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

source_text:
<!-- page 988 -->

### Articulus II. *De eodem peccato quoad conditiones proprias.*
### Quaestio II. *Utrum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum sit irremissibile.*

Secundo quaeritur de istius peccati irremissibilitate. Et quod istud peccatum sit irremissibile, ostenditur.

1. Matthaei duodecimo[^1]: *Spiritus blasphemiae non remittetur*[^2]; et post: *Qui dixerit verbum contra Spiritum sanctum, non remittetur, nec in hoc saeculo nec in futuro*; sed Christus nullo modo potest mentiri: ergo illud peccatum nullo modo potest remitti.

2. Item, Glossa[^3] super dictum locum: *Blasphemia remittetur; spiritus autem blasphemiae non remittetur, nec in hoc saeculo nec in futuro.*

<!-- page 989 -->

3. Item, Ieremiae decimo octavo[^4]: *Desperavimus, post cogitationes nostras ibimus*; et post subiungitur: *Tu autem noli orare pro populo isto, quia non exaudiam te*: si ergo pro peccato remissibili Dominus vult exorari, et nolebat exorari propter peccatum desperationis; ergo videtur, quod peccatum desperationis sit irremissibile. Pari ratione concluditur de qualibet huius peccati specie.

4. Item, nullum peccatum remitti potest, nisi de quo quis potest subire poenitentiam et postulare veniam; sed peccatum in Spiritum sanctum non est huiusmodi: ergo etc. Maior manifesta est; minor probatur per illud Augustini, qui dicit in libro de Sermone Domini in monte[^5]: « Tanta est labes huius peccati, ut deprecandi humilitatem subire non possit ».

5. Item, impoenitentia est species huius peccati et annexa aliis speciebus[^6]; si ergo impoenitentia directe opponitur ipsi veniae et poenitentiae, ergo videtur, quod simpliciter privet veniam et remissionem: videtur ergo, quod hoc peccatum sit irremissibile.

**Sed contra:** 1. Super illud Psalmi[^7]: *Conversi sunt in profundum maris*; Glossa: « Id est, eos qui erant desperatissimi »: ergo si hoc est peccatum, quod maxime elongat a venia, et illud omnino remittitur; videtur, quod et omnia alia.

2. Item, Augustinus de Verbis Domini[^8]: « Ista impoenitentia vel cor impoenitens, quamdiu quis in hac carne vivit, non potest iudicari; de nullo enim desperandum est, quamdiu patientia Dei eum ad poenitentiam adducit ». Sed de eo qui peccat peccato irremissibili, desperandum est: ergo videtur, quod peccans peccato in Spiritum sanctum non peccat irremissibiliter.

3. Item, peccatum in Spiritum sanctum non aufert homini statum viatoris; sed quamdiu homo est in statu viatoris, habet vertibilitatem liberi arbitrii; et quamdiu hoc habet, potest Deo[^9] reconciliari et a peccato liberari: ergo videtur, quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum possibile sit remitti.

4. Item, potentior est gratia et virtus in bonum, quam sit peccatum in malum[^10]; sed nulla virtus reddit hominem ex suo actu impossibilem ad peccandum, nec poenitentia nec alia: ergo videtur, quod nulla culpa reddit hominem impossibilem ad resurgendum. Sed non resurgit homo a peccato, nisi remittatur peccatum: ergo non solum istud peccati genus, sed etiam quodlibet aliud est remissibile.

5. Item, si peccatum in Spiritum sanctum dicitur irremissibile, aut hoc est per privationem *actus remissionis*, aut per privationem *dispositionis*, aut per privationem *possibilitatis*. Si per privationem *actus*: ergo quodlibet peccatum, quod non remittitur, debet dici irremissibile: ergo quodlibet peccati genus isto modo irremissibile dicetur. Si per privationem *dispositionis*: ergo cum omne peccatum mortale reddat hominem ineptum ad remissionem propter Dei offensam et contemptum, videtur ergo, quod omne debeat dici irremissibile. Si propter privationem *possibilitatis*; contra: aut hoc est, quia *Deus* non potest infundere gratiam; aut hoc est, quia *iste* non potest gratiam recipere. Sed primum est plane falsum, similiter et secundum, quia iste habet arbitrii libertatem: non igitur videtur, quod aliquo modo illud peccatum debeat dici irremissibile.

> Est igitur quaestio, si dicitur irremissibile, quomodo dicatur et qualiter.

### Conclusio
> Peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, communiter acceptum, dicitur irremissibile, quia non tantum repugnat gratiae, sed etiam dispositioni ad gratiam et veniam suscipiendam, quin tamen potentiam se salvandi privet, sicut impoenitentia finalis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut Magister in littera[^11] innuit, quorundam opinio fuit, quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum diceretur irremissibile, « quia vix et raro et difficulter dimittitur ». Alii vero dixerunt, quod illud peccatum dicitur irremissibile, « quia nullo modo remitti habet, pro eo quod tali peccato peccans digne poenitere non potest ». — Uterque autem istorum modorum dicendi conveniens est et verus, nec unus repugnat alteri, si recte intelligantur.

<!-- page 990 -->

Sicut enim remissibile dicitur dupliciter: uno modo remissibile dicit *aptitudinem*, alio modo remissibile dicit *consuetudinem*; sic et irremissibile dupliciter potest dici: uno modo, ut dicatur irremissibile, id est *ineptum* sive impossibile ad remittendum; alio modo, ut dicatur irremissibile, quod est *inconsuetum* remitti[^12].

Utroque horum modorum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum potest dici irremissibile; nam omne peccatum in Spiritum sanctum vel *est impoenitentia*, vel *habet impoenitentiam annexam*. Impoenitentia autem dicitur duobus modis, sicut et *perseverantia*: uno modo dicitur perseverantia *propositum perseverandi*; alio modo dicitur perseverantia *continua permanentia* in bono usque in finem. Et *primo* modo perseverantia est in qualibet virtute; *secundo* modo perseverantia includit gratiam finalem[^13]. Sic et *impoenitentia* dicitur dupliciter: uno modo dicitur impoenitentia *propositum* non poenitendi; alio modo dicitur impoenitentia *continua permanentia* in malo usque ad diem extremum inclusive. — Et secundum istum modum *peccatum in Spiritum sanctum*, quod claudit in se impoenitentiam, dupliciter potest dici: uno modo, prout claudit in se impoenitentiam, quae quidem est *finalis persistentia* in malo; et sic dicitur irremissibile, quia non potest remitti, sicut finalis gratia non potest perdi. Sed hoc modo peccare peccato[^14] in Spiritum sanctum nemini attribuendum est usque ad illud instans, in quo possit dici de isto, quod finaliter sit impoenitens. Et secundum hunc modum currit una praedictarum opinionum, et ita valde stricte accipit peccatum in Spiritum sanctum. — Alio modo dicitur peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, prout claudit in se impoenitentiam, id est *propositum* non poenitendi; hoc modo dicitur irremissibile, id est inconsuetum remitti. Quamvis enim non sit impossibile ad remissionem, quia tale propositum mutari potest; raro tamen et vix remittitur, quia tale propositum claudit[^15] viam ad gratiam et impedit Spiritus sancti ingressum. Illud enim, quod gratiam introducit et quod ad gratiam disponit de congruo, est voluntas recedendi a peccato; et ideo, cum voluntas faciem suam obfirmavit[^16] ad oppositum, nisi fiat ei specialis vocationis donum et adiutorium, non pervenitur ad remissionis beneficium. Quoniam igitur alia peccatorum genera, etsi privent bonam voluntatem et iustitiam, non tamen reddunt voluntatem rebellem et repugnantem contra vocationem divinam; hinc est, quod si[^17] nunquam remittantur propter negligentiam peccatoris, vel propter praeoccupationem mortis, non dicuntur esse irremissibilia.

Patet igitur, quare peccatum illud dicitur irremissibile magis quam alia peccatorum genera, scilicet pro eo, quod non tantum repugnat gratiae, sed etiam dispositioni ad veniam et gratiam suscipiendam. Patet etiam, quomodo dicatur irremissibile; quia, communiter loquendo, non privat potentiam, sed dispositionem; stricte autem accipiendo, potentiam privat; sed hoc modo non dicitur peccare aliquis in Spiritum sanctum, quamdiu vivit in hac vita.

**Ad argumenta:** Et per hoc patet responsio ad rationes, quae inducuntur ad utramque partem; ad eas potissime, quae inducuntur ad secundam partem, quae videlicet ostendunt, quod peccatum illud non dicitur irremissibile, eo quod reddat hominem impossibilem ad veniam, quamdiu est in vita ista; et quia verum concludunt, ideo concedendae sunt.

Ultima tamen ratio videtur ostendere, quod nullo modo debeat dici irremissibile; sed iam manifesta est per ea quae dicta sunt, quia in aliis peccatis mortalibus non sic est privatio ad remissionem, sicut in hoc peccato. Quamvis enim alia peccata tollant *iustitiam*, non tamen auferunt *propositum redeundi ad iustitiam*. Fere enim omnes qui peccant, emendare proponunt. Hoc autem peccati genus, in quantum *peccatum* est, tollit iustitiam; in quantum vero *tale peccatum* est, quod habet annexam impoenitentiam, aufert homini propositum redeundi ad gratiam; et ideo irremissibile dicitur, quia privat dispositionem ad bonum.

*Ad 1, 2.* Ad illud autem quod primo obiicitur in contrarium de auctoritate Domini in Matthaeo, et etiam de Glossa; dicendum, quod tam textus quam Glossa intelligi habet quantum ad privationem remissionis secundum *consuetudinem*, non secundum *possibilitatem* et *aptitudinem*; unde quod Dominus comminatur, quod illud peccatum non remittetur, hoc intelligendum est, non quia remitti non possit, sed quia Deus paucis consuevit remittere. — Vel dicendum, sicut dicit Augustinus[^18], quod intelligitur de peccato in Spiritum sanctum, secundum quod includit impoenitentiam finalem, hoc est, in quo quis perseverat usque ad mortem.

<!-- page 991 -->

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod tertio obiicitur de verbo Ieremiae, quod Deus nolebat orari pro desperatis; dicendum, quod hoc non erat, quia nullo modo possent ad bonum converti vel redire; hoc enim potuissent, si Deus vellet eos specialiter visitare; sed quia ipsi non merebantur, et Deus occulto suo iudicio nolebat eis manum misericordiae[^19] ampliare. Hinc est, quod praevidens et suum iudicium et eorum impoenitentiam, hoc Prophetae praedicebat; et ita ex hoc non habetur, quod illud peccatum non posset remitti, sed quia illud illis nolebat Deus remittere, et quod illi finaliter in impoenitentia remansuri erant, quamvis possent ab ea discedere.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tanta est huius peccati labes, quod poenitere non possit; dicendum, quod Augustinus[^20] illud verbum retractat et explanat, hoc non esse dictum per privationem omnimodae possibilitatis, cum Deus convertat desperatissimos, sed per privationem *facilitatis*; unde non solummodo consuevit aliquid dici impossibile, quod nullo modo potest fieri, sed etiam quod difficulter fit[^21].

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod impoenitentia est species huius peccati; iam patet responsio, quia dupliciter dicitur impoenitentia, sicut dictum est; et prout impoenitentia dicitur *propositum non poenitendi*, non reddit hominem impossibilem ad veniam, quia potest ab isto proposito desistere; et illo proposito desistente, potest aliud propositum illi succedere, et per illud ad veniam pervenire.

---

english:
### Article II. *On the same sin as to its proper conditions.*
### Question II. *Whether the sin against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.*

Secondly, inquiry is made concerning the unforgivableness of this sin. And that this sin is unforgivable is shown.

1. Matthew, chapter twelve[^1]: *The blasphemy of the spirit shall not be forgiven*[^2]; and afterward: *Whoever shall speak a word against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the world to come*; but Christ can in no way lie: therefore that sin can in no way be forgiven.

2. Likewise, the Gloss[^3] on the said passage: *Blasphemy shall be forgiven; but the blasphemy of the spirit shall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the world to come.*

3. Likewise, Jeremiah, chapter eighteen[^4]: *We have despaired, after our own thoughts we will go*; and afterward it is added: *But do not pray for this people, for I will not hear you*: if, therefore, the Lord wills to be entreated for a forgivable sin, and was unwilling to be entreated on account of the sin of despair; therefore it seems that the sin of despair is unforgivable. By parity of reasoning the same is concluded concerning every species of this sin.

4. Likewise, no sin can be forgiven except one for which a person can undergo penance and ask for pardon; but the sin against the Holy Spirit is not of this kind: therefore etc. The major is manifest; the minor is proved by that saying of Augustine, who says in the book *On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount*[^5]: « So great is the stain of this sin that it cannot submit to the humility of imploring ».

5. Likewise, impenitence is a species of this sin and is annexed to its other species[^6]; if, therefore, impenitence is directly opposed to pardon and penance itself, therefore it seems that it simply deprives one of pardon and remission: therefore it seems that this sin is unforgivable.

**On the contrary:** 1. Upon that text of the Psalm[^7]: *They were turned into the depth of the sea*; the Gloss: « That is, those who were most desperate »: therefore if this is the sin which most removes one from pardon, and even that is altogether forgiven; it seems that all the others are too.

2. Likewise, Augustine *On the Words of the Lord*[^8]: « This impenitence, or impenitent heart, so long as one lives in this flesh, cannot be judged; for one must despair of no one, so long as the patience of God leads him to penance ». But concerning him who sins by an unforgivable sin, one must despair: therefore it seems that he who sins by the sin against the Holy Spirit does not sin unforgivably.

3. Likewise, the sin against the Holy Spirit does not take from a man the state of wayfarer; but so long as a man is in the state of wayfarer, he has the changeableness of free choice; and so long as he has this, he can be reconciled to God[^9] and freed from sin: therefore it seems that the sin against the Holy Spirit can possibly be forgiven.

4. Likewise, grace and virtue are more powerful toward the good than sin is toward evil[^10]; but no virtue renders a man by his own act incapable of sinning, neither penance nor any other: therefore it seems that no fault renders a man incapable of rising again. But a man does not rise again from sin unless the sin be forgiven: therefore not only that kind of sin, but also any other, is forgivable.

5. Likewise, if the sin against the Holy Spirit is called unforgivable, either this is by privation of the *act of remission*, or by privation of *disposition*, or by privation of *possibility*. If by privation of the *act*: then any sin that is not forgiven ought to be called unforgivable: therefore any kind of sin would be called unforgivable in this manner. If by privation of *disposition*: then since every mortal sin renders a man unfit for remission on account of the offense and contempt of God, it seems therefore that every sin ought to be called unforgivable. If by privation of *possibility*; on the contrary: either this is because *God* cannot infuse grace; or this is because *that man* cannot receive grace. But the first is plainly false, and likewise the second, since that man has freedom of choice: it does not therefore seem that in any way that sin ought to be called unforgivable.

> There is, therefore, a question: if it is called unforgivable, in what way and how it is so called.

### Conclusion
> The sin against the Holy Spirit, taken in a general sense, is called unforgivable because it not only resists grace, but also resists the disposition for receiving grace and pardon, yet without depriving one of the power of saving oneself, as does final impenitence.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the Master suggests in the text[^11], it was the opinion of some that the sin against the Holy Spirit was called unforgivable « because it is forgiven scarcely and rarely and with difficulty ». But others said that that sin is called unforgivable « because it can in no way be forgiven, in that he who sins by such a sin cannot worthily repent ». — Now each of these ways of speaking is fitting and true, nor does the one conflict with the other, if they are rightly understood.

For just as the forgivable is spoken of in two ways — in one way the forgivable means *aptitude*, in another way the forgivable means *custom* — so too the unforgivable can be spoken of in two ways: in one way, so that it is called unforgivable, that is, *unfit* or impossible to be forgiven; in another way, so that it is called unforgivable, which is *unaccustomed* to be forgiven[^12].

In both of these ways the sin against the Holy Spirit can be called unforgivable; for every sin against the Holy Spirit either *is impenitence*, or *has impenitence annexed*. Now impenitence is spoken of in two ways, just as is *perseverance*: in one way perseverance is called the *purpose of persevering*; in another way perseverance is called *continued remaining* in the good unto the end. And in the *first* way perseverance is in any virtue; in the *second* way perseverance includes final grace[^13]. So too *impenitence* is spoken of in two ways: in one way impenitence is called the *purpose* of not repenting; in another way impenitence is called *continued remaining* in evil up to and including the last day. — And according to this latter way *the sin against the Holy Spirit*, which encloses impenitence within itself, can be spoken of in two ways: in one way, inasmuch as it encloses within itself the impenitence which is the *final persistence* in evil; and thus it is called unforgivable, because it cannot be forgiven, just as final grace cannot be lost. But to sin by sin[^14] against the Holy Spirit in this manner is to be attributed to no one until that instant in which it can be said of him that he is finally impenitent. And according to this manner runs one of the aforesaid opinions, and thus it takes the sin against the Holy Spirit very strictly. — In another way the sin against the Holy Spirit is spoken of, inasmuch as it encloses within itself impenitence, that is, the *purpose* of not repenting; in this manner it is called unforgivable, that is, unaccustomed to be forgiven. For although it is not impossible to be forgiven, since such a purpose can be changed; nevertheless it is rarely and scarcely forgiven, because such a purpose closes[^15] the way to grace and impedes the entrance of the Holy Spirit. For that which introduces grace and which disposes toward grace congruously is the will to withdraw from sin; and therefore, when the will has hardened its face[^16] toward the opposite, unless the gift and help of a special calling be given to it, the benefit of remission is not attained. Since, therefore, the other kinds of sins, even if they deprive one of good will and justice, nevertheless do not render the will rebellious and resistant against the divine calling; hence it is that if[^17] they are never forgiven, on account of the negligence of the sinner, or on account of the forestalling of death, they are not called unforgivable.

It is clear, therefore, why that sin is called unforgivable more than the other kinds of sins, namely because it not only resists grace, but also the disposition for receiving pardon and grace. It is also clear in what way it is called unforgivable; because, generally speaking, it does not deprive one of the power, but of the disposition; but strictly speaking, it deprives one of the power; but in this manner one is not said to sin against the Holy Spirit, so long as he lives in this life.

**To the arguments:** And by this is clear the response to the reasonings which are brought forward on both sides; chiefly to those which are brought forward for the second side, which show, namely, that that sin is not called unforgivable on the ground that it renders a man incapable of pardon while he is in this life; and because they conclude truly, they are therefore to be granted.

Nevertheless the last reasoning seems to show that it ought in no way to be called unforgivable; but this is already manifest from the things that have been said, because in other mortal sins there is not such a privation of remission as there is in this sin. For although other sins take away *justice*, nevertheless they do not take away the *purpose of returning to justice*. For nearly all who sin propose to amend. But this kind of sin, inasmuch as it is *sin*, takes away justice; inasmuch as it is *such a sin*, which has impenitence annexed, it takes from a man the purpose of returning to grace; and therefore it is called unforgivable, because it deprives one of the disposition toward the good.

*To 1, 2.* As to that which is first objected to the contrary from the authority of the Lord in Matthew, and also from the Gloss; it must be said that both the text and the Gloss are to be understood as referring to the privation of remission according to *custom*, not according to *possibility* and *aptitude*; hence, that the Lord threatens that that sin shall not be forgiven, this is to be understood, not because it cannot be forgiven, but because God is accustomed to forgive it for few. — Or it must be said, as Augustine says[^18], that it is understood of the sin against the Holy Spirit insofar as it includes final impenitence, that is, that in which one perseveres unto death.

*To 3.* As to that which is thirdly objected concerning the word of Jeremiah, that God was unwilling to be prayed to for the desperate; it must be said that this was not because they could in no way be converted or return to the good; for this they could have done, if God had willed to visit them specially; but because they themselves did not merit it, and God by his hidden judgment was unwilling to extend to them the hand of his mercy[^19]. Hence it is that, foreseeing both his own judgment and their impenitence, he was foretelling this to the Prophet; and so from this it is not had that that sin could not be forgiven, but that God was unwilling to forgive it to them, and that they were finally going to remain in impenitence, although they could have departed from it.

*To 4.* As to that which is objected, that so great is the stain of this sin that one cannot repent; it must be said that Augustine[^20] retracts and explains that word, that this was not said by the privation of every kind of possibility, since God converts the most desperate, but by the privation of *facility*; hence not only is something accustomed to be called impossible which can in no way come to be, but also that which comes to be with difficulty[^21].

*To 5.* As to that which is objected, that impenitence is a species of this sin; the response is already clear, because impenitence is spoken of in two ways, as has been said; and inasmuch as impenitence is called the *purpose of not repenting*, it does not render a man incapable of pardon, since he can desist from that purpose; and when that purpose is abandoned, another purpose can succeed it for him, and through it he can attain to pardon.

---

la: Matth. 26, 41: *Spiritus quidem promptus est, caro autem infirma.* — Paulo inferius pro *immo est* cod. T substituit *immo etiam*.

en: Matthew 26:41: *The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.* — A little below, for *immo est* codex T substitutes *immo etiam*.

la: Vers. 31: *Spiritus autem blasphemia non remittetur.* Ad quem locum Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 156. m. 3. annotat: *Quod dicitur in Matth. 12. spiritus blasphemiae in nostra translatione, secundum Chrysostomum dicitur blasphemia spiritus.* — Alter Script. loc. est ibid. v. 32.

en: Verse 31: *But the blasphemy of the spirit shall not be forgiven.* On which passage Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, part II, q. 156, m. 3, notes: *That which is said in Matthew 12, "the blasphemy of the spirit" in our translation, according to Chrysostom is called "the blasphemy of the spirit."* — The other Scripture passage is ibid., v. 32.

la: Quae hic ut verba Glossae adducuntur (etiam a S. Thoma, hic circa lit.) inveniuntur in Evang. Matth. 12, 31. 32, ubi sic legitur: « Ideo dico vobis: omne peccatum et blasphemia remittetur hominibus, spiritus autem blasphemia non remittetur. Et quicumque dixerit... non remittetur ei, neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro ». Sententia huic similis habetur Marc. 3, 28. nec non Luc. 12, 10. Glossae, quas Strabus et Lyranus super hos locos exhibent, aliter sonant ac verba a Bonav. hic allata, quamvis quoad sensum cum eis conveniunt. Cfr. August., serm. 71. (alias 11. de Verbis Domini) de verbis Evang. Matth. 12, 32. sive de Blasphemia in Spiritum S. c. 12. n. 20 (vide supra pag. 983, nota 1.), et etiam Beda, in Matth. 12, 31. 32.

en: What are here adduced as the words of the Gloss (also by St. Thomas, here on the text) are found in the Gospel of Matthew 12:31–32, where it reads thus: « Therefore I say to you: every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men, but the blasphemy of the spirit shall not be forgiven. And whoever shall say... it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come ». A judgment similar to this is found at Mark 3:28, and also at Luke 12:10. The Glosses which Strabus and Lyranus present on these passages sound otherwise than the words here adduced by Bonaventure, although in sense they agree with them. Cf. Augustine, sermon 71 (otherwise 11, *On the Words of the Lord*) on the words of the Gospel of Matthew 12:32, or *On Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit*, c. 12, n. 20 (see above, p. 983, note 1), and also Bede, on Matthew 12:31–32.

la: Vers. 12. — Alter Script. locus, de quo hic praedicatur, quod priori subiungatur, in vero ei praecedit; habetur enim Ier. 7, 16.

en: Verse 12. — The other Scripture passage, of which it is here stated that it is subjoined to the first, in fact precedes it; for it is found at Jeremiah 7:16.

la: Libr. I. c. 22. n. 74. — De *maiori*, in qua pro *remitti potest* edd. substituunt *remittitur*, cfr. supra pag. 843, nota 8. In *minori* plurimi codd. perperam omittunt *non*.

en: Book I, c. 22, n. 74. — On the *major*, in which for *remitti potest* the editions substitute *remittitur*, cf. above, p. 843, note 8. In the *minor* very many codices wrongly omit *non*.

la: Vide infra a. 3. q. 1. seq. — Cod. T ante *speciebus* repetit *peccati*.

en: See below, a. 3, q. 1, following. — Codex T before *speciebus* repeats *peccati*.

la: Psalm. 67, 23. — Glossa est ordinaria et sumta ex August., Enarrat. in hunc Ps. n. 31. Haec etiam habetur hic in lit. Magistri, circa medium. Verbum *Glossa* deest in codd. et primis edd.

en: Psalm 67:23. — The Gloss is the ordinary one and is taken from Augustine, *Enarration* on this Psalm, n. 31. This is also found here in the text of the Master, near the middle. The word *Gloss* is absent in the codices and the early editions.

la: Serm. 71. (alias 11. de Verbis Domini) de verbis Evang. Matth. 12, 32. sive de Blasphemia in Spiritum S. c. 13. n. 21. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, circa medium. In fine respicitur Rom. 2, 4.

en: Sermon 71 (otherwise 11, *On the Words of the Lord*) on the words of the Gospel of Matthew 12:32, or *On Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit*, c. 13, n. 21. Cf. here the text of the Master, near the middle. At the end Romans 2:4 is referred to.

la: Cod. T subiicit *servire*.

en: Codex T subjoins *servire* [to serve].

la: Vide supra pag. 920, nota 1. — Paulo inferius in prima conclus. Vat. post *reddit hominem* adiicit *ex suo actu*.

en: See above, p. 920, note 1. — A little below, in the first conclusion, the Vatican edition after *reddit hominem* adds *ex suo actu* [by his own act].

la: Hic circa medium. — Ratio, qua secunda opinio fulcitur, ex Hieronymo delibata est, ut ex lit. Magistri patet. — Vat. ante *Magister* inserit *dicit* et post *in littera* subiicit *et*. Aliquanto inferius pro *recte intelligantur* cod. T *recte intelligitur*.

en: Here, near the middle. — The reason on which the second opinion is supported is drawn from Jerome, as is clear from the text of the Master. — The Vatican edition before *Magister* inserts *dicit*, and after *in littera* subjoins *et*. Somewhat below, for *recte intelligantur* codex T reads *recte intelligitur*.

la: Cfr. Aristot., V. Phys. text. 20. (c. 2.) et XI. Metaph. c. 11. (X. c. 12.), ubi *immobile* simili modo distinguitur.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* V, text 20 (c. 2) and *Metaphysics* XI, c. 11 (X, c. 12), where the *immovable* is distinguished in a similar way.

la: Vide August., de Dono persever. c. 1. n. 1. seqq.

en: See Augustine, *On the Gift of Perseverance*, c. 1, n. 1, following.

la: Cod. T *peccatum*.

en: Codex T reads *peccatum*.

la: Cod. T addit *in se*.

en: Codex T adds *in se* [in itself].

la: Locutio *obfirmare faciem* sumta est ex Lev. 17, 10, quae et recurrit Ezech. 4, 3. — Codd. I P V W *firmavit*, cod. B *omnino firmavit*, cod. ee *confirmavit*. Paulo inferius pro *pervenitur* in Vat. exhibetur *pervenit*, et subinde pro *remissionis beneficium* in codd. C F O R S T V Y ee *remissionem beneficii*, cod. bb *remunerationem beneficii*.

en: The phrase *obfirmare faciem* (to harden the face) is taken from Leviticus 17:10, and it also recurs at Ezekiel 4:3. — Codices I P V W read *firmavit*, codex B *omnino firmavit*, codex ee *confirmavit*. A little below, for *pervenitur* the Vatican edition presents *pervenit*, and thereupon for *remissionis beneficium* codices C F O R S T V Y ee read *remissionem beneficii*, codex bb *remunerationem beneficii*.

la: Codd. L O *etsi*. Paulo ante plurimi codd. et primae edd. voculae *hinc* praefigunt *et* [i. e. *etiam*]; paulo inferius post *non* Vat. et edd. 3, 4 adiiciunt *tamen*.

en: Codices L O read *etsi*. A little before, very many codices and the early editions prefix to the little word *hinc* an *et* [i.e. *etiam*, also]; a little below, after *non* the Vatican edition and editions 3, 4 add *tamen*.

la: Libr. I. de Serm. Domini in monte, c. 22. n. 74. seq. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri. — Paulo superius pro *quod Dominus comminatur* codd. I P V W Z *quod Dominus dicit in Evangelio*.

en: Book I, *On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount*, c. 22, n. 74, following. Cf. here the text of the Master. — A little above, for *quod Dominus comminatur* codices I P V W Z read *quod Dominus dicit in Evangelio* [that the Lord says in the Gospel].

la: Cod. T annectit *suae*. Paulo inferius pro *Prophetae praedicebat* ed. 3 *Prophetae praedicebant*, Vat. *Propheta praedicabat*. In fine solut. pro *discedere* codd. F T *recedere*.

en: Codex T annexes *suae* [his (mercy)]. A little below, for *Prophetae praedicebat* edition 3 reads *Prophetae praedicebant*, the Vatican edition *Propheta praedicabat*. At the end of the solution, for *discedere* codices F T read *recedere*.

la: Libr. I. Retract. c. 19. n. 7. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri. — Paulo ante pro *poenitere* Vat. et edd. 2, 3, 4 *poeniteri*. In nostra lectione supple: *aliquem*.

en: Book I, *Retractations*, c. 19, n. 7. Cf. here the text of the Master. — A little before, for *poenitere* the Vatican edition and editions 2, 3, 4 read *poeniteri*. In our reading supply: *aliquem* [someone].

la: Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 111. (c. 11.): *Impossibile autem dicitur dupliciter: aut enim simpliciter, quia non verum est dicere quod factum utique erit* (ὅτι γένοιτ᾽ ἄν), *aut quia non facile neque cito aut bene.* — Pro *sed etiam* codd. H I W ee *sed secundum*. Paulo superius pro *desperatissimos* cod. Z *sceleratissimos*.

en: Aristotle, *On the Heavens* I, text 111 (c. 11): *The impossible is spoken of in two ways: either simply, because it is not true to say that it will ever have come to be* (ὅτι γένοιτ᾽ ἄν), *or because it is not easy nor quick nor good.* — For *sed etiam* codices H I W ee read *sed secundum*. A little above, for *desperatissimos* codex Z reads *sceleratissimos*.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF (printed pp. 988–991 = PDF 1010–1013), Vol II PDF-priority inversion applied to the Respondeo / Conclusio / replies. The OCR (raw lines 68647–68820) was used as the base for the clean argument prose and for exact footnote-marker spacing.
- **Running heads confirmed via low-dpi PDF render:** p. 989 `DIST. XLIII. ART. II. QUAEST. II. 989`; p. 991 `DIST. XLIII. ART. III. QUAEST. I. 991`. The OCR running-head digits in this band are reliable here, but page numbers were verified by render per the standing offset `pdf = printed + 22`.
- **`has_scholion: false`:** this quaestio has no scholion of its own. The Article-II SCHOLION (I–III) is held in d43-a2-q1; its Scholion II (`Quoad sequentem quaest. S. Doctor clarissime suam sententiam explanat…`) covers this q2.
- **Alignment:** PASS. Opener `Secundo quaeritur de istius peccati irremissibilitate` = q2 of Article II; title `Utrum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum sit irremissibile`.
- **Page-split / apparatus map (per-page footer restart, 21 entries total):**
  - **p. 988** (q2's opener at the bottom of the page, after the a2-q1 scholion): q2 picks up p. 988 footers **1, 4, 5** → `[^1]` (Matth. 26:41, **MIGRATED FORWARD from a2-q1** — a2-q1 consumed only p. 988 footers 2–3), `[^2]` (= p. 988 footer 4, *Vers. 31* / Alex. Hal., anchoring fund. 1's Matthew blasphemy quotation), `[^3]` (= p. 988 footer 5, *Quae hic ut verba Glossae*, anchoring fund. 2's Glossa). (Footers 2–3 of p. 988 stayed with a2-q1.)
  - **p. 989**: footers 1–8 → `[^4]`–`[^11]` (Jeremiah *Vers. 12* / Augustine *de Serm. Dom.* Libr. I c. 22 / *Vide infra a. 3 q. 1* / Psalm 67:23 Glossa / Serm. 71 / Cod. T *servire* / *Vide supra pag. 920* / **footer 8 = `[^11]` = the Respondeo *Hic circa medium / Magister* note**, which anchors `Magister in littera` at the head of the Respondeo on p. 989 R-col).
  - **p. 990**: footers 1–7 → `[^12]`–`[^18]` (Aristot. *Phys.*–*Metaph.* / *de Dono persever.* / Cod. T *peccatum* / Cod. T *in se* / *obfirmare faciem* Lev. 17:10 / Codd. L O *etsi* / *de Serm. Dom.* c. 22 — the *Aliter* reply note).
  - **p. 991**: footers 1–3 → `[^19]`–`[^21]` (Cod. T *suae* / Retract. c. 19 / Aristot. *de Caelo* text. 111). The p. 991 **R-column footers (4–8)** belong to **d43-a3-q1** (its body fills the R-column of p. 991) — NOT re-claimed here.
- **Hand-offs picked up:** p. 988 footer 1 (Matth. 26:41) migrated in from a2-q1, rendered `[^1]`.
- **Footer-1 anchor note:** p. 988 footer 1 (`Matth. 26, 41: Spiritus quidem promptus est…`) is an editorial cross-reference note; its printed marker is ambiguous (the OCR shows a single superscript at fund. 1's *Matthaei duodecimo*, and footer 4 *Vers. 31* is the substantive note on the *Spiritus blasphemiae* clause). It is rendered here as `[^1]` anchored at *Matthaei duodecimo*, with `[^2]` (footer 4) on the blasphemy clause. Not a body-text reading ambiguity — no `[?]` flag warranted; recorded here for the d.50 polish pass.
- **HAND-OFF FORWARDED to d43-a3-q1** (*De numero et sufficientia specierum huius peccati* — `Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur de numero et sufficientia specierum huius peccati`, raw ~68833): **ARTICULUS III opener folds into a3-q1** per the Vol II convention — `ARTICULUS III. De speciebus et differentiis huius peccati. — Consequenter quaeritur de huius peccati genere quantum ad eius species et differentias. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo` (begins in the **L-column bottom of printed p. 991**, immediately after q2's tail `…et per illud ad veniam pervenire.`). Opener lists: q1 = *de speciebus huius peccati quantum ad numerum et sufficientiam*; q2 = *de his quantum ad uniuscuiusque propriam rationem*. **a3-q1** = `QUAESTIO I. De numero et sufficientia specierum huius peccati.` continuing onto p. 992+. **a3-q1's first body footers are the fresh p. 991 R-column footers 4–8** (footer 4 = *In cod. T desideratur per — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*; footer 5 = *Virtutes cardinales multae dicuntur…*; footer 6 = *In cod. H deest ita*; footer 7 = *Vetustiores codd. et edd. 2, 3 omittunt huius*; footer 8 = *Vers. 31. seq. — De Glossa vide supra pag. 988, nota 5*) — q2 consumed only p. 991 footers 1–3; do NOT re-claim footers 4–8. Offset `pdf = printed + 22`; confirm printed_pages via low-dpi render. After a3-q1 come a3-q2, dubia (still skeletons). d.50 is the next decade polish gate (far off).
- **No `[?]` flags.**


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 43, Art. 3, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 991 -->

### Articulus III. *De speciebus et differentiis huius peccati.*

Consequenter quaeritur de huius peccati genere quantum ad eius species et differentias. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur de speciebus huius peccati quantum ad numerum et sufficientiam.

Secundo vero quaeritur de his quantum ad uniuscuiusque propriam rationem.

### Quaestio I. *De numero et sufficientia specierum huius peccati.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur de numero et sufficientia specierum huius peccati. Et communiter consueverunt huius peccati sex species assignari, videlicet desperatio, praesumtio, obstinatio, invidentia fraternae gratiae, impugnatio veritatis agnitae et finalis impoenitentia. Sed quod multo plures debeant esse, videtur:

1. Quia, cum sint tres virtutes theologicae, videlicet fides, spes, caritas, quarum quaelibet ita est ad salutem necessaria, sicut alia; videtur, quod sicut est unum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, quod est contra spem, videlicet desperatio, similiter debeat esse unum contra fidem, et aliud contra caritatem.

2. Item, virtutes cardinales multae sunt praeter poenitentiam, quae sunt necessariae ad salutem[^1]: ergo sicut accipitur species peccati in Spiritum sanctum per oppositionem ad poenitentiam, ita deberet accipi per oppositionem ad alias virtutes cardinales.

3. Item, in Deo non tantum considerantur istae conditiones, videlicet misericordia et iustitia, sed etiam plures aliae, utpote bonitas et maiestas: ergo sicut sunt duae species huius peccati, quarum una est contra iustitiam, ut praesumtio, alia contra misericordiam, ut desperatio; ita videtur, quod duae aliae species deberent esse contra conditiones alias.

4. Item, septem sunt peccata capitalia, inter quae sunt aliqua ita magna, sicut est invidia: ergo sicut invidentia fraternae gratiae ponitur una species huius peccati, ita deberet poni superbia et ira.

5. Item, aeque magnum peccatum est impugnare bonitatem, sicut impugnare veritatem: ergo sicut est una species huius peccati penes impugnationem veritatis agnitae, ita deberet esse alia species penes impugnationem bonitatis.

6. Item, *spiritus blasphemiae* est peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, secundum quod dicitur in Glossa et in textu Matthaei duodecimo[^2]; nec est aliquod praedictorum: ergo videtur, quod plures sint species peccati in Spiritum sanctum quam praedictae.

7. Item, quaero, unde accipiatur distinctio ista[^3] rum specierum.
<!-- page 992 -->
Aut enim accipitur ex parte *eius cui opponitur* hoc peccatum, aut ex parte *actuum substratorum*, aut ex parte *motivorum*[^4]. Si ex parte *eius cui opponitur*; cum illa sit gratia poenitentialis, et gratia poenitentialis sit una; videtur, quod una sola deberet esse species huius peccati. Si ex parte *actuum substratorum*; aut illi actus sunt *principales* potentiarum interiorum, aut *non principales*. Si *principales*; tunc non deberent esse nisi tres secundum numerum potentiarum[^5]. Si penes actus *non principales*; ergo deberent esse multo plures quam sex. Si ex parte *motivorum*; similiter obiicitur, quia, cum plura sint motiva quam sex, plures erunt huius peccati species.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur, cum Magister non tangat in littera nisi de quatuor speciebus peccati in Spiritum sanctum, et alii ponant quinque species, alii sex, unde veniat ista diversitas. Quaeritur ergo, penes quid distinguantur istae species, et qui sit earum numerus et sufficientia.

### Conclusio

> Sex species peccati in Spiritum sanctum convenientius assignantur quam quatuor aut quinque.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum directe est contra effectum Spiritus sancti, qui quidem dicitur gratia poenitentialis[^6]. Haec autem poenitentialis gratia, secundum quod in Sacramento consideratur, tria respicit, videlicet medicum et aegrotum et ministrum. — Ex parte medici concurrunt ista duo: *misericordia* et *iustitia*, misericordia, per quam remittit offensam, et iustitia, per quam exigit emendam. Contra misericordiam est *desperatio*; contra iustitiam est *praesumtio*[^7]. — Similiter ex parte aegroti duo concurrunt, videlicet *detestatio* peccati praeteriti et *propositum* non peccandi; nisi enim haec duo in se habeat, non est idoneus ad hoc, quod gratia Spiritus sancti habeat in ipsum efficaciam. Contra detestationem peccati est *obstinatio*; contra vero propositum non peccandi est *finalis impoenitentia*. — Similiter ex parte ministri duo concurrunt, videlicet *veritas doctrinae*, per quam peccatorem instruat, et *sanctitas gratiae*, per quam ipsum adiuvet et sublevet[^8]. Contra veritatem doctrinae est *impugnatio veritatis agnitae*; contra sanctitatem gratiae est *invidentia fraternae gratiae*. — Et sic patet numerus et sufficientia, quare scilicet tot sunt species peccati, nec plures, nec pauciores.

Aliter potest accipi sufficientia dictarum specierum, quia, cum peccatum illud sit contra *gratiam poenitentialem*, in quantum per ipsam fit remissio peccatorum *in unitate Ecclesiae*, aut illud peccatum est contra *poenitentiam*, aut contra *unitatem ecclesiasticam*. — Contra poenitentiam autem potest esse dupliciter: aut per *recessum a bono*, et sic est desperatio; aut per *obfirmationem in malo*, et sic est obstinatio. — Si contra unitatem ecclesiasticam, sic est aut ratione *veritatis*, aut ratione *bonitatis*[^9]. Si ratione veritatis, sic est impugnatio veritatis agnitae; si ratione bonitatis, sic est invidentia fraternae gratiae. Et hoc modo sumuntur quatuor species.

Nec iste modus assignandi repugnat ei qui dictus est, quia sub *obstinatione*, quae est obfirmatio in malo, clauditur praesumtio et finalis impoenitentia. Hoc enim ipso, quod obfirmatus est aliquis in malo, nec timet poenam nec proponit dimittere culpam.

Aliter sumitur numerus istarum specierum, quia, cum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum sit contra *poenitentialem gratiam*, aut est contra ipsam ratione *sui*, aut ratione *antecedentium*, aut ratione *subsequentium*. — Si ratione sui; sic est obstinatio. Si ratione antecedentium; cum ad poenitentiam antecedant *timor* et *spes* tanquam duae molae[^10], contra timorem est praesumtio, contra spem est desperatio. Si ratione consequentium; cum ad poenitentiam consequatur emenda, quae consistit in duobus, videlicet in *vera confessione* et *bona satisfactione*; sic sumuntur duae species, quarum una est *impugnatio veri*, altera est *detestatio boni*; et secundum istam assignationem obstinatio comprehendit obstinationem proprie dictam et finalem impoenitentiam.

Et sic patet numerus et sufficientia specierum, et qua ratione quidam assignant quatuor, quidam
<!-- page 993 -->
quinque, quidam sex. Ille autem modus, quo assignantur sex species, convenientior est et communius tenetur, pro eo quod illud[^11] quod alii dicunt implicite, ille dicit explicite. — Iuxta hunc modum concedendum est, species peccati in Spiritum sanctum numero esse sex, et non plures.

**Ad argumenta:**

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod[^12] deberet esse peccatum in Spiritum sanctum contra fidem et contra caritatem; dicendum, quod illa ratio non cogit, quia non dicitur desperatio peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, quia est contra *spem*, sed quia directe repugnat dispositioni *gratiae poenitentialis*. Qui enim desperat de venia, nunquam ad gratiam se praeparat, sicut Iudas, qui « facilius desperans cucurrit ad laqueum, sicut dicit Augustinus[^13], quam ad petendum misericordiae beneficium ».

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sunt aliae virtutes cardinales praeter poenitentiam; dicendum, quod etsi aliae virtutes sint, tamen poenitentia proprie virtus est, per quam resurgit homo in gratia, et per quam remittitur culpa; et ideo peccatum, quod maxime est impugnativum gratiae, magis directe habet opponi poenitentiae[^14] quam alii virtuti cardinali. Praeterea, poenitentia non tantum est virtus, sed etiam Sacramentum, et utroque modo ei opponitur peccatum in Spiritum sanctum.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod aliae sunt conditiones Dei quam misericordia et iustitia; dicendum, quod etsi aliae sint, istae tamen sunt praecipuae, quae considerantur in opere iustificationis, et quas oportet attendere peccatores, ut possint redire ad gratiam; et ideo magis contra istas assignantur species peccati in Spiritum sanctum quam contra[^15] conditiones alias.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod septem sunt capitalia peccata ita magna, sicut invidia; dicendum, quod invidentia fraternae gratiae non ponitur esse peccatum in Spiritum sanctum ratione eius quod est capitale peccatum, sed ratione eius quod est impugnatio boni, quae directam[^16] habet oppositionem ad bonum poenitentiae.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod contingit impugnare bonitatem sicut veritatem et maiestatem; dicendum, quod in impugnatione veritatis agnitae clauditur impugnatio maiestatis et etiam bonitatis; quoniam veritas non tantummodo praedicat se, sed etiam praedicat et manifestat bonitatem et etiam maiestatem Dei; et dum aliquis scienter dicit contra veritatem, in qua praedicatur Dei maiestas et bonitas, per consequens maiestatem et bonitatem impugnat.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur de spiritu blasphemiae, dicendum, quod comprehenditur sub impugnatione veritatis agnitae. Qui enim[^17] verbis falsis veritati Dei resistit, et blasphemare dicitur et veritatem agnitam impugnare.

7. Ad illud quod quaeritur, penes quid accipiatur numerus et sufficientia specierum huius peccati; dicendum, quod sumitur ex parte oppositi. Opponitur autem poenitentiae hoc peccati genus non solum ratione habitus poenitentiae, sed etiam ratione eorum quae concurrunt ad poenitentiae effectum. Et quia ista sunt sex, sicut ostensum fuit, duo ex parte medici, et duo ex parte aegroti, et duo ex parte ministri, propter hoc sex sunt species huius peccati.

Ad illud vero quod ultimo quaerebatur, iam patet responsio per ea quae dicta sunt.

english:
### Article III. *On the species and differences of this sin.*

Next there is an inquiry into the genus of this sin with respect to its species and differences. And concerning this, two questions are asked.

First, there is an inquiry into the species of this sin with respect to their number and sufficiency.

Second, there is an inquiry into them with respect to the proper account of each.

### Question I. *On the number and sufficiency of the species of this sin.*

Concerning the first one proceeds thus, and there is an inquiry into the number and sufficiency of the species of this sin. And commonly six species of this sin have been wont to be assigned, namely despair, presumption, obstinacy, envy of a brother's grace, impugning of acknowledged truth, and final impenitence. But that there ought to be far more, it seems:

1. For, since there are three theological virtues, namely faith, hope, and charity, each of which is as necessary for salvation as the other, it seems that, just as there is one sin against the Holy Spirit which is against hope, namely despair, so likewise there ought to be one against faith, and another against charity.

2. Likewise, there are many cardinal virtues besides penance which are necessary for salvation[^1]: therefore, just as a species of the sin against the Holy Spirit is taken by opposition to penance, so it ought to be taken by opposition to the other cardinal virtues.

3. Likewise, in God there are considered not only these conditions, namely mercy and justice, but also several others, such as goodness and majesty: therefore, just as there are two species of this sin, of which one is against justice, like presumption, the other against mercy, like despair, so it seems that two other species ought to be against the other conditions.

4. Likewise, there are seven capital sins, among which some are as great as envy is: therefore, just as envy of a brother's grace is set down as one species of this sin, so pride and anger ought also to be set down.

5. Likewise, it is just as great a sin to impugn goodness as to impugn truth: therefore, just as there is one species of this sin in respect of the impugning of acknowledged truth, so there ought to be another species in respect of the impugning of goodness.

6. Likewise, *the spirit of blasphemy* is a sin against the Holy Spirit, according to what is said in the Gloss and in the text of Matthew, chapter twelve[^2]; nor is it any of the aforesaid: therefore it seems that there are more species of the sin against the Holy Spirit than the aforesaid.

7. Likewise, I ask whence this distinction[^3] of the species is taken.
<!-- page 992 -->
For either it is taken on the part of *that to which* this sin is opposed, or on the part of *the underlying acts*, or on the part of *the motives*[^4]. If on the part of *that to which it is opposed*; since that is penitential grace, and penitential grace is one, it seems that there ought to be one sole species of this sin. If on the part of *the underlying acts*; either those acts are *principal* acts of the interior powers, or *not principal*. If *principal*; then there ought to be only three according to the number of the powers[^5]. If in respect of the *non-principal* acts; then there ought to be far more than six. If on the part of *the motives*; the same objection is made, for, since there are more motives than six, there will be more species of this sin.

Alongside this it is asked, since the Master in the text treats only of four species of the sin against the Holy Spirit, while others posit five species, others six, whence this diversity comes. Therefore it is asked in respect of what these species are distinguished, and what is their number and sufficiency.

### Conclusio

> Six species of the sin against the Holy Spirit are more fittingly assigned than four or five.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that the sin against the Holy Spirit is directly against the effect of the Holy Spirit, which indeed is called penitential grace[^6]. Now this penitential grace, as it is considered in the Sacrament, regards three things, namely the physician, the sick man, and the minister. — On the part of the physician these two concur: *mercy* and *justice* — mercy, by which he remits the offense, and justice, by which he exacts amendment. Against mercy is *despair*; against justice is *presumption*[^7]. — Likewise on the part of the sick man two things concur, namely *detestation* of past sin and the *purpose* of not sinning; for unless he have these two in himself, he is not fit for the grace of the Holy Spirit to have efficacy in him. Against the detestation of sin is *obstinacy*; against the purpose of not sinning is *final impenitence*. — Likewise on the part of the minister two things concur, namely *the truth of doctrine*, by which he instructs the sinner, and *the holiness of grace*, by which he aids and lifts him up[^8]. Against the truth of doctrine is *the impugning of acknowledged truth*; against the holiness of grace is *envy of a brother's grace*. — And thus the number and sufficiency are clear, why namely there are so many species of the sin, neither more nor fewer.

In another way the sufficiency of the said species can be taken; for, since that sin is against *penitential grace*, inasmuch as through it the remission of sins comes about *in the unity of the Church*, that sin is either against *penance* or against *ecclesiastical unity*. — Against penance it can be in two ways: either by *withdrawal from the good*, and thus it is despair; or by *obstinacy in evil*, and thus it is obstinacy. — If against ecclesiastical unity, then it is either by reason of *truth* or by reason of *goodness*[^9]. If by reason of truth, then it is the impugning of acknowledged truth; if by reason of goodness, then it is envy of a brother's grace. And in this way four species are taken.

Nor does this manner of assigning conflict with the one already stated, for under *obstinacy*, which is obstinacy in evil, are included presumption and final impenitence. For by the very fact that someone is obstinate in evil, he neither fears punishment nor purposes to lay aside his fault.

In yet another way the number of these species is taken; for, since the sin against the Holy Spirit is against *penitential grace*, it is either against it by reason of *itself*, or by reason of *what precedes*, or by reason of *what follows*. — If by reason of itself, then it is obstinacy. If by reason of what precedes; since *fear* and *hope* precede penance like two millstones[^10], against fear is presumption, against hope is despair. If by reason of what follows; since amendment follows upon penance, which consists in two things, namely in *true confession* and *good satisfaction*; thus two species are taken, of which one is *the impugning of the true*, the other *the detestation of the good*; and according to this assignment obstinacy comprehends obstinacy properly so called and final impenitence.

And thus the number and sufficiency of the species are clear, and by what reasoning some assign four, some
<!-- page 993 -->
five, some six. But that manner by which six species are assigned is more fitting and is more commonly held, for the reason that what the others say[^11] implicitly, this one says explicitly. — According to this manner it must be granted that the species of the sin against the Holy Spirit are six in number, and not more.

**To the arguments:**

1. To that, then, which is objected, that[^12] there ought to be a sin against the Holy Spirit against faith and against charity; it must be said that that reasoning does not compel, because despair is not called a sin against the Holy Spirit because it is against *hope*, but because it directly repugns the disposition of *penitential grace*. For he who despairs of pardon never prepares himself for grace, like Judas, who « more easily, despairing, ran to the noose, as Augustine says[^13], than to seek the benefit of mercy ».

2. To that which is objected, that there are other cardinal virtues besides penance; it must be said that, although there be other virtues, yet penance is properly the virtue by which man rises again in grace, and by which fault is remitted; and therefore the sin which is most of all an impugning of grace has more directly to be opposed to penance[^14] than to another cardinal virtue. Moreover, penance is not only a virtue but also a Sacrament, and in both ways the sin against the Holy Spirit is opposed to it.

3. To that which is objected, that there are conditions of God other than mercy and justice; it must be said that, although there be others, these nevertheless are the chief ones, which are considered in the work of justification, and which sinners must attend to that they may be able to return to grace; and therefore the species of the sin against the Holy Spirit are assigned rather against these than against[^15] the other conditions.

4. To that which is objected, that there are seven capital sins as great as envy; it must be said that envy of a brother's grace is set down as a sin against the Holy Spirit not by reason of that whereby it is a capital sin, but by reason of that whereby it is an impugning of the good, which has direct[^16] opposition to the good of penance.

5. To that which is objected, that one may impugn goodness as well as truth and majesty; it must be said that in the impugning of acknowledged truth there is included the impugning of majesty and also of goodness; since truth not only proclaims itself, but also proclaims and manifests the goodness and also the majesty of God; and when someone knowingly speaks against the truth, in which the majesty and goodness of God are proclaimed, he consequently impugns the majesty and goodness.

6. To that which is objected concerning the spirit of blasphemy, it must be said that it is comprehended under the impugning of acknowledged truth. For he who[^17] by false words resists the truth of God is said both to blaspheme and to impugn acknowledged truth.

7. To that which is asked, in respect of what the number and sufficiency of the species of this sin are taken; it must be said that it is taken on the part of the opposite. Now this genus of sin is opposed to penance not only by reason of the habit of penance, but also by reason of those things which concur unto the effect of penance. And since these are six, as has been shown — two on the part of the physician, and two on the part of the sick man, and two on the part of the minister — for this reason there are six species of this sin.

And to that which was last asked, the response is now clear from what has been said.

la: In cod. T desideratur *per*. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: In codex T *per* is wanting. — See the scholion to the preceding question.

la: Virtutes cardinales *multae* dicuntur ad virtutes re vera non paucas, quae quatuor virtutibus cardinalibus continentur ut species et partes earum. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 33. q. 4. De poenitentia agitur IV. Sent. d. 14, ubi p. I. a. 1. q. 3. poenitentia dicitur « virtus cardinalis contenta sub iustitia ». In hoc arg. edd. et plures codd. bis pro *per oppositionem* substituunt *per oppositum*.

en: Cardinal virtues are called *many* in relation to virtues really not few, which are contained under the four cardinal virtues as their species and parts. Cf. III. Sent. d. 33. q. 4. Penance is treated of in IV. Sent. d. 14, where at p. I. a. 1. q. 3. penance is called « a cardinal virtue contained under justice ». In this argument the editions and several codices twice substitute *per oppositum* for *per oppositionem*.

la: In cod. H deest *ita*.

en: In codex H *ita* is lacking.

la: Vetustiores codd. et edd. 2, 3 omittunt *huius*.

en: The older codices and editions 2, 3 omit *huius*.

la: Vers. 31. seq. — De Glossa vide supra pag. 988, nota 5.

en: Verse 31 ff. — On the Gloss see above page 988, note 5.

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1. in corp.

en: Cf. above a. 1. q. 1. in the body.

la: Scilicet memoria, intellectus, voluntas.

en: Namely memory, intellect, will.

la: Vide supra pag. 983, nota 1. In Serm. August. ibi cit. complura inveniuntur quae tanguntur in seqq.

en: See above page 983, note 1. In the sermon of Augustine cited there several things are found which are touched on in what follows.

la: Praepositivus in sua Summa, p. II, praesumtionem sic definit: Praesumtio est, cum quis ita confidit de bonitate Dei, quod credit, eum nullum aeternaliter puniturum; sicut de Origene, qui fertur dixisse, luciferum accepturum esse archangelicum fastigium. De desperatione vide hic lit. Magistri, circa initium.

en: Praepositivus in his Summa, p. II, defines presumption thus: Presumption is when one so trusts in the goodness of God that he believes He will punish no one eternally; as concerning Origen, who is reported to have said that Lucifer would receive the archangelic dignity. On despair see here the Master's text, near the beginning.

la: Cod. U *sibimet*.

en: Codex U reads *sibimet*.

la: Quam veritatem sicut et bonitatem profitemur in Symbolo Apost. dicentes: « Credo... sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, Sanctorum communionem ». — Paulo ante pro *obfirmationem* codd. I M et alii cum ed. 2 *obstinationem*, Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 *confirmationem*. Similiter paulo inferius pro *obfirmatus*, quod auctoritate codd. L O bb restituimus, edd., excepta I, exhibent *obstinatus*, codd. C F H K R S T U Y ce et ed. I *confirmatus*.

en: Which truth, as also goodness, we profess in the Apostles' Creed, saying: « I believe... the holy catholic Church, the communion of Saints ». — A little before, for *obfirmationem* codices I, M and others with ed. 2 read *obstinationem*, the Vatican edition with edd. 3, 4 *confirmationem*. Likewise a little further on, for *obfirmatus*, which on the authority of codices L, O, bb we have restored, the editions, except I, give *obstinatus*, codices C F H K R S T U Y ce and ed. I *confirmatus*.

la: Gregor., XXXIII. Moral. c. 12. n. 24. illud Deut. 24, 6: *Non accipies loco pignoris inferiorem et superiorem molam,* exponens ait: A debitore enim pignus accipitur, cum a peccatore iam peccati confessio tenetur. Superior autem et inferior mola est spes et timor. Spes quippe ad alta subvehit, timor autem cor inferius premit. Sed mola superior et inferior ita sibi necessario iunguntur, ut una sine altera inutiliter habeatur. In peccatoris itaque pectore incessanter debet spes et formido coniungi, quia incassum misericordiam sperat, si non etiam iustitiam timeat; incassum iustitiam metuit, si non etiam de misericordia confidat etc.

en: Gregory, XXXIII. Moral. c. 12. n. 24, expounding the text of Deut. 24, 6: *You shall not take as a pledge the lower and the upper millstone,* says: For a pledge is received from a debtor, when from a sinner the confession of sin is now held. Now the upper and lower millstone are hope and fear. For hope bears up to high things, while fear presses the heart down below. But the upper and lower millstone are so necessarily joined to each other that one without the other is held uselessly. And so in the breast of a sinner hope and dread must unceasingly be joined, because in vain does he hope for mercy if he does not also fear justice; in vain does he dread justice if he does not also trust in mercy, etc.

la: Cod. T omittit *quod illud* et paulo ante pro *communius* substituit *communiter*.

en: Codex T omits *quod illud* and a little before substitutes *communiter* for *communius*.

la: Vat. et edd. 3, 4 hic addunt *sicut est unum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, quod est contra spem, scilicet desperatio, sic etiam*.

en: The Vatican edition and edd. 3, 4 here add *as there is one sin against the Holy Spirit, which is against hope, namely despair, so also*.

la: Libr. I. de Serm. Domini in monte, c. 22. n. 74. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, circa medium.

en: Book I. *On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount*, c. 22. n. 74. Cf. here the Master's text, near the middle.

la: Edd. 2, 3. *gratiae*, Vat. *gratiae poenitentiae*. Paulo superius codd. W bb *in gratiam* pro *in gratia*.

en: Editions 2, 3 read *gratiae*, the Vatican edition *gratiae poenitentiae*. A little above, codices W, bb read *in gratiam* for *in gratia*.

la: Pro *contra* Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 hic et paulo ante *circa*. — Edd. praeter I *directe*. — Vat. et edd. 3, 4 post *enim* subiciunt *utitur* et dein post *verbis falsis* ponunt comma.

en: For *contra* the Vatican edition with edd. 3, 4 reads, here and a little before, *circa*. — The editions except I read *directe*. — The Vatican edition and edd. 3, 4 after *enim* add *utitur* and then after *verbis falsis* place a comma.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Duae huius articuli de peccato in Spiritum S. quaestiones, scilicet quoad *numerum*, *distinctionem* et *sufficientiam* senarii numeri, nec non specialiter quoad singulas species, ab aliis antiquis magistris unica quaestione solvuntur. — In senario numero convenientius assignando posteriores Scholastici conveniunt, excepto Aegidio R., qui, ut iam diximus, octo peccata huius generis distinguit. — Primus modus, quo *sufficientia* huius numeri explicatur, breviter traditur ab Alexandro Hal. et receptus est etiam a Petr. a Tar. nec non a S. Thoma, qui tamen etiam alium modum suggerit. Concise idem docetur a S. Bonav., *Breviloq.* p. III. c. 11.

**II.** Circa sequentem quaest. notandum est quod dicitur in corp.: « Nullum nomen praedictarum specierum est impositum alicui earum, secundum quod est praecise peccatum in Spiritum S. »; quod in solutionibus ad oppos. de singulis demonstratur. — De desperatione in genere cfr. hic dub. 3; III. Sent. d. 26. a. 2. q. 2. solut. ad I. fundam. De praesumtione III. Sent. d. 26. a. 2. q. 1. ad 3; I. Sent. in Prolog. dub. 1, et supra d. 5. a. 1. q. 1. De obstinatione I. Sent. d. 40. a. 4. q. 1, et supra d. 7. p. I. a. 1. q. 1-3. De impoenitentia (Iudae) supra d. 7. p. I. a. 1. q. 1.

**III.** De utraque quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 156. m. 3. — S. Thom., hic a. 3; S. II. II. q. 14. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 4: S. p. II. tr. 23. q. 140. m. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 3.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The two questions of this article on the sin against the Holy Spirit, namely as to the *number*, *distinction*, and *sufficiency* of the number six, and also specially as to the individual species, are by the other ancient masters resolved in a single question. — In assigning the number six more fittingly the later Scholastics agree, except Aegidius R., who, as we have already said, distinguishes eight sins of this genus. — The first manner by which the *sufficiency* of this number is explained is briefly handed down by Alexander of Hales and is received also by Peter of Tarentaise and likewise by St. Thomas, who however also suggests another manner. The same is concisely taught by St. Bonaventure, *Breviloquium* p. III. c. 11.

**II.** Concerning the following question it is to be noted what is said in the body: « No name of the aforesaid species is imposed upon any of them precisely insofar as it is a sin against the Holy Spirit »; which is shown of the individual species in the solutions to the objections. — On despair in general cf. here dub. 3; III. Sent. d. 26. a. 2. q. 2. solution to the first fundamentum. On presumption III. Sent. d. 26. a. 2. q. 1. ad 3; I. Sent. in the Prologue dub. 1, and above d. 5. a. 1. q. 1. On obstinacy I. Sent. d. 40. a. 4. q. 1, and above d. 7. p. I. a. 1. q. 1-3. On the impenitence (of Judas) above d. 7. p. I. a. 1. q. 1.

**III.** On both questions: Alex. of Hales, S. p. II. q. 156. m. 3. — St. Thom., here a. 3; S. II. II. q. 14. a. 2. — B. Albert, here a. 4: S. p. II. tr. 23. q. 140. m. 2. — Peter of Tar., here q. 1. a. 3. — Richard of Med., here a. 3. q. 1. — Aegid. R., here q. 1. a. 3.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF crops (`/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p99{1,2,3}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, Vol II PDF-priority inversion) and cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 68822–69014). English is a fresh literal translation. Apparatus drawn from the printed page footers.

**Page-split map.**
- The **ARTICULUS III opener** (`De speciebus et differentiis huius peccati` — `Consequenter quaeritur… quaeruntur duo`) folds into this a3-q1 per the Vol II chunking convention; there is no standalone a3-divisio chunk.
- q1 body begins at the **L-col bottom of printed p.991** (PDF 1013), immediately after q2's tail; runs through p.992 (Conclusio + Respondeo + the three modes of assignment) and ends on **p.993** (replies 1–7 + Scholion I–III). QUAESTIO II begins on p.994 (next chunk).
- Apparatus: **p.991 footers 4–8 picked up** as `[^1]`–`[^5]` (the shared p.991 footer split — the preceding chunk a2-q2 consumed p.991 footers 1–3). Then **p.992 footers 1–7** = `[^6]`–`[^12]` (note p.992 footer 4 *Praepositivus* runs L-col→R-col `confirmationem`; footer 7 is the Gregory millstone note). Then **p.993 footers 1–7**: L-col body footers 1–3 = `[^13]`–`[^15]`, R-col footer 4 = `[^16]`, and R-col footers 5–7 (three short edition-variant notes on adjacent reply-5/reply-6 words) are grouped under `[^17]`. The `123` / `125` marks on p.993 are the Tomus signature/page numbers, not footnotes. Total **17 rendered entries** (19 raw printed footers; the three p.993 tail variant-notes share one slug).

**Scholion.** This chunk carries the **Article-III Scholion I–III**. Scholion II opens « Circa sequentem quaest. notandum est… » and Scholion III « De utraque quaestione… » — i.e. the scholion covers **both** a3-q1 and a3-q2; the sibling **a3-q2 has no scholion of its own** (`has_scholion: false`). Hand off this fact to a3-q2.

**Hand-off forwarded to d43-a3-q2:** QUAESTIO II (`De his quantum ad uniuscuiusque propriam rationem`) begins on printed **p.994** (PDF 1016), raw line **69015**, immediately after this q1's Scholion block. a3-q2 has **no scholion of its own** (Scholion II–III above cover it; set `has_scholion: false`). q1 consumed all p.993 footers (1–7); a3-q2's first body-footer is the fresh p.994 footer sequence — no q1 footer migrates forward. After a3-q2 comes d43-dubia (still skeleton, apparatus diff +22). Offset `pdf = printed + 22`; OCR running-head digits mangled — confirm printed_pages via low-dpi render. d.50 is the next decade polish gate (far off).

**Marginalia trimmed** (not Bonaventure's text): the printed marginal glosses `Quaestio determinatur.`, `Gratia poenitentialis tria respicit; in de deducitur numerus senarius.`, `Haec assignatio non repugnat priori.`, `Sufficientia 4 specierum.`, `Sufficientia 5 specierum.`, `Solutio oppositorum.`, `Conclusio.` were dropped from the body.

**No [?] flags.** The OCR for this region was unusually clean and was confirmed line-by-line against the 450 dpi crops.

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