Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book III: On the Sin of the First Man
Chapter 7: That Adam properly was not seduced
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).
From the things we have said in the preceding chapter another question can be solved: namely, whether Adam can properly be said to have been seduced. For on the one side the words of blessed Paul are most clear: Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression, 1 Timothy 2. And again: I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, 2 Corinthians 11 — where no mention is made of Adam. On the other side the common opinion of the Fathers seems to hold that Adam was seduced.
St. Ignatius, in the epistle to the Trallians: “The devil,” says he, “through the woman seduced Adam, the father of our race.” St. Irenaeus, book 3, chapter 33 (otherwise 37): “Adam, seduced by another under the pretext of immortality, is straightway seized with fear,” etc. St. Epiphanius, heresy 38, which is that of the Cainites: “The devil himself,” says he, “through lying deceived Eve and Adam.” St. John Chrysostom, homily 9 on the first to Timothy: “In comparison with the woman,” says he, “he says that he was not seduced.” Where he teaches that Adam was seduced, but with a lesser seduction, so that in comparison with the woman he seems not to have been seduced. St. Cyril of Alexandria, book 2 on John, chapter 3: “But after that, seduced by diabolical fraud, he despised the precepts of God, and, the command being spurned, lost grace, he heard that he was earth, and would return into earth.” St. Hilary (to come to the Latins), canon 3 on Matthew: “The serpent,” says he, “had enticed Adam, and by deceiving had brought him over into death.” St. Ambrose, in the book On Paradise, chapter 4: “The woman,” says he, “was deceived first, and she herself deceived the man.” St. Augustine, in the tractate on Psalm 68, on that verse, Then did I pay that which I took not away: “Who seized? Adam. Who first seized? that very one who seduced Adam.” St. Prosper, in the book against the Conferrer, chapter 21: “After Adam subjected himself to his deceiver, he lost the knowledge of good.” St. Leo, sermon 2 on the Nativity of the Lord: “The devil gloried,” says he, “that man, deceived by his fraud, had been deprived of the divine gifts.” St. Fulgentius, 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, lost faith,” etc.
On account of this apparent discord of the holy Fathers with the Apostle Paul, many have endeavored so to interpret the words of blessed Paul that from them it could not be gathered that Adam was truly and properly not seduced. But those interpretations do not seem altogether to agree with the words and intention of the Apostle. I shall run briefly through the principal ones. The first is: The man was not seduced — that is, by the devil; for he was seduced by the woman. The second: The man was not seduced — that is, he was not seduced first; for the woman was seduced before him. The third: The man was not seduced — that is, his seduction is not written in Genesis; just as Melchisedech is said by the Apostle, Hebrews 7, to be without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, because none of these things is read of him in the Scriptures. The fourth: The man was not seduced — that is, into transgression, as the woman was seduced into transgression; for the woman, being seduced, was the author of transgressing to her husband; but the man, seduced, was to no one an author of transgressing.
These four explications do not seem to square altogether with this place of the Apostle. Both because he pronounces absolutely: The man was not seduced, but the woman, being seduced, was in the transgression — as if he said: both transgressed, but the man without anyone seducing him, the woman circumvented and seduced by another; and because the intention of the Apostle in that place was to demonstrate that women are not so strong in judgment and vigor of mind as men, and therefore that they ought not to teach in the Church, but to learn from men. For when he had said — Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence — he proves both. And the first — that the woman ought not to rule over the man, but to be subject — he gathers thence: For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And, as he adds in 1 Corinthians 11: the woman is of the man, not the man of the woman; and the woman was formed for the man, not the man for the woman. But that the woman ought to learn, not to teach, he proves thus: Because the man was not seduced, the woman, being seduced, was in the transgression. Which indeed tends to this, that the woman be shown to be of a simpler nature, of less judgment and prudence, than the man; for (as Chrysostom notes in the commentary on this place) the Apostle preferred to say “the man was not seduced, the woman was seduced,” rather than “Adam was not seduced, Eve was seduced,” that he might show that what befell Adam and Eve proceeded from the natural difference of man and woman, and that men are naturally more prudent, and of better and riper wit and judgment, than women are; and therefore that women, who are so easily seduced, are not fit for teaching. Now those four interpretations, if they were true, would render the argument of the Apostle plainly infirm and weak. For it is not therefore to be judged that women are of unripe judgment, and unfit for teaching, because Eve was seduced by the devil and Adam by the woman; or because Eve was seduced before Adam; or because the seduction of Eve is written in Genesis and the seduction of Adam is not written; or, finally, because the seduction of Eve was the cause of the transgression of Adam, and not contrariwise. For that Eve was seduced by the devil, Adam by the woman, is so far from arguing the woman to be of a simpler nature than the man that it rather argues the contrary — since it is far more difficult to escape the snares of the devil than of a woman. And that Eve was seduced first, Adam after, and that the seduction of the one is written and not of the other, seem to make nothing to the matter proposed, since they stand only accidentally toward demonstrating vigor of mind. And finally, that the seduction of Eve was the cause of the man's transgression happened by accident — both because she herself was seduced first, and because there was then no one to whom the man could give an occasion of transgressing.
Most true, therefore, is the opinion of St. Augustine, which we followed in the preceding chapter: namely, that Adam properly was not seduced, and that the words of the Apostle are to be taken, without any addition, properly and formally (to speak in the scholastic manner), when he says: The man was not seduced, but the woman, being seduced, was in the transgression. For Adam erred in three things (as we said above): that he believed it to be a venial sin to transgress the command of God; that he believed that he, eating the forbidden food, would not die; that he believed that he would be like God, and subject to no one's providence and command. The cause of the first error was excessive love toward his spouse — and thereby not the seduction of anyone who deceived him by guile, but his own depravity, and the blindness which followed from the preceding elation. The cause of the second error was, besides his own blindness, the experience he had when he saw that his wife, having eaten that food, was not dead — perhaps also the exhortation of his wife; which, however, could not properly be called seduction, since she proposed it to her husband not with a mind of deceiving, but simply, as what she believed to be true. The occasion of the third error was the word of the serpent reported by the woman to her husband (you shall be as Gods); but the cause was not the authority or persuasion of the serpent or of the woman, but both the preceding experience, which, as it made him doubt of that word (thou shalt die the death), so made him lean toward believing that word (you shall be as Gods); and his own pride — that is, the love of his own power; for we willingly and easily believe what we love. See Augustine, book 11 On Genesis to the Letter, the last chapter, and book 14 of the City of God, chapter 11.
Nor indeed do those holy Fathers who write that Adam was seduced fight with the Apostle, or fail to have read or understood the Apostle; but they spoke of the seduction of Adam in another manner. For Augustine himself also writes in one place that Adam was seduced, in another that he was not seduced; nor yet does he fight with himself, but takes seduction now in one way, now in another. And so the Fathers wished to signify only this: that Adam was seduced by the devil — not indeed immediately and properly, but mediately, occasionally, and materially (so to speak). In which signification blessed Paul takes the same word when he says: Sin, by the commandment, seduced me, and by it killed me, Romans 7; He who thinketh himself to be something, whereas he is nothing, seduceth himself, Galatians 6; the Wise Man, when he says that creatures were made a snare to the feet of the unwise, Wisdom 14; and Daniel, when he speaks to that wicked old man: Beauty hath deceived thee, and lust hath perverted thy heart, Daniel 13. According to this opinion, the two former of those four interpretations which we refuted could also rightly be taken. For the first interpretation — the man was not seduced, that is, by the serpent — is most true if it have this sense: the woman was truly and properly seduced, because the serpent, with a mind of deceiving, cunningly deceived her when he proposed to her the false under the appearance of the true; but the man was indeed in some manner seduced by the woman, yet not properly, because neither had she an intention of deceiving, nor was he blinded by her persuasion, but by his love of her. And this I judge St. John Chrysostom to have meant when he devised that interpretation; for he is the first author of that interpretation. The second interpretation — the man was not seduced, that is, first — which also has great authors, St. Epiphanius, heresy 38, St. Thomas, Theodoret, and Oecumenius in the commentary, will be true if it be taken in this way: the man was not seduced first, because, namely, the devil, recognizing the man to be wiser, did not dare to assail him immediately, but began from the woman, who could more easily be seduced, so that, she being seduced, he might cast down the man also — if not by properly seducing, at least by bending him through the blandishments of the woman, and impelling him into the companionship of sinning.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VII. Adamum proprie non fuisse seductum. Ex his, qua; diximus capite superiore, folvi potest alia qua;stio. Utrum videlicet Adam proprie seductus dici possit. Nam ab una parte B. Pauli verba clarissima sunt : Vir non est seductus, mulier autem seducta in praevaricationem fuit I Timoth. ii. Et rur¬ sus : Timeo , ne sicut serpens Evam seduxit astutia sua, ita corrunpantur sensus vestri, II Corinth xi. (I). Ubi nulla mentio fit Ada- mi. Ab altera parte communis patrum sen¬ tentia id videtur habere, ut Adam fuerit se¬ ductus. S. Ignatius in epist. ad Trallianos : e Dia¬ bolus, inquit, per mulierem seduxit Adam patrem generis nostri. » S. Irenacus lib. m. cap. 33. alias 37 : « Ab altero Adam sedu¬ ctus sub occasione immortalitatis, statim ti¬ more corripitur etc. » S. Epiphanius hteresi 38. qua; est Caianorum : « Ipse, inquit, Dia¬ bolus per mendacium decepit Evam, et Adam. » S. Joannes Chrysostomus hora. 9. in priorem ad Timotheum ; « Ad compara¬ tionem, inquit, mulieris dicit illum non fuisse seductum. » Ubi docet Adamum seductum fuisse, sed minori seductione, ita ut ad com¬ parationem mulieris videatur non fuisse se¬ ductus. S. Cyrillus Alexandrinus lib. ii. in Joan. cap. 3 : « Sed posteaquam diabolica fraude seductus, Dei prmeepta contempsit, et spreto mandato gratiam perdidit, terram se •esse, et in terram reversurum audivit. » S. Hilarius (ut ad Latinos veniamus) can. 3. in Mattii. : « Serpens, inquit, Adam pelle¬ xerat, et in mortem fallendo traduxerat. » S. Ambrosius in lib. de paradiso, cap. 4 : « Mulier, inquit, prior decepta est, et virum ipsa decepit. » S. Augustinus tract. in Psal. 08. in iilud : Quae non rapui tunc exolve- bam : « Quis, inquit, rapuit ? Adam. Quis primum rapuit ? ille ipse qui seduxit Adam.» S. Prosper in lib. contra Collatorem, c. 21 : « Postquam Adam se deceptori suo subdi¬ dit, perdidit boni scientiam. S. Leo serm. 2. de Nativitate Domini : « Gloriabatur, inquit, diabolus sua fraude deceptum hominem di¬ vinis caruisse muneribus. » S. Fulgentius lib. ii. de Incarnatione, et gratia Christi, cap. 22. : « Quia primus homo, inquit, in super¬ bia diabolica est persuasione dejectus, per¬ didit humilitatem, perdidit fidem etc. » Propter hanc apparentem sanctorum Pa¬ trum cum Apostolo Paulo discordiam, multi conati sunt verba B. Pauli ita interpretari, ut ex iis non posset colligi. Adamum vere ac proprie non fuisse seductum : sed ete inter¬ pretationes non omnino convenire videntur verbis, et intentioni Apostoli. Percurram breviter praecipuas. Prima est. Vir non est seductus, id est, a Diabolo. Nam a muliere seductus est. Secunda. Vir non est seductus, id est, non est seductus prior. Nam ante cum mulier seducta fuit. Tertia. Vir non est seductus, id est, non scribitur, in Genesi ejus, seductio ; quemadmodum Melchisedech di¬ citur ab Apostolo Hebr. vil. sine patre, sine matre, sine genealogia, neque initium die- (t) II Corinth. XI, 3. CAPUT VII. 317 rum, neque finem vita} habens, quia nihil horum de eo legitur in Scripturis. Quarta. Vir non est seductus, id est, in praevarica¬ tionem, sicut mulier seducta est in praevari¬ cationem. Nam mulier seducta, fuit auctor praevaricandi viro suo. Tir autem seductus, non fuit ulli auctor praevaricandi. Ilai quatuor explicationes non videntur quadrare omnino in hunc locum Apostoli. Tum quia absolute ipse pronuntiat. Vir non est seductus, mulier autem seducta in prae¬ varicatione est ; ac si diceret, uterque prae¬ varicatus est, sed vir sine aliquo seducente se, mulier ah alio circumventa atque sedu¬ cta; tum quia intentio Apostoli eo loco erat, demonstrare mulieres non ita pollere judicio, ac vigore animi, ac viros, et propterea non debere eas docere in Ecclesia sed a viris di¬ scere. Nam cum dixisset : Mulier in silentio discat cum omni subjectione. Docere autem mulieri non permitto, neque dominari in virum , sed esse in silentio, utrumque probat. Et pri¬ mum, quod mulier non debeat dominari in virum, sed subjecta esse, inde colligit. Quia prior Adam formatus est, deinde Eva. Et, ut addit I ad Corinth. xi : Mulier ex viro non vir ex muliere; et mulier propter virum, non vir propter mulierem formatus est (1). Quod autem mulier discere debeat, non docere, probat, Quia vir non est seductus, mulier se¬ ducta in praevaricatione est. Quod quidem eo tendit, ut ostendatur mulier simplicioris esse natura}, minoris judicii et prudentiae, quam vir, nam (ut notat Chrysostomus in commentario hujus loci) maluit Apostolus dicere, vir non est seductus, mulier est se¬ ducta, quam Adam non est seductus, Eva est seducta, ut ostenderet id quod accidit Adamo et Evae provenisse ex differentia na¬ turali viri, et mulieris, et naturaliter viros esse prudentiores, et ingenii, ac judicii me¬ lioris et maturioris, quam fmmina? sint ; ac propterea mulieres, qua} tam facile seducun¬ tur, non esse idoneas ad docendum. Jam vero quatuor illa} interpretationes, si verae essent, redderent argumentum Aposto¬ li plane infirmum ac debile. Non enim pro¬ pterea censendum est, mulieres immaturi judicii esse, et ad docendum ineptas, quod Eva seducta sit a Diabolo, et Adam a mu¬ liere, vel quod Eva sit prius seducta, quam Adam, vel quod Evae seductio scripta sit in Genesi, Adae seductio non sit scripta; vel denique quod Evae seductio fuerit causa praevaricationis Ada}, non contra. Nam quod Eva seducta sit a diabolo, Adam a muliere, tantum abest, ut arguat mulierem simplicio¬ ris esse natura?, quam virum, ut potius ar¬ guat contrarium, siquidem longe difficilius est, evadere insidias diaboli, quam mulieris. Quod autem Eva prior seducta fuerit, Adam posterior, quodque unius seductio scripta sit, non alterius, nihil ad rem propositam facere videntur, cum per accidens se habe¬ ant ad vigorem animi demonstrandum. Quod denique Eva} seductio causa fuerit praevari¬ cationis viri, per accidens foetum est, tum quia prior ipsa seducta est, tum quia nullus tunc erat, cui vir praevaricandi occasionem dare posset. Verissima est igitur S. Augustini senten¬ tia, quam superiore capite secuti sumus ; videlicet Adamum proprie non fuisse sedu¬ ctum, et verba Apostoli sine ulla additione proprie, et formaliter (ut more scholastico loquamur) esse accipienda, cum ipse ait : Vir non est seductus, mulier seducta in prae¬ varicatione est. Nam in tribus erravit Adam (ut supra diximus) quod crediderit peccatum esse veniale mandatum Dei praevaricari ; quod crediderit se manducando cibum veti¬ tum, non esse moriturum ; quod crediderit, se futurum similem Deo, et nullius provi¬ dentiae, imperioque subjectum. Primi erroris causa fuit amor nimius erga conjugem, ac per hoc non seductio alicujus, qui per dolum cum deceperit, sed propria ipsius pravitas, et caecitas ex praecedente elatione subsecuta. Secundi erroris causa fuit, praeter propriam caritatem, experientia, quam habuit cum vidit uxorem illo cibo manducato non esse mortuam, fortasse etiam uxoris adhortatio, qua} tamen proprie sedu¬ ctio dici non poterat, cum ipsa non animo fallendi, sed simplicilcr, quod verum esse credebat, viro suo proponeret. Tertii erroris occasio fuit, verbum serpentis a muliere viro suo relatum (eritis sicut Dii), causa autem fuit non ipsius serpentis, aut mulieris aucto¬ ritas, vel persuasio, sed tum experientia pra}cedens, quae ut fecit eum dubitare de 'illo (morte moriemini), ita fecit propendere ad credendum illud (critis sicut Dii) ; tum propria superbia, id est, amor propria? po¬ testatis, libenter enim et facile credimus quod amamus. Vide Augustinum lib. xi. de (1) I Corinth. XI, 8. 318 LIBE II III. Genesi ad litteram, cap. ult. et lib xiv. de civit. Dei, can. 11. Neque vero sancti illi Patres, qui scribunt, Adamum seductum fuisse cum Apostolo pug¬ nant, aut Apostolum non legerunt, vel non intellexerunt : sed de seductione Adami alio modo locuti sunt. Nam ipse etiam Augusti¬ nus alicubi scribit, Adamum fuisse sedu¬ ctum, alicubi non fuisse seductum, nec tamen secum ipse pugnat, sed alio, atque alio mo¬ do seductionem accipit. Itaque Patres id so¬ lum significare voluerunt, Adamum a diabo¬ lo, non quidem immediate, et proprie, sed mediate, occasionabiliter, et materialiter (ut sic loquamur) fuisse seductum. Qua signifi¬ catione eamdem vocem accipit B. Paulus cum ait : Peccatumper mandatum , seduxit me et per illud occidit , Ilom. vii ; Qui se exis¬ timata liquid esse, cum nihil sit, se ipsum se¬ ducit, Galat. vi ; Sapiens cum dicit : Creatu¬ ras factas esse in muscipulam pedibus insipien¬ tium, Sapient, xiv, et Daniel cum ad senem illum scelestum loquitur : Species decepit te. et concupiscentia subvertit cor tuum, Dan. xm. (1). Possent etiam juxta hanc sententiam recte accipi duae priores interpretationes ex illis quatuor, quas refutavimus. Nam prima in¬ terpretatio, quae erat : Yir non est seductus (id est) a serpente, verissima est, si hunc habeat sensum : Mulier vere et proprie se¬ ducta est, quia serpens eam animo fallendi astute decepit, cum ei proposuit falsum sub specie veri ; at vir seductus quidem aliquo modo est a muliere, sed non proprie, quia nec illa intentionem habuit fallendi, nec ipse ob ejus persuasionem, sed ob ejus amorem excaecatus est, et hoc existimo S. Joannem Chrysostomum sibi voluisse, cum interpreta¬ tionem illam excogitavit. Ipse enim primus est auctor illius interpretationis. Secunda interpretatio, quae erat : Yir non est seductus, id est, prior; quae magnos quo' que auctores habet, S. Epiphani um haeresi 38. S. Thomam, Theodoretum, et QEcume- nium in commentario, vera erit, si hoc modo accipiatur, vir non est seductus prior, quia videlicet diabolus agnoscens virum sapien- tiorem, non ausus est illum immediate ag¬ gredi, sed a muliere, quae facilius seduci poterat, incoepit, ut ea seducta, virum etiam dejiceret, si non proprie seducendo, at certe blanditiis mulieris inflectendo, atque ad pec¬ candi societatem impellendo.