← Back to Distinction 22

Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 22

Textus Latinus
p. 515

Articulus I. De culpa primorum parentum quoad inordinationem affectus.

Quaestio I. Quo genere peccati mulier peccaverit.

Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod mulier peccaverit peccato superbiae.

1. Ecclesiastici decimo1: Initium omnis peccati superbia. Et iterum Ecclesiastici vigesimo quinto: A muliere initium peccati: ergo mulier peccavit peccato superbiae.

Item, Augustinus in libro de Virginitate2: «Diabolus in caelo voluit esse sicut Deus; cadens autem persuasit homini similitudinem suae voluntatis»: ergo si persuasit mulieri, et mulier persuadenti consensit, peccavit igitur peccato superbiae.

Item, hoc videtur ratione. Impossibile erat, hominem deordinari in potentia inferiori, nisi prius deordinaretur in superiori: ergo non poterat prius inordinate converti ad bonum inferius vel exterius, quam converteretur ad bonum superius; sed converti inordinate ad bonum superius hoc est superbia3: ergo primum peccatum mulieris non potuit esse nisi superbia.

Item, mulier voluit manducare pomum: hoc non fuit propter famem vel appetitum delectandi in cibo, cum nulla esset in gustu eius deordinatio: igitur hoc fuit, quia aliquid spirituale per illius cibi comestionem intendebat; hoc autem non erat nisi esse sicut Deus, quod diabolus promiserat4: ergo etc.

Sed contra: 2. Videtur, quod primum peccatum mulieris fuerit inobedientia: primo, quia hoc innuit textus Genesis tertio5: Quis indicavit tibi, quod nudus esses, nisi quia de ligno, de quo praeceperam tibi, ut non comederes, comedisti? —

p. 516

Secundo, quia hoc confirmat Apostolus ad Romanos quinto6: Sicut per unius inobedientiam peccatores constituti sunt multi etc. Et iterum: Per unius inobedientiam mors intravit in mundum. — Postremo hoc expressius declarat Augustinus de Vera Religione7, ubi ait: Adam propter transgressionem inobedientiae de paradiso eiectus est. — Si ergo primum peccatum hominis fuit inobedientia, non ergo videtur, quod fuerit superbia.

3. Item, quod primum peccatum fuerit gula, videtur: primo per hoc quod innuit textus, Genesis tertio8: Vidit igitur mulier lignum, quod esset ad vescendum suave. — Secundo hoc confirmat Evangelium, quia Christus primo fuit tentatus a diabolo de gula, sicut legitur Matthaei quarto9: Dic, ut lapides isti etc.; sed eo ordine tentationis tentavit primum hominem, quo tentavit Christum, sicut Sancti dicunt. — Postremo hoc expressius declarat Ambrosius10 in illo hymno: Quando pomi noxialis morte morsu corruit. — Si igitur peccatum primum fuit gula: ergo non fuit superbia, cum sint diversa peccatorum genera, et unum et idem simul et semel in diversis generibus esse non possit.

4. Item, videtur, quod primum peccatum mulieris fuerit avaritia: primo, per textum Genesis tertio11: Eritis sicut dii, scientes bonum et malum. Hoc promisit diabolus, et hoc primo cecidit in mulieris appetitum; sed appetere multitudinem scientiae plus quam oportet, hoc est avaritiae, sicut dicit Gregorius. — Deinde, hoc confirmat Apostolus, primae ad Timotheum ultimo12: Radix omnium malorum est cupiditas; sed peccatum mulieris omnium aliorum peccatorum radix fuit. — Postremo, hoc ipsum expresse declarat Glossa super illud Psalmi13: Quae non rapui, tunc etc., ubi dicit, quod «Eva tunc voluit rapere divinitatem». Si ergo rapina est peccatum avaritiae, primum peccatum Evae fuit in genere avaritiae: ergo non fuit in genere superbiae.

5. Item, videtur, quod primum peccatum fuerit infidelitas: primo, quia hoc insinuat textus, Genesis tertio14, ubi dixit mulier: Ne forte moriamur; dubitavit ergo de verbo Dei. Si ergo dubitare de eo quod debemus credere, hoc est infidelitatis, peccatum infidelitatis primo commisit. — Secundo, hoc confirmat Evangelium, Lucae primo15: Beata, quae credidisti; dictum est Virgini Mariae. Si ergo salus respondet per oppositum praevaricationi, et haec incepit a fide Mariae, videtur, quod illa inceperit ab infidelitate Evae. — Postremo, hoc expressius declarat Magister, et habitum est in distinctione praecedenti16, in progressu tentationis, ubi dicit, quod mulier, cum dubitavit, «ab affirmante recessit et neganti appropinquavit»; sed hoc non fuit sine culpa infidelitatis: ergo infidelitas fuit primum mulieris peccatum: non ergo primo peccavit peccato superbiae.

Si forte tu dicas, quod pluribus generibus peccatorum simul et semel peccaverit; hoc non videtur possibile, cum simul et semel non possit se pluribus conversionibus et aversionibus deordinare; et quidquid de hoc sit, planum est, quod esse primum peccatum uni soli convenire potest, cum per superabundantiam dici habeat17.

Conclusio. Peccatum mulieris inchoatum fuit in superbia, progressum habuit in quadam avaritia, consummationem habuit in gula et inobedientia.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sicut innuit textus18 et expresse dicit Apostolus, principale peccatum hominis, per quod lapsus est, fuit inobedientia, et per quod derivatur mors in omnes posteros. Unde et ad hoc diabolus ipsum inducere intendebat: quod patet per principium suae interrogationis: Cur praecepit vobis Deus19 etc. — Sed quoniam «nemo operatur ad malum aspiciens nec appetit malum nisi sub specie boni»; ideo clare deprehendens diabolus, quod non posset mulierem in peccatum praecipitare, nisi proponeret aliquod appetibile; illa in tentando proposuit fallaciter, ad quae omnis homo secundum veritatem tendit naturaliter.

p. 517

Naturaliter enim omnis homo beatitudinem appetit20, quae est bonum gloriosum et copiosum et deliciosum; ideo omnis homo naturaliter appetit excellentiam et sufficientiam et laetitiam; et in ordinato appetitu eorum consistit iustitia, in immoderato vero consistit culpa. Nam superbia non est aliud quam immoderatus appetitus excellentiae; avaritia non est aliud quam immoderatus appetitus sufficientiae; gula non est aliud quam immoderatus appetitus cibi reficientis suaviter.

Considerans igitur diabolus, hanc esse viam ad praecipitandam mulierem in culpam, primo, promisit dignitatis excellentiam: Eritis sicut dii. Secundo, subiunxit cognitionis abundantiam: Scientes bonum et malum. Postremo, praetendit suavitatis experientiam, cum ostendit lignum pulcrum visu et ad vescendum suave. Quoniam igitur mulier diabolicae suggestioni consensit, ideo primo, in appetendo esse sicut Deus, fuit superba. Deinde, in appetendo scire bonum et malum, quod non oportebat, et scire plus quam oportebat, fuit avara. Postremo, in experiendo suavitatem ligni vetiti fuit gulosa; et in hoc fuit transgressionis rea et culpa inobedientiae involuta. — Et sic patet, quod peccatum mulieris inchoatum fuit in superbia, progressum habuit in avaritia, consummationem habuit in gula21. — Patet etiam, quod inordinata fuit quantum ad triplicem potentiam, scilicet quantum ad irascibilem, dum appetiit alta; quantum ad rationalem, dum appetiit scire occulta; quantum ad concupiscibilem, dum voluit degustare suavia. Unde ex illo peccato pullulaverunt radices omnium peccatorum.

Ad argumenta: Ex his igitur patet responsio ad quaesita. Rationes enim ostendentes, quod primum peccatum fuit superbia, verum concludunt, quia ab illo fuit inchoatio. Rationes similiter ostendentes, quod fuerit inobedientia, gula et avaritia, verum concludunt, licet non fuerit ibi avaritia proprie dicta, secundum quod dicitur esse appetitus pecuniae; fuit tamen avaritia, secundum quod est appetitus sufficientiae, et in ipsa fuit peccati progressus; sed in peccato gulae et inobedientiae fuit consummatio, in actu videlicet comedendi. Gula enim erat, in quantum in illo cibo inordinate delectari volebat; sed inobedientia, cum in actu ipsius comestionis contra divinum imperium faciebat. Et hoc expresse dicit Gregorius in quadam homilia22, ubi ostendit, quod tribus peccatorum generibus tentavit diabolus Christum, sicut prius tentaverat mulierem, et in illis tribus a Christo deiectus est, sicut per illa tria mulierem deiecerat. — Nec est inconveniens, plura genera peccatorum secundum progressum concurrere ad unum flagitium perpetrandum. Facillimum enim est de peccato in peccatum ruere, sicut contingit de motu unius virtutis ad motum alterius ascendere.

Ad illud igitur solum restat respondere, quod obiectum est de infidelitate; non enim concedendum est, mulierem peccato infidelitatis peccasse, nisi infidelitas accipiatur valde large. — Quod ergo obiicitur, quod mulier dixit forte; dici potest, quod forte est ibi nota eventus, non dubitationis. — Sed quia Magister23 dicit expresse, quod est nota dubitationis; ideo aliter potest dici, quod revera mulier non dubitavit, verum esse quod Dominus dixerat; sed de hoc dubitavit, qualiter Dominus intelligebat, utrum scilicet intelligeret de morte corporali, vel spirituali, vel alio quocumque modo; et illa dubitatio nec fuit poena nec fuit culpa, sed quaedam nescientia, quae diabolo tentanti praebuit viam24. — Nec cogit illud quod obiicit de fide beatae Mariae; nam, etsi fides in conceptione Filii Dei non modicum tenuerit locum, habuit tamen humilitatis usum praeambulum, ratione cuius dicitur Virgo Deo placuisse, sicut ipsa dicit: Respexit Deus humilitatem ancillae suae25. Nec oportet etiam, omnino per eundem ordinem respondere reparationem destructioni; immo frequenter est e contrario, sicut via resolutionis et compositionis oppositis modis habent terminari et inchoari26; sic et in proposito potest intelligi.

Scholion

I. Pro dilucidatione huius quaestionis servire potest quod supra d. 8. a. 1. q. 1. 2. et a. 2. q. 1. dictum est de peccato superbiae, commisso ab angelis lapsis. In substantia doctrinae doctores communius consentiunt. Attamen Scot. (I. Sent. d. 21. q. 2. n. 2, et Report. hic q. unica) censet, peccatum Adae non fuisse immoderatum amorem sui (sicut fuit in daemonibus), sed immoderatum amorem amicitiae uxoris; aliter autem iudicandum esse de peccato Evae. — Quoad solut. ad obiect. notandum est, etiam S. Thomam (hic q. 1. a. 1. ad 1.) excusare protoparentes a peccato infidelitatis.

II. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 104. m. 1. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; S. I. II. q. 163. a. 1; de Malo q. 7. a. 7. ad 12. 13. — B. Albert., hic a. 1; S. p. II. tr. 14. q. 87. m. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Biel, de hac et seq. q., hic q. 1.

III. De sequente quaest. praecise pauci antiqui explicite tractant, sed hoc loco solvunt simile dubium, scil. utrum protoparentes appetierint esse aequales Deo. Tamen de hac quaestione agunt: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 2.

---

English Translation

Article I. On the fault of the first parents as to the disorder of affection.

Question I. By what kind of sin the woman sinned.

Concerning the first, one proceeds thus, and it is shown that the woman sinned by the sin of pride.

1. Ecclesiasticus, chapter ten1: Pride is the beginning of all sin. And again Ecclesiasticus, chapter twenty-five: From the woman came the beginning of sin: therefore the woman sinned by the sin of pride.

Likewise, Augustine in the book On Virginity2: "The devil in heaven willed to be as God; but falling, he persuaded man to the likeness of his own will": therefore if he persuaded the woman, and the woman consented to the persuader, she therefore sinned by the sin of pride.

Likewise, this seems [so] by reason. It was impossible for man to be disordered in a lower power unless he were first disordered in the higher: therefore he could not be inordinately turned to a lower or exterior good before he were turned to the higher good; but to be inordinately turned to the higher good — this is pride3: therefore the first sin of the woman could be none other than pride.

Likewise, the woman willed to eat the apple: this was not on account of hunger or the appetite of taking delight in the food, since there was no disorder in her taste: therefore this was because she intended something spiritual through the eating of that food; but this was nothing other than to be as God, which the devil had promised4: therefore etc.

On the contrary: 2. It seems that the first sin of the woman was disobedience: first, because the text intimates this, Genesis chapter three5: Who told you that you were naked, unless because you have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat? —

Secondly, because the Apostle confirms this, to the Romans chapter five6: As by the disobedience of one many were made sinners etc. And again: By the disobedience of one death entered into the world. — Lastly Augustine declares this more expressly in On True Religion7, where he says: Adam on account of the transgression of disobedience was cast out of paradise. — If then the first sin of man was disobedience, it does not then seem that it was pride.

3. Likewise, that the first sin was gluttony seems [so]: first by this, that the text intimates it, Genesis chapter three8: The woman therefore saw the tree, that it was sweet to eat. — Secondly the Gospel confirms this, because Christ was first tempted by the devil concerning gluttony, as is read in Matthew chapter four9: Say, that these stones etc.; but in the same order of temptation by which he tempted Christ he tempted the first man, as the Saints say. — Lastly Ambrose declares this more expressly10 in that hymn: When by the deadly bite of the apple he fell into death. — If therefore the first sin was gluttony: then it was not pride, since the kinds of sins are diverse, and one and the same [sin] cannot be in diverse kinds at one and the same time.

4. Likewise, it seems that the first sin of the woman was avarice: first, by the text of Genesis chapter three11: You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. This the devil promised, and this first fell into the appetite of the woman; but to desire a multitude of knowledge more than is fitting — this belongs to avarice, as Gregory says. — Then, the Apostle confirms this, in the first to Timothy, the last chapter12: The root of all evils is cupidity; but the sin of the woman was the root of all the other sins. — Lastly, the Gloss declares this very thing expressly upon that [verse] of the Psalm13: What I took not away, then etc., where it says that "Eve then willed to seize divinity." If then rapine is a sin of avarice, the first sin of Eve was in the genus of avarice: therefore it was not in the genus of pride.

5. Likewise, it seems that the first sin was unbelief: first, because the text insinuates this, Genesis chapter three14, where the woman said: Lest perhaps we die; she therefore doubted concerning the word of God. If then to doubt concerning that which we ought to believe is a matter of unbelief, she first committed the sin of unbelief. — Secondly, the Gospel confirms this, Luke chapter one15: Blessed are you who have believed; this was said to the Virgin Mary. If then salvation answers by opposition to transgression, and this [salvation] began from the faith of Mary, it seems that that [transgression] began from the unbelief of Eve. — Lastly, the Master declares this more expressly, and it was set down in the preceding distinction16, in [treating of] the progress of the temptation, where he says that the woman, when she doubted, "receded from the one affirming and approached the one denying"; but this was not without the fault of unbelief: therefore unbelief was the first sin of the woman: therefore she did not first sin by the sin of pride.

If perhaps you should say that she sinned by several kinds of sins at one and the same time; this does not seem possible, since at one and the same time she cannot disorder herself by several turnings-toward and turnings-away; and whatever be the case of this, it is plain that being the first sin can belong to one alone, since it must be said [to be such] by superabundance17.

Conclusion. The sin of the woman was begun in pride, had its progress in a certain avarice, [and] had its consummation in gluttony and disobedience.

I respond: It must be said that, as the text intimates18 and the Apostle expressly says, the principal sin of man, by which he fell, was disobedience, and by which death is derived to all his posterity. Hence to this also the devil intended to lead him: which is clear from the beginning of his interrogation: Why has God commanded you19 etc. — But since "no one works toward evil while looking [at it], nor desires evil except under the appearance of good"; therefore the devil, clearly perceiving that he could not cast the woman down into sin unless he set before her something desirable, set before her deceitfully, in tempting, those things toward which every man according to truth naturally tends.

For every man naturally desires beatitude20, which is a glorious and copious and delightful good; therefore every man naturally desires excellence and sufficiency and gladness; and in the ordinate appetite of these consists justice, but in the immoderate [appetite] consists fault. For pride is nothing other than the immoderate appetite of excellence; avarice is nothing other than the immoderate appetite of sufficiency; gluttony is nothing other than the immoderate appetite of food refreshing sweetly.

The devil therefore, considering this to be the way to cast the woman down into fault, first promised the excellence of dignity: You shall be as gods. Secondly, he subjoined the abundance of knowledge: Knowing good and evil. Lastly, he held forth the experience of sweetness, when he showed the tree fair to sight and sweet to eat. Since therefore the woman consented to the diabolical suggestion, therefore first, in desiring to be as God, she was proud. Then, in desiring to know good and evil, which she ought not, and to know more than she ought, she was avaricious. Lastly, in experiencing the sweetness of the forbidden tree she was gluttonous; and in this she was guilty of transgression and involved in the fault of disobedience. — And so it is clear that the sin of the woman was begun in pride, had its progress in avarice, [and] had its consummation in gluttony21. — It is also clear that she was disordered as to the threefold power, namely as to the irascible, while she desired lofty things; as to the rational, while she desired to know hidden things; as to the concupiscible, while she willed to taste sweet things. Hence from that sin the roots of all sins sprang forth.

To the arguments: From these things, then, the response to what was asked is clear. For the reasons showing that the first sin was pride conclude truly, because from it was the beginning. The reasons likewise showing that it was disobedience, gluttony, and avarice conclude truly, although there was not there avarice properly so called, according as it is said to be the appetite of money; yet there was avarice, according as it is the appetite of sufficiency, and in it was the progress of the sin; but in the sin of gluttony and disobedience was the consummation, namely in the act of eating. For it was gluttony, inasmuch as she willed to take inordinate delight in that food; but disobedience, when in the very act of eating she acted against the divine command. And this Gregory expressly says in a certain homily22, where he shows that by three kinds of sins the devil tempted Christ, as he had earlier tempted the woman, and in those three was cast off by Christ, as by those three he had cast down the woman. — Nor is it inconsistent that several kinds of sins should, according to a progression, concur to the perpetrating of one crime. For it is most easy to rush from sin into sin, as it happens to ascend from the motion of one power to the motion of another.

To that alone, then, it remains to respond which was objected concerning unbelief; for it is not to be granted that the woman sinned by the sin of unbelief, unless unbelief be taken very broadly. — As to what is objected, that the woman said perhaps; it can be said that perhaps is there a mark of the event, not of doubt. — But since the Master23 says expressly that it is a mark of doubt; therefore it can be said otherwise, that in truth the woman did not doubt that what the Lord had said was true; but she doubted concerning this, in what way the Lord understood [it], namely whether he understood [it] of bodily death, or spiritual, or in some other way; and that doubt was neither punishment nor fault, but a certain not-knowing, which afforded a way to the devil tempting24. — Nor does that compel [otherwise] which is objected concerning the faith of blessed Mary; for, although faith held no small place in the conception of the Son of God, it nevertheless had as a preamble the exercise of humility, by reason of which the Virgin is said to have pleased God, as she herself says: God has regarded the humility of his handmaid25. Nor is it even necessary to respond to the destruction by the same order entirely in the reparation; rather it is frequently the contrary, just as the way of resolution and of composition have to be terminated and begun in opposite modes26; so too in the matter at hand it can be understood.

Scholion

I. For the elucidation of this question, what was said above (d. 8, a. 1, q. 1 and 2, and a. 2, q. 1) concerning the sin of pride committed by the fallen angels can serve. In the substance of the doctrine the doctors more commonly agree. Nevertheless Scotus (I Sent., d. 21, q. 2, n. 2, and Reportata, here, the single question) holds that the sin of Adam was not an immoderate love of self (as it was in the demons), but an immoderate love of friendship for his wife; but [that] it must be judged otherwise concerning the sin of Eve. — As to the solution to the objection, it is to be noted that St. Thomas also (here, q. 1, a. 1, ad 1) excuses the first parents from the sin of unbelief.

II. Alexander of Hales, Summa p. II, q. 104, m. 1, 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1; Summa I-II, q. 163, a. 1; de Malo q. 7, a. 7, ad 12, 13. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1; Summa p. II, tr. 14, q. 87, m. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1. — Giles of Rome, here q. 1, a. 1. — Biel, on this and the following question, here q. 1.

III. Concerning the following question precisely, few of the ancients treat [it] explicitly, but in this place they solve a similar doubt, namely whether the first parents desired to be equal to God. Yet on this question treat: Alexander of Hales, in the place cited, m. 1. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2. — Giles of Rome, here q. 1, a. 2.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 1-5, ubi in Vulgata post peccati additur est. — Seq. text. est loc. cit. v. 33, qui in Vulg. sic sonat: A muliere initium factum est peccati.
    Verses 1–5, where in the Vulgate est is added after peccati. — The following text is from the same place, v. 33, which in the Vulgate reads thus: From the woman the beginning of sin was made.
  2. Cap. 31. n. 31, sententialiter. Verba, quae ibi leguntur, haec sunt: Est periculosa superbia, quae amplius amplioribus insidiatur. Hanc sequitur invidentia tanquam filia pedissequa; eam quippe superbia continue parit nec unquam est sine tali prole atque comite. Quibus duobus malis, hoc est superbia et invidentia, diabolus est.
    [De sancta virginitate] c. 31, n. 31, in substance. The words read there are these: Dangerous is pride, which lays its snares the more for the greater. Envy follows it as a daughter-attendant; for pride continually begets it, nor is it ever without such offspring and companion. By these two evils, that is pride and envy, [there] is the devil.
  3. Cfr. supra d. 21. a. 3. q. 1. et infra d. 31. a. 1. q. 2. — Circa fin. corp. — In codd. et edd. 1, 2 legitur sic: Impossibile erat, hominem deordinari in potentia superiori, nisi prius deordinaretur in inferiori: ergo non poterat prius inordinate converti ad bonum interius vel exterius, quam converteretur ad bonum inferius; sed converti inordinate ad bonum inferius hoc est superbia: ergo etc. Lectio nequam.
    Cf. above, d. 21, a. 3, q. 1, and below, d. 31, a. 1, q. 2. — Near the end of the body. — In the codices and editions 1, 2 it is read thus: "It was impossible for man to be disordered in a higher power unless he were first disordered in the lower: therefore he could not be inordinately turned to an interior or exterior good before he were turned to the lower good; but to be inordinately turned to the lower good — this is pride: therefore etc." A worthless reading.
  4. Gen. 3, 5: Et eritis sicut dii.
    Gen. 3:5: And you shall be as gods.
  5. Vers. 11 Vulgata: Quis enim indicavit... nisi quod ex ligno... tibi, ne comederes, comedisti?
    Verse 11, Vulgate: Who indeed told [you]... unless [that you ate] from the tree... [of which I commanded] you, that you should not eat, [and] you have eaten?
  6. Vers. 19: Sicut enim per inobedientiam unius hominis peccatores etc. Seq. textus est ibid. v. 12: Sicut per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit, et per peccatum mors etc.
    Verse 19: For as by the disobedience of one man [many were made] sinners etc. The following text is from the same place, v. 12: As by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death etc.
  7. Cap. 20. n. 38: Est autem vitium primum animae rationalis voluntas ea faciendi, quae vetat summa et intima veritas. Ita homo de paradiso in hoc saeculum expulsus est.
    [On True Religion] c. 20, n. 38: Now the first vice of the rational soul is the will to do those things which the supreme and inmost truth forbids. Thus man was expelled from paradise into this world.
  8. Vers. 6: Vidit igitur mulier, quod bonum esset lignum ad vescendum.
    Verse 6: The woman therefore saw that the tree was good to eat.
  9. Vers. 3. — De ordine tentationis Christi cfr. Ambros., IV. super Luc. n. 33; Gregor., in Evang. homil. 16. n. 2. seq.
    Verse 3. — On the order of the temptation of Christ cf. Ambrose, On Luke IV, n. 33; Gregory, Homilies on the Gospels 16, n. 2 f.
  10. Hymnus «Pange lingua gloriosi», qui in Breviario Romano habetur pro Dominica Passionis ad Matutinum; nunc Venantio Fortunato tribuitur. Vide eius Opera miscell. II. c. 2. (Migne, Patrol. lat. tom. 88.), ubi versus hic allegatus sic exhibetur: Quando pomi noxialis / Morsu in mortem corruit.
    The hymn "Pange lingua gloriosi," which in the Roman Breviary is set for Passion Sunday at Matins; now attributed to Venantius Fortunatus. See his Opera miscellanea II, c. 2 (Migne, Patrologia Latina tom. 88), where the verse here cited is given thus: When by the bite of the deadly apple he fell into death.
  11. Vers. 5. — Gregorius, qui hic citatur, in Evang. hom. 16. n. 2. sic ait: Et ex provectu avaritiae tentavit, cum diceret: Scientes bonum et malum. Avaritia enim non solum pecuniae est, sed etiam altitudinis. Recte enim avaritia dicitur, cum supra modum sublimitas ambitur etc. Cfr. August., XI. de Gen. ad lit. c. 13. 10.
    Verse 5. — Gregory, who is here cited, in Homilies on the Gospels 16, n. 2 says thus: And he tempted by the advancement of avarice, when he said: Knowing good and evil. For avarice is not only of money, but also of loftiness. For it is rightly called avarice when sublimity is sought beyond measure etc. Cf. Augustine, On Genesis to the Letter XI, c. 13, 10.
  12. Vers. 10. (n. 19.)
    Verse 10 (n. 19).
  13. Vers. 68, 5. — Glossam, quae sumta est ex August., Enarrat. in hunc locum, serm. 1. n. 9, vide apud Lyranum.
    Verse 68:5. — The Gloss, which is taken from Augustine, Enarrations on this place, sermon 1, n. 9, see in Lyranus.
  14. Vers. 3. — Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.
    Verse 3. — Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4.
  15. Vers. 43. — Petr., Chrysol., serm. 142. n. 1, de Annuntiatione: Audistis agi [Angelum cum muliere], ut homo cursibus eisdem, quibus dilapsus fuerat ad mortem, rediret ad vitam. — Non pauci codd., ut F H K T aa ee, paulo inferius omittunt Evae.
    Verse 43. — Peter Chrysologus, sermon 142, n. 1, on the Annunciation: You have heard that [the Angel dealt with the woman], so that by the same courses by which man had slipped down to death, he might return to life. — Not a few codices, like F H K T aa ee, a little below omit Evae.
  16. Cap. 5., circa med., ubi agitur de progressu tentationis. — Cod. cc et ed. 1 post declarat subiungunt in littera.
    [Distinction XXI] c. 5, near the middle, where the progress of the temptation is treated. — Codex cc and edition 1 after declarat add in littera.
  17. Aristot., V. Topic. c. 3. (c. 5.): Nam quod est secundum superabundantiam uni soli inest. — Haec obiectio incid. tangitur in lit. Magistri, d. XXXIII. c. 2. et in Comment. ibid. dub. 1. — Aliquanto superius pro peccaverit plures codd., inter quos s T Y aa ee cum edd. 1, 2, 3, peccavit.
    Aristotle, Topics V, c. 3 (c. 5): For what is according to superabundance belongs to one alone. — This objection is touched incidentally in the text of the Master, d. XXXIII, c. 2, and in the Commentary there, dub. 1. — Somewhat above, for peccaverit several codices, among them s T Y aa ee with editions 1, 2, 3, read peccavit.
  18. Gen. 3, 11. Cfr. hic arg. 2, quo loco et verba Apostoli exhibentur. — Mox codd. K P T V aa ee cum edd. 1, 2 inobedientiae, cod. Q peccatum inobedientiae pro inobedientia.
    Gen. 3:11. Cf. here arg. 2, in which place the words of the Apostle are also given. — Soon after, codices K P T V aa ee with editions 1, 2 [read] inobedientiae; codex Q [reads] peccatum inobedientiae for inobedientia.
  19. Gen. 3, 1. — Textus seq. est Dionysii, de Div. Nom. c. 4. §§ 19. et 31. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 804, nota 6. et pag. 823, nota 7. — Paulo inferius pro illa in tentando Vat. illam tentando, et dein pro fallaciter multi codd. cum ed. 2 faciliter.
    Gen. 3:1. — The following text is from Dionysius, On the Divine Names c. 4, §§ 19 and 31. Cf. tom. I, p. 804, note 6, and p. 823, note 7. — A little below, for illa in tentando the Vatican edition reads illam tentando, and then for fallaciter many codices with edition 2 read faciliter.
  20. Cfr. Aristot., I. Ethic. c. 1. seqq. et VII. Polit. c. 13. (c. 12.); August., X. Confess. c. 20. n. 29. seqq; I. de Lib. Arb. c. 14. n. 30; I. de Morib. eccles. cathol. c. 3. n. 4; XIII. de Trin. c. 3. n. 6. seqq; X. de Civ. Dei, c. 1; Boeth., III. de Consol. prosa 2.
    Cf. Aristotle, Ethics I, c. 1 ff. and Politics VII, c. 13 (c. 12); Augustine, Confessions X, c. 20, n. 29 ff.; On Free Will I, c. 14, n. 30; On the Morals of the Catholic Church I, c. 3, n. 4; On the Trinity XIII, c. 3, n. 6 ff.; On the City of God X, c. 1; Boethius, Consolation [of Philosophy] III, prose 2.
  21. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. et d. XXI. c. 5.
    Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1, and d. XXI, c. 5.
  22. In Evang. homil. 16. n. 2. seq.
    [Gregory,] Homilies on the Gospels 16, n. 2 f.
  23. Dist. XXI. c. 5.
    Distinction XXI, c. 5.
  24. Cfr. infra a. 2. q. 1.
    Cf. below, a. 2, q. 1.
  25. Luc. 1, 48.
    Luke 1:48.
  26. Cfr. supra pag. 496, nota 2. et Ambros., IV. super Luc. n. 58. (in Brev. Romano, feria 6. infra hebdom. 3. Quadrag.).
    Cf. above, p. 496, note 2, and Ambrose, On Luke IV, n. 58 (in the Roman Breviary, Friday within the third week of Lent). ---
← Dist. 22, Divisio TextusDist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 2→