assailants of the Christian Religion, which, the devil suggesting it, they framed thus: The fruit of that tree of knowledge was either good or evil of itself: if good, why forbidden? if evil, why created by God, good and best? To which sophism Severianus of Gabala, Orat. 6., replying, answers that that fruit was truly of its nature most good, nor would it have been evil except from the event, and the eating against the interdict and will of God: but that tree was called of the knowledge of good and evil, because the good or evil of man, namely the continuation or loss of his very happiness, would thence arise; which Severianus illustrates by these examples:

There was called in the desert one fountain of water, Psalm. 80. 6. the water of contradiction: Thou didst prove me at the water of contradiction. Was then the nature of such water such, that it terrified the people into contradicting? Wherefore then Moses, having drunk of it, did not contradict God? Therefore as it was called the water of contradiction, not that it had such a nature, but on account of the thing which happened there. For because the people contradicted there, therefore it was called the water of contradiction. Again, Jacob saw God, as far as seeing was granted to man, and calls the name of the place: the vision of God. The place had not the vision or form of God; but because it had befallen him there, he named the place from it. Another place was called the peace of God. Upon the Angel appearing to Gedeon, seized with fear he said: woe is me, woe is me, I shall die: for I have seen the Angel of God. To whom the Angel: peace be to thee; fear not. And he built, it says, Gideon an altar, and called it: the peace of God. Therefore as the altar itself had not peace, but was the sign of the peace which had befallen him and been given him; just as also the water had not contradiction, but was so called from that which had happened in it: so also the wood had not knowledge, but because whosoever sins, comes to the knowledge of those things in which he sins, it received that name. That I may again speak by example, when sometimes we journey through places infested by robbers, it is customary to say: dreadful are those places. Has the place, I ask, fear? But on account of the robbers dwelling there we so speak. After the same manner, the tree was not of such a nature as to furnish that deadly knowledge itself, but received its name from Adam in that tragedy and sin.

Second Conclusion. — THE EATING ONLY OF THE FRUIT OF THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, BUT NOT THAT OF ITS LIFE, NOR THE TOUCHING OF IT, WAS FORBIDDEN TO THE FIRST PARENTS BY GOD.

This is evident from chap. 2. of Genesis, where God commanded Adam, saying: Of every tree of Paradise eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat. In which words only the eating is provided for and prohibited, not the seeing or touching. Nor does it matter that Eve, speaking to the serpent, Genesis 3, said: Of the fruit of the trees that are in Paradise we eat: but of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of Paradise God hath commanded us not to eat, and not to touch it. For the sacred Interpreters confess that that, not touch it, was added by Eve, that she might the more exaggerate the gravity of the precept: for already that precept had begun to displease them, inwardly corrupted by the persuasion of the serpent. As, says Cajetan, a woman forbidden by her husband to go out of the house answers: it is not permitted me by my husband to carry my foot outside my chamber: exaggerating, namely, the precept of her husband which displeased her: so Eve, exaggerating the divine precept, said that it was not permitted her to touch the fruit of that tree. — And so now truly the devil had crept into the soul of the woman: First indeed by exciting in her the desire of most vain liberty: Secondly by inspiring in her weariness and hatred of that precept. Whence it came to pass that the woman broke out into a false exaggeration of that precept. Whence Rupertus skillfully observes, lib. 3. De Trinitate, cap. 5., that Eve perverted the words of God, whereby He had prescribed the divine commandment, in three ways; first indeed by addition, when she said, not touch it: secondly by diminution, when she said, lest perhaps we die, for she added of her own that perhaps, which God certainly had not said: thirdly finally by mutation, when she said: of the tree that is in the midst of Paradise: for God had said of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: for in the midst of Paradise was also the tree of life, not forbidden to man. Hence Cajetan aptly says: it is gathered that the diabolical poison had crept into the affection and intellect of the woman alike: into the affection indeed, by the displeasure of the precept, whence straightway came forth the exaggeration of its bond and obligation: into the intellect truly by the hesitation about the future punishment, whence came forth that adverb, lest perhaps. — I confess nevertheless that some of the holy Fathers, when they report that law, include the touch also among things forbidden. Thus Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 38. The law, he says, was the precept, both as to which trees they were to use, and which they ought by no means to touch. This same St. Augustine seems to prove, praised in the preceding Conclusion, in Psalmum 70., number 7. It is confirmed also by St. Alcimus Avitus in the book On the beginning of the world, where he takes those two, to eat and to touch, for the same thing: while he represents God commanding thus:

From approach to this let the touch be forbidden and restrained.

And straightway he introduces the woman answering the serpent:

This alone is the tree of the midst of the wood, which thou seest, Forbidden for food: for us to touch only These fruits is impious.

Whence certain ones think that in truth the touch, as well as the eating, of that fruit was forbidden to Adam; but that it was omitted before by Moses, and at length restored in the colloquy of the woman with the serpent; thus thinks Eugubinus: it is nevertheless not consistent to judge that Moses did not report that precept of God entire as it was, for neither did God, when He rebuked man for the violated precept, rebuke him for the touch, not for it, but only for the eating.

There are those who think that the law was prescribed by God at first to Adam alone, and that Eve, reporting it, added that the touch of that fruit was also forbidden, that she might impose upon Eve the greater caution, and turn her farther away from the danger of violating the law, as St. Ambrose observes, chap. 12. of the book De Paradiso: Most think, he says, that this saying is not the woman's, but Adam's: Adam said this to the woman, while he wished to make her more cautious, that he might add that God had commanded: neither touch it. For we have it that Adam alone, not Eve, received the commandment from God, for the woman was not yet formed. But I judge it better to say, with St. Ambrose himself in the same place above on that word: Touch not God had not said, but ye shall not eat: but then the fall begins to be the principle. For she who raves either added something superfluous, or, adding of her own, understood the commandment of God to be half-complete. The present series of reading therefore teaches us that we ought neither to take away anything from the divine words, nor to add.

Third Conclusion. — THE PUNISHMENT SANCTIONED BY GOD FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE AFORESAID COMMANDMENT WAS ANNOUNCED TO BE DEATH, NOT OF THE SOUL ONLY, BUT ALSO OF THE BODY. This Conclusion embraces three parts: First, that death was announced in vindication of the violated precept: Secondly, that that threatening is not to be understood only of the spiritual death of the soul: Thirdly, that it is to be taken chiefly for the death of the body.

The first is evident from chap. 2. of Genesis, where God, prohibiting the eating of the forbidden fruit, said to Adam: In whatsoever day thou shalt eat thereof, thou shalt die the death: in which words, says Pererius lib. 4. cap. 1., God announced to Adam the most certain destruction of death, wishing namely to restrain him, by threats of this kind and the peril of punishment, as it were by a certain bridle. For men are moved chiefly by three things to observe the laws laid upon them: First, love and reverence of the Legislator, whose precepts, on account of the great benefits received from Him, or on account of His surpassing wisdom, authority, and legitimate empire over them, they acknowledge themselves bound to obey: Next, the hope of rewards promised to those who keep the law: Finally, fear of punishments, to which transgressors and violators of laws are to be subjected and chastised: and this last was expressed in those words: For in whatsoever day thou shalt eat thereof, thou shalt die the death. For fear has greater force for moving our souls than hope, threat rather than promise of reward, pain lastly than pleasure. — But why God did not threaten Adam the punishments of hell, far graver and more to be feared than death itself, a threefold reason can be rendered: First, that the fear of death affects man more vehemently than fear of hell, because the former is perceived by the senses and human feeling, while the latter consists in faith alone and revelation. Secondly, God wished to set before Adam that punishment which, if he violated the precept, necessarily both he himself and his posterity would undergo: although afterwards he should repent, and, penitent for his sin, return to the grace of God: but such a punishment was the death of the body, which neither Adam nor any of his posterity were able to escape; while the punishments of hell both the first parents themselves and very many of his posterity escape. Thirdly finally, St. Augustine brings forward lib. 13. De Civit. Dei, cap. 23. the reason, namely that the promise of eternal felicity, and the threatening of the punishments of hell, were to be openly revealed only in the New Testament. Therefore, he says, God threatened Adam with death, but said nothing of the second death, because He willed it hidden on account of the dispensation of the New Testament, wherein the second death is most openly declared, that first that death, which is common to all, may be weighed, from having dined upon that sin which was made common to all in one: but the second death certainly is not common to all, on account of those who according to purpose are called saints... whom the grace of God through the Mediator liberated from the second death.

The second part is also evident, namely that that threatening can be interpreted of the death of the soul: For there are two lives, says St. Augustine in Psalmum 70., one of the body: the other of the soul: as the life of the body is the soul: so the life of the soul is God. As if the soul depart, the body dies: so the soul dies, if it desert God. That the aforesaid threatening of God is to be understood of this death of the soul St. Gregory the Pope proves, lib. 6. Epistle 31. For if, he says, the soul of Adam, who first sinned, did not die in sin: how was it said to him concerning the forbidden tree: in whatsoever day ye shall eat thereof, ye shall die the death? And behold Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden tree, and yet afterwards lived in their flesh more than nine hundred years. It is clear therefore that he did not die in the flesh. If therefore he did not die in the soul, God uttered a false sentence concerning him, who said: that on whatever day he should eat, he would die. To him assent Origen, Homily 15. on Genesis: Rupertus lib. 2. De victoria Verbi Dei, cap. 2., and many others, who believe that God threatened the death of the soul. — But that not the death of the soul alone was designated in those words is hence evident, because sin must be judged not the infliction of punishment, but the demerit of that punishment; since punishment is such a thing as the judge himself imposes upon the transgressor of the law, not one of which he makes himself guilty: but the death of the soul, or sin, each one brings upon himself without the will of the judge; and accordingly the death of the soul was not solely, nor chiefly signified in those words. Which indeed is confirmed from the Council of Trent, Sess. 5. Canon 1., where anathema is pronounced against him who shall assert that Adam did not lose sanctity and justice by sin; nor incur, through the offense of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God; and therefore death, which God had before threatened him. He distinguishes therefore the death of the soul, and the loss of justice, from that death itself which God had threatened.

Therefore the third part is proved, namely that that death announced was chiefly the death of the body; which indeed Adam suffered on that very day on which he sinned; not that he truly died, but that he was made subject to mortality. For although he was mortal by the constitution of his nature; nevertheless by reason of the gift of original justice he would in fact never have died anywhere if he had kept it; but it being lost, he was straightway made subject to mortality. For on that day, says St. Augustine, lib. 13 De Civitate Dei, cap. 23., he was changed to the worse, and nature vitiated, and by the most just separation from the tree of life, the necessity even of bodily death was made in them: with which necessity we are born. Wherefore the Apostle does not say: the body indeed shall die because of sin: but he says indeed: it is dead because of sin. So in book nine De Genesis ad litteram, cap. 10., where he uses the same testimony of the Apostle, and says that a certain deadly disease as it were invaded human bodies: For when they transgressed the precept, he says, in their members as it were some lethal sickness, death itself was conceived, etc. For what else do we begin, not to say being born, but altogether conceived, than a certain sickness, wherein we are doubtless to die? For it is not so necessary to die of the disease itself for him who has become hydropic, or dysenteric, or elephantiasic, as for him who has begun to have this body, in which all men are by nature children of wrath: because this He did not cause except by the prevarication [of the first]. — On this likewise Chrysostom must be heard, Homily 16. on Genesis. Although, he says, they lived for the space of many years, yet from the moment they heard that, earth thou art, and unto earth shalt thou return, and received the sentence of death, they became mortal: and from that time someone might deservedly say them to be dead. But Scripture signifying this spoke thus: on whatsoever day ye shall eat, ye shall die the death. As if it said: ye shall receive this sentence, that ye may be mortal henceforth: for as in human judgments, after sentence has been pronounced upon the accused, that his head be cut off, and he is straightway led to prison: although he remain there long, he is none the better already dead, and lives extinct, inasmuch as he has already undergone the very sentence of mortality: so also they from that very day from which the sentence of mortality was pronounced upon them, although they survived for a long time, were already dead by the sentence itself. — Or it must be said with St. Augustine lib. 13. De Civit. Dei, cap. 12., that God signified by the name of death every death that can happen to man, that is, of the soul as well as of the body: as well temporal as eternal: Since therefore it is asked, he says, what death God threatened to the first men if they transgressed the commandment received, and kept not the duty of obedient ones, whether of the soul or of the body, or of the whole man, or that which is called the second: The answer must be, all: for the first consists of two, the second of all together. For as the whole earth consists of many lands, and the whole Church of many Churches, so the whole death of all: since the first consists of two; one of the soul, the other of the body: that the first may be the death of the whole man, when the soul suffers penalties without God and without the body for a time: the second truly when the soul suffers eternal punishments without God together with the body. When therefore He said first to that man whom He had placed in Paradise; concerning the forbidden food, on whatsoever day ye shall eat thereof, ye shall die the death; that threatening embraced not only the former part of the first death, wherein the soul is deprived of God, nor only the latter, wherein the body is deprived of the soul; nor only that whole first death itself, wherein the soul separated both from God and from the body is punished: but whatsoever of death there is even to the last, which is called the second, and than which there is none later. In which words St. Augustine distinguishes a fourfold death; one of the soul and temporal, when the soul by sinning is separated from God; another of the body, and temporal, when the soul is separated from the body by decease: A third, which embraces both, namely the separation of the soul from God and from the body, as happens in the death of the reprobate: Fourthly finally, that whereby after the day of judgment soul and body shall be separated from God, which death is called second and last.

Notandum 1. That although Adam and Eve were guilty of violating only one divine commandment, this transgression nevertheless seems to have had various sins mingled in it. For in the first place Eve stood guilty of a fivefold crime, as may be gathered from those words of Genesis, chap. 3: And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold, and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband. She saw, I say, wherein there appears in Eve a certain inert idleness: namely, withdrawn from the contemplation of divine things, with wandering eyes she ranged about Paradise and its enclosure, and what was outside Paradise. Wherefore St. Bernard justly censures her in the treatise On the Steps of Humility: "Thou," he says, "intent upon another thing, meanwhile it steals secretly upon thee, creeping into thy heart; it addresses thee soothingly, by its flatteries it overcomes thy reason, by falsehood it allays thy fear, saying: No, thou shalt not die. It takes care whilst it whets thy appetite; it sharpens curiosity whilst it suggests cupidity; at length it offers what is forbidden, takes away what is granted: it holds out the apple and filches away Paradise: it labors with deadly venom, bringing forth things doomed to perish and beings destined to die: salvation perishes, yet the birth does not cease: we are born, we die: wherefore we are born to die, because we first die of knowing." — Second, Eve's vice was a certain vain curiosity: for she saw, says the sacred Text, that the tree was fair to the eyes, gazing upon it with her eyes more curiously than was fitting. The third was titillating pleasure, namely in seeing that the tree was good to eat. The fourth was a certain vanity, for she saw that the tree was delightful to behold, or as the Hebrew and Greek sound, desirable to be understood or contemplated: whereby indeed she perceived that the eating of that fruit could conduce to the participation and attainment of divine knowledge and contemplation. Finally, the fifth was a certain excessive cruelty toward her husband; whereby indeed she drew him into a share of her crime: for when, having eaten the fruit, she saw herself stripped and deprived of the divine gifts of innocence, and foreboded that she would soon be cast out of Paradise; lest she should be wretched and wander solitary, she led her husband into a share of the crime, and gave to her husband, who did eat.

Notandum 2. From the Seraphic Doctor, in book 2, distinction 22, article 1, question 1.

The sins of Eve can otherwise be detected and assigned, namely pride, avarice, and gluttony: for, he says, pride is nothing other than an immoderate appetite for excellence; avarice is nothing other than an immoderate appetite for sufficiency; gluttony is nothing other than an immoderate appetite for food and drink that refreshes pleasantly. The devil, therefore, considering this to be the way to precipitate the woman into fault; first promised the excellence of dignity: You shall be as Gods. Second, he subjoined an abundance of knowledge: knowing good and evil. Lastly, he held out the experience of sweetness, when he showed the tree beautiful to see, and sweet to eat. Since, therefore, the woman consented to the diabolical suggestion; therefore first, in appetiting to be as God, there was pride: then, in appetiting to know good and > evil which she ought not, and to know more than she ought, there was avarice. Lastly, in experiencing the sweetness of the forbidden tree, there was gluttony: and herein she was guilty of transgression, and disobedience was involved in the fault. And thus it is clear that the sin of the woman was begun in pride, made progress in avarice, and reached consummation in gluttony. It is also evident that it was disordered with respect to the triple power, namely with respect to the irascible, while she appetited high things; with respect to the rational, while she appetited to know hidden things; with respect to the concupiscible, while she wished to taste delights. Whence from that sin sprang the roots of all sins.

Notandum 3. In the sinful act by which Adam stood as an open enemy, there also appear several circumstances of different sins. First indeed, an immoderate complacency toward his wife, and a disordered love, whereby he despised the divine commandment, so as to obey his wife persuading him to eat of the forbidden fruit. Second, a certain shameless avidity, and pestilential curiosity of experiencing what might lie hidden in that fruit which God had so strictly interdicted to him, and what he would obtain by tasting it. Third, there was a certain doubt concerning the truth of the divine threat: for when he had seen that Eve, after tasting the forbidden fruit, had not died, he stood in doubt about the meaning of those words of God: In whatsoever day thou shalt eat thereof, thou shalt die the death: namely, whether those words contained a definitive sentence, or only a comminatory one. Fourth, there was the sin of disobedience: for by eating the fruit forbidden him by God, he was disobedient; wherefore St. Paul, disputing of Adam's sin in Romans 5, seems to acknowledge nothing other than disobedience: For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just. Finally, the fifth sin of Adam was of gluttony: for seeing the beauty of the apple, and hearing from his wife that it was of most delicious savor, he most ardently desired the eating of it. Whence Tertullian, in the book Against the Jews, chapter 3, elegantly says: "Adam had received from God the law not to taste of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, being to die if he should taste... Nor any longer grasping the things of the spirit, he yielded more easily to the flesh than to God: he obeyed food rather than precept; he sold his health to his appetite. He ate at last, and perished; otherwise safe, had he been willing to fast from one little tree. I hold, therefore, from the beginning, gluttony to be a homicide, deserving to be punished with the torments and penalties of hunger." These things being premised, it must be resolved in the present Question, which of these sins the first Parents chiefly committed in transgressing the divine law prescribed to them.

First Conclusion. — THE FIRST MORTAL SIN OF EVE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN A DISORDERED LOVE OF HER OWN SELF, WHEREBY WITH PROUD MIND SHE APPETITED DIVINE EXCELLENCE, AND GAVE CREDIT TO THE DEMON PROMISING THROUGH THE SERPENT: you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.

It is gathered from St. Augustine, lib. 14. De Civit. Dei, cap. 13., where he writes: "But they began to be evil in secret, that they might fall into open disobedience: for that great work could never have been brought about, unless an evil will had preceded it. Now, what could be the beginning of an evil will, but pride? For the beginning of all sin is pride. But what is pride, but the appetite of a perverse height? For perverse height is, deserting Him to whom the soul ought to adhere as its principle, to become in some sort one's own principle. This happens when one is too well pleased with oneself, when one falls away from that unchangeable good which ought to please one more than oneself. That falling away is spontaneous: for if the will had remained steadfast in the love of the higher and unchangeable good, by which it was illumined that it might see, and kindled that it might love, it would not have turned thence to self-complacency, and have grown dark and cold thereby, so that either the woman believed the serpent to have said those things: or the man preferred his wife's will to God's commandment, and thought himself a venial transgressor of the precept, if he did not desert the companion of his life in the fellowship of sin. Therefore that evil work, that is, that transgression, was not done, that they might grow by eating the forbidden food, except by those who were already evil." In which words St. Augustine observes three things especially: First indeed, that the eating of the forbidden fruit was not the primary sin of Eve and Adam, but that they were vitiated interiorly before they leaped into open crime. Which he confirms moreover, writing:

Manifestly therefore, in the open sin, where was done what God had forbidden to be done, the devil had not caught man, unless he had already begun to be pleased with himself: hence he delighted in that which was said, you shall be as Gods.

Second, that that interior depravation was wrought through an internal complacency in his own perfections. Third, that from that complacency there leaped forth into affection the pride, and it came to pass that Eve emulated divine knowledge: hence followed the eating of the forbidden fruit, and the open transgression of the imposed law.

This conclusion the Doctor proves in book 2, distinction 21, qu. 2, num. 20, showing namely that the first mortal sin, both of Eve and of Adam, was not the formal act of pride: for if that desire, whereby Eve appetited the similitude of God, had been pride, it would above all have been that species of pride which is called presumption: but this is false, for presumption is the love of concupiscence, whereby one covets to excel others and to preside over them: but this love is preceded by a disordered complacency in one's own perfections; for no one desires to preside over others, save because he esteems himself worthier and excelling: therefore, etc. — It is confirmed: because according to all, pride properly so called is the love of one's own excellence, whereby one covets or wills some preeminence either above oneself or above others. Above oneself indeed, if he desire that his perfections be accounted more excellent than they really are; or if he refuse to hold that subjection to another which he is bound to hold. Above others truly, if he covet to surpass others beyond his due state. But it is certain that the primary sin of Eve had none of these affections; for she first took disordered complacency in her own proper perfections, before she concupisced that similitude of divine science, and strove after an undue perfection for herself: therefore truly her first sin was not the formal act of pride, but an excessive complacency in her perfections, and a disordered love of herself; whence, as from a vitiated root, pride germinated. This the following will set forth more evidently.

Second Conclusion. — THE FIRST MORTAL SIN OF ADAM WAS A DISORDERED LOVE OF HIS WIFE. This is the Doctor's doctrine in book 2, distinction 21, qu. 2, num. 2. And he proves it, because the first sin of Adam was not the love of concupiscence, since this presupposes the love of friendship; and indeed a disordered one, if the love of concupiscence was disordered: therefore the first sin of Adam was the love of friendship, either of himself or of another. Of himself alone: but that sin was not from an immoderate love of self, as was the first sin of the Angel: for the Angel, since by his essence he understands himself first, thence comes to know and love himself before other things: but man, since he understands other things before himself, because he understands nothing save dependently on phantasms; thence loves other things before himself with the love of friendship. I confess nevertheless that this proof presses but little according to the Doctor's principles; for the Doctor contends that man in the state of innocence would not depend in knowing upon phantasms: and thus he could understand both himself first and other objects. Then, although Adam had known other things before himself, it is certain that he also knew himself: but he need not have sinned when he first knew other things; nor is it likely that he sinned by disorderly loving Eve as soon as he knew her: therefore since he could know himself before he disorderly loved Eve, he could likewise before that disorderly love himself. Finally, even if this reasoning had any force, it would not prove that Eve had previously sinned by a disordered love of another, which militates against the Doctor himself. — I should say therefore with Poncius, that the Doctor's mind is, that the first sin of Adam was a disordered love of his wife: not because it could not also be a disordered love of self: but because since he could have disorderly loved another object, nor is it established that he so first loved himself, it is to be inferred that he first disorderly loved another object rather than himself.

The conclusion is proved thus: Adam could pursue his wife with disordered love before himself, and as far as can be gathered from Scripture, he de facto disorderly loved his wife before himself: therefore it must be said that his first sin was a disordered love of his wife. The antecedent is proved as to the second part: for it stands from Scripture that Adam did not transgress the divine commandment prescribed to him before Eve enticed him to eat of the forbidden fruit: but it is altogether likely that he would not have admitted so great a wickedness, save on account of a disordered love of his wife: therefore, etc. — It is confirmed from St. Augustine, lib. 11. De Civit. Dei, cap. 11. "It must be believed," he says, "that this befell through the woman's own error, that the one believed the one, the man the woman, the spouse the spouse, when credence was given to the transgressor against the law of God, not as believing one speaking truth, but as obeying social fellowship." He adds in book 11, On Genesis according to the Letter, chap. 12: "Adam would not sadden Eve, whom he believed able to pine away without his solace, if she were alienated from his nourishment of soul, and utterly to perish through that discord: not indeed overcome by concupiscence of the flesh, which he had not yet felt in his members, but by a certain friendly benevolence, which often comes to pass that God may be offended, lest man be the friend of a mimic: which, though he ought not to have done, the most just issue of the divine sentence declared." — It stands therefore from St. Augustine that the first sin of Adam was a disordered love of his wife, not indeed concupiscence, which had not yet been excited in his members, but friendship or conjugal benevolence: for he loved her with supreme love: 1. because she was supremely lovable on account of the excellent ornaments of body and mind: 2. because she was the only woman in the whole world: 3. because she was his wife, of whom he was to receive offspring, and propagate the whole human race: 3. because she had been given to him by God as companion: finally, 4. because she was his, formed out of his flesh and bones. Wherefore, that he might not sadden his darling, he made light of the precept of God, and ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree, which Eve had offered to him.

Repugnance of the Thomist. From those sayings of St. Augustine it is rightly inferred indeed, that Adam before he ate had disorderly loved his wife: not however that the first sin was that love: since in other places he more often affirms that Adam sinned by pride, namely in appetiting Divinity. Thus treating of Psalm 64, on those words, which I have not taken away, then shall I blush, he says: "the first Parents broke by worshipping Divinity, and lost felicity." The same Bernard teaches, sermon 1 On Advent, in these words: "You have heard, Fathers, what was read last night in Isaias, the Lord saying: thy princes are faithless, or as the other rendering has it, disobedient, companions of thieves. Truly our princes, Adam and Eve, the beginnings of our progeny, disobedient and companions of the thief, attempted to steal by the counsel of the serpent, nay of the devil's serpent, that which belongs to the Son of God." — On the contrary, by the same reason by which they expound the foresaid contexts of St. Augustine praised by us, by the same reason we can reply that from the sayings of St. Augustine adduced by them it can be gathered that Adam did commit the sin of pride before eating: although that sin was not his first sin, but the disordered love, once admitted, whereby he was afterwards able to be proud. Which certainly suits the opinion of St. Augustine himself: otherwise he would not aptly enough say that Adam sinned compelled not by carnal concupiscence, but by friendly benevolence. For although together with pride this benevolence concurred to induce him, nevertheless if pride preceded, his fall ought rather to be assigned to pride than to that benevolence: wherefore he ought to make mention of pride rather than of that benevolence. Whence because he first made mention of this, assigning the cause of the transgression, it is more likely that Augustine judged the first sin to have been that disordered love of benevolence toward his wife. Whence when either Augustine himself, or the other holy Fathers affirm that Adam sinned by pride, it does not follow that his first sin was pride: nay, as I said, since it is not admitted that he sinned by pride before the matter had been proposed to him by the woman, and since the devil himself did not dare to tempt him before he deceived the woman: it is a sign that he could not even be induced by the woman to sin from that motive, unless he had first sinned by disorderly loving her; which sin once committed, other sins could easily be persuaded. — The Seraphic Doctor confirms this in book 2, dist. 21, art. 1, qu. 2: if Adam had first sinned by pride, above all because he appetited the similitude of God: but it is not so: for if, he says, Adam appetited to be as God: then either suggesting by the woman, or suggesting by the serpent. Not suggesting by the serpent, because Adam himself complains not of the serpent, but of the woman: The woman whom thou gavest me, etc. If suggesting by the woman: therefore as the woman was deceived by the serpent, so the man by the woman. Thus therefore the woman said: The serpent seduced me: so the man would have said: The woman deceived me: but this he did not say, but said: The woman gave me, etc. But if you say that it was so although Scripture does not express it, this appears simply improbable: for if the woman had said: Eat, for you shall be as God, whereas she herself had eaten... and without doubt was not as God, no reason seems probable why the man should have believed her.

You ask 1. Whether the first Parents, having fallen also into heresy, suffered the loss of faith?

I answer. Many of the holy Fathers affirm the same. Above all Tertullian, book 2 Against Marcion, chap. 12, constantly asserts: "Who will doubt to pronounce this very thing of delinquency heresy, when he admitted his election rather than the divine sentence? Unless because he never said to his son: thou hast not prudently defined me: he confessed the seduction, he did not conceal the seductress: rudely admonished, he was a heretic." This same St. Ambrose indicates, Epistle 33 to Marcellina his sister, in which he introduces God thus addressing the Arian: "thou knowest that thou wast born, because thou hast lost the good garments of faith." To them assents St. Augustine, book 11 Of the City of God, chap. 17: "This therefore they knew," he says, "which it would have been happier for them not to know, if believing God and obeying Him, they had not committed that which would compel you to experience infidelity and disobedience, whereby ye die," etc. Finally this same St. Prosper expressly affirms in the Chapters of the Ungrateful, dub. 3: "What is it," he says, "that nature would not have its faith snatched away, since unless Adam had omitted the first, he would lack none of the other goods? For Adam believing the devil, did not believe God." And shortly after: "How should faith lost in Adam be found in any of his sons, unless the same Spirit, who worketh all in all, infused it?" And in the book Against the Collator, chap. 9: "Adam lost faith, lost continence, lost charity."

To all these subscribes St. Fulgentius, book 2 On the Incarnation and Grace of Christ, c. 22, where speaking of Adam he says: "He lost faith, losing faith he lost life boldly(?), for it is written: He that believeth not God shall not be protected by Him."

This answer is confirmed by all those holy Fathers who affirm that Adam was deceived. So St. Ignatius Martyr in the Epistle to the Trallians: "The devil," he says, "seduced Adam, the father of our race, through Eve." Irenaeus, book 3 Against Heresies, chap. 36: "By the other," he says, "he was seduced under pretense of immortality, immediately seized with fear, he hid himself," etc. Hilary, Canon 3 on Matthew: "The serpent had enticed Adam, and by deceiving had led him into error." Epiphanius Against Heresies, num. 50, disputing: "the devil himself," he says, "by a lie deceived Eve and Adam, saying one thing for another, and showing friendship with the Creator, when he said: you shall be as Gods, and you shall by no means die." Augustine explaining Psalm 68, on those words: what I took not away, I then paid again: "Who," he says, "took away? That one. Who took away first? That very one who seduced Adam. How did the devil take away? I will set my seat in the North, and I shall be like the Most High. He coveted to be that which he had not received, and with the chalice of his own pride he offered drink to him whom he wished to deceive: Taste, he says, and you shall be as Gods: they coveted Divinity, they lost felicity." St. Leo subscribes, in the sermon On the Prophecy of the Lord: "The devil boasted," he says, "that man, deceived by his fraud, had lacked the divine gifts: and stripped of the dower of immortality had undergone the hard sentence of death." And in sermon 4: "The first man, because he believed rashly and unhappily the envious deceiver, and acquiescing in the counsels of pride preferred to seize the increase of the proposed honor rather than to merit it."

They will say. He is not to be accounted an unbeliever and heretic, who does not pertinaciously in spirit resist by sinning the truth divinely revealed to him: but neither Adam nor Eve resisted pertinaciously by sinning the truth divinely revealed to them: therefore, etc. The major is evident, for heresy is an error of faith contrary, together with pertinacity. Whence St. Augustine, Epistle 162, says: "If any defend a false and perverse opinion with no pertinacious animosity, and are ready to be corrected, and seek the truth with all solicitude, they are not to be reckoned among heretics." And book 1 On Baptism against the Donatists, chap. 16, assigning the difference between two men believing the same error, but with this discrimination, that one be in the Church, the other outside the Church, and baptized by heretics, speaks thus: "Let us constitute two persons in this manner: e.g. let one of them think of Christ as Photinus opined, and be baptized in his heresy outside the communion of the Catholic Church; but let the other think this same thing, yet be baptized in the Catholic Church, thinking it itself to be the Catholic faith: him I call not yet a heretic, unless he shall prefer to resist when the doctrine of the Catholic faith has been manifested to him:" but neither Adam nor Eve were pertinacious in sin, nor rebels against the divine reprehension; nay each excused his own deed, he accusing his true companion, she accusing the serpent as the instigator of the perpetrated crime: therefore, etc.

I distinguish the major. If one does not resist the truth with pertinacity, when the truth to which he resists is not known to him, nor is he certain that it has been revealed by God, he is not to be accounted a heretic — I concede: otherwise — I deny. But to the first Parents of mankind it stood most openly known that God had threatened them with death if they should eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree: therefore giving faith to the devil saying: By no means shall ye die, etc., it follows that they denied it to Him who had said: From the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat; for in whatsoever hour thou shalt eat, thou shalt die the death.

Truly I do not deny these things to be true of the woman: but I cannot be induced to believe that Adam suffered loss of faith; for he neither heard the serpent falsely promising, nor was he seduced, as St. Paul testifies, as will stand within. Nay the Seraphic Doctor in book 2, dist. 22, qu. 1 denies even Eve to have fallen into heresy: for answering to the first argument he says: "it is not to be conceded that the woman sinned the sin of infidelity, unless infidelity be taken very largely." Therefore what is objected, that the woman said: perhaps, it can be said that perhaps is there a note of event, not of doubting: but because the Master expressly says that it is a note of doubting, therefore it can otherwise be said, that truly the woman did not doubt that what the Lord had said was true: but she doubted about this, namely how the Lord understood it; whether namely he understood it of bodily death, or spiritual, or in any other manner whatever: and that doubting was neither punishment nor fault; but a certain nescience, which afforded a way to the tempting devil.

You ask 2. How is that saying of St. Paul to be understood, 1 Timothy, chap. 2: Adam first was formed, then Eve: and Adam was not seduced, but the woman being seduced was in the transgression?

I answer. There are various interpretations of this saying. For some state the first with St. Jerome, book 1 Against Jovinian, and Chrysostom in the exposition of that passage. Adam is said by Paul not to have been deceived, because he was not seduced by the serpent as Eve was: for Adam did not sin seduced by the serpent, but indulging the will and desire of Eve. "It is not of Adam and Eve," says Chrysostom, "he was seduced by the woman, who had been given to him by God, and joined to him by fellowship of nature: but she was deceived by the beast, which had been devoted to the servitude of man. Paul therefore, in comparison with the woman, says Adam was not deceived: for she was seduced by an irrational creature: but he by a free woman." Several teach with St. Augustine, book 11 On Genesis according to the Letter, last chapter, that Adam was said not to have been seduced because he was not the cause why the woman sinned. "Nor is it in vain," says St. Augustine, "that the Apostle says, Adam first was formed, but the woman being seduced was in the transgression, that is, that through her the man might transgress. For he calls him also the transgressor, where he says: in the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him to come: yet he denies that he was seduced. For being interrogated, he did not say, the woman whom thou gavest me seduced me, and I did eat; but she gave me, he says, of the tree, and I did eat: but she said, the serpent seduced me. So must Solomon, of such great wisdom, be believed to have thought there was any utility in the worship of idols? But he could not resist the love of women drawing him to that evil, doing what he knew ought not to be done, lest he should sadden those mortal delights to which he was bound, and in which he melted away. So also Adam, after the seduced woman had eaten of the prohibited tree, and given to him, that they might eat together, would not sadden her, whom he believed able to pine away without his solace, if she were alienated from his mind, and utterly to perish through that discord."

Note 1. The gravity of a sin can be gathered either from the species of the sin itself: thus adultery is graver than simple fornication; or from the intention of the sinner's affection, as if one be seized with more vehement zeal and more intense affection for sinning; or from the effect of the sin, that is, from the harm which follows upon it; thus homicide is graver than theft: or from the various circumstances joined to the sin, which amplify its gravity, such as the quality of the person, place, time, and other things of that kind. Now it is certain that if the species of the sin of our first Parents be considered, it was not the most grievous of all; for it would have been graver had they sinned by blasphemy, infidelity, or by contempt or hatred of God. Nor should I hesitate to say that Judas, and all heresiarchs, such as Arius, Luther, Calvin, etc., according to the species of sin, sinned more gravely than Adam: for he sinned against a positive law; they, however, at once against both positive and natural law: he violated a precept concerning an indifferent thing; these, concerning things evil in themselves. Therefore the gravity of the sin of the first parents must be inquired into on another ground, whereby it may be judged the most grievous of all sins.

Note 2. From the Seraphic Doctor Bonaventure, book 2, distinction 21, article 3, question 3, one sin is said to be graver than another in three ways: either on account of greater concupiscence: or on account of greater ingratitude: or on account of greater corruption. If the first is considered, it is certain that Adam's sin was neither the greatest absolutely, nor the greatest of all human sins; for the devil sinned out of greater concupiscence; and also many sons of Adam sin out of greater concupiscence than did the first Parent. But if a sin is called greater in the second way, namely as regards ingratitude, then also Adam's sin was not the greatest absolutely; because the devil sinned out of greater ingratitude, since he perceived more good things in his creation, and fell from a more sublime state: it was nevertheless the greatest of all human sins, because he stood in a nobler and higher state than any of his descendants who fell into sin. There remains, therefore, to be seen whether Adam's sin was the greatest by reason of injury.

Note 3. That although Cajetan, expounding those words of Genesis chapter 3, The woman took of the fruit of the tree, and did eat, affirms Eve's first sin to have been the least, both from its root, that is, the affection of liberty; and from its reason for sinning, namely the appetite for divine similitude; and from the thing desired, which was the knowledge of good and evil; and from the species of the exterior act, which was to eat the fruit beautiful to the eyes and sweet to the taste; and from the cause of the sinning, namely the seduction of the serpent; and finally from the condition of the sinner, because she was a woman, and therefore of the weaker sex for resisting the devil: nevertheless, if the sins of both parents be compared with one another, it is certain that Eve's sin was by far graver in some respect than Adam's sin, as will appear.

Two things, therefore, must be resolved in this Question: First, whether and how the sin of each first Parent was the gravest of all human sins: Second, which of the two, Adam or Eve, sinned more gravely.

First Conclusion. — The sin of the first Parents was not the gravest of all human sins by reason of intrinsic malice, much less only by reason of injury and ingratitude.

This is common among Theologians, and the Subtle Doctor proves it thus in book 2, distinction 22, question 2, n. 3: the gravity of a sin is gathered either from its being opposed to a more intense or more perfect goodness, or from its being against a more necessary goodness, that is, against that which is commanded by more precepts: but from neither head was the sin of the first Parents graver than all human sins. Not indeed from its being opposed to a more perfect goodness: since the perfection of divine love is more excellent than obedience; for greater than all virtues is charity; therefore it is graver to hate God than not to obey Him. Nor yet from its being against a more necessary goodness, or one commanded by more precepts, because indeed they violated the single precept prescribed to them not to eat of the forbidden fruit: but sins, says the Doctor, which are committed by Adam's posterity against the ten precepts of the Decalogue, are sins against which are commanded more precepts, and which are to be observed by the law of nature: therefore that sin was not the gravest of all.

He proves, secondly: Adam's sin was chiefly an inordinate love of his wife: but that love of itself was not contrary to the precept of loving God, which is the greatest, except in the manner in which other sins are opposed to this precept: nor is it even against the second precept of loving one's neighbor so plainly as hatred of one's neighbor is: for who doubts that it is graver to hate one's neighbor than to love him with excess? Therefore, etc.

It is confirmed. Blasphemy is a graver sin as regards intrinsic species than the inordinate love wherewith Adam loved Eve, and than his eating of the forbidden fruit: since the former is against the precept of the natural law and of the first table, whereby God is commanded to be loved and honored: the latter is only against the positive precept of obedience and love of neighbor: therefore it follows that Adam's sin was less grave than very many sins of his posterity; and deservedly does the Doctor infer in the same place, that had Adam been damned for that sin, he would have suffered a lesser punishment than many who are damned.

The Seraphic Doctor proves this truth with a fourfold argument. First, it is a lesser sin that is remissible than one irremissible: but that sin was remissible, as has been proven above: yet many sins are irremissible: therefore, etc. Secondly, graver is a sin which can by no means be excused, than one which admits some excuse: but the sin of the first Parents admits some excuse, in this that it was committed at another's instigation: but sin against the Holy Ghost admits no color of excuse: therefore that sin was not the most grievous sin. Thirdly, so much the graver is a sin, the more it proceeds from greater concupiscence: but in the first Parents there reigned the least concupiscence and perversity of will, since their nature was pure and sound: therefore it seems that that transgression arising from disobedience was not the greatest. Fourthly, graver is a sin which is against nature, and reason, and divine institution, than one which is only against a divine command: but the sin of the first Parents, which followed upon that temptation, was neither altogether against nature, nor against reason, but only against the divine institution: for neither did nature, nor reason, of itself dictate that of that tree one should not eat. Yet there are many sins which are against nature, and reason, and divine institution, which we call sins against nature: therefore it does not seem that that transgression of the first Parents was the greatest of all sins.

The second part is proven, namely that the sin of the first Parents was the gravest by reason of injury and harm, from what follows: for a greater injury, says the Seraphic Doctor, can be considered either intensively or extensively. Speaking intensively, Adam's sin was indeed not of the greatest injury; because it did not deprave his will as many sins do. But speaking extensively, that sin was of the greatest injury, because no sin exists which harmed so many persons, and passed through so many, as that sin which was committed: for from the primal temptation that harm was not proper to the sinners alone, but common to the whole human race: for those first Parents by their fall and ruin dragged down all their descendants, as many as were thereafter and ever shall be, into the destruction of sin and death. Wherefore St. Paul weighing this great harm in chapter 5 of Romans, says: By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. Gravest, therefore, was that sin, if you consider the harm consequent upon it, that is, the loss of so many goods never thereafter to be recovered, and the necessity of so many and such great evils, which that sin brought upon the whole human race.

There also aggravates Adam's sin, that he excelled in wisdom and in the grace of God, and had no inclination whatsoever toward evil: wherefore so much the greater was his iniquity in sinning, as greater was in him the facility of not sinning: whence St. Augustine lib. 14. De Civit. Dei, cap. 15. If anyone thinks the damnation of Adam too severe or unjust, he assuredly knows not how to measure how great was the iniquity in sinning, where so great was the facility of not sinning. Which indeed he elegantly declares by contraries, namely by comparison with the obedience of Christ the Lord: As, he says, the obedience of Christ was so much the more glorious because He became obedient unto death: so the disobedience of the first man was the more detestable, because he became disobedient unto death. For then great is the punishment proposed for disobedience, and the thing commanded easy by the Creator: who shall sufficiently declare how great an evil it is not to obey in an easy matter, under so great an authority of command, and with so terrible a punishment threatening?

There accrues also to the gravity of the sin of each first parent, that the woman first, then the husband, rose up against God. For truly they exalted themselves against God when, not content with so great a dignity conferred upon them divinely, they desired to know more than was lawful, that they might be equal to God. There also they betrayed a monstrous ingratitude: they had been made to the image of God; this seemed little unless equality were added. Now there is no need that wicked and perverse men labor, not merely fruitlessly but perversely, in extenuating the sin of Adam and his wife. Nor indeed is it a light offense, but a detestable crime, that apostasy by which man withdraws himself from the dominion of his Creator, nay rejects and denies Him. Add that it was not a simple apostasy, but joined with atrocious insults and outrages against God Himself. Satan accuses God of lying, and of envy and malice: to so foul and execrable a calumny they subscribe. Finally, despising the command of God, they not only indulge their own lust, but enslave themselves to the devil. If anyone states the malice more briefly, unbelief opened the door to ambition. But ambition was the mother of contumacy, so that men, casting off the fear of God, might shake off His yoke. On this account St. teaches that by the disobedience of Adam sin entered into the world. It does not follow, however, from this that it was the gravest of all sins.

Objection 1. A sin is grave because it takes away a good: therefore that which takes away a more excellent good is graver: but Adam's sin took away a greater good than any other, inasmuch as it took away original justice from himself and his posterity: therefore it is the greatest sin.

I distinguish the first consequence with the Doctor: that it takes away more of a good from its intrinsic nature, I concede the consequence: that it takes away more of a good demeritoriously, I deny the consequence: and similarly I distinguish the assumption: that Adam's sin took away original justice from its intrinsic nature, I deny: demeritoriously, I concede; and I deny the second consequence. Therefore the gravity of a sin drawn from the good which is taken away by it must not be considered in whatever manner, because in fact all mortal sins take away habitual grace and the right to beatitude; and therefore by this argument sins would be equal: but those goods which are taken away by sin must be considered according to the special incompatibility which they have with the sins themselves, e.g., because hatred of God has from its particular reason an incompossibility with the love of God; but not with the love of creatures, nor with the love of temperance; and because intemperance from its particular reason has an incompossibility with the love of temperance: hence the gravity of hatred and of intemperance must be drawn from those goods to which they are opposed by their particular reason: and this being granted, since the love of God is a greater good than the love of temperance, therefore hatred of God must be judged of greater gravity than intemperance.

Objection 2. Punishment corresponds to fault: but against Adam's sin the greatest punishment was inflicted, namely his own death and that of his posterity: therefore it was the greatest.

I distinguish the major with the same Doctor: in such wise that no greater punishment may be inflicted than could deservedly be inflicted for a fault, I concede; in such wise that it could never happen that a greater punishment be inflicted for a sin not greater, I deny the major: and the minor being conceded, the consequence must be denied. Therefore the gravity of a sin can be gathered only from the gravity of punishment, when so great a punishment is inflicted for one sin as could not justly be inflicted for another: but so great a punishment was not inflicted for Adam's sin as could not be inflicted for certain sins which he himself could commit, and other men also. Or, as the Doctor speaks, that sin is greater to which a greater punishment is owed: provided that punishment be formally the punishment of that fault: but thus the greatest punishment was not owed to Adam's sin. Nay rather, had he himself been damned for that sin, he would not have been punished so severely for that sin as many others. And when you say that death was inflicted upon him for that sin, which is the greatest punishment; I say that he was not said before the fault to be immortal through anything intrinsic which would afterwards have been corrupted by sin: but through gratuitous gifts conferred upon him. We see, moreover, that sometimes for a small fault the greatest benefits are withdrawn, although no great punishment, indeed but a slight one, is inflicted for it.

Second Conclusion. — Eve's sin according to intrinsic species was graver than Adam's sin: but according to certain circumstances, Adam's sin was graver than Eve's sin.

This is common as regards both parts, against Cajetan above, and Bellarmine, book 3, De amissione gratiae. The first part St. Chrysostom establishes by his own judgment, Epistle 3 to Olympias, wherein he says: And indeed it is so much graver, namely Eve's sin, that compared with Adam's sin it is not even reckoned a sin, because it was not the man but the woman that was deceived, who, impelled into fraud, violated(?) the law of God, and tempered for herself and her husband the poisoned cup.

The Subtle Doctor proves this truth in book 2, distinction 21, question 1, n. 1, because Eve sinned by desiring some equality with God in the knowledge of good and evil: but thus Adam did not sin: but the sin of so great ambition was graver than the sin of an inordinate effect, whereby Adam loved his wife. Then Eve induced her husband to sin, which certainly was itself a most grave sin, which was not committed by Adam, nor any equivalent: therefore Eve sinned more gravely. But even had Adam likewise sought that equality with God, as Eve did, still by reason of the scandal committed by Eve it should be said simply that she sinned more gravely than Adam. For, as St. Ambrose says in the book De Paradiso, c. 21: The error, he says, of the woman entered first: for the man was the author of error to the woman, not the woman to the man. Whence Paul also says: Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

But how Eve came to her husband and solicited him to eat of the forbidden fruit, Alcimus Avitus explains most beautifully, Poem 2:

Ignorant of what was done, returning from another part, Adam, spread wholly through the grasses of the field, Sought his wife's embraces and chaste kisses. The woman met him, in whose heart audacity then First blew the spirited fury of a woman's rage, And thus she began to speak, for she feared her groaning, Keeping the deadly apple for her wretched husband: Take food, sweet spouse, from the vital germ, Which perchance will make you like to the Thunderer supreme And equal to the gods. This gift is no mere food That I bear, but now taught by experience. The first taste Touched my vitals, loosing the pact by daring peril. Believe gladly; it is a crime unmanly to have doubted. Did you fear, perchance, that a woman could go before you? At least follow, and lift up your fallen courage. Why do you turn your eyes away? why delay your prosperous vows? And long defraud the honor that is to come? Having spoken these words she handed the food of a death about to live, While the soul perished and crimes fed destruction. The unhappy man receives the words of an ill-whispering murmur And casts down his bent senses backward to the depths. No care shaken by trembling panic seized him, Nor did the woman hesitate so much at her first taste, But swift he follows, and from his wretched wife's mouth Constantly seizes the fickle, deadly poison.

The Doctor proves the second part in the same place, namely that Adam's sin, according to certain circumstances, was graver than Eve's sin: for sin, he says, can be aggravated by an accidental circumstance, on account of the excellence of the person and his dignity, who ought on this account the more carefully to guard against sin. Likewise on account of strength, and the possibility of resisting. Therefore the Master says in the text, that because Adam, assailed by exterior temptation, fell, he was so much the more severely to be punished, as he was cast down by a lighter impulse. For the temptation of the flesh is overcome with more difficulty: because what is of ourselves is strengthened against us: since therefore Adam was more circumspect, and nobler, and stronger to resist, therefore accidentally his sin was greater. Finally, original justice was delivered to Adam as to one more worthy, and more circumspect, and stronger, so that if he lost it, he would lose it for himself and his whole posterity. But it was not thus delivered to the woman; therefore Adam's sin was accidentally graver than Eve's sin: nevertheless formally, in a per se manner, and precisely in itself, Eve's sin was graver.

This same thing the Seraphic Doctor proves in book 2, dist. 21, qu. 3:

Sin, he says, can be called graver than another in three ways: namely by ingratitude, concupiscence, and subsequent corruption. If therefore we speak of greater gravity as regards ingratitude, the man sinned more gravely than the woman: on account of his having received more abundant gifts; and the same man forgetful of benefits contemned and offended his Benefactor. he was more ungrateful, and in his ingratitude stood forth more culpable.

But if we speak of superiority as regards concupiscence, thus the woman sinned more than the man; on account of her having sinned with a more perverse will, while she coveted to be made like to God, and more ardently desired, believing she could obtain what the devil suggested to her; and the same woman on account of a more perverse will sinned out of greater concupiscence. and as regards this she was more culpable than the man. — But if we speak of superiority of fault as regards the corruption following, a distinction must be made; because something can be said to corrupt in two ways: either after the manner of a cause, or after the manner of an occasion. If after the manner of a cause, because the sin of the man was the cause of the transfusion of sin into posterity, and thus corrupted himself and others, a greater corruption followed from the sin of the man, and as regards this. the fault of the man is said to have been graver: but if after the manner of an occasion, because the sin of the woman was the occasion of the sin of the man, and consequently of all others, in this way the woman can be said to have corrupted the rest, not only her descendants, but also her husband. Whence she sinned not only in herself, but also against her neighbor; and as regards this it can be said that in the woman the sin was graver.

By means of this distinction answer can be made to the arguments brought forward for either part, inasmuch as they proceed according to different members of this distinction. — Otherwise it could be said, which amounts nearly to the same, that sin can be called graver than another, either weighing the conditions on the part of the sinner, or on the part of the sin. If we weigh the gravity on the part of the sinner, the man is said to have sinned more gravely than the woman, both on account of the excellence of his gifts, and on account of the presidency of his state: because he was in a manner set over the woman. But if the conditions on the part of the sin are weighed, the woman sinned more gravely than the man, both on account of impiety toward God; and on account of iniquity toward her neighbor: for by her ambition she dishonored God, and by her suggestion cast down her neighbor.

ON THE PUNISHMENT INFLICTED UPON THE FIRST PARENTS FOR THEIR TREACHERY.

The first parents of mankind violated the Law which God had prescribed for them; vengeance was taken upon the guilty, and the Lord of vengeance punished the traitors. For they heard, as the most sacred text of Genesis 3 relates, the voice of the Lord God walking in Paradise at the afternoon breeze: at whose sound, when they in their trembling had hidden themselves, and at length, being summoned, had appeared before the dread Judge, they felt the divine threat, and in vengeance of the crime they had committed were visited with various punishments and scourges. That these may be made more evident, they are to be set forth in threefold order: for some were inflicted specially upon Eve alone; some upon Adam alone; others, however, were inflicted upon both in common: which we shall relate and weigh in the following Questions.

Note 1. That although no mention is here made of the divine punishment upon the serpent, the tempter of the First Parents, yet truly God took vengeance upon it before He did upon Adam and Eve, in these words of Genesis chapter 3, verse 14: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. In which words five punishments are set forth as inflicted upon the serpent in vengeance of its temptation: The first indeed is the thunderbolt of the divine malediction hurled against it: Because, saith St. Chrysostom, Hom. 17, with such malice hast thou ministered, that that imposture might be accomplished in deed, offering evil counsel: therefore because thou didst use thyself in these things as an instrument, I impose upon thee everlasting punishment, that by those things which are done to thee, men to come may be taught never to approach the counsel of the devil, nor to receive his deceits, lest they fall into the same punishments. The second is the going upon the breast: not that the serpent truly walked upright before the temptation, as certain persons judge; but that that gait, which before was natural, was enjoined upon it likewise as a punishment: even as death, which was natural to man before sin — for man is by nature mortal — yet by an excellent and admirable benefit God warded off and restrained death from man in the state of innocence, so that if man had never sinned he would never have died; but on account of sin man, stripped of original justice, deprived of that singular protection of God, and abandoned to his own nature, ran headlong into death: so did God will that to be a punishment to the serpent which before belonged to its nature. The third is the enmity between itself and the woman, and also its seed, that is, mankind, whom serpents fear and must shun, so that at the sight of them after that divine threat every man trembles and flees: which St. Damascene notes, lib. 2, De Fide orthodoxa, c. 10: The serpent, he saith, was more familiar than other animals with man, often approaching him and fawning upon him with gentle movements of its body: whence through it the prince of evil, the devil, instilled into our first Parents the poison of his impiety. There are those who think that the sight of the serpent began to be horrible and terrifying to man only after the sin of the first man and the malediction of that serpent, after those words of God namely: I will put enmities between thee, etc. The fourth is the crushing of the serpent itself by the woman: for experience teaches, saith Rupertus, that if a woman's bare foot forestall the tooth of the serpent and press down its head, straightway with its head the whole body perishes, although if its head be assailed with sword or hammer it can hardly be so crushed that the whole body dies. Yet I confess that by these words there is prefigured the Conception of Christ the Lord and of the Blessed Virgin, whereby the head of the daemon was to be crushed, that is, original sin was to be removed and rooted out.

Note 2. That the opinions of the holy Fathers varied concerning those punishments inflicted upon the serpent, whether namely they were denounced against the natural or against the mystical serpent, that is, the devil; for very many, with St. Augustine book De Genesi ad litteram, cap. 86, judge that those curses which God uttered against the serpent pertain not to the true serpent, the organ of the temptation, but to the devil, the artificer of it: so that all the aforesaid words are to be taken metaphorically: for the daemon is truly called cursed among the beasts of the earth, because he has been condemned to eternal punishments; and whatsoever in beasts is seen corporally obscene, fraudulent, or truculent, that is found far more spiritually in the daemon. The daemon walks upon breast and belly, because he assails men by two ways of seduction: namely by pride, which is figured by the breast, and by lust, which is shadowed forth by the belly. He eats the earth all the days of his life: for, saith St. Gregory, lib. 10, the ancient enemy eats the earth, because he hides every sinner in the belly of his malice; desiring the perdition of men themselves, he is in a manner refreshed while he delights in presiding over their operations: but that phrase, all the days of thy life, designates all the time of this life even unto the consummation of the world, during which time it is permitted to the daemon to tempt, deceive, and destroy men; which he holds as his right and great pleasure, wherefore the daemons besought Christ that He would not send them into the abyss, and others said to Him: Art Thou come hither before the time to torment us? — Nevertheless I think the truer thing to say is, that that malediction and punishment truly pertained to the serpent itself: although it had committed no crime, but the author of its guilt had been the devil; nor had the serpent free will, as though it had been within its power either to give itself or not to give itself to the devil for the executing of that crime. Hence the things which before were natural to the serpent passed into punishment: whereby also the daemon himself, who had used the serpent as an instrument, was tormented with pain unto the punishment of the serpent itself: just as if anyone should break a musical instrument, that thereby he might afflict with grief him who used it for singing; or should cast down a horse by cutting off its feet, that he might harm the rider; or should overturn a ship, that he who sailed in it might perish by shipwreck: so God terrified the serpent with curses, that He might afflict with pain the devil, who had spoken through it: even as also He afflicted the legion of daemons by destroying the swine.

Note 3. That although death was the chief punishment inflicted by God upon the first Parents and their posterity for their treachery, nevertheless I judge that no mention of that punishment need be made here: for it was said above that death itself was natural to man, nor did it pass into a punishment of man except through the subtraction of original justice; whence it came about that although death is natural to man, we find it attested in the sacred Letters that it befell him in punishment and vengeance of his sin, even as the bow in the clouds had been indeed before the deluge, and is such naturally; yet God willed that it should never thereafter be the sign of a future deluge. Wherefore there remain to be discussed here the special punishments prescribed for Adam and Eve.

First Conclusion. — Threefold is the punishment enjoined by God upon the first Parents and their posterity: namely the multitude of conceptions, the pain in childbearing, and subjection to the power of the husband. This is gathered from Genesis chapter 3, v. 16, where we read: To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

Rupertus, lib. 3, De Trinitate, cap. 22, weighs these three punishments of this divine sentence upon the female sex thus:

But the woman, he saith, is punished with a threefold punishment, because threefold greater was her sin than the man's. First because, believing the serpent more than God, she was seduced. Next, because she concupisced delightfully the beauty and sweetness of the forbidden tree. Thirdly, because not content with her own transgression, she led the man also into transgression: therefore deservedly for threefold sin a threefold vengeance was rendered her, besides the death common to her with her husband. For because she believed the serpent saying: You shall be as gods: justly against this — that God is the God of the living and not of the dead — she deserved to be mother not of the living but of the dead, God saying: I will multiply thy conceptions. For all her conceptions die in soul and body in sin, and none of them lives unless he be quickened through Christ. Likewise because, seeing the beauty of that tree, she intemperately coveted its fruit, for that delectation of sight the contrary is rendered in the pain of the womb. In sorrow, he saith, shalt thou bring forth. Thirdly, because with womanly importunity she enticed the man to eat, therefore thou shalt be, he saith, under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee. Thus for seduction, the multiplicity of conceptions; for the delectation of gluttony, the pain of the womb; for rash dominion, and the scandal which she exhibited to her husband, the punishment of servitude to the husband was rendered. Or, as St. Chrysostom says, Homily II. on Genesis, because thou hast abused the dignity of honour, thou subjectest thyself to the man: because, having left him whose dignity thou didst share, and whose nature thou dost partake of, and for whom thou wast formed, thou wouldst have familiarity with the serpent, that evil beast, and wouldst take counsel from him, therefore hereafter thou subjectest thyself to him, and I make him thy lord, that thou mayest acknowledge his dominion, namely.

Our Alexander of Hales weighs this same thing lucidly, quaest. 105, art. 9: Three punishments, he saith, are inflicted on the part of the woman: 1. multiplication of sorrows in the multitude of conceptions: 2. pain in childbearing: 3. subjection under the power of the husband. For there is a triple power of the soul, cogitative, rational, and natural: on the side of the rational there is taken the punishment of subjection: on the side of the sensible a twofold punishment: one according to multitude, when he saith I will multiply thy sorrows: the other according to harshness, when he saith: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth. Or otherwise: The individual tends toward one end: toward the conservation of itself according to the time determined: toward the conservation of the species simply: But the woman is called the passive sex, because mutably she contracts from sin punishment in both respects: for in the act of generation in the womb, which is for the conservation of the species, she draws a twofold punishment: in bearing the foetus, and in labouring in birth, whereof one pertains to progression, the other to consummation; but in the beginning there is choice, and there it seems to be without punishment: and perhaps God willed to designate this under the name of conception: or this was on account of the delectation, in which punishment does not seem to be. On the part of the man, however, who is for the conservation of the individual, since liberty of doing what is expedient for oneself is a good: the evil, by opposition, is servitude, namely to be necessarily subjected to the domination of another: this is that punishment which is designated when it is said: thou shalt be under thy husband's power. — To these Severianus bishop of Gabala adds: the woman was mulcted with a threefold punishment: first, that notwithstanding the distress of childbirth she is constrained to love her husband. Secondly, that she herself chiefly sustains the anxieties of the procreation and education of children: for she grieves in bearing, she is anxious in mind in rearing; when the boy grows up, she is anxious lest he be demented and out of his mind. When he has gone forth, that he die not, fall sick not, be not involved in hardship and grief. This the man has not. For although the father also is solicitous, yet not so as the mother, but he consoles himself, saying, he is a man: let each know that he ought to preside over his own affairs, and he is not tormented with anxiety of just cares. Why so? Because he did not hear: In sorrows shalt thou bring forth children. Finally the third kind of the divine chastisement upon the woman is that teaching be forbidden to her further. A new kind of vengeance, saith Severianus; it is a sad experience. When the pains of childbirth have seized the woman, not even in those labours does she reject her husband. She does not say: Would that there were no marriage! Would that there were no procreation of children! God suffers her not, as even the trial made, to hate her husband. Nor is it hidden from her what befell her, and what she endured, and yet she loves her husband. Therefore, in sorrows shalt thou bring forth children, and thy turning shall be to thy husband, or, and he shall have dominion over thee. Because already thou hast ruled him ill, and made captive to thy own will, I dissolve the order: let him be lord who was not seduced. Therefore saith Paul: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over the man. For ill she first taught in paradise; nor to have dominion over the man, for ill indeed she ruled. It is not we who cavil at this sense in which Paul commands the woman not to teach; hear him speaking himself: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over the man. And that he may show he established this on account of the cause of the first guilt, he adds: For Adam was not seduced: but the woman being seduced was in the transgression.

You will object 1. The multiplication of offspring is a great good and a great joy of parents, future also, if man had not sinned in Paradise, and in the state of innocence: therefore that is not denounced against the woman for the crime committed as a certain immense evil in place of punishment. — I deny the consequence: for the multiplication of conceptions, as Pererius rightly observes, lib. 6, in Genesim, cap. 3, is understood after sin to be a punishment of the woman, and a certain great evil, on four accounts. First, because many conceptions, before they arrive at maturity and perfection, perish by abortion in the womb of the mother. Next, because many are begotten depraved and monstrous, whether in bulk, or number, or figure, or position of the parts of the body, or from weakness and deformity, or defect of the senses, or of mind and reason: which is of greatest grief to those bearing them. Besides, of those who are begotten few are elect and predestinate, but very many are destined to eternal torments on account of their crimes. To these it is added that the multitude of offspring is wont generally, either on account of the poverty of the Parents, to whom it does not suffice for educating them, or on account of the flagitious and disgraceful life of the sons, or on account of most miserable accidents and exits, to be a most bitter torment and misfortune to the Parents. Whence Rupertus, lib. 3, De Trinitate, cap. 22: It is not, he saith, a multiplication of blessing, but of damnation: not of grace, but of wrath: not of clemency, but of vengeance. Wherefore He said not only, I will multiply thy conceptions, but added moreover, and thy sorrows: for the woman, the more fruitful, so much the more sorrowful.

You will object 2. The subjection of the woman to the man stood also with innocence; for the woman, drawing her origin from the man, hung necessarily upon him, as upon the principle of her formation: therefore this subjection was not inflicted upon her by God in punishment of her treachery. — I distinguish the antecedent: voluntary and pleasant subjection, I concede; involuntary and burdensome, I deny: the woman would indeed have been in the state of innocence under the power of the husband, but not coerced, nor grievously, nor with any repugnance of will: for since the woman would have been of whole soul and upright mind, weighing nothing but what was honest and right, she would have been gladly and joyfully under the rule of the husband: because she understood that to be consonant with the divine will and reason: and the rule of the man also would have been full of equity and charity, nor would the wife have been held as a slave and handmaid, but as the dearest companion of life, sharer of the counsels and duties of the husband, and helper in the generation and education of offspring. But after sin it is a grave punishment for the woman to be subject to the man: both on account of the levity and vanity of the womanly intellect, and the pride of soul of her bearing with perverse spirit that the husband should preside over her: and also because very often men treating their wives proudly, angrily, and harshly make their rule burdensome, bitter, and odious to them. Whence elegantly St. Ambrose in the Exhortation to virginity affirms that married women purchase their servitude at a price: She who has married, he saith, is sold for money from her servitude: slaves are procured on better terms than marriages: in the former the merit of servitude is bought: in the latter a price is added to servitude; the bride burdened is weighed down by gold, is appraised by gold.

Second Conclusion. — By a threefold reason was the punishment of multitude inflicted upon Adam for his transgression: namely by the malediction of the earth in his very labours, by the germination of the same thorns and briars: and by the scantiness and toil of his food. These plainly stand from Genesis chapter 3, vv. 17, 18, and 19, where God addresses Adam thus: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and shalt eat the herbs of the earth. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.

Alexander of Hales, our author praised above, weighs the truth of this conclusion and the aforesaid divine chastisement upon Adam thus: By these, he saith, said words of Scripture are distinguished the punishments of man both in life and in death. In life indeed as to beginning, as to progression, and as to consummation. As to beginning there is noted: Cursed is the earth in thy work, etc. As to progress, when it is said: Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee. As to consummation, when it is said: thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth: and, In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread. In the first appears the laborious difficulty in the cultivation of the earth; in the second the unfruitfulness of the same, when it is said: Thorns and thistles: in the third the scantiness of food. But the punishment, as it regards death, is likewise twofold: namely the necessity of dying, and incineration: the former is designated in these words: Till thou return to the earth out of which thou wast taken. But the latter is denoted in what follows: Dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return. — It must moreover be considered that God cursed not Adam as He had cursed the serpent: both because He had before consecrated him as it were with His blessing; and because Adam was about to recover again sanctifying grace by doing penance; and finally because Christ the Lord was at some time to assume human nature. And although the earth committed no sin, yet it is smitten with the divine malediction, not indeed absolutely and simply, but respectively to man; and therefore God says to Adam: Cursed is the earth in thy work: that is, as Rupertus expounds, Laborious be it to thee working or tilling it. Because, saith Hugh of St. Victor, it will not bear of itself spontaneously the fruit whereby thou mayest live; or when at any time it answers not to thee according to thy work: which sense appears truer; for as in the sacred Letters the blessing of God signifies plenty and abundance of goods, so the curse means want and sterility of goods, and redundancy of evils and miseries. — Man therefore on account of sin experienced the earth to be cursed to him, inasmuch as whereas before by a certain sweet exercise, not however laborious study and tillage, he had been able to render the earth fertile and abounding to himself, he feels it stricken with an anathema: that is, sterile of useful things, fruitful of harmful and useless ones, and bringing forth what is necessary for man's sustenance not without great labour and many sweats of man. — But the earth was cursed rather than the water or another element: Either because, saith Alexander of Hales, by means of the fruit springing from the earth Adam sinned: or, saith Alcuin, the earth is cursed, not the waters; because man ate of the fruit of the earth against the prohibition, he drank not of the waters: and because in the waters was the sin contracted from the fruit of the earth to be washed away, doubtless the Lord had respect to holy Baptism, wherein the offences of the old Adam are submerged and utterly washed away.

You ask 1.: Whether by that malediction of God the fertility of the earth was taken away, or at least diminished, and sterility introduced. — I answer, that it seems more probable that the earth has always existed in exactly the same state: otherwise man, while the felicity of innocence endured, would have dwelt in Paradise, whose soil was most fertile and most pleasant: moreover the need would then have been less for man, and consequently he would have expended less labour on tilling the country, and the celestial influences would have attended the sown and tilled earth more opportunely, more gently, and more surely: but after sin man was cast out from that most blessed soil of Paradise; then, mortal men scattered over the world having spread into various and greatly dissimilar portions of lands, one found a soil salty and barren, another sandy, another bald, another pestilential, another fruitful in noxious things and unfruitful in useful plants, and they were compelled by immense labours and sweats to procure for themselves food from the earth; especially since the celestial impressions, as now often happens, either do not help the farmers, or overturn the very crops utterly.

You ask 2: Whether truly thorns and briars existed before the sin of man. — I answer, that many of the sacred Interpreters, with Rabbanus, judge that before sin neither unfruitful trees nor useless and noxious herbs, nor thorns and briars, were to spring up; but that they burst forth from the earth in punishment of sin, and for man's perpetual admonition. Wherefore the thorn, he saith, and the briar admonish man, that they may ward him off from sins, for they were created poisonous unto punishment and the retribution of the dead, because we were made mortal on account of sin: by unfruitful trees men are insulted, that they may understand how shameful it is to be without the fruit of good works in the field of God, that is, in the Church: and that they may fear lest God forsake them, because they themselves in their fields forsake unfruitful trees, nor apply any cultivation to them. Thus he. St. Basil, Homily 5 on the Hexaemeron, philosophizes likewise, saying: The rose then lacked thorns, but afterwards thorns were joined to the outward beauty, that we, taking from thence a nearer delectation, might be made by pain unto the recollection of the offence: whose effect the cause is, that the cursed earth should bring forth to us thorns and briars for an anathema. Thus Basil, whom Procopius following speaks thus on cap. 1: From the beginning of creation the rose was rough with no thorns. Afterwards at length there were added to its beauty those harsh prickles: that while we enjoy and delight in taking its odour, we may also feel the contrary sorrow, mindful of the sin by which the earth was cast down by condemnation, that it may bring forth to us thorns, briers, and briars. — Yet I think the truer thing to say is, that the earth truly produced thorns and briars before sin: yet this germination would then not have been penal to man, but useful and pleasant to the animals using them, either for the adornment of the earth, or for raising man to the praise of God by the manifold kind of creatures: but now it is penal, because they impede the production of useful seeds, and spring up more abundantly in their place.

Here the fable of the Indians — or rather, let me say, of the impious Jews — must not be passed over, who say that Adam, after the crime committed, was for one hundred and thirty years separated from Eve and excommunicated, and that he lay with a female daemon, namely Lilit, but Eve with a hermaphrodite daemon, and that from these Adam and Eve received children. These things occur in the Talmud, Salomon Iarchi relating: Rabbi Hieremias the son of Eleazar used to say that in those months and years in which Adam was in that state of excommunication he begat spirits, and daemons, and nocturnal spectres; as it is said: and Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begat sons in his image and likeness — which teaches that in that time he did not beget unto his likeness, but had received other children, namely daemons and nocturnal spectres. This also is clear from Bereschit Rabba, section 20: During all the one hundred and thirty years in which Eve was separated from Adam, there were masculine incestuous spirits from her, who lay with her, and she bore from them; and feminine spirits lay with Adam and bore from him. That is what is read in Scripture: He hath wrought perversity, chastising him with the rod of men, and with the strokes of the sons of men. An absurd indeed and altogether impious exposition of the sacred words of the Psalmist. Therefore, since the Jews, ever occupied and ensnared by vain and fabulous traditions, believed that daemons could both be begotten and that some were the sons of Lilit, that is, of night and darkness, it is no wonder that the Apostles said the sons of the Church were not sons of darkness but of light: thus 1 Thess. V. 5: For all you are the children of light, and children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. By which allusion Simon Magus is called the firstborn of Satan by Ignatius, Marcion the firstborn of the devil by Irenaeus and Eusebius, and he who denies that Christ has come in the flesh is called by St. Polycarp antichrist and firstborn of the devil.