Dist. 43, Art. 1, Q. 2
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/2/d/43/q/bon-sent-II-d43-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### 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 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, 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: 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 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, 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; 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; 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, 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 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 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. 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, 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.

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, 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, rather the more times he sins, the more he falls into the depths.

---