title: Dist. 43, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions

source_text:
## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XLIII.
### *De peccato in Spiritum sanctum.*

*Est praeterea quoddam peccati genus etc.*[^4],[^5],[^6]

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de distinctione peccatorum in generali; in hac parte descendit ad quoddam speciale genus peccati. Dividitur autem pars ista in partes duas. In quarum prima Magister determinat de peccato isto, comparando illud ad alia peccatorum genera. In secunda vero determinat de ipso, quid sit secundum assignationem propriam[^1], ibi: *Sed quaeritur, quid sit illud peccatum.*

Prima pars remanet indivisa; sed secunda dividitur in partes tres secundum triplicem assignationem peccati in Spiritum sanctum, in quarum prima Magister ponit assignationem unam per eius differentias magis notas, quae quidem sunt obstinatio et desperatio. In secunda vero ponit eius assignationem per eius differentias minus manifestas, ibi: *Est et alia huius peccati assignatio.* In tertia vero subiungit istius[^2] peccati assignationem communem et definitivam, ibi: *De hoc quoque peccato in Spiritum sanctum definitivam assignationem etc.* Prima istarum partium dividitur in partes duas, in quarum prima determinat veritatem; in secunda dissolvit dubitationem, ibi: *Sed quaeritur, utrum omnis obstinatio.* Similiter secunda dividitur in duas, in quarum prima ponit Magister huius peccati assignationem; in secunda ponit eius assignationis explanationem[^3], ibi: *Illam tamen assignationem Augustinus etc.* Similiter tertia pars habet duas, in quarum prima ponit peccati in Spiritum sanctum secundum Ambrosium definitivam assignationem. In secunda vero removet dubitationem, ibi: *Non itaque distinctio illa verborum sic accipienda est.*

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis incidit hic quaestio de peccato in Spiritum sanctum, de quo secundum ipsius triplicem comparationem quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur de ipso in comparatione ad alia peccatorum genera.

Secundo quaeritur de ipso quantum ad conditiones proprias.

Tertio vero quaeritur de ipso quantum ad eius species et differentias.

Circa primum quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur, utrum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum dicat genus peccati distinctum.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum semper habeat aliud peccatum actuale praeambulum.

---

english:
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XLIII.
### *On the sin against the Holy Spirit.*

*There is, moreover, a certain kind of sin, etc.*[^4],[^5],[^6]

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master treated of the distinction of sins in general; in this part he descends to a certain special kind of sin. Now this part is divided into two parts. In the first of these the Master determines concerning this sin, comparing it to the other kinds of sins. In the second, however, he determines concerning it, namely what it is according to its proper assignation[^1], there: *But it is asked what that sin is.*

The first part remains undivided; but the second is divided into three parts according to the threefold assignation of the sin against the Holy Spirit. In the first of these the Master sets down one assignation by its better-known differences, which indeed are obstinacy and despair. In the second, however, he sets down its assignation by its less manifest differences, there: *There is also another assignation of this sin.* In the third, however, he subjoins this[^2] sin's common and definitive assignation, there: *Concerning this sin against the Holy Spirit also, the definitive assignation, etc.* The first of these parts is divided into two parts, in the first of which he determines the truth; in the second he resolves a doubt, there: *But it is asked whether every obstinacy.* Likewise the second is divided into two, in the first of which the Master sets down the assignation of this sin; in the second he sets down the explanation[^3] of that assignation, there: *Yet that assignation Augustine, etc.* Likewise the third part has two, in the first of which he sets down the definitive assignation of the sin against the Holy Spirit according to Ambrose. In the second, however, he removes a doubt, there: *Not in this way, therefore, is that distinction of words to be understood.*

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part there arises here a question concerning the sin against the Holy Spirit, concerning which, according to its threefold comparison, three things are asked.

First it is asked concerning it in comparison to the other kinds of sins.

Second it is asked concerning it as regards its proper conditions.

Third, however, it is asked concerning it as regards its species and differences.

Concerning the first, two things are asked.

First it is asked whether the sin against the Holy Spirit names a distinct kind of sin.

Second it is asked whether the sin against the Holy Spirit always has another actual sin as its antecedent.

---

la: Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 sic: *quid sit secundum aliorum assignationem et etiam secundum propriam.*

en: The Vatican edition, with editions 3 and 4, reads thus: *what it is according to the assignation of others and also according to its proper [assignation].*

la: Edd. ipsius.

en: The editions [read] *ipsius* ["its own"].

la: Cod. T *declarationem.*

en: Codex T [reads] *declarationem* ["declaration"].

la: Libr. I. c. 3. n. 54. Locus Scripturae est Matth. 12, 32. Inferius respicitur ibid. v. 24, 28. — Pro *definitam* Bonav. legit *definitivam.*

en: Book I, c. 3, n. 54. The scriptural passage is Matthew 12:32. Below, reference is made to the same place, vv. 24, 28. — For *definitam* Bonaventure reads *definitivam.*

la: Codd., excepto D, *peccant.* (Ad verba litterae Magistri *qui peccat in Spiritum sanctum*, in fine p.981.)

en: The codices, except D, [read] *peccant* ["they sin"]. (On the Master's words *who sins against the Holy Spirit*, at the foot of p.981.)

la: Libr. I. d. XXXIV. c. 4. (Ad verba *superius dictum est*, in fine p.981.)

en: Book I, dist. XXXIV, c. 4. (On the words *was said above*, at the foot of p.981.)

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF crops of printed p.981 (PDF 1003) — running head confirmed `DIST. XLIII. DIVISIO TEXTUS. 981` — plus the spill onto p.982 (`982 SENTENTIARUM LIB. II.`); cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 68157–68203. Skeleton `line_start/line_end` 68162/68199 corrected (the COMMENTARIUS opener is at raw 68157; the a1-q1 listing tail runs to 68203).

**Page-split map.**
- p.981 (PDF 1003): COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XLIII header + lemma *Est praeterea quoddam peccati genus etc.* + entire DIVISIO TEXTUS + the head of TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (the threefold listing through *...quantum ad conditiones proprias*).
- p.982 (PDF 1004): TRACTATIO continuation — *Tertio vero quaeritur...* + *Circa primum quaeruntur duo* + the a1 q1/q2 listing (*Primo quaeritur, utrum...dicat genus peccati distinctum* / *Secundo quaeritur, utrum...habeat aliud peccatum actuale praeambulum*). These are the listing of a1's two questions and belong to the divisio (re-chunk rule 4), NOT to a1-q1's body.

**Apparatus (6 entries, single shared page p.981, two-column split).** Quaracchi prints two `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` columns at the foot of p.981, each restarting at 1:
- Right column → [^1]–[^3]: annotate the DIVISIO TEXTUS body markers *propriam*¹, *istius*², *explanationem*³.
- Left column → [^4]–[^6]: annotate the lemma / Lombard tail printed at the head of p.981 (*definitam→definitivam*¹, *peccant*² on the clause *qui peccat in Spiritum sanctum*, *superius*³ cross-ref to Bk I d.XXXIV). That tail text is physically the d.43 littera chunk's content; the d43-littera resume note flagged these 3 superscript markers as plain text pending the divisio's NOTAE block. **This chunk renders all 6 footers, resolving that [?].**

**Hand-offs picked up.** d43-littera hand-off (commit 945a42c): all 6 p.981 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM belong here — done; the littera's p.981 [?] (3 stranded markers) is cleared by [^4]–[^6] above.

**Hand-off forwarded to d43-a1-q1.** ARTICULUS I (`De peccato in Spiritum sanctum comparato ad alia peccatorum genera.`) + QUAESTIO I (`Utrum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum dicat genus peccati distinctum ab aliis generibus peccatorum.`) begin at raw 68201/68204, in the bottom half of printed **p.982** (PDF 1004); the q1 body opens `Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum dicat genus peccati distinctum ab aliis generibus peccatorum. Et quod sic, videtur:` (raw 68208). The a1-q1 body carries its own **fresh p.982 footer sequence** — no divisio footer migrates forward (the divisio consumed all 6 p.981 NOTAE; p.982 footers start clean for the quaestio). Offset `pdf = printed + 22`; OCR running-head digits mangled — confirm printed_pages via low-dpi render.

**[?] flags.** None.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 43, Art. 1, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 982 -->

### Articulus I. *De peccato in Spiritum sanctum comparato ad alia peccatorum genera.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum dicat genus peccati distinctum ab aliis generibus peccatorum.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum dicat genus peccati distinctum ab aliis generibus peccatorum. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. *Primo* per verbum Magistri in littera[^1]: « Est quoddam peccati genus ceteris gravius et abominabilius, quod dicitur peccatum in Spiritum sanctum ».

2. *Item*, hoc videtur ratione. Quia mortale et veniale faciunt diversa peccatorum genera, ergo multo fortius remissibile et irremissibile; sed peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est peccatum irremissibile[^2]: ergo videtur, quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum sit aliud genus ab aliis generibus peccatorum.

3. *Item*, peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est peccatum procedens ex certa malitia: si ergo peccatum ex certa malitia dividitur contra peccatum ex ignorantia et infirmitate[^3], ergo videtur, quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum sit genus peccati distinctum.

4. *Item*, quod habet species proprias, a speciebus aliorum peccatorum distinctas, est genus peccati distinctum ab aliis peccatorum generibus; sed peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est huiusmodi, quoniam eius species sunt desperatio et obstinatio et veritatis agnitae impugnatio, quae sunt propriae species huius peccati, ita quod non aliorum[^4]: ergo etc.

**Sed contra:**
1. « Peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, sicut dicit Magister in littera[^5] est peccatum ad mortem »; sed omne peccatum mortale est peccatum ad mortem: ergo cum peccatum ad mortem sit generale ad omnes peccatorum differentias, ergo et peccatum in Spiritum sanctum.

2. *Item*, peccatum in Spiritum sanctum aut sic nominatur, quia est in personam Spiritus sancti, aut quia est contra illud quod est appropriatum Spiritui sancto. Si quia contra personam Spiritus sancti; sed una est maiestas Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti[^6]: ergo omne peccatum, quod est in Spiritum sanctum, est in Patrem, et omne quod est in Patrem, est in Spiritum sanctum: ergo hoc modo est generale ad omne peccatum. Sed si quia contra effectum appropriatum Spiritui sancto, utpote contra bonitatem et gratiam; sed omne peccatum est contra bonitatem et contra gratiam Spiritus sancti: ergo omne peccatum est peccatum in Spiritum sanctum.

3. *Item*, peccatum dividitur in peccatum ex infirmitate et ex ignorantia et ex malitia, ita quod peccatum ex malitia dicitur esse[^7] peccatum in Spiritum sanctum; sed peccatum ex ignorantia et peccatum ex infirmitate non dicit speciale genus peccati — omne enim genus peccati ex ignorantia potest esse et ex infirmitate — ergo non videtur similiter, quod peccatum ex malitia dicat determinatum peccati genus.

4. *Item*, omne quod quis facit ex ignorantia, potest facere ex certa scientia sive ex industria: ergo si omne genus peccati potest fieri ex certa industria, videtur, quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum circumeat omnia peccatorum genera: non ergo videtur esse peccati genus ab aliis peccatorum generibus distinctum.

### Conclusio

> Peccatum in Spiritum sanctum ratione sui principii, sui oppositi et actus substrati est genus peccati determinatum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum dicit genus peccati distinctum ab aliis generibus peccatorum ratione triplici, videlicet ratione principii et ratione sui oppositi et ratione actus substrati.

<!-- page 983 -->

Ratione principii, quia peccatum in Spiritum sanctum dicitur esse illud quod est ex certa malitia sive industria, ex qua non procedit omne peccatum, sed illud solum, quod homo facit scienter. — Ratione oppositi similiter distinguitur, quia, cum triplex sit gratia, videlicet innocentiae, baptismalis et poenitentialis, peccatum in Spiritum sanctum proprie habet opponi gratiae poenitentiali, et eam impugnat quantum ad sui initium et quantum ad sui terminum, sicut per originale perditur gratia innocentiae, et per actualia alia impugnatur gratia baptismalis[^8]. — Ratione vero actus substrati similiter distinguitur, quia, cum peccatum illud sit impugnativum gratiae, et malitia sit in ipso spiritu secundum se, peccatum in Spiritum sanctum consistit circa actum ipsius spiritus, sicut patet in desperatione et obstinatione; unde fornicatio et adulterium non potest aliquo modo dici peccatum in Spiritum sanctum.

Ratione igitur sui principii et oppositi et actus substrati, peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est genus peccati determinatum. Et ratione horum trium sic nominatur, ut dicatur peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, videlicet ratione malitiae, a qua procedit, quae directe opponitur bonitati appropriatae Spiritui sancto; ratione poenitentialis sive finalis gratiae, quam privat, quae est effectus appropriatus Spiritui sancto; ratione etiam actus spiritualis, circa quem consistit; unde directe dicitur peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, quod est in spiritu et circa actum spiritus malignantis. — Et sic patet, quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est genus peccati ab aliis generibus peccatorum distinctum. Et concedendae sunt rationes, quae hoc ostendunt.

**Ad oppositorum solutionem:**
*Ad 1.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est peccatum ad mortem: dicendum, quod peccatum dicitur ad mortem secundum similitudinem ad mortem corporalem. In morte autem corporali tria concurrunt, quorum primum est amissio vitae, aliud est corruptio dispositionis ex parte corporis ad susceptionem animae, tertium est impossibilitas reparationis secundum cursum naturae. Quantum ad primam conditionem omne peccatum, in quo est aversio a Deo, dicitur esse peccatum mortale sive ad mortem. Quantum ad secundam peccatum in Spiritum sanctum dicitur peccatum ad mortem, quia tollit dispositionem ad susceptionem[^9] vitae, quae quidem consistit in susceptione poenitentiae. Quantum vero ad tertiam conditionem peccatum illud dicitur ad mortem, in quo quis corporaliter moritur. Cum ergo dicitur, quod omne peccatum mortale est ad mortem, et quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est peccatum ad mortem, differenti modo accipitur peccatum ad mortem.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod aut dicitur peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, quia est contra personam etc.; dicendum, quod ideo dicitur peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, non quia est contra *personam*, sed quia est contra appropriatum effectum; nec quia contra omnem effectum appropriatum, sed quia contra effectum praecipuum inter appropriata Spiritui sancto. Hic[^10] autem est donum gratiae finalis, sive poenitentialis, et huiusmodi proprie quantum ad statum gratiae finalis, in qua consistit omnis gratiae efficacia; et hoc modo non omne peccatum est contra effectum illum; et per hoc non sequitur, quod omne peccatum sit in Spiritum sanctum.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omne peccatum potest esse peccatum ex ignorantia et infirmitate; dicendum, quod non est simile, quoniam ignorantia non determinat sibi aliquem actum, nec etiam infirmitas[^11]; et ideo non dicit genus peccati determinatum, sed circuit omnia peccatorum genera. Similiter dicendum de peccato, quod est ex *infirmitate*; non sic autem est de peccato, secundum quod est ex *malitia*. Ad hoc enim, quod sit peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, non sufficit, quod sit ex certa *scientia* et industria, sed requiritur *determinatio generis* quantum ad actum substratum.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omne peccatum potest fieri ex malitia; dicendum, quod etsi malitia concurrere possit ad omne peccatum, non tamen semper facit peccatum in Spiritum sanctum. Unde si aliquis senex, qui non habet[^12] appetitum fornicandi, excitaret carnem suam, ut fornicaretur, non diceretur in illa fornicatione peccare peccato in Spiritum sanctum, quamvis illud peccatum committeret ex industria et quadam malitia. Cum ergo dicitur, quod peccatum ex malitia est peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, hoc solum intelligitur de *illis generibus* peccatorum, quae proprie ex malitia habent ortum, sicut invidentia fraternae gratiae et impugnatio veritatis agnitae.

<!-- page 984 -->

english:
### Article I. *On the sin against the Holy Spirit compared to the other kinds of sins.*
### Question I. *Whether the sin against the Holy Spirit names a kind of sin distinct from the other kinds of sins.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether the sin against the Holy Spirit names a kind of sin distinct from the other kinds of sins. And that it does, it seems:

1. *First*, by the word of the Master in the text[^1]: « There is a certain kind of sin graver and more abominable than the rest, which is called the sin against the Holy Spirit ».

2. *Likewise*, this seems so by reason. For the mortal and the venial make different kinds of sins, therefore much more strongly the remissible and the irremissible; but the sin against the Holy Spirit is an irremissible sin[^2]: therefore it seems that the sin against the Holy Spirit is a kind other than the other kinds of sins.

3. *Likewise*, the sin against the Holy Spirit is a sin proceeding from settled malice: if therefore the sin from settled malice is divided over against the sin from ignorance and from weakness[^3], therefore it seems that the sin against the Holy Spirit is a distinct kind of sin.

4. *Likewise*, that which has its own species, distinct from the species of the other sins, is a kind of sin distinct from the other kinds of sins; but the sin against the Holy Spirit is of this sort, since its species are despair and obstinacy and the impugning of acknowledged truth, which are the proper species of this sin, and not of the others[^4]: therefore, etc.

**On the contrary:**
1. « The sin against the Holy Spirit, as the Master says in the text[^5], is a sin unto death »; but every mortal sin is a sin unto death: therefore, since the sin unto death is general to all the differences of sins, then so too is the sin against the Holy Spirit.

2. *Likewise*, the sin against the Holy Spirit is so named either because it is against the person of the Holy Spirit, or because it is against that which is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. If because it is against the person of the Holy Spirit; but the majesty of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one[^6]: therefore every sin that is against the Holy Spirit is against the Father, and everything that is against the Father is against the Holy Spirit: therefore in this way it would be general to every sin. But if because it is against the effect appropriated to the Holy Spirit, namely against goodness and grace; but every sin is against the goodness and against the grace of the Holy Spirit: therefore every sin is a sin against the Holy Spirit.

3. *Likewise*, sin is divided into sin from weakness and from ignorance and from malice, such that sin from malice is said to be[^7] the sin against the Holy Spirit; but sin from ignorance and sin from weakness do not name a special kind of sin — for every kind of sin can be from ignorance and from weakness — therefore it does not seem in like manner that sin from malice names a determinate kind of sin.

4. *Likewise*, everything that anyone does from ignorance, he can do from settled knowledge or from deliberate purpose: therefore if every kind of sin can be done from settled purpose, it seems that the sin against the Holy Spirit would range over all the kinds of sins: therefore it does not seem to be a kind of sin distinct from the other kinds of sins.

### Conclusion

> The sin against the Holy Spirit, by reason of its principle, of its opposite, and of its underlying act, is a determinate kind of sin.

**I respond:** It must be said that the sin against the Holy Spirit names a kind of sin distinct from the other kinds of sins by a threefold reason, namely by reason of its principle, by reason of its opposite, and by reason of its underlying act.

By reason of its principle, because the sin against the Holy Spirit is said to be that which is from settled malice or deliberate purpose, from which not every sin proceeds, but only that which a person does knowingly. — By reason of its opposite it is likewise distinguished, because, since grace is threefold, namely of innocence, baptismal, and penitential, the sin against the Holy Spirit properly is opposed to penitential grace, and impugns it both as to its beginning and as to its term, just as through original sin the grace of innocence is lost, and through the other actual sins baptismal grace is impugned[^8]. — And by reason of its underlying act it is likewise distinguished, because, since that sin is impugnative of grace, and the malice is in the spirit itself according to itself, the sin against the Holy Spirit consists about the act of the spirit itself, as is evident in despair and obstinacy; whence fornication and adultery cannot in any way be called a sin against the Holy Spirit.

Therefore by reason of its principle and of its opposite and of its underlying act, the sin against the Holy Spirit is a determinate kind of sin. And by reason of these three it is so named, that it be called the sin against the Holy Spirit, namely by reason of the malice from which it proceeds, which is directly opposed to the goodness appropriated to the Holy Spirit; by reason of the penitential or final grace which it deprives, which is the effect appropriated to the Holy Spirit; and also by reason of the spiritual act about which it consists; whence it is directly called a sin against the Holy Spirit, which is in the spirit and about the act of the malignant spirit. — And thus it is evident that the sin against the Holy Spirit is a kind of sin distinct from the other kinds of sins. And the arguments that show this are to be conceded.

**To the solution of the opposed arguments:**
*To 1.* To that which is objected, that it is a sin unto death: it must be said that a sin is called "unto death" according to a likeness to bodily death. Now in bodily death three things concur, of which the first is the loss of life, the second is the corruption of the disposition on the part of the body for the reception of the soul, the third is the impossibility of repair according to the course of nature. As to the first condition, every sin in which there is an aversion from God is said to be a mortal sin or unto death. As to the second, the sin against the Holy Spirit is called a sin unto death, because it takes away the disposition for the reception[^9] of life, which indeed consists in the reception of penance. But as to the third condition, that sin is called "unto death" in which one dies corporeally. When therefore it is said that every mortal sin is unto death, and that the sin against the Holy Spirit is a sin unto death, "sin unto death" is taken in a different way.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that the sin against the Holy Spirit is so called either because it is against the person etc.; it must be said that it is called a sin against the Holy Spirit not because it is against the *person*, but because it is against the appropriated effect; nor because it is against every appropriated effect, but because it is against the chief effect among the things appropriated to the Holy Spirit. And this[^10] is the gift of final grace, that is, of penitential grace, and such properly as to the state of final grace, in which all efficacy of grace consists; and in this way not every sin is against that effect; and through this it does not follow that every sin is against the Holy Spirit.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that every sin can be a sin from ignorance and weakness; it must be said that the case is not alike, since ignorance does not determine for itself any act, nor does weakness either[^11]; and therefore it does not name a determinate kind of sin, but ranges over all the kinds of sins. The like is to be said of the sin which is from *weakness*; but it is not so of the sin insofar as it is from *malice*. For in order that it be a sin against the Holy Spirit, it does not suffice that it be from settled *knowledge* and purpose, but there is required a *determination of kind* with respect to the underlying act.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that every sin can be done from malice; it must be said that although malice can concur in every sin, nevertheless it does not always make a sin against the Holy Spirit. Whence if some old man, who does not have[^12] an appetite for fornicating, were to arouse his flesh that he might fornicate, he would not be said in that fornication to sin with a sin against the Holy Spirit, although he committed that sin from purpose and a certain malice. When therefore it is said that the sin from malice is a sin against the Holy Spirit, this is understood only of *those kinds* of sins which properly take their origin from malice, such as envy of a brother's grace and the impugning of acknowledged truth.

la: Hic in principio.

en: Here at the beginning [of the distinction].

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, et infra a. 2. q. 2.

en: See the text of the Master here, and below a. 2, q. 2.

la: Secundum Isidorum, de quo vide supra in lit. Magistri, d. XXII. c. 4. in fine. Cfr. etiam hic lit. Magistri, in fine, nec non Aristot., V. Ethic. c. 8. seqq., ubi ostenditur, nocumenta esse ex ignorantia, passione et electione.

en: According to Isidore, on whom see above in the text of the Master, d. XXII, c. 4, at the end. Cf. also the text of the Master here, at the end, and also Aristotle, *Ethics* V, c. 8 ff., where it is shown that harms come from ignorance, passion, and choice.

la: Probatur infra a. 3. q. 2.

en: This is proved below a. 3, q. 2.

la: Hic circa initium. — In ultima conclusione Vat. et edd. 3, 4 post *ergo et* addunt *ad ipsum*, edd. 1, 2 *ipsum*.

en: Here near the beginning. — In the last conclusion the Vatican edition and editions 3, 4 add *ad ipsum* after *ergo et*; editions 1, 2 [add] *ipsum*.

la: Cfr. Symbol. Athanas. nec non dictum Ambrosii hic in lit. Magistri, in fine, allatum. Specialiter contra *personam* Spiritus S. peccari potest vel per *infidelitatem* circa Spiritum S., vel per *blasphemiam specialem* contra Spiritum S. — Paulo inferius pro secundo *in Spiritum sanctum* cod. T *in Filium*.

en: Cf. the Athanasian Creed, and also the saying of Ambrose adduced here in the text of the Master, at the end. One can sin specially against the *person* of the Holy Spirit either through *unbelief* concerning the Holy Spirit, or through a *special blasphemy* against the Holy Spirit. — A little below, for the second *against the Holy Spirit* codex T reads *against the Son*.

la: Pro *dicitur esse*, edd. exhibent *est*, eaedemque paulo inferius post *genus peccati* inserunt *quod est*. Pro *non dicit speciale* cod. Y *non dicunt speciale*.

en: For *is said to be*, the editions present *is*, and the same a little below insert *which is* after *kind of sin*. For *does not name a special* codex Y [reads] *do not name a special*.

la: August., Serm. 71. (alias 11. de Verbis Domini) c. 12. n. 20: *Contra hoc donum gratuitum* [scil. remissionem peccatorum], *contra istam Dei gratiam loquitur cor impoenitens. Ipsa ergo impoenitentia est spiritus blasphemiae, quae non remittetur, neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro. Contra Spiritum enim sanctum, quo baptizantur quorum peccata omnia dimittuntur* etc. — Paulo ante nonnulli codd. nec non Vat. et edd. 3, 4 omittunt *alia*.

en: Augustine, Sermon 71 (otherwise 11, *On the Words of the Lord*) c. 12, n. 20: *Against this gratuitous gift* [namely the remission of sins], *against that grace of God the impenitent heart speaks. That impenitence, then, is the spirit of blasphemy, which shall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the world to come. For against the Holy Spirit, by whom are baptized those whose sins are all forgiven*, etc. — A little before, several codices, as well as the Vatican edition and editions 3, 4, omit *other*.

la: In cod. T deest *ad susceptionem*. — De quadruplici morte cfr. III. Sent. d. 18. dub. 5; quomodo mors et vita opponantur, I. Sent. d. 8. p. I. dub. 9, supra d. 19. dub. 3; de differentia inter mortem corporalem et spiritualem III. Sent. d. 36. dub. 2.

en: In codex T *for the reception* is lacking. — On the fourfold death cf. III Sent. d. 18, dub. 5; how death and life are opposed, I Sent. d. 8, p. I, dub. 9, above d. 19, dub. 3; on the difference between bodily and spiritual death, III Sent. d. 36, dub. 2.

la: Plurimi codd. atque edd. 1, 2 *Hoc*.

en: Very many codices, and editions 1, 2, [read] *This* [neuter *Hoc* for *Hic*].

la: Vat. omittit *nec etiam infirmitas*. Paulo inferius cod. Y omittit *secundum*.

en: The Vatican edition omits *nor does weakness either*. A little below, codex Y omits *according to*.

la: Codd. I W Z *haberet*.

en: Codices I, W, Z [read] *would have* [*haberet* for *habet*]. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Iam Aristoteles (V. Ethic. c. 8.) triplicem distinxit modum peccandi, scilicet ex ignorantia, passione et electione, unde antiqui theologi communiter tria genera peccatorum, scilicet ignorantiae, infirmitatis et malitiae (cfr. supra d. 42. dub. 2.) distinxerunt, et ita ut primum genus dicatur esse appropriate in Filium, secundum in Patrem, tertium in Spiritum S. (vide lit. Magistri, hic in fine dist.). — Praenotandum est, ut docet Alex. Hal. (3. p. II. q. 156. m. I.), quod peccatum contra Spiritum S. interdum largius sumitur pro quocumque peccato mortali ex certa malitia cum mentis pertinacia commisso, et sic « addit conditionem super genus peccati » (ibid.); proprie autem sumtum est genus quoddam peccati, « quo per se impugnatur ipsa gratia Spiritus S., in qua fit remissio peccatorum ». — Item, praenotat S. Thom. (hic a. I.), quod illud peccatum differt ab eo quod committitur directe contra personam Spiritus S., scilicet quando de ea male sentitur, cum sit potius peccatum contra attributum bonitatis, quod Spiritui S. appropriatur. Consentit S. Bonav. (hic in corp. et ad 2.). — Hinc docet Seraphicus, non omne peccatum malitiae esse peccatum in Spiritum S., sed praeter malitiam (de qua cfr. hic a. 2. q. I.) requiri, quod sit peccatum spirituale, et quod eius terminus specialiter opponatur bonitati Spiritui S. appropriatae (cfr. infra a. 3. q. I. 2, et Breviloq. p. III. c. 11.). — Paulo aliter Scot. (hic q. I. n. 7.), qui ad peccatum in Spiritum S. haec tria requiri vult, « scilicet, quod sit ex certa malitia; quod sit contra praeceptum primae tabulae; et quod sit actus oppositus perfectissimo actui conversivo ». Porro S. Thom. (hic a. 2.), praeter malitiam, pro speciali obiecto huius peccati assignat, quod sit contra hoc quod « a peccato natum erat retrahere... Et istud est bonitas quaedam, vel aliquis effectus Spiritui S. appropriabilis ». Alii etiam aliis utuntur loquendi modis; insuper antiquiores etiam in assignatione numeri specierum huius peccati dissidebant, ut iam patet ex littera Magistri. — In ipsa autem conclusione antiqui magistri conveniunt; nisi quod Aegid. R. (qui recedens ab aliis enumerat octo peccata in Spiritum S.) hic distinctione utitur et eorum quatuor tantum dicit esse determinati generis, quae sunt desperatio, praesumtio, impugnatio veritatis agnitae et invidentia fraternae gratiae.

**II.** Praeter locos citatos: S. Thom., S. II. II. q. 14. a. I; de Malo, q. 3. a. 14. — B. Albert., hic a. 3; S. p. II. tr. 23. q. 140. m. I. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. I. — Aegid. R., hic q. I. a. 2. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. I. — Biel, de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.

**III.** Quoad solutionem sequentis quaest. Ss. Thomas et Bonav. conveniunt in hoc, quod peccatum in Spiritum S. fere semper sequatur peccata praecedentia; in hoc autem discedit Thom. a Bonav., quod ipse possibile esse putat, in primo actu peccandi etiam eas species huius peccati committi, « quae (secundum S. Bonaventuram) nullo modo possunt esse absque peccato praeambulo, sicut sunt obstinatio, desperatio et finalis impoenitentia ». S. Bonaventurae consentiunt Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., Dionys. Carth.; at Aegid. R. unam tantum speciem excipit, quae non possit fieri nisi post alia peccata.

De hac 2. quaestione specialiter tractant: S. Thom., hic a. 3; S. loc. cit. a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. I. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Already Aristotle (Ethics V, c. 8) distinguished a threefold manner of sinning, namely from ignorance, from passion, and from choice, whence the ancient theologians commonly distinguished three kinds of sins, namely of ignorance, of weakness, and of malice (cf. above d. 42, dub. 2), and so that the first kind is said to be appropriately against the Son, the second against the Father, the third against the Holy Spirit (see the text of the Master, here at the end of the distinction). — It must be noted, as Alexander of Hales teaches (3rd part, II, q. 156, m. I), that sin against the Holy Spirit is sometimes taken more broadly for any mortal sin committed from settled malice with stubbornness of mind, and thus it « adds a condition over and above the kind of sin » (ibid.); but taken properly it is a certain kind of sin, « by which the very grace of the Holy Spirit, in which the remission of sins takes place, is impugned of itself ». — Likewise, St. Thomas notes (here a. I) that that sin differs from the one committed directly against the person of the Holy Spirit, namely when one thinks ill of him, since it is rather a sin against the attribute of goodness, which is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. St. Bonaventure agrees (here in the body and at reply 2). — Hence the Seraphic Doctor teaches that not every sin of malice is a sin against the Holy Spirit, but that besides malice (concerning which cf. here a. 2, q. I) it is required that it be a spiritual sin, and that its term be specially opposed to the goodness appropriated to the Holy Spirit (cf. below a. 3, q. I and 2, and Breviloquium, part III, c. 11). — Somewhat differently Scotus (here q. I, n. 7), who holds that these three are required for the sin against the Holy Spirit, « namely, that it be from settled malice; that it be against a precept of the first table; and that it be an act opposed to the most perfect converting act ». Moreover St. Thomas (here a. 2), besides malice, assigns as the special object of this sin that it be against that which « was apt to draw one back from sin... And this is a certain goodness, or some effect appropriable to the Holy Spirit ». Others too use other modes of speaking; moreover the older writers also disagreed in assigning the number of the species of this sin, as is already evident from the text of the Master. — But in the conclusion itself the ancient masters agree; except that Giles of Rome (who, departing from the others, enumerates eight sins against the Holy Spirit) here uses a distinction and says that only four of them are of a determinate kind, which are despair, presumption, the impugning of acknowledged truth, and envy of a brother's grace.

**II.** Besides the places cited: St. Thomas, *Summa* II-II, q. 14, a. I; *de Malo*, q. 3, a. 14. — Bl. Albert, here a. 3; *Summa* part II, tr. 23, q. 140, m. I. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. I, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. I, q. I. — Giles of Rome, here q. I, a. 2. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. I. — Biel, on this and the following questions here q. unica.

**III.** As to the solution of the following question: Sts. Thomas and Bonaventure agree in this, that the sin against the Holy Spirit nearly always follows preceding sins; but in this Thomas departs from Bonaventure, that the latter holds it possible that even those species of this sin be committed in the first act of sinning, « which (according to St. Bonaventure) can in no way be without a preceding sin, such as are obstinacy, despair, and final impenitence ». With St. Bonaventure agree Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, Dionysius the Carthusian; but Giles of Rome excepts only one species, which cannot be done except after other sins.

On this second question there treat specially: St. Thomas, here a. 3; *Summa* loc. cit. a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. I. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. I, q. 2. — Giles of Rome, here q. 2, a. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF (PDF page 1004–1006 = printed pp. 982–984), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 68201–68365) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The reply-3 region (`Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omne peccatum potest esse… nec etiam infirmitas`) was cascade-shattered in the OCR (diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation across raw lines 96–104 of the chunk's `## Latin` block) and was reconstructed directly from the p. 983 R-column 450 dpi crop.

**Page span / running-head confirmation.** q1 spans printed **pp. 982–984** (PDF 1004–1006). Confirmed via low-dpi PDF render: p. 983 running head reads `DIST. XLIII. ART. I. QUAEST. I.` Offset `pdf = printed + 22` holds. The ARTICULUS I + QUAESTIO I opener begins in the lower half of p. 982; the Respondeo + replies run across pp. 982–983; the SCHOLION (I–III) occupies p. 984 above the `QUAESTIO II` header.

**Apparatus page-split map (12 entries, per-page restart):**
- p. 982 footers **1–7** → `[^1]`–`[^7]` (left col 1–5: *Hic in principio* / *Vide hic lit. Magistri* / *Secundum Isidorum* / *Probatur infra a.3.q.2* / *Hic circa initium…*; right col 6–7: *Cfr. Symbol. Athanas.* / *Pro dicitur esse, edd.…*). Confirmed against 450 dpi footer crop.
- p. 983 footers **1–5** → `[^8]`–`[^12]` (left col 1: Augustine Serm. 71 = `[^8]`; right col 2–5: *In cod. T deest ad susceptionem* = `[^9]`, *Plurimi codd… Hoc* = `[^10]`, *Vat. omittit nec etiam infirmitas* = `[^11]`, *Codd. I W Z haberet* = `[^12]`). Confirmed against 450 dpi footer crop; OCR had `III. Sent. d. 18. dub. 5` correctly (entry `[^9]` reads *dub. 5* per the PDF crop).
- p. 984 (SCHOLION) carries **no numbered footers** — all citations are parenthetical inline.

**Hand-off picked up:** none — per the d43-divisio hand-off, the divisio consumed all 6 p. 981 NOTAE; q1 carries a fresh p. 982 footer sequence. No divisio footer migrated in. Confirmed.

**Scholion location:** Scholion **I–III held here in a1-q1**. Scholion **III** ("Quoad solutionem sequentis quaest…") covers a1-q2 — therefore **a1-q2 has no scholion of its own** (`has_scholion: false`).

> **HAND-OFF TO d43-a1-q2 (forwarded):** QUAESTIO II (`Utrum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum semper habeat aliud peccatum praeambulum`, `Secundo quaeritur…`) opens on printed **p. 984** (PDF 1006), immediately after the SCHOLION block, and continues onto p. 985+. **a1-q2 has NO scholion of its own** — Scholion III (held here in a1-q1) covers it; set `has_scholion: false`. **a1-q2's first body-footer is the fresh p. 984 footer sequence** (footer 1 = *Hic circa initium*; footer 2 = Bernard, *in Cant. serm. 3. n. 4: Nolo repente fieri summus…* + *de Gradibus humilitatis c. 9. n. 27*; footer 3 = Vat. variant; footer 4 = *Vide supra pag. 528, nota 2*) — no q1 footer migrates forward (q1 consumed p. 983 footers 1–5; the p. 984 footers all belong to q2's scholion-adjacent body). q2 fund.: 1 (Magister in littera, *peccatum desperationis vel obstinationis*), 2 (finalis impoenitentia), 3 (ex certa malitia → malitiosus per culpam), 4 (*in bonis nemo repente fit summus*, Bernard). Sed contra: 1 (Beda, the four penalties *infirmitas, ignorantia, malitia, concupiscentia*), 2, 3, 4. Offset `pdf = printed + 22`; confirm printed_pages via low-dpi render. d.50 is the next decade polish gate (far off).

**[?] flags:** none.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 43, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 984 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum semper habeat aliud peccatum praeambulum.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum semper habeat aliud peccatum praeambulum. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Magister in littera[^1] dicit, quod « peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est peccatum desperationis, vel obstinationis »; sed nullus desperat nec obstinatur nisi propter aliquod praecedens peccatum: ergo videtur, quod semper aliquod peccatum sit praeambulum ad peccatum in Spiritum sanctum.

2. Item, peccatum in Spiritum sanctum vel est finalis impoenitentia, vel habet semper annexam finalem impoenitentiam, quantum est de se; sed impoenitentia non est nisi respectu peccati praecedentis, sicut nec poenitentia: ergo nunquam est peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, quin habeat aliud peccatum praeambulum.

3. Item, peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est peccatum procedens ex certa malitia: ergo necesse est, quod antequam homo peccet peccato in Spiritum sanctum[^2] sit malitiosus; sed non est malitiosus nisi per culpam: ergo ante peccatum in Spiritum sanctum necesse est esse aliam culpam praeambulam.

4. Item, in bonis nemo repente fit summus[^3]: ergo videtur, quod et in malis nemo statim labatur in profundum; sed per istud peccati genus labitur homo in profundum vitiorum: videtur ergo, quod istud peccati genus habeat aliud praeambulum, quod disponat ad ipsum.

**Sed contra:** 1. Quatuor sunt nobis inflicta, sicut dicit Beda[^4] propter peccatum primi parentis, videlicet « infirmitas, ignorantia, malitia et concupiscentia »; sed possibile est, quod homo primo peccato peccet peccato ex ignorantia et ex infirmitate: igitur similiter possibile est, quod primo peccet peccato, quod ex malitia procedit.

2. Item, quotiescumque peccatorum genera sunt diversa, possibile est peccare peccato uno absque alio: si ergo peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est peccatum

<!-- page 985 -->

distinctum ab aliis generibus peccatorum[^5], possibile est, aliquem peccare illo genere peccati, etiam si non praecesserit aliud peccatum.

3. Item, impugnatio veritatis agnitae est huius peccati species[^6]; sed ita bene potest quis impugnare veritatem agnitam, sicut etiam veritatem ignoratam: ergo videtur saltem, quod quantum ad illam speciem absque alio peccati genere committi possit peccatum in Spiritum sanctum.

4. Item, peccatum in Spiritum sanctum consistit circa actum spiritus[^7]; sed magis pendet actus carnis ex actu spiritus quam e converso: ergo si homo potest peccare peccato carnis, nullo alio peccato praecedente, pari ratione, immo multo fortiori, videtur hoc esse verum de peccato in Spiritum sanctum.

### Conclusio

> Quaedam sunt species peccati in Spiritum sanctum, quae nullo modo possunt esse absque peccato praeambulo; quaedam vero possunt esse absque peccato praeambulo, quod tamen vix aut nunquam accidit.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod de peccato in Spiritum sanctum differenter est loqui secundum eius species differentes. Quaedam enim sunt species peccati in Spiritum sanctum, quae nullo modo possunt esse absque peccato praeambulo, sicut sunt obstinatio, desperatio et finalis impoenitentia. Talia enim respiciunt peccatum praeambulum quasi materiam circa quam, et etiam sicut causam; nemo enim desperat de venia, nisi qui commisit culpam; nemo obstinatur in malo, nisi qui fecit malum; nemo impoenitens est, nisi qui habet unde poeniteat.

Sunt et aliae species peccati in Spiritum sanctum, quae quidem possunt esse absque peccato praeambulo, pro eo quod actus ipsarum non respicit determinate peccatum[^8], sicut est *invidentia fraternae gratiae* et *impugnatio veritatis agnitae*, sicut etiam est *praesumtio de impunitate*. Potest enim quis fraternae gratiae invidere et veritatem agnitam impugnare et de impunitate praesumere, etiam si nulla actualis culpa praecesserit; et hoc propter libertatem voluntatis, quae in quodlibet[^9] horum peccatorum propria deordinatione potest se praecipitare. — Attamen, quia ista sunt peccata valde gravia, vix aut nunquam contingit, quod aliquis in haec cadat, nisi mens eius fuerit per alia peccata depravata.

Concedendum est igitur, quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum non solum est genus peccati distinctum ab aliis peccatorum generibus[^10] secundum *formam*, sed etiam separari potest secundum *existentiam*, ita quod committatur sine culpa praeambula, quamvis rarissime contingat. — Unde et rationes, quae ad illam partem inducuntur, concedendae sunt.

**Ad argumenta in contrarium:**

Illa tamen ratio, quam facit de eo, quod minus dependet actus spiritus ab actu carnis etc.; dicendum, quod illa ratio non cogit, quin peccatum in Spiritum sanctum possit esse sine aliis peccatis, pro eo quod actus spirituales sive ad animam pertinentes non solum transeunt super materiam debitam, sed etiam super alios actus; unde substernunt sibi alios actus quasi pro materia[^11]. Sic et peccata, quae habent circa actus illos consistere, ut plurimum alia peccata praesupponunt tanquam materialia, sicut desperatio et obstinatio. Non sic autem est de actibus corporalibus, qui quidem non transeunt in alios actus, sed in materiam extrinsecam; et ideo illa peccata circa illos actus existentia non habent alia peccata tanquam materialia. Et huic consonat illud quod dicit grammaticus[^12], quod verba prohaeretica sive ad animam pertinentia requirunt determinari per infinitivum sequentem. Non sic est de actibus pertinentibus ad corpus; et ideo ratio illa non cogit. — Nec etiam alia, quae dicit, quod est genus peccati distinctum; esto enim, quod non esset sine aliis, nihilominus posset distingui ab aliis, quia multa sunt inseparabilia secundum *esse*, quae tamen distinguuntur formaliter[^13].

1. Ad illud autem quod obiicitur in contrarium de obstinatione et desperatione, dicendum, quod ratio illa procedit ab insufficienti; quamvis enim illud sit verum in istis duobus generibus peccatorum, non tamen sequitur, quod sit verum in aliis generibus peccati in Spiritum sanctum.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod finalis impoenitentia est annexa omnibus speciebus illius peccati; dicendum similiter, quod nec illud cogit, pro eo quod peccando in Spiritum sanctum committit homo aliquod peccatum, respectu cuius potest habere propositum non poenitendi, sicut ille qui impugnat veritatem agnitam, vel invidet fraternae gratiae; vel etiam sicut est de eo qui adeo praesumit de

<!-- page 986 -->

benignitate misericordiae, quod nullum relinquit effectum iustitiae, et ex hoc proponit mala facere et nunquam de eis poenitere. Et hoc totum potest esse sine alterius peccati genere.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod illud peccatum est ex malitia; dicendum, quod malitia, secundum quod est huius peccati[^14] radix, potest dicere malitiam *contractam* ex peccato originali, vel potest dicere malitiam *actam*, scilicet actualem perversitatem voluntatis. Et primo modo *praecedit* natura et tempore, secundo modo *concomitatur*. Non enim oportet, quod ante fuerit malitiosus, sed volendo malignari, potest in Spiritum sanctum peccare; et ita non oportet, quod praecedat aliqua malitia actualis peccati, depravans voluntatem, sed sufficit, quod praecedat tempore malitia, quae est poena originalis.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nemo repente fit summus; dicendum, quod non est simile; quia, quamvis non possit aliquis nisi *ordinate ascendere*, potest tamen *inordinate descendere* sive subito se praecipitare. *Praeterea*, non efficitur homo ita perfecte malus, committendo semel peccatum[^15] in Spiritum sanctum, immo quanto pluries peccat, tanto magis labitur in profundum[^16].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the sin against the Holy Spirit always has another sin as its antecedent.*

Secondly it is asked whether the sin against the Holy Spirit always has another sin as its antecedent. And that it does, seems [to be the case]:

1. The Master in the text[^1] says that « the sin against the Holy Spirit is the sin of despair or of obstinacy »; but no one despairs nor becomes obstinate except on account of some preceding sin: therefore it seems that some sin is always antecedent to the sin against the Holy Spirit.

2. Likewise, the sin against the Holy Spirit either is final impenitence, or always has final impenitence annexed to it, so far as it is of itself; but impenitence exists only with respect to a preceding sin, just as neither does penitence [exist otherwise]: therefore the sin against the Holy Spirit never exists without having another sin as its antecedent.

3. Likewise, the sin against the Holy Spirit is a sin proceeding from settled malice: therefore it is necessary that, before a man sins by a sin against the Holy Spirit[^2], he be malicious; but he is not malicious except through fault: therefore before the sin against the Holy Spirit there must be another fault as antecedent.

4. Likewise, among goods no one becomes great suddenly[^3]: therefore it seems that among evils too no one falls into the depths at once; but through this kind of sin a man falls into the depths of vices: therefore it seems that this kind of sin has another [sin] as antecedent, which disposes toward it.

**On the contrary:** 1. Four things were inflicted upon us, as Bede[^4] says, on account of the sin of the first parent, namely « infirmity, ignorance, malice, and concupiscence »; but it is possible that a man, by a first sin, sin by a sin [arising] from ignorance and from infirmity: therefore likewise it is possible that he first sin by a sin which proceeds from malice.

2. Likewise, whenever the kinds of sins are diverse, it is possible to sin by one sin without the other: if therefore the sin against the Holy Spirit is a sin

distinct from the other kinds of sins[^5], it is possible for someone to sin by that kind of sin, even if no other sin has preceded.

3. Likewise, the impugning of acknowledged truth is a species of this sin[^6]; but one can impugn an acknowledged truth just as well as also a truth not known: therefore it seems at least that, as regards that species, the sin against the Holy Spirit can be committed without another kind of sin.

4. Likewise, the sin against the Holy Spirit consists about an act of the spirit[^7]; but the act of the flesh depends more on the act of the spirit than conversely: therefore if a man can sin by a sin of the flesh with no other sin preceding, by like reasoning, indeed by a much stronger one, this seems to be true of the sin against the Holy Spirit.

### Conclusion

> There are some species of the sin against the Holy Spirit which can in no way exist without an antecedent sin; but there are others which can exist without an antecedent sin, though this scarcely ever or never happens.

**I respond:** It must be said that one must speak differently of the sin against the Holy Spirit according to its differing species. For there are some species of the sin against the Holy Spirit which can in no way exist without an antecedent sin, such as are obstinacy, despair, and final impenitence. For such regard an antecedent sin as the matter about which, and also as a cause; for no one despairs of pardon except one who has committed a fault; no one is obstinate in evil except one who has done evil; no one is impenitent except one who has something to repent of.

There are also other species of the sin against the Holy Spirit which can indeed exist without an antecedent sin, because their act does not regard a sin determinately[^8], such as is *envy of fraternal grace* and *impugning of acknowledged truth*, as also is *presumption of impunity*. For one can envy fraternal grace, and impugn an acknowledged truth, and presume upon impunity, even if no actual fault has preceded; and this on account of the freedom of the will, which by its own disordering can hurl itself into any[^9] of these sins. — Nevertheless, because these are very grave sins, it scarcely ever or never happens that anyone falls into them, unless his mind has been depraved by other sins.

It must therefore be granted that the sin against the Holy Spirit is not only a kind of sin distinct from the other kinds of sins[^10] according to *form*, but can also be separated according to *existence*, so that it is committed without an antecedent fault, although this happens very rarely. — Hence the reasons too, which are adduced for that side, are to be granted.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

As for that reason which it makes from the fact that the act of the spirit depends less on the act of the flesh, etc.; it must be said that that reason does not compel [the conclusion] that the sin against the Holy Spirit cannot exist without other sins, because spiritual acts, that is, those pertaining to the soul, not only pass over upon their due matter, but also upon other acts; whence they lay other acts under themselves as it were for matter[^11]. So too the sins which are to consist about those acts for the most part presuppose other sins as material, such as despair and obstinacy. But it is not so with bodily acts, which indeed do not pass over into other acts, but into an extrinsic matter; and therefore those sins existing about those acts do not have other sins as material. And to this is consonant that which the grammarian says[^12], that prohairetic verbs, that is, those pertaining to the soul, require to be determined by a following infinitive. It is not so with acts pertaining to the body; and therefore that reason does not compel. — Nor again the other [reason] which it states, that it is a distinct kind of sin; for granted that it would not exist without others, nonetheless it could be distinguished from others, because there are many things inseparable according to *being* which are nevertheless distinguished formally[^13].

1. As for that which is objected to the contrary concerning obstinacy and despair, it must be said that that reason proceeds from an insufficient [ground]; for although that be true in these two kinds of sins, it does not however follow that it be true in the other kinds of the sin against the Holy Spirit.

2. As for that which is objected, that final impenitence is annexed to all the species of that sin; it must be said likewise that neither does that compel [the conclusion], because in sinning against the Holy Spirit a man commits some sin, with respect to which he can have the resolve not to repent, like the one who impugns an acknowledged truth, or envies fraternal grace; or even as is the case with the one who so presumes upon

the kindness of mercy, that he leaves no effect for justice, and from this resolves to do evils and never to repent of them. And all this can exist without another kind of sin.

3. As for that which is objected, that that sin is from malice; it must be said that malice, inasmuch as it is the *root* of this sin[^14], can mean malice *contracted* from original sin, or it can mean malice *enacted*, namely the actual perversity of the will. And in the first way it *precedes* in nature and in time, in the second way it *accompanies*. For it is not necessary that he was malicious beforehand, but by willing to act maliciously he can sin against the Holy Spirit; and so it is not necessary that some actual malice of sin, depraving the will, should precede, but it suffices that there precede in time the malice which is the penalty of original [sin].

4. As for that which is objected, that no one becomes great suddenly; it must be said that the case is not the same; because, although one cannot but *ascend in order*, one can nevertheless *descend in disorder*, that is, suddenly hurl oneself down. *Moreover*, a man is not made so perfectly evil by committing the sin against the Holy Spirit once[^15], rather the more times he sins, the more he falls into the depths[^16].

---

la: Hic circa initium.

en: Here, near the beginning [of the distinction].

la: Vat. hic repetit *quod* eique annectit *ipse*. A primis edd. abest hoc arg.

en: The Vatican edition here repeats *quod* and annexes to it *ipse*. This argument is absent from the first editions.

la: Bernard., in Cant. serm. 3. n. 4: *Nolo repente fieri summus, paulatim proficere volo.* Cfr. eiusdem opuscul. de Gradibus humilit. c. 9. n. 27. — In *minori* respicitur illud Prov. 18, 3: *Impius cum in profundum venerit peccatorum, contemnit.*

en: Bernard, *On the Canticle*, sermon 3, n. 4: "I do not wish to become great suddenly; I wish to advance little by little." Compare the same author's treatise *On the Degrees of Humility*, c. 9, n. 27. — In the minor [premise] there is a reference to that [text of] Proverbs 18:3: "The wicked, when he has come into the depth of sins, contemns."

la: Vide supra pag. 528, nota 2.

en: See above, page 528, note 2.

la: Quod probatum est quaest. praeced.

en: Which was proved in the preceding question.

la: Ostendetur infra a. 3. q. 1. seq.

en: It will be shown below in article 3, question 1 following.

la: Vide quaest. praeced. — Paulo inferius pro *multo fortiori* cod. T substituit *multo fortius*.

en: See the preceding question. — A little below, for *multo fortiori* codex T substitutes *multo fortius*.

la: Edd. adiiciunt *praeambulum*.

en: The editions add *praeambulum* ["antecedent"].

la: Edd. cum pluribus codd. *quolibet*.

en: The editions, with several codices, read *quolibet*.

la: Pro *ab aliis... generibus* cod. T *contra alia... genera*.

en: For *ab aliis... generibus* codex T reads *contra alia... genera*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 24. p. I. a. 2. q. 4. et d. 25. p. II. q. 6. — Mox pro *circa actus* Vat. *contra actus*. Paulo inferius iterum pro *circa illos actus* Vat. nec non edd. 2, 3, 4 *contra illos actus*.

en: Compare above, d. 24, p. I, a. 2, q. 4, and d. 25, p. II, q. 6. — Soon, for *circa actus* the Vatican edition reads *contra actus*. A little below again, for *circa illos actus* the Vatican edition, as also editions 2, 3, 4, [read] *contra illos actus*.

la: Priscian., XVIII. Grammat. c. 19, postquam distinctionem verborum exposuit docens, quod « verborum alia ad corpus, alia ad animam, alia ad utrumque, alia ad extrinsecus accidentia pertinent », inter alia haec quoque profert: *Voluntatem quoque significantia [verba] accusativo coniunguntur cum infinito alterius verbi: volo te currere... nisi infinitum a verbo alii sit casui iungendum... ut misereor tui, misereri tui volo* etc. De vocabulo *prohaeretica* vide tom. I. pag. 714, nota 3. Graece προαιρετικός significat eum qui facultatem habet unum prae alio eligendi.

en: Priscian, *Grammar* XVIII, c. 19, after he has set forth the distinction of verbs, teaching that « some verbs pertain to the body, others to the soul, others to both, others to things accidentally extrinsic », among other things adduces also this: "Verbs signifying also the will are joined in the accusative with the infinitive of another verb: *volo te currere* [I wish you to run]... unless the infinitive is to be joined by the verb to another case... as *misereor tui*, *misereri tui volo* [I have pity on you, I wish to have pity on you]," etc. On the word *prohairetic* see tome I, page 714, note 3. In Greek *prohairetikos* signifies one who has the faculty of choosing one thing before another.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 939, nota 2.

en: Compare above, page 939, note 2.

la: Codd. et primae edd. omittunt *peccati*. — De malitia *contracta et acta* vide supra pag. 826, nota 4. — Mox pro *scilicet* cod. T *secundum*.

en: The codices and the first editions omit *peccati*. — On malice *contracted and enacted* see above, page 826, note 4. — Soon, for *scilicet* codex T [reads] *secundum*.

la: Verba *semel peccatum* desunt in Vat. Pro *peccatum* cod. T substituit *malum*.

en: The words *semel peccatum* are absent in the Vatican edition. For *peccatum* codex T substitutes *malum*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF (printed pp.984–986, PDF 1006–1008), Left column then Right per the Vol II PDF-priority discipline; English is a fresh literal translation. The OCR running-head digit `983` on the q2 opener page was a digit-mangle for **984**, and the mid-quaestio page number reads cleanly as **985** in the render (running head `DIST. XLIII. ART. I. QUAEST. II.`); confirmed via low-dpi/450 dpi renders against the `pdf = printed + 22` offset.

**Page span / page-split map (per-page footer restart):**
- **p.984** — Q2 opener + fundamenta 1–4 + Sed contra 1–2 (the q2 body begins in the lower half of p.984, immediately below the a1-q1 SCHOLION which fills the top of the page). Footers 1–4 → `[^1]`–`[^4]` (¹ *Hic circa initium*; ² Vat. *quod… ipse* / *A primis edd. abest*; ³ Bernard *Nolo repente fieri summus* + *de Gradibus humilit.* + Prov. 18:3; ⁴ *Vide supra pag. 528, nota 2*).
- **p.985** — Sed contra 3–4, Conclusio, Respondeo, "To the arguments to the contrary" (the un-numbered reply to the *actus spiritus* argument, then replies 1–2). Footers 1–9 → `[^5]`–`[^13]` (the L-col footers 1–7 = `[^5]`–`[^11]`; the R-col footers 8–9 = `[^12]` Priscian, `[^13]` *Cfr. supra pag. 939, nota 2*). The catchword `S. Bonav. — Tom. II.` and signature `124` are page furniture, not footnotes.
- **p.986** — Reply 2 continuation + replies 3–4; q2 ends `…tanto magis labitur in profundum.` immediately before `ARTICULUS II`. q2's share of the p.986 footers = footers 1–3 → `[^14]`–`[^16]` (¹ *Codd. … omittunt peccati* / *De malitia contracta et acta… pag. 826 n.4*; ² *Verba semel peccatum desunt in Vat.*; ³ *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*).

**No scholion of its own.** a1-q1's Scholion III (`Quoad solutionem sequentis quaest. Ss. Thomas et Bonav. conveniunt…`, held in `d43-a1-q1`) covers this question. `has_scholion: false`.

**Hand-off received:** the p.984 footer sequence is fresh to q2 — no a1-q1 footer migrated forward (a1-q1 consumed the p.982–983 sequences; p.984's numbered footers all annotate the q2 body).

**Hand-off FORWARDED to `d43-a2-q1`:**
- **ARTICULUS II opener folds into a2-q1** (Vol II convention): `ARTICULUS II. De eodem peccato quoad conditiones proprias. — Consequenter quaeritur de hoc peccati genere quantum ad conditiones proprias, et circa hoc quaeruntur duo` (begins at the bottom of the **L-col of printed p.986**, immediately after q2's tail; raw ~68480). The opener lists: q1 = *de huius peccati gravitate*; q2 = *de huius peccati irremissibilitate*.
- **a2-q1** = `QUAESTIO I. Utrum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum sit gravissimum.` (`Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum illud peccati genus sit gravissimum`), continues onto p.987+.
- **SHARED p.986 footer split:** q2 consumed **p.986 footers 1–3**; **footers 4–5 belong to a2-q1** and are its first two body-footers — footer 4 = `Hic in principio. — In testimonio allato vetustiores codd. pro quoddam exhibent aliud et supprimunt ceteris, quod tamen infra in corp. quaest. restituunt. Insuper cod. bb omittit praeterea, pro quo cod. T substituit enim.` (anchored on the a2-q1 fund.1 Magister lemma *Est praeterea quoddam peccati genus ceteris gravius et abominabilius*); footer 5 = `Luc. 12, 47.` (anchored on the *servus sciens voluntatem Domini sui* citation in fund.5). Do NOT re-claim footers 1–3.

**No `[?]` flags.**


title: Dist. 43, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 986 -->

### Articulus II. *De eodem peccato quoad conditiones proprias.*

Consequenter quaeritur de hoc peccati genere quantum ad conditiones proprias, et circa hoc quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur de huius peccati gravitate.

Secundo quaeritur de huius peccati irremissibilitate.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum sit gravissimum.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum illud peccati genus sit gravissimum. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. *Primo* per auctoritatem Magistri in littera[^4]: « Est praeterea quoddam peccati genus ceteris gravius et abominabilius ».

2. *Item*, ratione videtur. Maius est peccatum, quod magis facit distare a venia; sed tale est peccatum in Spiritum sanctum: ergo etc.

3. *Item*, maius est peccatum, quod minus habet de ratione excusationis; sed peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est huiusmodi, minus enim habet inter cetera peccatorum genera de colore excusationis: ergo etc.

4. *Item*, maius est peccatum, quod magis inhabilitat animam ad iustitiam; sed peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est huiusmodi, quia maxime voluntatem deordinat: ergo etc.

5. *Item*, sicut ignorantia excusat peccantem, sic scientia aggravat, quia *servus sciens voluntatem Domini sui*[^5] etc.; sed peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est peccatum ex industria sive ex certa malitia: ergo etc.

**Sed contra:**
1. Super illud Psalmi[^6]: *Convertentur ad vesperam* etc., Glossa: « Nemo insanabilior eo qui sibi sanus videtur »; ergo minus elongat a sanitate peccatum, in quo quis peccat scienter, quam in quo quis peccat ignoranter; sed peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est peccatum, in quo quis peccat scienter: ergo videtur, quod minus peccatum sit quam peccatum ignorantiae.

2. *Item*, etsi una sit maiestas Trium, et aequaliter sint omnes honorandi[^7]; tamen maiestas appropriatur Patri, et honor per appropriationem ei debetur: ergo peccatum, quod est in Patrem, vel tantum vel plus Deum inhonorat, quantum peccatum, quod est in Filium, vel Spiritum sanctum. Si ergo qualitas peccati pensatur secundum quantitatem contemptus, videtur, quod non sit magis grave peccatum in Spiritum sanctum quam peccatum in Patrem et Filium.

3. *Item*, malitia est poena inflicta pro peccato originali, sicut ignorantia et infirmitas[^8]; sed ignorantia et infirmitas, quia sunt poenae, aliquo modo excusant peccatum consequens: ergo pari ratione et malitia.

<!-- page 987 -->

4. *Item*, illud peccatum gravius est, in quo magis regnat libido[^9]; sed in peccato, quod est ex concupiscentia, magis regnat libido quam in peccato, quod est ex malitia — sicut patet, quia maior est libido in fornicatione quam in desperatione — ergo videtur, quod maius sit peccatum, quod est ex concupiscentia, quam illud quod est ex malitia: igitur peccatum in Spiritum sanctum non est peccatum gravissimum.

5. *Item*, gravius est peccatum, in quo est maioris boni corruptio; sed in peccato infidelitatis maior est corruptio quam in peccato in Spiritum sanctum, in illo enim peccato receditur et a veritate et a bonitate[^10]: ergo videtur, quod infidelitas vel haeresis gravior sit quam peccatum in Spiritum sanctum.

### Conclusio.

> **Conclusio.** Peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est gravissimum, et quia naturam maxime laedit, et quia oculos Dei maxime offendit.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est peccatum gravissimum, et quia naturam maxime laedit, et quia oculos Dei maxime offendit. — Naturam, inquam, maxime laedit, dum non solum aufert ei sanitatem, sed etiam praecludit viam ad sanitatem; unde sicut morbus periculosior est, qui non tantum laedit naturam, sed etiam praecludit viam ad sumtionem[^11] cibi vel medicamenti; sic intelligendum est de isto morbo spirituali. Oculos Dei maxime offendit, quia nullum habet colorem excusationis; et ideo peccans hoc genere peccati meretur severius iudicari. Et propter haec duo dicit Magister, quod hoc peccatum « ceteris est gravius et abominabilius », ut gravius dicatur ratione maioris laesionis, abominabilius ratione defectus excusationis.

Ratio autem huius est, quia peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est ex malitia, et non solum ex malitia, sed ex malitia et industria. Tunc enim peccat quis peccato in Spiritum sanctum, quando ad malum movetur ex nequitia spiritus, sciens, se moveri ad malum; unde peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est ex malitia, conflata ex concursu malitiae ex originali peccato contractae et malitiae actualis coniunctae industriae; et ideo non tantum dicitur esse ex malitia, sed ex certa malitia. — Prima autem malitia, scilicet ex originali relicta, hoc peccatum non excusat, quia talis malitia est in ipsa voluntate secundum se; et ideo, cum voluntati subiaceat, non minuit rationem voluntarii, sicut facit infirmitas et ignorantia; et quia non minuit rationem voluntarii, non diminuit de ratione peccati; et propterea non excusat. — *Alia* autem malitia non solum non excusat, sed etiam multum aggravat tum ratione *improbitatis propriae*, tum ratione *cognitionis adiunctae*; utriusque enim est aggravare. — Et sic patet, quare peccatum in Spiritum sanctum maxime *oculos Dei offendit*, videlicet quia est ex certa malitia.

Ex hac etiam eadem causa *naturam laedit*[^1]. Laesio enim peccati principaliter consistit in deordinatione voluntatis; et quanto voluntas magis improbe ad aliquid se inclinat, tanto magis se deordinat et depravat. Et quia ex *certa malitia* hoc peccatum procedit, ideo in hoc peccati genere scienter et prudenter, immo etiam imprudenter, peccator praeeligit malum; et ideo voluntas eius magis in hoc peccato quam in aliis respuit bonum, quia amplius inficitur voluntatis gustus; et hinc est etiam, quod respuit medicamentum, quemadmodum gustus maxime infectus respuit bonum cibum.

Quoniam igitur hoc peccatum ex *certa malitia* procedit, hinc est, quod est ceteris aliis *gravius* et *abominabilius*, quantum est ex genere peccati. Hinc est etiam, quod est maxime *naturae laesivum*, et maxime *oculorum divinae Maiestatis offensivum*. — Et ideo concedendae sunt rationes ostendentes, istud peccatum esse gravissimum.

**Ad obiecta:**
1. Ad illud quod primo obiicitur, quod peccatum ex ignorantia magis a sanitate elongat; dicendum, quod maior insanabilitas ex duplici causa potest venire: aut ex conditione *morbi*, aut ex conditione *infirmi*. Cum ergo dicitur, quod nemo est insanabilior eo qui sibi sanus videtur, hoc intelligitur quantum ad conditionem et statum infirmi, pro eo quod talis, non sentiens se infirmum, non quaerit medicum, et ita nunquam sanatur. Quantum autem ad conditionem *morbi* non habet veritatem. Si enim peccans ex ignorantia erudiatur, de facili recipit sanitatem; peccans autem in Spiritum sanctum rebellis est eruditioni ex ipsa natura talis morbi; et ideo, quantum est de se, peccatum illud et gravius est et insanabilius.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod peccatum in Patrem est aeque grave, vel magis, quam peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, quia Patri appropriatur maiestas; dicendum, quod illud peccatum non dicitur esse gravius aliis, pro eo quod in ipso contemnatur magis *persona Spiritus sancti* quam *persona Patris* — nam in omni peccato contemnitur una maiestas trium personarum; unde sicut hoc genus peccati non distinguitur a peccato in *Patrem* ex hoc, quod hic contemnatur *Spiritus sanctus*, et ibi *Pater*, sic nec ex hoc gravius iudicatur[^5b] — sed ex

<!-- page 988 -->

hoc gravius est, quia in ipso amplius contemnitur trium personarum maiestas quam in aliis generibus peccatorum. Magis enim impugnat *gratiam*, quae est totius Trinitatis effectus; et ideo maius est peccati genus; et ideo ratio illa procedit ex falso intellectu.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod malitia est poena inflicta, ergo debet excusare, sicut aliae poenae; dicendum, quod non est simile. Et ratio huius est, quia malitia respicit ipsam *voluntatem* secundum se, sed ignorantia respicit *intellectum*, et infirmitas respicit *carnem*[^2b]; et illa non adeo sunt in voluntate sicut ipsa malitia; et ideo magis diminuunt de ratione peccati quam malitia. *Praeterea*, peccatum in Spiritum sanctum non tantum est ex malitia *contracta*, immo est ex malitia conflata ex malitia *contracta* et malitia *propria*, sicut supra dictum est.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod illud peccatum est gravius, in quo magis regnat libido; dicendum, quod libido maior dicitur dupliciter; aut ratione maioris *voluptatis*, aut ratione maioris *improbitatis*. Libido enim nominat voluntatem voluptuosam et improbam[^3b]. Cum igitur dicitur, quod gravitas peccati attenditur secundum *quantitatem libidinis*; dicendum, quod verum est, secundum quod quantitas libidinis pensatur secundum *improbitatem voluntatis*; sed non est verum, secundum quod pensatur penes *delectationem*; sicut patet, quia gravius peccat senex fornicator vel adulterator quam iuvenis; ex improbiori enim voluntate movetur, quamvis iuvenis amplius delectetur. Licet ergo in aliis generibus peccatorum magis abundet libido quantum ad *delectationem*; quia tamen in hoc peccato magis abundat quantum ad *improbitatem voluntatis*, istud gravius est.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod maior est corruptio in peccato infidelitatis; dicendum, quod maior corruptio potest esse dupliciter: aut *intensive*, aut *extensive*. *Extensive* loquendo, plura bona privantur in peccato infidelitatis quam in peccato in Spiritum sanctum, quia in illo peccati genere tollitur totius spiritualis aedificii fundamentum. *Intensive* autem magis fit privatio in peccato in Spiritum sanctum, pro eo quod magis reddit inhabilem ad bonum et amplius firmat in malo; unde illud peccatum recte dicitur[^3] gravius, in quo est maior boni privatio intensive. Et quia peccatum haeresis frequentissime habet coniunctum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, utpote obstinationem; hinc est, quod illud peccatum est valde periculosum. Si enim solum ex ignorantia haeretici moverentur, facilius adhiberetur sibi remedium; sed quia animo obstinato pertinaciter adhaerent errori suo, ideo franguntur potius, quam incurventur.

english:
### Article II. *On the same sin as to its proper conditions.*

It is asked next concerning this kind of sin as to its proper conditions, and concerning this two questions are raised.

First it is asked concerning the gravity of this sin.

Second it is asked concerning the irremissibility of this sin.

### Question I. *Whether the sin against the Holy Spirit is the gravest.*

Concerning the first one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether that kind of sin is the gravest. And that it is, seems to be the case:

1. *First*, by the authority of the Master in the text[^4]: "There is, moreover, a certain kind of sin graver and more abominable than the rest."

2. *Likewise*, it seems so by reason. That sin is greater which puts one further from pardon; but such is the sin against the Holy Spirit: therefore etc.

3. *Likewise*, that sin is greater which has less of the ground of excuse; but the sin against the Holy Spirit is of this kind, for it has, among the other kinds of sins, less of the color of excuse: therefore etc.

4. *Likewise*, that sin is greater which more disables the soul for justice; but the sin against the Holy Spirit is of this kind, because it most disorders the will: therefore etc.

5. *Likewise*, just as ignorance excuses the sinner, so knowledge aggravates, because *the servant who knows the will of his Lord*[^5] etc.; but the sin against the Holy Spirit is a sin from deliberateness or from settled malice: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**
1. Upon that text of the Psalm[^6]: *They shall be converted at evening* etc., the Gloss: "No one is more incurable than he who seems to himself to be healthy"; therefore the sin in which one sins knowingly puts one less far from health than that in which one sins ignorantly; but the sin against the Holy Spirit is a sin in which one sins knowingly: therefore it seems that it is a lesser sin than the sin of ignorance.

2. *Likewise*, although the majesty of the Three is one, and all are equally to be honored[^7]; nevertheless majesty is appropriated to the Father, and honor by appropriation is owed to Him: therefore the sin which is against the Father dishonors God either as much as, or more than, the sin which is against the Son or the Holy Spirit. If therefore the quality of a sin is weighed according to the quantity of contempt, it seems that the sin against the Holy Spirit is not more grave than the sin against the Father and the Son.

3. *Likewise*, malice is a penalty inflicted for original sin, just as ignorance and infirmity are[^8]; but ignorance and infirmity, because they are penalties, in some way excuse the consequent sin: therefore by parity of reasoning malice does too.

4. *Likewise*, that sin is graver in which lust more reigns[^9]; but in the sin which is from concupiscence lust reigns more than in the sin which is from malice — as is plain, because the lust in fornication is greater than in despair — therefore it seems that the sin which is from concupiscence is greater than that which is from malice: therefore the sin against the Holy Spirit is not the gravest sin.

5. *Likewise*, that sin is graver in which there is corruption of a greater good; but in the sin of unbelief the corruption is greater than in the sin against the Holy Spirit, for in that sin one departs both from truth and from goodness[^10]: therefore it seems that unbelief or heresy is graver than the sin against the Holy Spirit.

### Conclusion.

> **Conclusion.** The sin against the Holy Spirit is the gravest, both because it most harms nature and because it most offends the eyes of God.

**I respond:** It must be said that the sin against the Holy Spirit is the gravest sin, both because it most harms nature and because it most offends the eyes of God. — It most harms nature, I say, in that it not only takes from it health, but also blocks the way to health; whence, just as that disease is more dangerous which not only harms nature but also blocks the way to the taking[^11] of food or medicine, so is it to be understood of this spiritual disease. It most offends the eyes of God, because it has no color of excuse; and therefore one who sins by this kind of sin deserves to be judged more severely. And on account of these two things the Master says that this sin is "graver and more abominable than the rest," so that it is called graver by reason of the greater harm, more abominable by reason of the lack of excuse.

The reason for this is that the sin against the Holy Spirit is from malice, and not only from malice, but from malice and deliberateness. For then does one sin by the sin against the Holy Spirit, when one is moved to evil out of wickedness of spirit, knowing oneself to be moved to evil; whence the sin against the Holy Spirit is from malice, fused together from the concurrence of the malice contracted from original sin and the malice of conjoined actual deliberateness; and therefore it is said to be not only from malice, but from settled malice. — Now the first malice, namely that left from original sin, does not excuse this sin, because such malice is in the will itself in its own right; and therefore, since it is subject to the will, it does not lessen the character of the voluntary, as infirmity and ignorance do; and because it does not lessen the character of the voluntary, it does not diminish the character of sin; and therefore it does not excuse. — But the *other* malice not only does not excuse, but even greatly aggravates, both by reason of its *own wickedness* and by reason of the *adjoined knowledge*; for it belongs to each to aggravate. — And thus it is plain why the sin against the Holy Spirit most *offends the eyes of God*, namely because it is from settled malice.

From this same cause also it *harms nature*[^1]. For the harm of sin consists principally in the disordering of the will; and the more wickedly the will inclines itself to something, the more it disorders and depraves itself. And because this sin proceeds from *settled malice*, therefore in this kind of sin the sinner knowingly and deliberately, indeed even imprudently, chooses evil beforehand; and therefore his will, more in this sin than in others, rejects the good, because the will's taste is more deeply infected; and hence it is also that it rejects the medicine, just as a taste most infected rejects good food.

Since therefore this sin proceeds from *settled malice*, hence it is that it is *graver* and *more abominable* than the rest, so far as it is from the kind of sin. Hence it is also that it is most *harmful to nature*, and most *offensive to the eyes of the divine Majesty*. — And therefore the arguments showing that this sin is the gravest are to be granted.

**To the objections:**
1. To that which is first objected, that the sin from ignorance puts one further from health; it must be said that greater incurability can come from two causes: either from the condition of the *disease*, or from the condition of the *sick man*. When therefore it is said that no one is more incurable than he who seems to himself to be healthy, this is understood as to the condition and state of the sick man, in that such a one, not feeling himself sick, does not seek the physician, and so is never healed. But as to the condition of the *disease* it does not hold true. For if one who sins from ignorance is instructed, he easily recovers health; but one who sins against the Holy Spirit is rebellious to instruction by the very nature of such a disease; and therefore, so far as in itself, that sin is both graver and more incurable.

2. To that which is objected, that the sin against the Father is equally grave, or more so, than the sin against the Holy Spirit, because majesty is appropriated to the Father; it must be said that that sin is not called graver than others on the ground that in it the *person of the Holy Spirit* is contemned more than the *person of the Father* — for in every sin the one majesty of the three persons is contemned; whence, just as this kind of sin is not distinguished from the sin against the *Father* by the fact that here the *Holy Spirit* is contemned, and there the *Father*, so neither is it on this account judged graver[^5b] — but it is

<!-- page 988 -->

graver on this account, that in it the majesty of the three persons is more contemned than in the other kinds of sins. For it more assails *grace*, which is the effect of the whole Trinity; and therefore it is a greater kind of sin; and therefore that argument proceeds from a false understanding.

3. To that which is objected, that malice is a penalty inflicted, therefore it ought to excuse, just as the other penalties; it must be said that it is not the same. And the reason for this is that malice regards the *will* itself in its own right, but ignorance regards the *intellect*, and infirmity regards the *flesh*[^2b]; and these are not so much in the will as malice itself; and therefore they diminish the character of sin more than malice does. *Moreover*, the sin against the Holy Spirit is not only from *contracted* malice, but rather is from malice fused together from *contracted* malice and *proper* malice, as was said above.

4. To that which is objected, that that sin is graver in which lust more reigns; it must be said that greater lust is so called in two ways; either by reason of greater *pleasure*, or by reason of greater *wickedness*. For lust names a will that is pleasure-seeking and wicked[^3b]. When therefore it is said that the gravity of a sin is reckoned according to the *quantity of lust*; it must be said that this is true insofar as the quantity of lust is weighed according to the *wickedness of the will*; but it is not true insofar as it is weighed in respect of *pleasure*; as is plain, because an old fornicator or adulterer sins more gravely than a young one; for he is moved by a more wicked will, although the young man takes more pleasure. Although therefore in the other kinds of sins lust more abounds as to *pleasure*; nevertheless, because in this sin it more abounds as to the *wickedness of the will*, this sin is graver.

5. To that which is objected, that the corruption is greater in the sin of unbelief; it must be said that greater corruption can be in two ways: either *intensively*, or *extensively*. Speaking *extensively*, more goods are taken away in the sin of unbelief than in the sin against the Holy Spirit, because in that kind of sin the foundation of the whole spiritual edifice is removed. But *intensively* the privation is greater in the sin against the Holy Spirit, in that it more renders one unfit for the good and more firmly fixes one in evil; whence that sin is rightly called[^3] graver in which there is greater privation of good intensively. And because the sin of heresy very frequently has the sin against the Holy Spirit conjoined, as obstinacy; hence it is that that sin is very dangerous. For if heretics were moved only from ignorance, a remedy would more easily be applied to them; but because with obstinate mind they pertinaciously cling to their error, they are broken rather than bent.

la: Hic in principio. — In testimonio allato vetustiores codd. pro *quoddam* exhibent *aliud* et supprimunt *ceteris*, quod tamen infra in corp. quaest. restituunt. Insuper cod. bb omittit *praeterea*, pro quo cod. T substituit *enim*.

en: Here at the beginning. — In the testimony adduced the older codices read *aliud* for *quoddam* and suppress *ceteris*, which however they restore below in the body of the question. Moreover codex bb omits *praeterea*, for which codex T substitutes *enim*.

la: Psalm. 58, 15. — Glossa sumta est ex August., Enarrat. in hunc Ps. serm. 2. n. 8.

en: Psalm 58:15. — The Gloss is taken from Augustine, *Enarrations on this Psalm*, sermon 2, n. 8.

la: Symbol. Athanas.: *Sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti una est divinitas, aequalis gloria, coaeterna maiestas.* — Post pauca pro *per appropriationem* cod. *propter appropriationem*, et paulo inferius substituimus ex pluribus codd., ut li P Q W Y bb ee, *quantum* pro *quam*. Deinde pro *Si ergo qualitas* cod. Q (T a secunda manu) *Si ergo quantitas*, et pro *magis grave peccatum* edd. *maius peccatum*, refragantibus codd.

en: Athanasian Creed: *But of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit the divinity is one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.* — A little after, for *per appropriationem* a codex reads *propter appropriationem*, and slightly below we have substituted, from several codices such as li P Q W Y bb ee, *quantum* for *quam*. Then for *Si ergo qualitas* codex Q (T at a second hand) reads *Si ergo quantitas*, and for *magis grave peccatum* the editions read *maius peccatum*, against the codices.

la: Sicut Beda docet, de quo vide supra d. 22. dub. 2. — De minori cfr. ibid. a. 2. q. 2. seq.

en: As Bede teaches, on which see above, d. 22, dub. 2. — On the minor premise cf. ibid., a. 2, q. 2, following.

la: Cfr. August., l. de Lib. Arb. c. 3. n. 8. seqq., ex quo loco iam supra pag. 734, nota 5. quaedam transcripta habentur. Cfr. etiam supra pag. 971, nota 5.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On Free Choice* bk. 1, c. 3, n. 8 ff., from which place certain things are already transcribed above, p. 734, note 5. Cf. also above, p. 971, note 5.

la: Edd. absque auctoritate codd. addunt *in peccato in Spiritum sanctum a bonitate tantum*. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, in fine.

en: The editions, without the authority of the codices, add *in the sin against the Holy Spirit from goodness only*. Cf. here the text of the Master, at the end.

la: Cod. H *susceptionem*. Subinde pro *medicamenti* codd. VV bb *medicinae*. Paulo post pro *morbo spirituali* codd. B E P R V W ee *peccato spirituali*.

en: Codex H *susceptionem*. Then for *medicamenti* codices VV bb read *medicinae*. A little after, for *morbo spirituali* codices B E P R V W ee read *peccato spirituali*.

la: Scilicet maxime.

en: Namely, most of all.

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1. ad 2.

en: Cf. above, a. 1, q. 1, to the second.

la: De quo vide supra d. 31. a. 2. q. 3. in corp. — In fine solut. cod. bb post *istud* interserit *ergo*.

en: On which see above, d. 31, a. 2, q. 3, in the body. — At the end of the solution codex bb inserts *ergo* after *istud*.

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1. ad 2. — Libido voluntatem improbam et voluptuosam nominat.

en: Cf. above, a. 1, q. 1, to the second. — Lust names a wicked and pleasure-seeking will.

la: Edd. *potest dici*. In fine solut. pro *incurventur*, quae lectio commendatur codd. A I Q (T a secunda manu) W Y bb ee, edd. 1, 2 cum paucis codd. exhibent *inventur*, Vat. et edd. 3, 4 *invetur* (quae et paulo ante *haereticus moveretur… adhaeret… frangitur*), cod. V *inclinentur*, alii codd. *intuentur*.

en: The editions read *potest dici*. At the end of the solution, for *incurventur*, which reading is commended by codices A I Q (T at a second hand) W Y bb ee, editions 1, 2 with a few codices read *inventur*, the Vatican and editions 3, 4 *invetur* (which also a little earlier read *haereticus moveretur… adhaeret… frangitur*), codex V *inclinentur*, other codices *intuentur*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Alii antiqui Scholastici tantum de secunda huius articuli quaestione explicite tractant, exceptis Petro a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2; Richardo a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1; Dionysio Carth., hic q. 1.

**II.** Quoad sequentem quaest. S. Doctor clarissime suam sententiam explanat et apte conciliat duas opiniones, sive potius modos loquendi, cum scilicet fundentur in diversa, vel strictiore vel largiore, determinatione ipsius peccati in Spiritum S. Omnes doctores autem in hoc consentiunt, quod praeter illas rationes, quae omnibus peccatis ex malitia commissis conveniunt, in ipsa *natura* huius peccati specialis ratio sit, quare a Domino hoc peccatum appellatum sit *irremissibile*, scilicet quia in peccante privat *dispositionem* ad gratiam et veniam suscipiendam, quin tamen omnipotenti Patri misericordiae praecludatur via sanandi hunc morbum quasi desperatum.

**III.** Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 1-36. m. 6. — Scot., hic q. 1. n. 7; Report., hic q. unica n. 6. — S. Thom., hic a. 4; S. II. II. q. 14. a. 3; de Malo, q. 3. a. 15. — B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. p. II. tr. 23. q. 140. m. 3. a. 2. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Other older Scholastics treat explicitly only of the second question of this article, except Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1; Denis the Carthusian, here q. 1.

**II.** As to the following question, the holy Doctor most clearly sets forth his own opinion and aptly reconciles two opinions, or rather modes of speaking, since they are founded on a different — whether stricter or broader — determination of the sin against the Holy Spirit itself. But all the doctors agree in this, that beyond those reasons which belong to all sins committed from malice, there is in the very *nature* of this special sin a reason why this sin was called by the Lord *irremissible*, namely because in the sinner it deprives the *disposition* to receive grace and pardon, without however the way of healing this disease, as if past hope, being barred to the almighty Father of mercies.

**III.** Alexander of Hales, S. p. II, q. 1-36, m. 6. — Scotus, here q. 1, n. 7; Reportata, here q. unica, n. 6. — St. Thomas, here a. 4; S. II-II, q. 14, a. 3; de Malo, q. 3, a. 15. — Bl. Albert, here a. 5; S. p. II, tr. 23, q. 140, m. 3, a. 2, 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2. — Giles of Rome, here q. 2, a. 1.

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF (printed pp. 986–988 = PDF 1008–1010), Vol II PDF-priority inversion applied to the Respondeo/replies/scholion. Running heads confirmed via the crops: p. 987 `DIST. XLIII. ART. II. QUAEST. I.`; p. 988 `988 SENTENTIARUM LIB. II.` The ARTICULUS II opener (`Consequenter… quaeruntur duo`) is folded into this q1 per the Vol II chunking convention.
- **Alignment PASS:** opener `Primo quaeritur de huius peccati gravitate` = q1 = *Utrum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum sit gravissimum*; `Circa primum sic proceditur… utrum illud peccati genus sit gravissimum`.
- **Page-split / footer map (12 entries, per-page restart rendered as continuous slugs):**
  - **p. 986** (bottom L-col onward): q1 opens at the bottom of p. 986; **footers 1–3 were consumed by d43-a1-q2 (do NOT re-claim)**. This question **picks up p. 986 footers 4–8**: footer 4 = `[^4]` (*Hic in principio…*, on the fund. 1 Magister lemma); footer 5 = `[^5]` (Luc. 12:47, on fund. 5 *servus sciens*); R-col footers 6–8 = `[^6]` (Psalm 58:15 / Augustine gloss, Sed contra 1), `[^7]` (Symbol. Athanas. + variants, Sed contra 2), `[^8]` (Beda, d. 22 dub. 2, Sed contra 3).
  - **p. 987**: footers 1–5 = `[^9]` (de Lib. Arb., Sed contra 4), `[^10]` (Edd. addunt *a bonitate*, Sed contra 5), `[^11]` (Cod. H *susceptionem*, in the Respondeo), `[^1]` (*Scilicet maxime*, on *naturam laedit*), `[^5b]` (Cfr. supra a. 1 q. 1 ad 2, end of reply 2). Renumbered to unique slugs to avoid collision with p. 986's `[^1]`-class.
  - **p. 988**: q1 holds replies 3–5 + the SCHOLION; **footer 1 (Matth. 26:41) migrates forward to a2-q2** (it anchors Bede's *Spiritus promptus* in q2's argument, not q1). q1's p. 988 footers = footer 2 = `[^2b]` (d. 31 a. 2 q. 3, reply 3) and footer 3 = `[^3]` (*Edd. potest dici… incurventur*, reply 5). Reply 4's *improbam* footer is rendered `[^3b]`.
- **Scholion:** I–III all held here. **Scholion II explicitly says "Quoad sequentem quaest."** — so a2-q2 has NO scholion of its own; set `has_scholion: false` there.
- **HAND-OFF FORWARDED to d43-a2-q2** (*Utrum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum sit irremissibile*, `Secundo quaeritur de istius peccati irremissibilitate`, raw 68647): opens at the bottom of printed **p. 988** (PDF 1010) immediately after the SCHOLION, continues onto p. 989+. **a2-q2 has NO scholion** (Scholion II here covers it). **a2-q2's first body-footer is p. 988 footer 1 = `Matth. 26, 41: Spiritus quidem promptus est, caro autem infirma. — Paulo inferius pro immo est cod. T substituit immo etiam.`** (migrated forward — q1 did not claim it); then fresh p. 989+ footer sequences. q2 fund. 1 = *Matthaei duodecimo: Spiritus blasphemiae non remittetur; et post: Qui dixerit verbum contra Spiritum sanctum, non remittetur, nec in hoc saeculo nec in futuro*; sed Christus nullo modo… Offset `pdf = printed + 22`; OCR running-head digits mangled — confirm printed_pages via low-dpi render. After a2-q2 come a3-q1/q2, dubia (still skeletons).
- **No `[?]` flags.**