← Back to Distinction 21

Dist. 21, Art. 2, Q. 3

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 21

Textus Latinus
p. 501

Quaestio III. Utrum tentatio carnis sit nobis difficilior tentatione diaboli.

Tertio quaeritur, cui istarum tentationum sit difficilius resistere. Et quod tentationi carnis, videtur:

Fundamenta.

1. Per illud quod dicit Magister in littera1: « Tentatio carnis interior difficilius deiicitur, quia interius oppugnans de nostro contra nos roboratur »; sed illi tentationi difficilius est resistere, quam difficilius est vincere: ergo etc.

2. Item, Seneca2: « Nulla pestis inimicior, quam familiaris inimicus »; sed inimicus carnis est multo familiarior quam diabolus: ergo eius tentatio

p. 502

crudelior et periculosior, ac per hoc ad vincendum difficilior.

3. Item, quanto tentatio est ad nocendum efficacior, tanto difficilius est resistere tentationi; sed tentatio carnis efficacior est ad nocendum quam tentatio hostis, quia, cum tentatio hostis sit exercendae virtutis materia, tentatio carnis nunquam est sine culpa3: ergo etc.

4. Item, tanto difficilius est resistere alicuius persuasioni, quanto ille qui persuadet, magis amatur; sed homo multum diligit carnem4 et multum odit diabolum: ergo multo difficilius est ei resistere impulsioni carnis quam suggestioni diaboli sive tentationi.

Contra:

Ad oppositum.

1. Quanto impugnans est fortior, tanto eius impugnationi difficilius resistitur; sed diabolus est hostis fortissimus, sicut dicitur Iob quadragesimo primo5: Non est potestas super terram, quae ei possit comparari: ergo difficilius est eius tentationi sive impugnationi resistere quam ei tentationi, quae est ex carne.

2. Item, quanto tentans est versutior et callidior, tanto difficilius est eius laqueos et cautelas evadere; sed diabolus est versutissimus: ergo difficilius est eius illaqueationi sive tentationi resistere quam tentationi carnis.

3. Item, quanto inimicus est occultior, tanto minus potest homo eius impetum declinare; sed diabolus est hostis spiritualis et occultus, caro vero est hostis manifestus: ergo tentatio sive praelium diaboli maioris est periculi quam tentatio carnis: cum maiori igitur difficultate ei resistitur.

4. Item, facilius superatur quod est in nostra potestate, quam quod non est in nostra potestate; sed caro in nostra potestate est — nam ipsam possumus mortificare et cum vitiis et concupiscentiis crucifigere6, diabolum vero minime — ergo multo facilius est resistere eius tentationi quam tentationi diaboli.

5. Item, spiritus magis adhaeret bono proprio quam bono carnis, sive bono interiori quam bono inferiori; sed diabolus suggerit et inclinat ad bonum interius, dum tentat de peccatis spiritualibus; caro vero ad bonum inferius7, dum tentat de peccatis carnalibus. Si ergo difficilius repellitur quod est maioris adhaerentiae, difficilius repellitur tentatio hostis, quae est de peccato spirituali, quam tentatio carnis, quae est de peccato carnali.

6. Item, difficilius est resistere violentiis quam blanditiis, quia violentum importat de sua ratione impossibilitatem sive difficultatem resistendi; sed diabolus tentat violentando, sicut dicit Hugo8, caro autem tentat blandiendo: ergo difficilius superatur diabolus, quam superetur caro.

Conclusio. Si tentatio hostis et carnis est respectu eiusdem, sic difficilior est tentatio carnis; si autem est respectu diversorum, sic se habent sicut excedentia et excessa, sed plerumque excedit tentatio carnis.

Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod cum quaeritur, cui tentationi sit difficilius resistere, utrum tentationi carnis, vel hostis, Dupliciter intelligitur. dupliciter potest intelligi: aut respectu eiusdem peccati, aut respectu alterius. Si respectu eiusdem peccati, utpote peccati carnalis, ad quod instigat caro, instigat et diabolus; tunc respondendum Conclusio 1. est, quod tentatio carnis est difficilior propter coniunctionem carnis ad spiritum, ob quam magis animam incurvat; et sic intelligit Magister in littera, et rationes probant ad primam partem inductae.

Si autem intelligatur comparatio fieri respectu diversorum peccatorum, utpote tentatio carnis intelligatur respectu carnalium9, et tentatio hostis respectu peccatorum spiritualium, sic se habent ut Conclusio 2. excedentia et excessa. Quidam enim homines sunt, qui magis sunt proni ad peccata carnalia, utpote ad luxuriam, quam ad superbiam; et his difficilius est resistere tentationi carnis quam tentationi hostis. Quidam autem sunt, qui proniores sunt ad peccata spiritualia quam ad carnalia, utpote illi qui magis desiderant honores quam voluptates; et his difficilius est resistere tentationi hostis quam tentationi carnis. Si quis autem sit indifferens ad utrumque et aequaliter pronus, quantum est de se, ei quodam Conclusio 3. modo tentatio carnis est difficilior, quodam modo tentatio hostis. Tentatio carnis erit difficilior propter maiorem et magis intrinsecam et magis continuam adhaerentiam; tentatio vero hostis difficilior propter maiorem boni promissi apparentiam et propter latentiorem instigantis fallaciam. Sicut enim Gregorius in Moralibus10 ostendit, hostis antiquus multa,

p. 503

quae sunt vitia secundum veritatem, palliat sub specie virtutum.

Epilogus. Si igitur quaeratur, quae harum tentationum sit ad vincendum difficilior, si respectu eiusdem peccati intelligatur, respondendum est, quod tentatio carnis. Si respectu diversorum, sic se habent sicut excedentia et excessa, sicut ostensum est; et sic procedunt rationes ad utramque partem. — Si autem quaeratur, quae earum magis excedat alteram; dicen-Conclusio 4. dum, quod quia omnis caro corrupit viam suam11, et homines ex maiori parte carnales sunt et desideriis carnis obsequuntur; quod difficilius est resistere tentationi carnis quam hostis.

Solutio oppositorum. 1. 2. 3. Et ad rationes illas quae obiiciuntur in oppositum, quod hostis ille est fortior et astutior et occultior, facile est respondere, quia non permittitur tentare secundum totam suam potentiam et astutiam, immo reprimitur potestate divina.

4. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod caro est in nostra potestate; dicendum, quod etsi in nostra sit potestate secundum ordinem naturae, tamen propter perversitatem concupiscentiae Notandum. in multis et regnat ancilla et servit domina, et nimius amor carnis facit ventrem esse deum hominis12; et ideo non est in nostra potestate, quousque liberemur de potestate corporis huius, adiuvante gratia Dei per Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum. Notandum. Tanta enim est vis amoris, ut amantem amato quodam modo subiiciat. Unde etsi filius sit in potestate patris, non est tamen patri facile occidere vel affligere filium, sed valde difficile; sic in proposito intelligendum est, quia nemo unquam carnem suam odio habuit, sed nutrit et fovet eam.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod bonum interius magis adhaeret; dicendum, quod etsi magis adhaereat spiritui, secundum quod spiritus est, non tamen magis adhaeret, secundum quod carnalis est; nunc autem fere omnes homines carnales sunt, nec permanet spiritus Dei in homine, quia caro est13.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod diabolus tentat violentiis; dicendum, quod nulli infert violentiam simpliciter; violentare tamen dicitur quodam modo propter immissionem aliquarum tribulationum, quae non ita movent affectum, sicut carnis incitamenta, nisi caro ibi interponat partes suas.

Scholion

I. Sententia Magistri (hic c. 6.), « quod tentatio carnis interior difficilius vincitur », a S. Bonaventura aliisque, adhibitis tamen quibusdam distinctionibus, approbatur et ab Aegidio R. novem viis et argumentis declaratur. — In fundam. 3. dicitur: « Tentatio carnis nunquam est sine culpa », quod hic dub. 4. expressius affirmatur. Hanc propositionem distincta quaestione probare nituntur Alex. Hal. (S. p. II. q. 101. m. 7. a. 2. § 1.), S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 2.), B. Albert. (hic a. 4.), Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 1. a. 2.), Durand. (hic q. 1.). Sed secundum S. Thom. (loc. cit. ad 5. et S. I. II. q. 17. a. 7.) hoc intelligendum est de tentatione, quae exsurgit ex apprehensione delectabilis, non ex sola dispositione corporalis organi. Idem sentit Aegid. R. (hic q. 1. a. 4. et dub. lat. 1.). Alio modo loquendi utitur Richard. a Med. (hic a. 2. q. 3.) dicens, « quod non semper est peccatum in tentatione, quae est ex carne », de quo cfr. Dionys. Carth. (hic q. 3.). — Quoad sententiam S. Bonaventurae cfr. infra d. 24. p. II. a. 3. q. 1.

II. S. Thom. quaestionem tangit hic q. 1. a. 2. ad 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 9. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

---

English Translation

Question III. Whether the temptation of the flesh is more difficult for us than the temptation of the devil.

Thirdly it is asked, to which of these temptations it is more difficult to resist. And that [the answer is] to the temptation of the flesh, seems [the case]:

Foundations.

1. By that which the Master says in the littera1: « The temptation of the flesh, being interior, is more difficult to cast off, because the one attacking from within is strengthened against us out of what is our own »; but it is more difficult to resist that temptation which is more difficult to overcome: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Seneca2: « No pest is more unfriendly than a familiar enemy »; but the enemy of the flesh is much more familiar than the devil: therefore his temptation is more cruel and more perilous, and through this more difficult to overcome.

3. Likewise, the more effective a temptation is at harming, the more difficult it is to resist that temptation; but the temptation of the flesh is more effective at harming than the temptation of the enemy, because, since the temptation of the enemy is matter for exercising virtue, the temptation of the flesh is never without fault3: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the more one loves the one persuading, the more difficult it is to resist his persuasion; but a man greatly loves his flesh4 and greatly hates the devil: therefore it is much more difficult for him to resist the impulse of the flesh than the suggestion or temptation of the devil.

On the contrary:

To the opposite.

1. The stronger the attacker, the more difficult it is to resist his attack; but the devil is a most powerful enemy, as is said in Job forty-one5: There is no power upon earth that can be compared to him: therefore it is more difficult to resist his temptation or attack than that temptation which is from the flesh.

2. Likewise, the more crafty and cunning the tempter, the more difficult it is to escape his snares and tricks; but the devil is most crafty: therefore it is more difficult to resist his entrapment or temptation than the temptation of the flesh.

3. Likewise, the more hidden the enemy, the less can a man turn aside his onslaught; but the devil is a spiritual and hidden enemy, while the flesh is a manifest enemy: therefore the temptation or warfare of the devil is of greater peril than the temptation of the flesh: with greater difficulty therefore is it resisted.

4. Likewise, what is in our own power is more easily overcome than what is not in our power; but the flesh is in our power — for we can mortify it and crucify it with its vices and concupiscences6, while the devil in no way — therefore it is much easier to resist his temptation than the temptation of the devil.

5. Likewise, the spirit clings more to its own good than to the good of the flesh, that is, to the interior good more than to the inferior good; but the devil suggests and inclines toward the interior good when he tempts concerning spiritual sins; while the flesh [inclines] toward the inferior good7 when it tempts concerning carnal sins. If therefore what is of greater adherence is more difficult to repel, then the temptation of the enemy, which concerns spiritual sin, is more difficult to repel than the temptation of the flesh, which concerns carnal sin.

6. Likewise, it is more difficult to resist violence than to resist blandishments, because the violent carries in its very definition an impossibility or difficulty of resisting; but the devil tempts by using violence, as Hugh says8, while the flesh tempts by blandishment: therefore the devil is overcome more difficultly than the flesh is overcome.

Conclusion. If the temptation of the enemy and of the flesh is with respect to the same [sin], then the temptation of the flesh is more difficult; if however it is with respect to different [sins], then they stand as the exceeding and the exceeded, but for the most part the temptation of the flesh exceeds.

I respond: For the understanding of what has been said, it must be noted that when it is asked, to which temptation it is more difficult to resist, whether to that of the flesh or of the enemy, It is understood in two ways. this can be understood in two ways: either with respect to the same sin, or with respect to another. If with respect to the same sin, for example a carnal sin, toward which the flesh instigates, the devil also instigates; then it must be answered Conclusion 1. that the temptation of the flesh is more difficult on account of the conjunction of the flesh to the spirit, by which it the more bends down the soul; and thus the Master understands [it] in the littera, and the reasons adduced for the first part prove [this].

If however the comparison be understood to be made with respect to different sins, namely if the temptation of the flesh be understood with respect to carnal [sins]9, and the temptation of the enemy with respect to spiritual sins, then they stand as Conclusion 2. the exceeding and the exceeded. For there are certain men who are more prone to carnal sins, such as to lust, than to pride; and for these it is more difficult to resist the temptation of the flesh than the temptation of the enemy. There are however certain others who are more prone to spiritual than to carnal sins, such as those who desire honors more than pleasures; and for these it is more difficult to resist the temptation of the enemy than the temptation of the flesh. If however there be one who is indifferent to both and equally prone, so far as concerns himself, for him in one way Conclusion 3. the temptation of the flesh is more difficult, in another way the temptation of the enemy. The temptation of the flesh will be more difficult on account of its greater and more intrinsic and more continual adherence; but the temptation of the enemy [will be more difficult] on account of the greater appearance of the good promised, and on account of the more hidden deceit of the one instigating. For as Gregory in the Morals10 shows, the ancient enemy disguises many things, which are vices according to truth, under the appearance of virtues.

Epilogue. If therefore it be asked, which of these temptations is more difficult to overcome, if it be understood with respect to the same sin, it must be answered that [it is] the temptation of the flesh. If with respect to different [sins], then they stand as the exceeding and the exceeded, as has been shown; and thus the reasons proceed to either part. — If however it be asked, which of them exceeds the other more; it must be said Conclusion 4., that, because all flesh hath corrupted its way11, and men for the greater part are carnal and obey the desires of the flesh, that it is more difficult to resist the temptation of the flesh than of the enemy.

Solution of the opposites. 1. 2. 3. And to those reasons which are objected on the opposite side, that that enemy is stronger and craftier and more hidden, it is easy to respond, because he is not permitted to tempt according to his full power and craft, but rather is restrained by divine power.

4. To that which is objected, that the flesh is in our power; it must be said that, although it is in our power according to the order of nature, nevertheless, on account of the perversity of concupiscence Note. the handmaid in many cases reigns and the mistress serves, and the excessive love of the flesh makes the belly to be a man's god12; and therefore it is not in our power, until we are freed from the power of this body, with the grace of God assisting through Jesus Christ Our Lord. Note. For so great is the force of love, that in some way it subjects the lover to the beloved. Whence, even though the son is in the power of the father, nevertheless it is not easy for the father to kill or to afflict the son, but very difficult; thus in the matter at hand it must be understood, because no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it.

5. To that which is objected, that the interior good adheres more; it must be said that, although it adheres more to the spirit insofar as it is spirit, nevertheless it does not adhere more insofar as he is carnal; but now nearly all men are carnal, nor does the Spirit of God remain in man, because he is flesh13.

6. To that which is objected, that the devil tempts with violence; it must be said that he inflicts violence on no one, simply speaking; he is nevertheless said to use violence in some way on account of the infliction of certain tribulations, which do not move the affect in the way that the incitements of the flesh do, unless the flesh interpose its part there.

Scholion

I. The opinion of the Master (here c. 6.), « that the interior temptation of the flesh is more difficult to overcome », is approved, with certain distinctions, by St. Bonaventure and others, and is explained by Aegidius Romanus in nine ways and arguments. — In fundam. 3. it is said: « The temptation of the flesh is never without fault », which is here in dub. 4. more expressly affirmed. By a distinct question this proposition is sought to be proved by Alex. of Hales (S. p. II. q. 101. m. 7. a. 2. § 1.), St. Thomas (here q. 1. a. 2.), B. Albert (here a. 4.), Peter of Tarentaise (here q. 1. a. 2.), Durandus (here q. 1.). But according to St. Thomas (loc. cit. ad 5. and S. I. II. q. 17. a. 7.) this is to be understood of the temptation that arises from the apprehension of something delectable, not from the mere disposition of the bodily organ. The same view is held by Aegid. R. (here q. 1. a. 4. and dub. lat. 1.). Richard of Mediavilla (here a. 2. q. 3.) speaks in another way, saying that « there is not always sin in the temptation which is from the flesh »; concerning which compare Dionys. Carth. (here q. 3.). — As to the opinion of St. Bonaventure, compare below d. 24. p. II. a. 3. q. 1.

II. St. Thomas touches the question here q. 1. a. 2. ad 2. — B. Albert, here a. 9. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 2. — Aegid. R., here q. 1. a. 3. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 3.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Hic c. 6. — Cfr. hic scholion.
    Here c. 6. — Compare here the scholion.
  2. Vel potius Boeth., III. de Consol. prosa 5: « Quae vero pestis efficacior ad nocendum quam familiaris inimicus? » Seneca de Moribus: « Amicos secundae res parant, adversae certissime probant. Peiora sunt tecta odia quam aperta. » Et l. Declam. in prologo ait: « Magis nocent insidiae, quae latent. » Inter proverbia, quae sub Senecae nomine circumferuntur et in ed. Basil. operum Senecae (a. 1529.) in fine inveniuntur, etiam hoc habetur: Gravior inimicus, qui latet sub pectore. — Pro inimicior, quam vocem substituimus pro verbo minus usitato inimicitior, quod in multis codd. et edd. 1, 2 exstat, plures codd. immitior, Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 efficacior.
    Or rather Boethius, On the Consolation III, prose 5: « Indeed, what pest is more effective at harm than a familiar enemy? » Seneca, On Morals: « Good fortune secures friends, adversity most certainly puts them to the test. Concealed hatreds are worse than open ones. » And in Declamations, in the prologue, he says: « Hidden snares do more harm. » Among the proverbs circulated under Seneca's name and printed at the end of the Basel edition of Seneca's works (1529), this too is found: A graver enemy is the one who lies hidden under the breast. — For inimicior, the word we have substituted for the less customary inimicitior, which appears in many codices and in editions 1 and 2; several codices read immitior; the Vatican edition with editions 3 and 4 reads efficacior.
  3. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 6. et hic scholion.
    Compare here the littera of the Master, c. 6., and here the scholion.
  4. Eph. 5, 29: Nemo enim unquam carnem suam odio habuit, sed nutrit et fovet eam etc. — August., II. de Serm. Domini in monte, c. 14. n. 47: Quis enim est qui diligat diabolum? sed tamen patitur. — Paulo inferius Vat. cum paucis codd. omittit ei.
    Eph. 5, 29: For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it etc. — Augustine, On the Sermon of the Lord on the Mount II, c. 14, n. 47: For who is there that loves the devil? yet nevertheless he endures him. — A little below, the Vatican edition with a few codices omits ei.
  5. Vers. 21.
    Verse 21.
  6. Gal. 5, 24: Qui autem sunt Christi, carnem suam crucifixerunt cum vitiis et concupiscentiis.
    Gal. 5, 24: And they that are Christ's have crucified their flesh with the vices and concupiscences.
  7. Codd. F aa exterius.
    Codices F and aa read exterius [exterior].
  8. Libr. II. Allegor. in Nov. Testam. c. 13. sic ait: Tentare etenim est callide experiri et quasi blandis quibusdam conatibus praemissis ante violentam impulsionem probare.
    Book II of the Allegories on the New Testament, c. 13, thus says: For to tempt is to make trial cunningly and as it were to test by certain bland attempts sent ahead before the violent impulsion.
  9. Cod. F voci carnalium praemittit peccatorum.
    Codex F prefixes peccatorum [sins] to the word carnalium.
  10. Libr. XXXI. c. 39. n. 78; XXXII. c. 22. n. 45; XXXIII. c. 24. n. 44. — Pro Moralibus Vat. Homilia.
    Book XXXI, c. 39, n. 78; XXXII, c. 22, n. 45; XXXIII, c. 24, n. 44. — For Moralibus the Vatican edition reads Homilia.
  11. Gen. 6, 12: Omnis quippe caro corruperat viam suam super terram. — Multi codd. cum ed. 2 minus bene quia.
    Gen. 6, 12: For all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth. — Many codices with edition 2 read, less well, quia.
  12. Respicitur illud Philip. 3, 19: Quorum deus venter est; et dein illud Rom. 7, 24. seq.: Infelix ego homo, quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius? Gratia Dei per Iesum Christum, Dominum nostrum. — Eph. 5, 29.
    Reference is made to Phil. 3, 19: Whose god is their belly; and then to Rom. 7, 24f.: Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God, by Jesus Christ Our Lord. — Eph. 5, 29.
  13. Gen. 6, 3: Dixitque Deus: Non permanebit spiritus meus in homine in aeternum, quia caro est.
    Gen. 6, 3: And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh. ---
← Dist. 21, Art. 2, Q. 2Dist. 21, Art. 3, Q. 1→