LatineEnglish
A DISPUTATION ON THE SIN OF EVE.1
DISPUTATIO DE PECCATO EVAE.
Ante omnia ut certum ponere oportet, Evam non peccasse ante congressum & sermonem serpentis. Hoc sane indicat Scriptura, cum extremis verbis capit. 2. dixit Adamum & Evam fuisse nudos, nec tamen erubuisse. Quo significare voluit eos fuisse in felici statu impassibilitatis & innocentiae: & proxime subtexit historiam serpentis, qui Evam tentavit. Quo licet intelligere ex ipsa narrationis serie & contextu, primos homines in illo statu innocentiae usque ad tentationem serpentis permansisse.
Before all else, it must be laid down as certain that Eve did not sin before the encounter and the discourse of the serpent. Scripture plainly indicates this, when in the last words of chapter 2 it said that Adam and Eve were naked, and yet were not ashamed. By which it meant to signify that they were in the happy state of impassibility and innocence; and immediately afterward it weaves in the history of the serpent, who tempted Eve. From which it is permitted to understand, from the very sequence and context of the narrative, that the first human beings remained in that state of innocence right up to the temptation of the serpent.2
Atque hoc confirmat Patrum sententia inter peccatum primi hominis, & peccatum primi Angeli discrimen constituentium: quod illud ex suggestione, suasioneque alterius admissum est, & idcirco dignum venia fuit: hoc autem propria malitia, nullius consilio, suasu & impulsu patratum est: quamobrem irremissibile fuit. Rupertus tamen cap. 5. lib. 3. de Trinit. eumque secutus in Commentario huius 3. cap. Ioannes Ferus contra senserunt: quorum opinionem quidam ea ratione probabilem facere voluerunt, nisi Eva, inquiunt, ante peccasset, non utique passus esset Deus tentari eam a diabolo: scilicet, ea tentatione sciens eam victum & perditum iri. Sed infirma est argumentatio. Deus enim scientia simplicis intelligentiae, ut loquuntur Theologi, vidit Evam posse resistere tentationi, eamque vincere sine labore: quapropter sivit eam tentari, quia statui viatoris conveniens est tentatio ad exercitationem liberi arbitrii, ad probationem virtutis, ad occasionem & materiam uberioris meriti, maiorisque praemii: praesertim vero quod illa tentatio non fuit interior affligens animum, sed exterior sine ulla hominis molestia. Nimirum hoc genere tentationis etiam Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum Deus Pater tentari a diabolo permisit.
And this is confirmed by the opinion of the Fathers, who set up a distinction between the sin of the first man and the sin of the first Angel: namely, that the former was committed through the suggestion and persuasion of another, and was therefore worthy of pardon; whereas the latter was perpetrated by its own malice, by no one's counsel, persuasion, or impulse, and for that reason was irremissible. Rupert, however, in chapter 5 of book 3 On the Trinity, and following him Johannes Ferus in his Commentary on this chapter 3, held the contrary: whose opinion certain men wished to make probable on this ground; 'unless Eve had sinned beforehand,' they say, 'God would by no means have allowed her to be tempted by the devil' — namely, knowing that by that temptation she would be conquered and ruined. But the argument is weak. For God, by the knowledge of simple intelligence (as the Theologians speak), saw that Eve could resist the temptation and conquer it without effort; and therefore he permitted her to be tempted, because temptation befits the state of the wayfarer for the exercise of free will, for the proof of virtue, for the occasion and matter of richer merit and greater reward; especially since that temptation was not an inner one afflicting the mind, but an outward one without any trouble to the human being. Indeed, by this kind of temptation God the Father permitted even our Lord Jesus Christ to be tempted by the devil.3
Translator’s notes
- Major structural divider (set off by a horizontal rule). Begins the formal disputation on Eve's sin, which will be divided into Quaestiones. ↩
- Marginal gloss: 'Evam non peccasse ante congressionem serpentis' (That Eve did not sin before her encounter with the serpent). ↩
- Marginal glosses: 'Refellitur Ruperti, & Ioannis Feri sententia' (The opinion of Rupert and Johannes Ferus is refuted); 'Deus cur tentari Evam permiserit quam sciebat peccaturam. Matth. 4.' (Why God permitted Eve, whom he knew would sin, to be tempted; cf. Matt 4, the temptation of Christ). Rupert of Deutz, De Trinitate 3.5; Johannes Ferus (Wild). 'Scientia simplicis intelligentiae' = God's knowledge of simple intelligence (a scholastic distinction). Catchword: 'QUAE' (= QUAESTIO, beginning on the next page). ↩