Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book III: On the Sin of the First Man
Chapter 4: That the first sin of the first parents was pride
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. V, De Amissione Gratiae et Statu Peccati, Book III. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
We have discoursed of the temptation; now we must discourse of the sin itself, and first offers itself that question: what was the first and principal sin of the first men.
There were not wanting among the ancients those who held that the first men sinned in this, that they anticipated the use of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, as St. Augustine relates, book 11 On Genesis to the Letter, chapter 41; whose opinion, if it be taken mystically, will perhaps not be to be disapproved. For it can be that by the tree of knowledge they would have signified some contemplation which befits the blessed alone, and thereby is not to be desired before the due time; for so St. Gregory Nazianzen interprets the tree of knowledge, in the oration on the Birthday of the Lord, and oration 2 on Pascha. But certainly according to the letter that opinion cannot be true. For God did not forbid the eating of the tree of knowledge for a time, but in perpetuity, when he said: In what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death. Even less probable is the opinion of those who, Augustine being witness in the same place, said that the first sin of Adam and Eve was intemperance — namely, that they snatched the use of marriage before the lawful time, and in a manner stole their own nuptials. For it is sufficiently agreed from the sacred history that Adam knew his wife after he had been driven out of paradise on account of sin, as can be understood from chapter 4 of Genesis. Next, the first sin could not be intemperance of the flesh, since there was not, nor could be, in the state of innocence any carnal concupiscence repugnant to right reason, unless reason itself had first begun to be repugnant to God, as we demonstrated in the book On the State of Innocence. Add that, even if immediately after their creation the first men had wished to give themselves to begetting children, there was no law by which they were forbidden to do so. For they had been created not infants or boys, but perfect in strength and stature, so that a ripe age was not to be waited for; and they had already heard: Increase and multiply; and Adam, divinely taught, had pronounced: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; and: Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife.
There are two other opinions, which have holy Fathers as authors. For St. Ambrose, in the book On Paradise, chapter 12, writes that Eve sinned in that she added something to the words of the Lord. For when God had forbidden that they eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, else it would come to pass that they die, she reported that it had been forbidden them to eat of the tree of knowledge, or to touch it, lest perhaps they die — where she added that the touching of the tree had been forbidden, and called back into doubt the absolute threat of death by that word “perhaps.” St. John Chrysostom, homily 16 on Genesis, writes that the beginning of the sin was that Eve began to converse with the devil. But those holy Fathers seem not to have wished to discourse accurately of the sin of the first parent, but in passing to take from what had happened an occasion of admonishing the people — both that they should recite the words of God faithfully and religiously, and that they should diligently and studiously guard against the conversations of the wicked. And although that addition to the word of God, and the conversation with the devil, can in some manner be called sins, because they were occasions of the sin which was afterwards committed, yet properly they were not sins. For Eve did not change the sentence of the Lord, though she did not express it in just so many words as God had at the beginning pronounced it. Nor did she know that it was the devil who was speaking with her through the serpent. And moreover she was sufficiently furnished and fortified with the safeguard of divine grace, so that she could safely converse openly even with the devil himself, if she had willed to resist his temptation.
These opinions, then, being dismissed — in whose refutation we agree with the heretics of our time — let us see what controversy remains between us and them. Martin Luther, in the commentary on chapter 3 of Genesis, contends that the first sin of the first parents was infidelity: namely, that they did not believe they would die if they tasted that fruit. This Luther proves both from the words of Scripture and from reason. For Scripture, Genesis 3, relates that the serpent endeavored above all to persuade the woman of this, that she should believe she would not die; and that the woman did not dare to look upon the fruits of that tree, and much less to pluck them, before she had heard: No, you shall not die the death. For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil. And reason urges this: that as faith is the beginning and root of justice, so the root and beginning of sin is infidelity. The same is the opinion of John Calvin, who, book 2 of the Institutes, chapter 1, §4, thus briefly explains his judgment: “Infidelity was the root of the defection. Hence, however, emerged ambition and pride, to which ingratitude is annexed.” And below: “Infidelity opened the door to ambition; and ambition was the mother of contumacy.” And he renders this reason: that Adam would never have dared to fight against the command of God, unless incredulous of his word.
But the common opinion of the Catholic theologians is that the first sin of Eve was pride. See St. Thomas, in 2-2, question 163, and the other theologians on 2 Sentences, distinctions 21 and 22. Concerning Adam, St. Bonaventure and Scotus, in the place cited, judge that his first sin was an inordinate love toward his spouse — a love, however, not of carnal concupiscence, but of human friendship. But St. Thomas, in the place noted, teaches that the first sin of both parents was pride; which opinion is altogether to be received. For it agrees most fully with the divine writings, with the testimonies of the Fathers, and with reason itself.
Let us begin from the Scriptures. Ecclesiasticus 10: The beginning of the pride of man is to fall off from God: because his heart is departed from him that made him. And again: Pride is the beginning of all sin. In which place the wise man shows by two arguments that pride is a vice most detestable. First, because the beginning of human pride — that is, the first act of the pride of man — appeared in that defection of the first man, who of his own accord departed from God, who had newly created him, refusing to be subjected to his command. Next, because that pride of the first man was the beginning of all sin — that is, of all the sins which have been committed by men, and are daily committed. Which same thing Tobias confirms in those words which are had in chapter 4: Never suffer pride to reign in thy mind, or in thy words: for from it all perdition took its beginning. For although these places could be referred to the sin of the Angel, which was absolutely the first of all, yet it is more credible that Ecclesiasticus and Tobias looked back to the first sin of the first men, which was better known to the common people than the sin of the Angel.
Moreover, blessed Paul, chapter 5 of the epistle to the Romans: As by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just. In which place the Apostle speaks of the sin of Adam rather than of Eve, since in Adam all die, 1 Corinthians 15; and by one man sin entered into the world, in whom all have sinned, Romans 5. And he speaks of the first sin, not of the rest which he committed after the first; for by the first sin he lost the grace of God and original justice, the privation of which is, in his posterity, original sin. Further, the first act of pride is to refuse to be subjected to the command and precepts of another — which is properly called disobedience; as contrariwise it belongs to humility to be subjected to the command and precepts of others — which is properly called obedience. Hence we read, Ecclesiasticus 10: The beginning of the pride of man is to fall off from God. Which is not so to be taken as though apostasy were prior to pride; but Ecclesiasticus signifies that the first part, or first act, of pride was the refusal to obey God, as St. Thomas rightly expounds in 2-2, question 162, article 7, ad 2. Hence also, Jeremias 2, it is said to man: Of old time thou hast broken my yoke, thou hast burst my bands, and thou saidst: I will not serve.
St. Augustine also holds pride and disobedience, humility and obedience, for the same, book 14 of the City of God, chapter 13: “It is good,” says he, “to have the heart lifted up — yet not to oneself, which belongs to pride, but to the Lord, which belongs to obedience, which cannot be but of the humble.” And in the same place: “They could be better than gods by cleaving to the highest and true principle through obedience, than by existing as their own principle to themselves through pride.” In which place Augustine opposes obedience and pride as contraries: because, namely, disobedience is a certain pride, and obedience a certain humility. And book 8 On Genesis to the Letter, chapter 14 [al. 13]: “Nor can it come to pass that one's own will should not fall upon a man with the great weight of ruin, if by exalting it he prefer it to the will of the superior. This man experienced in despising the precept of God, and by this experiment learned what is the difference between good and evil — the good, namely, of obedience, and the evil of disobedience, that is, of pride and contumacy.” The Apostle, then, considered that the sin of the first man began from hidden disobedience, by which, lifted up into pride, he loved not to be subjected to the command of God, but to be in his own power; and that thence it burst out into open disobedience, by which he presumed to taste the forbidden fruit; and therefore properly and most aptly he said that by the disobedience of one many were made sinners. But if the first sin of the first men had been infidelity, or love of a spouse, St. Paul would not truly, or certainly not properly, have called that sin disobedience. For neither infidelity nor excessive love of a spouse can properly be called disobedience; but pride, although of itself it extends more widely than disobedience, and not all pride is disobedience, yet all disobedience, formally taken, is pride; and thereby the pride whereby one despises a precept, and refuses to obey the law of a superior, can properly be called contumacy, or disobedience. Just as also humility, which renders a man subject to a superior as to all things, extends more widely than obedience, which renders a man subject to a superior insofar as he commands something; yet a certain humility — that, namely, which subjects a man to the precept of a superior — is called at once both humility and obedience. And so much for the testimonies of the Scriptures.
Let us now prove by the testimonies of the Fathers that the first sin of the first parents was not infidelity, nor anything else, but pride. St. Basil, in the oration That God Is Not the Author of Evils: “Wherefore,” says he, “assailing man with wiles, by that same lust of ambition which he himself had from the beginning — the wish to be like God — using these things again to deceive us, he showed the tree, through the tasting of which he promised that man would be like God.” St. John Chrysostom, homily 16 on Genesis: “Therefore,” says he, “when she had imagined divinity in her mind, she hastened to the eating.” St. Augustine, book 8 On Genesis to the Letter, chapter 13, speaking of the first sin: “Finally,” says he, “nothing else was desired by the sinner than not to be under the dominion of God, when that was committed in which, that it might not be committed, the mere bidding of the Lord ought to have been attended to.” But more clearly, book 11, chapter 30: “When,” says he, “would the woman have believed, from these words, that they had been divinely forbidden a good and useful thing, unless there were already in her mind that love of her own power, and a certain proud presumption concerning herself, which through that temptation was to be convicted and humbled?” By these words St. Augustine most openly refutes the opinion which Luther and Calvin maintain. For they would have pride born from infidelity; but contrariwise St. Augustine disputes that infidelity could not have found place in the soul of the first parent unless pride had preceded in it.
The same Augustine, in the Enchiridion, chapter 45 [al. 43], enumerating the evil acts, and as it were the parts, of the first man's sin, puts pride in the first place: “Pride is there,” says he, “whereby man loved to be in his own power rather than in God's.” Likewise in book 14 of the City of God, chapter 13, speaking of both first parents: “In secret,” says he, “they began to be evil, that they might fall into open disobedience. For the evil work would not have been arrived at, unless an evil will had preceded. Further, what could the beginning of an evil will be, but pride? For pride is the beginning of all sin.” And below: “In the manifest and open sin, then — where that was done which God had forbidden to be done — the devil would not have captured man, unless man had already begun to please himself. For this is why that delighted him which was said: You shall be as Gods — whereas they could be that better by cleaving to the highest and true principle through obedience, than by existing as their own principle to themselves through pride.”
St. Leo, sermon 5 on the Nativity of the Lord: “What,” says he, “was more apt for healing the sick, for enlightening the blind, for quickening the dead, than that the wounds of pride should be cured by the remedies of humility?” Where he calls the evils inflicted on the human race from the sin of Adam “the wounds of pride.” Likewise in the same place: “To him (Adam), fallen through elation, it was said: Dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt go. To this one, exalted through humility, it was said: Sit thou at my right hand,” etc. St. Prosper, book 2 On the Contemplative Life, chapter 19: “And to me indeed,” says he, “it seems that they would not have eaten of the forbidden tree unless they had lusted; nor would they have lusted, unless tempted; nor would they be tempted, unless deserted; nor would they be deserted by God, unless they themselves had first deserted God; nor would they have deserted God, unless they had been proud, and had miserably desired the likeness of God.” St. Fulgentius, in book 2 On the Incarnation and Grace of Christ, chapter 22: “Because the first man was cast down into pride by diabolical persuasion, he lost humility.” St. Gregory, book 34 [al. 4] of the Morals, chapter 9 [al. 23]: “Two creatures,” says he, “he had made for understanding himself — the angelic, namely, and the human; but pride struck both, and broke them from the state of inborn rectitude.” Eucherius, book 1 on Genesis, and not a few others teach the same.
Let reason also come last. For among evil acts the interior were prior to the exterior, as well concerning an intelligible object as concerning a sensible one. For since the lower part was subject to the higher, and could not fall away from it until it itself fell away from God, the concupiscence of some sensible good could not prevail in the soul unless the soul itself, turned away from God, had first fallen down to the lowest things. Wherefore it cannot be that immoderate love toward his wife was the first sin of Adam — nor do I speak only of the love of carnal concupiscence, but even of that love of social benevolence which Bonaventure and Scotus lay down as the first sin. For that too was a love of a sensible thing, namely of human companionship and social life; which Adam, unwilling to lose, preferred to transgress the law of God rather than to sadden the companion of his life. Further, among interior acts, and concerning intelligible good, the act concerning the end is prior to that concerning the means, since means are desired on account of the end, not conversely. But the end of man, in evils, is his own excellence, which is the object of pride. Not infidelity, therefore, nor anything else, but pride was the first sin of both first parents.
Moreover (that we may refute the opinion of Luther and Calvin properly): the mind of the first parents, illustrated with divine light, could not be led into error unless it had first, through turning away from God, been forsaken of that light, as Augustine reasons, book 14 of the City of God, chapter 13. Just as no one can believe that the sun does not shine while he looks upon the sun itself. Therefore turning away from God, and sin, preceded the infidelity of the first parents; infidelity, then, was not the first sin. Moreover, the mother of infidelity is pride, as the same Augustine teaches in the book On the Pastors, chapter 8. Therefore pride preceded infidelity — not contrariwise, unless we make the daughter older than the mother. Finally, in sins the conversion to a created good is prior to the aversion from the uncreated good; for the aversion is not of itself desirable, since it is not good, and good alone is the object of the will. And so, because we turn to a created good, it follows that we are turned away from the uncreated; but the aversion itself is not first and of itself chosen by the will. But to refuse to believe God, which is the act of infidelity, is a certain aversion from God; therefore infidelity is not the first evil act, but follows some other prior act, by which we are converted to a created good. Wherefore the divine Scriptures in more than one place testify that preceding evil works are the cause of consequent infidelity. 1 Timothy 1: Having faith and a good conscience, which some rejecting have made shipwreck concerning the faith. And 1 Timothy 6: The desire of money is the root of all evils; which some coveting have erred from the faith.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV. Primum peccatum parentum primorum fuisse superbiam. Disseruimus de tentatione; nunc de ipso peccato disserendum est, ac prima se offert illa qusestio, quodnam fuerit primorum ho-' minum primum, et principale peccatum. Non defuerunt ex veteribus, qui sentirent, in eo peccasse primos homines, quod ante¬ verterint usum ligni scientia) boni et mali, ut S. Augustinus refert lib. xi. de Genesi ad literam, cap. 41. quorum sententia, si my¬ stice accipiatur, fortasse non improbanda erit. Fieri enim potest, ut per lignum scientia) contemplationem aliquam significatam esse velint, qua) solis beatis congruat, ac per hoc non ante tempus debitum appetendam : sic enim interpretatur arborem scientia) S. Gre- gorius Nazianzenus oratione de Natali Do¬ mini, et orat. 2. de Pascha. Sed certe ad literam ea sententia vera esse non potest. Neque enim Deus ad tempus esum ligni scientia) prohibuit, sed in perpe¬ tuum, cum ait : Quacumque die comederis ex eo, morte morieris. Minus etiam probabilis eorum sententia est, qui teste Augustino in eodem loco , dicebant primum peccatum Adami atque Hevae fuisse intemperantiam, quod videlicet ante legitimum tempus usum conjugii arripuissent, et nuptias suas quo¬ dammodo furati essent. Satis enim ex histo¬ ria sacra constat, Adamum cognovisse uxo¬ rem suam, posteaquam propter peccatum ex paradiso exactus fuisset, ut intelligi po¬ test ex cap. iv. Gen. Deinde non potuit primum peccatum esse intemperantia carnis, cum nulla esset, neque esse posset in statu innocentia) concupiscentia carnalis recta) rationi repugnans, nisi prius ipsa ratio Deo repugnare co)pisset, ut in libro de statu in¬ nocentia) demonstravimus. Adde, quod e- tiamsi continuo post creationem suam primi homines , liberis operam dare voluissent, nulla erat lex, qua prohiberentur id facere. Nam neque infantes, aut pueri, sed viribus, et statura perfecti creati fuerant, ut aetas matura expectanda non esset : et jam audi¬ erant : Crescite et multiplicamini , et Adamus divinitus edoctus pronuntiaverat : Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de came mea, et, Propter hoc relinquet homo patrem, et matrem, et adhaerebit uxori suae. Sunt alia) duae sententiae, qua) sanctos Pa¬ tres habent auctores. Sanctus enim Ambro¬ sius in libro de paradiso cap. 12. scribit, peccasse Evam, quod addiderit aliquid ad verba Domini. Nam cum Deus prohibuisset, ne vescerentur de fructu ligni scientia) boni et mali, alioqui futurum ut morerentur : illa retulit, prohibitum sibi fuisse, ne vesce¬ rentur de ligno scientiae, neque illud tange¬ rent, ne forte morerentur. Ubi addidit veti¬ tum fuisse contactum ligni, et absolutam mortis interminationem revocavit in dubium per vocem illam (forte). S. Joannes Chryso- stomus hom. 16. in Genesim scribit, initium peccati fuisse, quod Eva cum diabolo collo¬ qui coeperit. Caeterum sancti isti Patres, non videntur accurate de peccato primae parentis dissere¬ re voluisse, sed obiter, ex eo quod acciderat occasionem accipere admonendi populum, tum ut fideliter, et religiose verba Dei reci¬ tarent, tum ut diligenter, et studiose malo¬ rum colloquia praecaverent. Et quamvis illa additio ad verbum Dei, et colloquium cum diabolo aliquo modo peccata dici possint, quia fuerunt occasiones peccati, qued post¬ ea commissum est : proprie tamen peccata non fuerunt. Nam Eva non mutavit senten¬ tiam Domini, quamvis non totidem verbis illam expresserit, ac Deus illam initio pro¬ nuntiaverat. Neque sciebat diabolum esse, k qui secum per serpentem loquebatur. Et praeterea satis instructa erat, ac munita gra¬ tia) divinae praesidio, ut posset tuto cum ipso etiam diabolo aperte colloqui, si tentationi ejus resistere voluisset. His igitur opinionibus dimissis, in quarum refutatione cum haereticis nostri temporis convenimus, videamus, quae inter nos, et illos controversia supersit. Martinus Luthc- rus in commentario 3. cap. Gen. contendit, primum peccatum primorum parentum fuis¬ se infidelitatem, quod videlicet non credide¬ rint se morituros, si fructum illum deguslas- sent. Id Lutherus probat, tum ex verbis CAPUT IV. 309 Scripturae, tura ex ratione. Nam Scriptura, Genes, mi, refert, serpentem hoc potissimum persuadere conatum esse mulieri, ut crede¬ ret se non morituram : et mulierem non prius ausam respicere poma illius arboris, ac multo minus decerpere, quam audisset : Nequaquam moriemini. Scit enim Deus, quia quacumque die comederitis, aperientur oculi vestri, ct critis sicut Dii scientes bonum et malum. Ratio autem id suadet, ut sicut ini¬ tium, et radix justitiae est fides, ita radix, et initium peccati sit infidelitas. Eadem est sententia Joannis Calvini, qui lib. ii. Institut. cap. 1. §. 4. ita breviter ex¬ plicat sententiam suam : « Infidelitas radix defectionis fuit. Hinc autem emersit ambi¬ tio, et superbia, quibus annexa est ingrati¬ tudo. » Et infra : a Infidelitas ambitioni januam aperuit : ambitio vero contumacia! fuit mater. » Et rationem hanc reddit : quia nunquam repugnare Dei imperio ausus fuisset Adam, nisi ejus verbo incredulus. At sententia theologorum catholicorum communis est, primum peccatum Evse fuisse superbiam. Vide S. Thomam in 2. 2. qua!st. 103. et Theologos caderos in 2. sent. dist. 2i. et 22. De Adamo S. Bonavenlura, et Scotus loco citato existimant, primum ejus peccatum fuisse inordinatum amorem erga cunjugem, amorem autem n6n carnalis con¬ cupiscentia!, sed humanas amicitiae. Sanctus vero Thomas loco notato, utriusque parentis primum peccatum docet fuisse superbiam, quas sententia omnino recipienda est. Nam et cum divinis litteris ct cum testimoniis Patrum, et cum ipsa ratione maxime con¬ gruit. Incipiamus a Scripturis, Eccles. x. Initium superbia i hominis apostatare a Deo, quoniam ab eo , qui fecit eum, recessit cor ejus. Et rursum : Initium, inquit, omnis peccati superbia (I). Quo loco duobus argumentis sapiens ostendit, superbiam esse vitium maxime detestabile. Primum, quia principium superbia! huma¬ na!, id est, primus actus superbia! hominis, apparuit in illa defectione primi hominis, qui a Deo, qui eum recens creaverat, sponte recessit, nolens subjici ejus imperio. Dein¬ de, quia illa primi hominis superbia fuit ini¬ tium omnis peccati; sive omnium peccato¬ rum, quai ab hominibus commissa sunt, et quotidie committuntur. Quod idem confirmat Tobias illis verbis, quai habentur cap. vi. Superbiam numquam in tuo sensu, aut in tuo verbo dominari permittas. In illa enim initi¬ um sumpsit omnis perditio (2). Quamvis enim lncc loca referri possent ad peccatum Angeli, quod fuit absolute omnium primum : tamen credibilius est Ecclesiasticum et Tobiam respexisse ad primum peccatum primorum hominum, quod notius erat vulgo, quam peccatum Angeli. Adhacc B. Paulus cap. 3. epist. ad Ilom. : Sicut , inquit, per inobedientiam unius hominis peccatores constituti sunt multi, ita per obedi- entiam unius hominis, justi constituentur mul¬ ti (3). Quo loco Apostolus loquitur de pec¬ cato Adami potius, quam Eva!, siquidem in Adamo omnes moriuntur, I Corinth. xv. Et per unum hominem peccatum in mundum intravit, in quo omnes peccaverunt. Rom. v(4). Et loquitur de primo peccato, non de esete- ris, qua! post primum commisit ; nam per prunum peccatum amisit gratiam Dei, et originalem justitiam, cujus privatio est in ejus posteris originale peccatum. Porro ac¬ tus primus superbia! est, nolle subjici impe¬ rio, et praeceptis alterius, qua! proprie di¬ citur inobedientia : sicut e contrario humi¬ litatis est , subjici imperio, et pimeeptis aliorum, qua! proprie dicitur obedientia. Hinc legimus Eccles. x : Initium superbia i hominis apostatare a Deo. Quod non ita acci¬ piendum est, quasi apostasia sit prior quam superbia, sed significat Ecclesiasticus, pri¬ mam partem, sive primum superbia! actum fuisse nolle parere Deo, ut S. Thomas recte exponit in 2. 2. quaist. 162. art. 7. ad 2. hinc etiam Ilierem. ii, dicitur homini : A saeculo confregisti jugum meum, rupisti, vin¬ cula, dixisti : Non serviam (3). Sanctus etiam Augustinus pro eodem ha¬ bet superbiam, et inobedientiam, humilita¬ tem, et obedientiam, lib. xiv. de civit. Dei, cap. 13 : « Bonum est, inquit, sursum habe¬ re cor, non tamen ad se ipsum, quod est superbia!, sed ad Dominum, quod est obe- dientiae, quai nisi humilium esse non potest.» Et in eodem loco : « Melius esse possent Dii summo veroque principio cohaerendo per obedientiam, quam suum sibi existendo per superbiam. » Quo loco opponit Augustinus tamquam contraria, obedientiam et super¬ biam, quia videlicet inobedientia est quae- (1) Eccl. X, 14. - (2) Tob. IV, 14. -- (3) Rom. V, 19. - (4) l Corin. XV, 22; Rom. V, 12. — (3) Hier. II, 20. 310 LIBER 111. dara superbia et obedientia quaedam humi¬ litas. Et lib. vm. de Genesi ad litteram, cap. 14 : « Nec fieri potest, ut voluntas propria non grandi ruina? pondere, super hominem cadat, si eam voluntati superioris extollen¬ do praeponat. Hoc expertus est homo con- temmens praeceptum Dei, et hoc experi¬ mento didicit, quid interest inter bonum et malum, bonum scilicet obedientiae, malum autem inobedicntiae,id est, superbiae et con¬ tumaciae. » Apostolus igitur consideravit, peccatum primi hominis coepisse ab occulta inobedientia, qua in superbiam elatus, non imperio Dei subjici, sed in sua potestate esse dilexit, et inde erupisse in apertam inobe- dientiam ; qua fructum vetitum gustare praesumpsit ; et ideo proprie, et aptissime dixit, per unius inobedientiam multos pec¬ catores esse constituos. Quod si primum peccatum hominum pri¬ morum fuisset infidelitas, aut amor conjugis, non vere, aut certe non proprie S. Paulus illud peccatum inobedientiam appellasset. Neque enim infidelitas, vel amor conjugis nimius, inobedientia proprie dici potest : superbia vero quamvis ex sc latius pateat quam inobedientia, et non omnis superbia inobedientia sit, omnis tamen inobedientia formaliter sumpta, superbia est, ac per hoc superbia, qua quis contemnit praeceptum, nec parere vult legis superioris, proprie contumacia, sive inobedientia dici potest. Quemadmodum etiam humilitas, quae reddit hominem subjectum superiori, quoad om¬ nia latius patet, quam obedientia, quae red¬ dit hominem subjectum superiori, quatenus aliquid praecipit : tamen quaedam humilitas, ea videlicet, quae hominem praecepto supe¬ rioris subjicit, simul et humilitas et obedien¬ tia dicitur. Atque haec de testimoniis Scri¬ pturarum. Probemus nunc testimoniis Patrum, pri¬ mum peccatum parentum primorum, non infidelitatem, neque aliquid aliud, sed su¬ perbiam fuisse. S. Basilius in oratione quod Deus non sit auctor malorum : «Quamobrem inquit, dolis hominem aggressus, eadem ambitionis cupiditate, quam ipse ab initio habuit, velle similem esse Deo, haec rursus ad decipiendos nos usus, lignum ostendit, per cujus degustationem pollicitus est homi¬ nem similem fore Deo. » S. Joanncs Chrysostomus homil. 1G. in Gen. : « Igitur, inquit, ut divinitatem mente sua imaginata est, ad esum properavit. » S. Augustinus lib. vm. de Genesi ad litte¬ ram, cap. 13. loquens de primo peccato : « Denique, inquit, a peccante nihil aliud appetitum est, nisi non esse sub dominatione Dei, quando illud admissum est, in quo ne admitteretur, sola deberet jussio dominantis attendi. » Sed clarius lib. xi. cap. 30 : « Quando, inquit, his verbis crederet mulier a bona atque utili re divinitus se fuisse pro¬ hibitos, nisi jam inesset menti amor ille pro¬ pria? potestatis, et quaedam de se superba priesumptio, qua? per illam tentationem fue¬ rat convincenda et humilianda? » His verbis apertissime S. Augustinus refellit sententiam, quam Lutherus et Calvinus tuentur. Illi e- nim volunt ex infidelitate superbiam natam esse, contra autem S. Augustinus disputat, non potuisse infidelitatem in animo prima? parentis locum invenire, nisi in eo superbia praecessisset. Idem Augustinus in Enchir. cap. 43. enu¬ merans actus malos, et quasi partes peccati primi hominis, primo loco ponit superbiam : «Superbia, inquit, est illic, qua homo in sua p dius esse, quam in Dei potestate dilexit. » Item in lib. xiv. de civit. Dei, cap. 13, de utroque primo parente loquens : « In occu¬ lto, inquit, mali esse coeperunt, ut in aper¬ tam inobedientiam laberentur. Non enim ad malum opus perveniretur, nisi praecessisset mala voluntas. Porro malae voluntatis ini¬ tium, quid potuit esse nisi superbia? initium enim omnis peccati superbia. « Et infra : » Manifesto ergo, apertoque peccato, ubi fac¬ tum est, quod Deus fieri prohibuerat, diabolus hominem non cepisset, nisi jam ille sibi placere coepisset. Hic enim delectavit quod dictum est : Eritrs sicut Dii, quod melius esse possent summo veroque principio cohaeren¬ do per obedientiam, quam suum sibi exi- stendo principium per superbiam. » S. Leo serm. 5. de Nativitate Domini : « Quid, ihquit, sanandis aegris, illuminan¬ dis caecis, vivificandis mortuis aptius fuit, quam ut superbia? vulnera humilitatis reme¬ diis curarentur ? » Ubi vocat superbiae vul¬ nera, mala inflicta humano generi ex pec¬ cato Adami. Item in eodem loco : « Illi (Ada¬ mo) per elationem lapso dictum est, terra es, et in terram ibis. Huic per humilitatem exaltato dictum est, sede a dextris etc. » S. Prosper lib. ii. de vita contemplativa cap. 19: « Et mihi quidem, inquit, videtur quod non ederent de ligno prohibito, nisi concupissent; nec concupissent, nisi tentali, CAPUT IV. 311 nec tentarentur, nisi diserti ; nec desereren¬ tur, a Deo, nisi ipsi prius desererent Deum; nec desererent Deum, nisi superbirent et similitudinem Dei miserabiliter appetis¬ sent. S. Fulgentius in lib, ii. de Incarnatione et gratia Christi, cap. 22 : « Quia primus homo in superbiam est diabolica persuasione dejectus, perdidit humilitatem. » S. Gregorius lib. iv. Moral. cap. 9 : «Duas, inquit, ad intelligendum se creaturas fece¬ rat, angelicam videlicet et humanam ; u- tramque vero superbia perculit, atque ab statu ingenitae rectitudinis fregit. » Euche- rius lib. 1. in Gen. et alii non pauci idem docent. Accedat Postremo etiam ratio, nam inter actus malos priores fuerunt interiores, quam exteriores, tam circa objectum intelligibile, quam circa sensibile. Cum enim pars infe¬ rior subjecta esset superiori, nec ab ea de¬ ficere posset, donec ipsa non deficeret a Deo ; non potuit concupiscentia sensibilis alicujus boni in animo praevalere, nisi prius ipse animus a Deo aversus ad infima corru¬ isset. Quare fieri non potest, ut amor erga uxorem immoderatus , primum peccatum Adarni fuerit : nec solum de de amor car¬ nalis concupiscentiae loquor, sed etiam de amore illo socialis benevolentiae , quem Bo- naventura et Scotus primum peccatum sta¬ tuunt. Nam et ille amor rei sensibilis erat, videlicet consortii humani, et socialis vitae, quam amittere Adamus nolens, maluit le¬ gem Dei transgredi, quam vitae sociam con¬ tristare. Porro inter actus interiores, et circa bo¬ num intelligibile prior est actus circa finem quam circa media, siquidem media appe¬ tuntur propter finem , non contra . Finis autem hominis in malis est excellentia pro¬ pria, quae superbiae est objectum. Non igi¬ tur infidelitas, aut aliquid aliud, sed superbia primum peccatum utriusque primi parentis fuit. Praeterea (ut sententiam Lutheri et Cal¬ vini proprie refellamus) non potuit mens primorum parentum divino lumine illustra¬ ta, in errorem induci, nisi antea per aver¬ sionem a Deo lumine illo destituta fuisset, ut Augustinus ratiocinatur lib. xiv. de civit. Dei, cap. 13. Quemadmodum nemo potest credere solem non lucere, dum solem ip¬ sum respicit : ergo infidelitatem primorum parentum- aversio a Deo, et peccatum prae¬ cessit ; non igitur infidelitas primum pecca¬ tum fuit. Adhaec mater infidelitatis est superbia, ut idem Augustinus docet in lib. de pastoribus cap. 8. Igitur superbia infidelitatem praeces¬ sit : non e contrario, nisi filiam matre an¬ tiquiorem faciamus. Denique prior in peccatis est conversio ad bonum creatum, quam aversio a bono in- creato : neque enim aversio perse appetibilis est, cum non sit bona, et solum bonum sit ob¬ jectum voluntatis. Itaque quia convertimur ad bonum creatum, sequitur, ut avertamur ab increato, non autem primo, et per se aversio ipsa a voluntate eligitur. At non velle Deo credere, qui est actus infidelitatis, est aversio qusedam a Deo, igitur infidelitas non est primus actus malus, sed alium ali¬ quem priorem, quo ad bonum creatum con¬ vertimur, sequitur. Quare Scripturae divinae non uno in loco testantur, mala opera prae¬ cedentia esse causam consequentis infideli¬ tatis I Timoth. i : Habens fidem, et bonam conscientiam , quam quidam repellentes, circa fidem naufragaverunt, et I Timoth. vi : Ra¬ dix omnium malorum est cupiditas, quam qui¬ dem appetentes , erraverunt a fide (1).