Dist. 43, Art. 3, 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-a3-q2
----------------------------------------
### Article III. *On the species and differences of this sin.*
### Question II. *On the species of this sin with respect to their proper accounts.*

Secondly, inquiry is made concerning the species of this sin with respect to their proper accounts, and it is shown that none of these is a species of the sin against the Holy Spirit.

1. And first concerning *despair*: because the sin against the Holy Spirit is from settled malice; but despair is rather from weakness than from malice: therefore it seems that despair is not a sin against the Holy Spirit. *If you say* that it can at least be a species insofar as it is from malice; *it is objected* against this: because he who despairs thinks in his heart that his iniquity is greater than God's mercy; and every such man errs and is deceived: therefore all despair takes its origin from ignorance: therefore it is not a species of the sin against the Holy Spirit.

2. Secondly, the same is shown concerning *presumption*: because frequently one presumes rather from confidence or boldness than from malice: therefore it does not seem to be a species of the sin against the Holy Spirit. *If you say* that it is not a species except insofar as it proceeds from malice; *it is objected* against this: because presumption, from whatever source it proceeds, is a species of pride, which is a capital sin: therefore it is not a species of the sin against the Holy Spirit.

3. Thirdly, the same is shown concerning *obstinacy*: because « obstinacy is the stubbornness of a mind hardened in malice, by which a man becomes impenitent »: if therefore the hardening of the mind comes from persistence in sin, and persistence in sin is not a species of sin but rather a circumstance; it seems that obstinacy is not a species of the sin against the Holy Spirit. *If you say* that obstinacy, insofar as it is a sin against the Holy Spirit, does not only signify persistence, but also signifies a new act and motion; *it is objected* against this, because that act is nothing other than the will of remaining in sin: therefore it is nothing other than impenitence: therefore it seems that obstinacy is not a species of the sin against the Holy Spirit distinct from impenitence.

4. Fourthly, the same is shown concerning the *impugning of acknowledged truth*: because frequently acknowledged truth is impugned out of shame, because a man fears to be confounded when he speaks falsely: therefore it seems that it is not a species of the sin against the Holy Spirit. *If you say* that it is not a species of the sin against the Holy Spirit except when it is from malice; *it is objected* against this: because both truth and the acknowledgment of truth are appropriated to the Son: therefore the impugning of acknowledged truth ought rather to be called a sin against the Son than a sin against the Holy Spirit.

5. In the fifth place, the same is shown concerning *envy of a brother's grace*: because one envies another out of the corruption of nature: therefore if every sin against the Holy Spirit is from malice, it seems that this is not a species of the sin against the Holy Spirit. *If you say* that it is a sin against the Holy Spirit in the way in which it proceeds from malice; *it is objected* against this: because envy of a brother's grace is always contained under envy, which is a capital sin: therefore it seems that envy of a brother's grace is reduced to a capital sin and is not a sin against the Holy Spirit.

6. Sixthly and lastly, the same is shown concerning *impenitence*: because someone does not repent because he does not know that he has sinned: therefore it seems that some impenitence is from ignorance: therefore it is not a species of the sin against the Holy Spirit, which is universally from malice. *If you say* that it is then a sin against the Holy Spirit when it is from settled knowledge; *it is objected* against this: because knowledge does not vary the genus of a sin, since it is a circumstance: if therefore impenitence proceeding from ignorance is not a species of the sin against the Holy Spirit, it seems that neither is impenitence proceeding from settled knowledge.

### Conclusion.

> These six species do not name a sin against the Holy Spirit, except insofar as they are from malice.

**I respond:** It must be said that, just as in meritorious works charity gives the form, in such a way that nothing is meritorious unless it proceeds from charity; so it is to be understood in the sin against the Holy Spirit that malice gives the form to this sin; whence nothing is to be said to be a sin against the Holy Spirit except what proceeds from settled malice. And since almost all acts of the soul which proceed from settled malice can proceed from weakness and ignorance; and the names of sins are imposed from their acts: hence it is that no name of the aforesaid species is imposed on any of them insofar as it is  precisely a sin against the Holy Spirit. And therefore in all of them there is need of this general and common distinction, that we may say that these six name a sin against the Holy Spirit insofar as they are from malice. But if they are apart from malice, namely from ignorance and weakness, then they are not sins against the Holy Spirit. This, moreover, appears better if we descend to the particulars.

**To the arguments:**

*To 1.* To that which is first objected concerning *despair*, that it can be from weakness; it must be said that sometimes someone despairs from faint-heartedness, in such a way that in the despair itself he finds no complacency, but grieves and resists against it; and then it is not to be said to be a sin against the Holy Spirit, because by such despair a man is not cast into the depths. — And there is another despair, by which one despairs *definitively*, hiding himself as it were from the face of divine mercy, as Cain did, who said: *Behold, thou dost cast me out this day from thy face*; and this is always a sin against the Holy Spirit, because it is to the contempt of the divine mercy, to which he prefers his own iniquity, as Cain said: *Greater is my iniquity* etc. Yet by this he is not judged unfaithful, either because such a one thinks well of others but ill of himself; or certainly because he does not reckon that God *cannot* have mercy, but rather *will not* have mercy; and such a sin always has malice joined to it, because he who thus despairs in such guilt wishes to end his life; whence such utterly despairing men very frequently inflict death upon themselves.

*To 2.* To that which is objected concerning *presumption*, it must be said that there is a presumption of merits and a presumption of impunity. The first presumption, by which one presumes upon his own merits or upon something which he has in himself, is the sin of pride. But the second presumption, by which one presumes upon impunity, giving everything to the divine mercy and taking away from it altogether the rigor of justice, this is a sin against the Holy Spirit, because it closes the way to grace and widens the way to sin; and thus it is clear that in one way it pertains to a capital sin, in another way to a sin against the Holy Spirit.

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning *obstinacy*, that obstinacy signifies persistence in evil; it must be said that obstinacy is said in two ways. In one way obstinacy is said to be continual persistence in guilt. In another way obstinacy is said to be a will that takes complacency in a guilt committed and does not detest the prior guilt, but approves it; and in this way it signifies an *act*, an act, I say, proceeding from malice; therefore it is a sin against the Holy Spirit. It differs, however, from impenitence, insofar as the latter is here taken properly; for the one is with respect to the past, and the other with respect to the future. And although there is one virtue, whose office is « to bewail past things and not to commit things to be bewailed », nevertheless concerning these two acts there can be diverse vices; just as liberality, although it is one virtue, nevertheless according to the two acts which concur in it, namely *giving* and *keeping*, has two opposed vices, namely prodigality and avarice.

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning the *impugning of acknowledged truth*; it must be said that acknowledged truth can be understood to be impugned in a threefold way: either on account of the *truth* itself, or on account of the one *speaking* it, or on account of the *consequent effect*. In the first way no one impugns it, since « all men by nature desire to know ». In the second and third way it can be impugned from weakness and also from malice; and when one impugns it pertinaciously, whether to the confusion of the speaker, or for the excuse of himself, it almost always has malice joined to it, especially when it is a truth pertaining to salvation, as is the truth of the Christian religion; and so it is a sin against the Holy Spirit. But then I say that someone impugns truth pertinaciously when, out of his impugning on account of hatred of the speaker or of the consequent effect, he either does or wishes to do prejudice to the truth, in such a way that, although he does not hate the truth insofar as it is truth, nevertheless by reason of what is adjoined he wholly abhors it; just as someone hates God by reason of His justice; and by reason of that hatred it happens that a man takes delight in contempts of God and in the refutation of truth; and then he is rightly said to be moved by malice and pertinacity. But if one resists not pertinaciously, then such impugning can well proceed from a certain weakness; nor is such impugning a sin against the Holy Spirit. — Nor is that valid which he objects, that truth and the acknowledgment of truth are appropriated to the Son; because such impugning does not proceed from the acknowledgment itself, but rather proceeds from a malicious will. Whence the Master said above in the Prologue: « When wills disagree, the perception of minds becomes discordant, and while one thing pleases,  error opposes piety and the envy of the will arises »; and that is what moves one to impugn the truth.

*To 5.* To that which is objected concerning *envy of a brother's grace*, it must be said that one can envy another's grace in two ways: either because by it one's own good is diminished, whose promotion he seeks for himself singularly, and thus it is a capital sin; or because the *taste* of the soul is so depraved that, just as it does not see the good in itself, so also it is unwilling to see the good in another; and then it is a sin against the Holy Spirit. This, moreover, is most of all in those who can scarcely see the good in any man. And thus in one way it is a capital sin, in another way it is a sin against the Holy Spirit; and in this last way it proceeds only from a great corruption and malice of the will, which so perverts its taste that it makes the good appear evil, and makes the evil appear good.

*To 6.* To that which is objected concerning *impenitence*, it must be said that impenitence is said in two ways, namely privatively and contrarily. If it is said privatively, then it is not a sin against the Holy Spirit, because it does not posit a new sin, but signifies a condition or circumstance of a preceding sin. In another way it can be said *contrarily*, and then impenitence is said to be the will of not repenting; and such proceeds from malice and is a sin against the Holy Spirit. — Nor is that valid which he objects, that knowledge does not vary the genus. For I say that this is not by reason of knowledge, but by reason of malice. This impenitence, moreover, is a species of the sin against the Holy Spirit in such a way that nevertheless the other species are ordered to it, so that it is in a certain manner annexed to all the others. Nor does this prevent it from being a species diverse from the others, because, just as among the virtues one disposes to another, so also among the vices, although there is not so great a connection in the habits of vices as there is in the habits of virtues, as, God granting, will be made manifest in the third book.

---