[Appendix] Twenty Second Distinction

Single Question. Whether the Sin of the First Man came from Ignorance

Bonaventure, Sent.2 d.22 q.1 a.2
Scotus, Sent.2 d.22 q.1
Richard of St. Victor, Sent.2 d.22 q.1
John Bacconitanus, Sent.2 d.22 q.1

1. About the twenty second distinction the question asked is whether Adam sinned from ignorance.

2. That he did: Augustine, City of God 11 and Literal Commentary on Genesis 4, says that Adam believed he was then sinning venially.

3. Again, Adam did not sin from passion, because there was no disordered passion before sin; nor from choice, because choice follows deliberation, and bad choice follows false deliberation. But Adam himself was most prudent in deliberating. Therefore etc.

4. Again, because Adam was unable, at all events, to deliberate erroneously; therefore he sinned from the ignorance that is a not knowing.

5. On the contrary is St. Paul in I Timothy 2, ‘Adam was not seduced but Eve.’

To the Question

6. I reply that there is an ignorance that is a pure not knowing and an ignorance that is error. Again there is an ignorance of the fact and an ignorance of the circumstances. Also an ignorance that is cause of sin, and an ignorance that accompanies sin, and an ignorance that follows sin.

7. I say then that neither an ignorance that is error nor an ignorance of the fact or an ignorance of the circumstances was the cause of the first sin of Adam; and neither was there an ignorance accompanying sin, because then punishment would have preceded guilt. For there is such an ignorance that is punishment, although there is guilt along with it, and such ignorance could have followed sin, because sin involves a blinded reason.

8. I say also that ignorance neither of the fact nor of the circumstances was the cause of Adam’s first sin, because he was not so lacking in knowledge that he did not know that God, who forbade him the eating of the tree, was more to be obeyed than his wife to be agreed with. But the sort of ignorance that was, not of the fact, but of the circumstances could have been a concomitant. For Adam did not see all the evils that had to follow for himself and his posterity because of the sin; and if he had seen them his sin would have been greater.

To the Arguments

9. To the first argument [n.2] therefore I say that it was possible for sin to accompany the ignorance that is a not knowing of some circumstance, or rather of every circumstance. Hence such an act could be a mortal sin. For Adam saw that the eating of the tree was of itself an indifferent act, and perhaps did not know that God had given an altogether effective prohibition against it; and in that case Adam had the ignorance of not knowing this circumstance. So such an act did have wherewith to be a mortal sin, but it was not ignorance of the fact but of the circumstance; for, as was said, he well knew that God was more to be obeyed than his wife to be agreed with.

10. The response to the second argument [n.3] is therefore plain, because Adam could have believed it was a venial sin. Or one can say that this believe was an erroneous one consequent to the sin.

11. To the third [n.4] I say that Adam sinned by choice, not indeed by the choice that is the conclusion of a practical syllogism, but by the choice of simply choosing and pleasing his wife, for love of whom he was aroused and whose act prompted him, etc.