LatineEnglish
And she gave to her husband, who ate.1
Deditque viro suo, qui comedit.
Cur Eva sollicitavit Adamum ad fructum illum comedendum? An quia eum summe diligebat, & idcirco sui gaudij bonique participem fieri cupiebat? nam quia post esum fructus vetiti experta fuerat se non esse mortuam, credidit verum fuisse, quod ei serpens dixerat, Nequaquam moriemini: unde spem etiam concepit, verum fore alterum illud eiusdem serpentis promissum, Eritis sicut Dii, scientes bonum & malum. An illud quoque credibile est, serpentem mulieri suasisse, ut maritum ad edendum adduceret? locutus enim est pluraliter dicens, Si comederitis, & Eritis: denuncians non posse tantum bonum alteri sine altero contingere.
Why did Eve solicit Adam to eat that fruit? Was it because she loved him exceedingly, and therefore desired him to become a partaker of her joy and good? For since, after eating the forbidden fruit, she had experienced that she had not died, she believed it had been true what the serpent had said to her, 'By no means shall you die': whence she also conceived the hope that the other promise of the same serpent would prove true, 'You shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.' Or is this too credible, that the serpent persuaded the woman to bring her husband to eat? For he spoke in the plural, saying, 'If you eat,' and 'You shall be': declaring that so great a good could not befall the one without the other.2
Atque hinc patet, vere scriptum esse in libro Ecclesiastici, capite 25. a muliere factum esse initium peccati. A muliere, inquit, initium factum est peccati, & per illam omnes morimur. Tentavit autem daemon prius Evam, quam Adamum, quod eam nosset faciliorem ad credendum quodlibet, infirmioremque ad resistendum, & ad casum procliviorem. Hoc ei notum erat ex imbecilliori & ignobiliori constitutione corporis & natura sexus, ex minori praestantia, & perfectione do...
And hence it is plain that it is truly written in the book of Ecclesiasticus, chapter 25, that from a woman was made the beginning of sin. 'From a woman,' it says, 'was the beginning of sin made, and through her we all die.' Now the demon tempted Eve before Adam, because he knew her to be easier to believe anything, and weaker to resist, and more prone to a fall. This was known to him from the feebler and less noble constitution of her body and the nature of her sex, from the lesser excellence and perfection of the gifts...3
...norum naturalium, & quia foeminam Deus propter virum fecerat: ipsum vero Adamum sciebat ab omnibus rebus instructiorem, firmioremque ad resistendum esse. Verum persuasa & decepta muliere, per eam, ut quae Adamo charissima esset, non fore putavit difficile ipsum etiam Adamum ad peccandum impelli. Quod his verbis confirmat Augustinus lib. 14. de Civitate Dei, cap. 11. A foemina, parte scilicet inferiore illius humana copula, incepit, ut gradatim perveniret ad totum, non existimans virum facile credulum, nec errando posse decipi, sed dum alieno cedit errori. Sic Augustinus: & vero, ita evenit ut machinatus daemon fuerat.
...of natural gifts, and because God had made the woman for the sake of the man. But Adam himself he knew to be better equipped in all respects, and firmer to resist. Yet, the woman being persuaded and deceived, he thought it would not be hard, through her — as one most dear to Adam — to impel even Adam himself to sin. This Augustine confirms in these words, in book 14 of the City of God, chapter 11: 'He began from the woman, namely the inferior part of that human couple, so as to arrive gradually at the whole, not reckoning the man easily credulous, nor able to be deceived by erring, but [deceivable] while he yields to another's error.' Thus Augustine: and indeed, it came about just as the demon had contrived.4
Quod si per Evam Adami constantia non fuisset labefactata, alias nihilominus rationes oppugnandi Adamum iniisset daemon, nihilque intentatum atque intactum reliquisset, quo eum posset ex illo felicissimo statu deturbare. Ad hoc eum urgebat Dei odium, quem per Adamum & genus humanum glorificari nolebat: tum superbia instigabat, aegre ferentem se, qui natura praestantior esset homine, non ei dominari ac praeesse, quinimo sibi eum anteponi. Sed omnium maxime urebat eum invidia, & praesentis felicitatis in qua collocatum hominem cernebat, & futurae quae promissa ei & parata fuerat, quam a se amissam, consequi hominem ferre non poterat. Quoniam autem invidia proxima fuit causa, quae daemonem vehementius ad perdendum hominem incitavit, propterea eam solam memorat divina Scriptura, cum in libro Sapientiae, cap. 2. ait, Invidia diaboli mors introivit in orbem terrarum.
But if through Eve Adam's constancy had not been shaken, the demon would nonetheless have entered upon other means of assailing Adam, and would have left nothing unattempted and untouched by which he could cast him down from that most happy state. To this he was driven by hatred of God, whom he did not want to be glorified through Adam and the human race; then pride goaded him, taking it ill that he, who was by nature more excellent than man, should not rule over and preside over him, but rather that man should be preferred to himself. But most of all envy burned him, and he could not bear that man should attain the present happiness in which he beheld him placed, and the future happiness which had been promised and prepared for him — which he himself had lost. And since envy was the proximate cause that more vehemently incited the demon to destroy man, therefore divine Scripture records this one alone, when in the book of Wisdom, chapter 2, it says, 'By the envy of the devil death entered into the world.'5
Non est autem verisimile, Evam narrasse Adamo dicta & promissa serpentis. Si enim ea aperuisset, facile Adamus animadvertisset technas fraudesque daemonis, sibique cavisset. Si quis autem ex nobis quaerat, quibus rebus adductus sit Adamus ad comedendum: breviter respondebimus, non fide & credulitate promissorum serpentis, quae vel ei non sunt exposita, vel non sunt ab eo credita: siquidem aperte & affirmate Paulus prioris ad Timotheum epistolae, capite secundo dicit, Adamum non fuisse deceptum. Quemadmodum nec Aaron vitulum aureum conflavit ad adorandum, nec Salomon sacrificavit idolis iudicij & opinionis errore: sed ille metu populi perculsus, hic, ut obsequeretur mulieribus, quas flagrantissime amabat. Inclinatus est igitur animus Adami ad comedendum, partim nimiis Evae blanditiis, partim importunis precibus, quibus significabat se nisi in eo gratificaretur sibi, prae tristitia & moerore nunquam tran...
But it is not likely that Eve related to Adam the serpent's words and promises. For if she had disclosed them, Adam would easily have noticed the wiles and frauds of the demon, and would have guarded himself. But if any of us should ask by what things Adam was led to eat, we shall answer briefly: not by faith and belief in the serpent's promises, which either were not set forth to him, or were not believed by him; since Paul, in the second chapter of the first epistle to Timothy, openly and positively says that Adam was not deceived. Just as Aaron did not cast the golden calf for worship, nor did Solomon sacrifice to idols, out of error of judgment and opinion: but the one struck by fear of the people, the other to comply with the women whom he most ardently loved. Adam's mind, therefore, was inclined to eat, partly by Eve's excessive blandishments, partly by her importunate entreaties, by which she signified that unless he gratified her in this, she would, out of sadness and grief, never be...6
quillo & hilari animo futuram. Eodem modo egit Dalida cum Samsone: sic enim legimus in libro Iudicum, cap. 16. Cum molesta esset ei, & per multos dies iugiter adhaereret, spatium ad quietem non tribuens, defecit anima eius, & ad mortem usque lassata est. Tunc aperiens veritatem rei, dixit ad eam: & quae sequuntur. Deinde, illud movit Adamum, quod vidit Evam post esum fructus veti...
...of tranquil and cheerful mind. In the same way Delilah acted with Samson: for thus we read in the book of Judges, chapter 16: 'When she was troublesome to him, and clung to him continually for many days, allowing no time for rest, his soul fainted, and was wearied even to death. Then, disclosing the truth of the matter, he said to her' — and what follows. Next, this moved Adam, that he saw Eve, after the eating of the forbidden fruit...7
...vetiti non fuisse mortuam, quamobrem coepit dubitare, aut etiam fortassis credere, illam Dei sententiam fuisse pronuntiatam comminationis & terroris causa, non quod effectum esset habitura. Ad haec, quia inexpertus fuerat divinae severitatis, in eo falli potuit, ut excusabile veniale crederet, si contra praeceptum ex arbore illa ederet existimavitque iustam se excusationem & quam Deus facile acciperet, increpanti & castiganti Deo allaturum: si id se fecisse diceret, ut gratificaretur sociae, non quam sumpsisset ipse sibi, sed quam dedisset illi Deus. Pulsavit etiam fortasse animum eius audax cu...
...had not died, on account of which he began to doubt, or even perhaps to believe, that that sentence of God had been pronounced for the sake of threat and terror, not as something that would have effect. Besides this, because he was inexperienced of the divine severity, he could be deceived in this, so as to believe it an excusable, venial matter, if he should eat against the command from that tree; and he reckoned that he would bring to God, when rebuking and chastising him, a just excuse, and one which God would readily accept: if he should say that he had done it to gratify his consort, not [a consort] whom he had taken for himself, but whom God had given to him. Perhaps, too, bold curiosity struck his mind...8
riositas & aviditas experiendi, quid lateret in illo fructu, & quidnam illo tacto consequeretur: praesertim cum tales arbor illa fructus ferret, quales in aliis eiusdem generis arboribus innoxios sibi esse senserat. Sic August. philosophatur, lib. 14. de Civitate Dei, cap. 11. & lib. 11. de Genesi ad litteram, cap. 31. Et prioris quidem testimonij verba hunc in modum habent:
...and an eagerness to experience what lay hidden in that fruit, and what would follow from touching it: especially since that tree bore such fruits as he had perceived to be harmless to him on other trees of the same kind. Thus Augustine philosophizes, in book 14 of the City of God, chapter 11, and in book 11 of On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter 31. And the words of the former testimony run in this manner:9
For just as Aaron did not, when led on, consent to the erring people's making of the idol, but yielded under constraint; nor is it credible that Solomon by error thought that idols were to be served, but was compelled by feminine flatteries to those sacrileges: so it must be believed that this man [Adam], by his woman — one by one, man by man, spouse by spouse — was [led] to transgress God's law, not seduced as one believing a speaker of truth, but yielded out of social attachment. For not in vain did the Apostle say, 'Adam was not seduced, but the woman was seduced' — except because she accepted what the serpent spoke to her as if it were true; whereas he was unwilling to be severed from his sole consort, not even in the partnership of sin, nor for that reason less guilty, but sinned knowingly and prudently, yet was not seduced. For he certainly shows that Adam sinned, where he says, 'Through one man sin entered into the world'; and a little later more openly, 'after the likeness,' he says, 'of the transgression of Adam.' But he wished those to be understood as seduced who do not think that what they do is a sin; whereas Adam knew. Otherwise, how will it be true, 'Adam was not seduced'? But, inexperienced of the divine severity, he could be deceived in this, so as to believe the deed was venial. And so, in that very respect in which the woman was seduced, he was not seduced: but it deceived him as to how the thing was to be judged, which he was going to say, 'The woman whom you gave me as companion, she gave me, and I ate.' Why then is there need of more words? Although in believing both were not deceived, yet in sinning both were captured and entangled in the devil's snares. Thus Augustine.10
Sicut enim Aaron erranti populo ad idolum fabricandum non consensit inductus, sed cessit obstrictus: nec Salomonem credibile est errore putasse idolis esse serviendum, sed blandiciis foemineis ad illa sacrilegia fuisse compulsum: ita credendum est illum virum sua foemina, uni unum, hominem homini, coniugem coniugi ad Dei legem transgrediendam, non tanquam vero loquenti credidisse seductum, sed sociali necessitudine paruisse. Non enim frustra dixit Apostolus, Adam non est seductus, mulier autem seducta est: nisi quia illa, quod ei serpens locutus est, tanquam verum esset accepit: ille autem ab unico noluit consortio dirimi, nec in communione peccati, nec ideo minus reus, sed sciens prudensque peccavit, sed non est seductus. Nam utique ipsum peccasse ostendit, ubi dicit, Per unum hominem intravit peccatum in mundum: Et paulo post apertius, in similitudinem, inquit, praevaricationis Adae: hos autem seductos intelligi voluit, qui id quod faciunt, non putant esse peccatum: ille autem scivit. Alioquin quo modo verum erit, Adam non est seductus? sed inexpertus divinae severitatis in eo falli potuit, ut veniale crederet esse commissum: Ac per hoc in eo quidem quo mulier seducta est, non est ille seductus: sed eum fefellit, quo modo fuerat iudicandum, quod erat dicturus, Mulier quam dedisti mihi sociam, ipsa mihi dedit, & manducavi. Quid ergo opus est pluribus. Etsi credendo non sunt ambo decepti peccando tamen ambo capti sunt, & diaboli laqueis implicati. Sic Augustinus.
Non dissimulabo tamen videri fortasse cuipiam posse, Adamum cognovisse dicta & promissa serpentis, & vera credidisse: atque hoc non obscure indicasse Deum, qui cum de Adamo loqueretur dixit: Ecce Adam quasi unus ex nobis factus est, sciens bonum & malum: his enim verbis arguit eum affectatae similitudinis & aequalitatis Dei in scientia boni & mali: significans eum promisso illi serpentis, Eritis sicut Dii scientes bonum & malum, fidem & assensum adhibuisse. Verum quomodo Adam qui sapiens erat, credere potuit posse se aequalitatem divinae scientiae consequi? Respondet S. Thomas in secundo Sententiarum, distinct. 25. & Caietanus in Commentariis...
I will not, however, disguise that it may perhaps seem possible to someone that Adam knew the serpent's words and promises and believed them true; and that God indicated this not obscurely, who, when speaking of Adam, said: 'Behold, Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil.' For by these words he charges him with an affected likeness and equality with God in the knowledge of good and evil: signifying that Adam gave faith and assent to that promise of the serpent, 'You shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.' But how could Adam, who was wise, believe that he could attain equality with divine knowledge? St. Thomas answers in the second book of the Sentences, distinction 25, and Cajetan in his Commentaries...11
...suis in secundam secundae; B. Thomae, quaest. 163. art. 4. Adamum concupivisse illud non appetitu absoluto, sed conditionali, ad hunc scilicet modum reputans secum: Vellem esse sicut Deus est, si fieri posset. Vel aliter potest responderi, Adamum non concupivisse aequalitatem divinae potestatis & scientiae, sed quandam tantummodo similitudinem potestatis & scientiae Dei, quae quidem per se, ac simpliciter non erat impossibilis Adamo, non erat tamen possibilis ei propter legem & ordinationem Dei contrariam. Illa vero similitudo scientiae & potestatis Dei, tribus in rebus erat posita: primo, liberum esse a subiectione & obligatione legis, saltem positivae: tum habere scientiam omnium bonorum & malorum sine ulla exceptione, tam praesentium, quam futurorum: denique non extrinsecus determinari ad hoc agendum potius quam illud, vel ad hoc sciendum & non illud.
...his [Commentaries] on the Secunda secundae of St. Thomas, question 163, article 4: that Adam coveted that thing not with an absolute appetite, but with a conditional one, reckoning with himself in this manner: 'I would wish to be as God is, if it could be done.' Or it can be answered otherwise, that Adam did not covet equality with the divine power and knowledge, but only a certain likeness of God's power and knowledge, which indeed of itself and simply was not impossible for Adam, yet was not possible for him because of God's contrary law and ordinance. Now that likeness of God's knowledge and power consisted in three things: first, to be free from the subjection and obligation of law, at least positive law; then to have knowledge of all goods and evils without any exception, both present and future; and finally, not to be extrinsically determined to do this rather than that, or to know this and not that.12
Sed huic opinioni videtur illud plane contrarium, quod scribit Paulus capite secundo prioris Epistolae ad Timotheum: Adam, inquit, primus formatus est, deinde Eva: Et Adam non est seductus, mulier autem seducta in praevaricatione fuit. Quibus verbis aperte docet Paulus, Adamum non fuisse deceptum: at fuisset deceptus, si dictis & promissis credens serpentis, putasset se similem Deo sciendo bonum & malum, evadere potuisse. Quam igitur illa Pauli verba sententiam habeant, quantamque vim ad id probandum, cuius persuadendi causa citantur, deinceps paulo accuratius expendendum & considerandum est.
But to this opinion that seems plainly contrary which Paul writes in the second chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy: 'Adam,' he says, 'was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not seduced, but the woman being seduced was in the transgression.' By which words Paul plainly teaches that Adam was not deceived; but he would have been deceived, if, believing the serpent's words and promises, he had thought that he could turn out to be like God in knowing good and evil. Therefore what these words of Paul mean, and how much force they have to prove that for the persuading of which they are cited, must next be weighed and considered a little more accurately.13
Translator’s notes
- Lemma continuing Gen 3:6; marginal reference 'Ibidem' (same place). ↩
- Scriptural references: Gen 3:4 ('Nequaquam moriemini'); Gen 3:5 ('Eritis sicut Dii'). Note Pererius's point that the serpent's plural address implies Adam was meant to be drawn in. ↩
- Marginal gloss: 'Cur diabolus prius tentaverit Evam quam Adamum' (Why the devil tempted Eve before Adam). Citation: Sirach 25:33 ('A muliere initium peccati, et per illam omnes morimur'). Catchword: 'norum' (= donorum, the sentence continues on the next page). ↩
- Continues from page 647 (catchword 'norum'). Augustine, De Civitate Dei 14.11. ↩
- The devil's three motives: hatred of God, pride, and above all envy. Citation: Wisdom 2:24 ('Invidia diaboli mors introivit in orbem terrarum'). ↩
- Marginal gloss: 'An Eva narraverit Adamo promissa serpentis' (Whether Eve related the serpent's promises to Adam). References: 1 Tim 2:14 ('Adam was not deceived'); 'Exod. 32' (Aaron's golden calf); '2. Reg. 11' (printed; the Solomon reference is properly 3 Reg./1 Kings 11). Catchword: 'quillo' (= tranquillo, the sentence continues on the next page). ↩
- Citation: Judges 16:16 (Delilah wearing down Samson). Catchword: 'veti' (= vetiti, the sentence continues on the next page). ↩
- Continues from page 648 (Adam saw Eve had not died after eating). Catchword: 'riositas' (= curiositas, the sentence continues below). Running head misprinted '639'; true printed page 649. ↩
- Pererius introduces two Augustine passages: De Civitate Dei 14.11 and De Genesi ad litteram 11.31. ↩
- Augustine, De Civitate Dei 14.11. Marginal references: 'Exod. 32' (Aaron); '3. Reg. 11' (Solomon); '2. Tim. 2' (printed; properly 1 Tim 2:14, 'Adam was not seduced'); 'Rom. 5' (Rom 5:12, 'Per unum hominem intravit peccatum'); 'Ibid.' (Rom 5:14, 'in similitudinem praevaricationis Adae'); 'Gen. 3' (Gen 3:12, 'Mulier quam dedisti mihi...'). ↩
- Marginal gloss: 'Quomodo Adam expetierit similitudinem & aequalitatem Dei' (How Adam sought likeness and equality with God). References: Gen 3:22 ('Ecce Adam quasi unus ex nobis'); Gen 3:5 ('Eritis sicut Dii'). Aquinas, Sentences II d.25; Cajetan. Catchword: 'suis'; page footer 'Com. in Gen. Tom. 1.' and signature 'NNN'. ↩
- Continues from page 649 (answer to how wise Adam could expect likeness to God). Authorities: Cajetan (Commentary on Summa 2a2ae) and Aquinas (Summa 2a2ae q.163 a.4). Marginal gloss: 'Similitudo Dei quam concupivit Adamus, in quo consistebat' (The likeness to God that Adam coveted, in what it consisted). Running head misprinted '640'; true printed page 650. ↩
- Citation: 1 Tim 2:13-14 ('Adam non est seductus, mulier autem seducta in praevaricatione fuit'). ↩