Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Secunda Secundae·Q14. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost
Source context
- Theme
- the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost as uniquely unforgivable, distinguished from all other offences against faith
- Soul-faculty
- Consciousness Soul
Steiner
- GA 96, 1907-03-25Steiner cites the Gospel passage distinguishing blasphemy against the Holy Ghost from all other forgivable sins and treats it as a spiritually significant threshold-statement about the limits of forgiveness.
Cross-tradition
- Aquinas, Secunda Secundae Q14Aquinas identifies blasphemy against the Holy Ghost as sin against the Good itself — obstinate impenitence closing the will against grace — and distinguishes six species, each representing a deliberate resistance to the Spirit's remedial action rather than a sin of weakness or ignorance.
- Patristic theology (Augustine, Ambrose)Cross-tradition congruence exists with patristic readings in which the unforgivable sin consists not in any single act but in final impenitence — the permanent hardening of the soul against the salvific impulse, structurally parallel to Aquinas's emphasis on obstinacy as the defining feature.
Q14. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost
Article 1
[II-II.q.14.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that the sin against the Holy Ghost is not the same as the sin committed through certain malice. Because the sin against the Holy Ghost is the sin of blasphemy, according to Matthew 12:32. But not every sin committed through certain malice is a sin of blasphemy: since many other kinds of sin may be committed through certain malice. Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost is not the same as the sin committed through certain malice.
[II-II.q.14.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum non sit idem quod peccatum ex certa malitia. Peccatum enim in Spiritum sanctum est peccatum blasphemia, ut patet Matth., xii. Sed non omne peccatum ex certa malitia est peccatum blasphemia; contingit enim multa alia peccatorum genera ex certa malitia committi. Ergo peccatum in Spiritum sanctum non est idem quod peccatum ex certa malitia.
[II-II.q.14.a.1.arg.2] Further, the sin committed through certain malice is condivided with sin committed through ignorance, and sin committed through weakness: whereas the sin against the Holy Ghost is condivided with the sin against the Son of Man (Matthew 12:32). Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost is not the same as the sin committed through certain malice, since things whose opposites differ, are themselves different.
[II-II.q.14.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, peccatum ex certa malitia dividitur contra peccatum ex ignorantia, et contra peccatum ex infirmitate. Sed peccatum in Spiritum sanctum dividitur contra peccatum in filium hominis, ut patet Matth., xii. Ergo peccatum in Spiritum sanctum non est idem quod peccatum ex certa malitia; quia « quorum opposita sunt diversa, ipsa quoque sunt diversa. »
[II-II.q.14.a.1.arg.3] Further, the sin against the Holy Ghost is itself a generic sin, having its own determinate species: whereas sin committed through certain malice is not a special kind of sin, but a condition or general circumstance of sin, which can affect any kind of sin at all. Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost is not the same as the sin committed through certain malice.
[II-II.q.14.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est quoddam genus peccati, cui determinatæ species assignantur. Sed peccatum ex certa malitia non est speciale genus peccati, sed est quædam conditio vel circumstantia generalis, quæ potest esse circa omnia peccatorum genera. Ergo peccatum in Spiritum sanctum non est idem quod peccatum ex certa malitia.
[II-II.q.14.a.1.sc] The Master says (Sent. ii, D, 43) that "to sin against the Holy Ghost is to take pleasure in the malice of sin for its own sake." Now this is to sin through certain malice. Therefore it seems that the sin committed through certain malice is the same as the sin against the Holy Ghost.
[II-II.q.14.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod Magister dicit, xliii dist., II lib. Sententiarum, quod « ille peccat in Spiritum sanctum, cui malitia propter se placet. » Hoc autem est peccare ex certa malitia. Ergo idem videtur esse peccatum ex certa malitia quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum.
[II-II.q.14.a.1.co] Three meanings have been given to the sin against the Holy Ghost. For the earlier doctors, viz. Athanasius (Super Matth. xii, 32), Hilary (Can. xii in Matth.), Ambrose (Super Luc. xii, 10), Jerome (Super Matth. xii), and Chrysostom (Hom. xli in Matth.), say that the sin against the Holy Ghost is literally to utter a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, whether by Holy Spirit we understand the essential name applicable to the whole Trinity, each Person of which is a Spirit and is holy, or the personal name of one of the Persons of the Trinity, in which sense blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is distinct from the blasphemy against the Son of Man (Matthew 12:32), for Christ did certain things in respect of His human nature, by eating, drinking, and such like actions, while He did others in respect of His Godhead, by casting out devils, raising the dead, and the like: which things He did both by the power of His own Godhead and by the operation of the Holy Ghost, of Whom He was full, according to his human nature. Now the Jews began by speaking blasphemy against the Son of Man, when they said (Matthew 11:19) that He was "a glutton . . . a wine drinker," and a "friend of publicans": but afterwards they blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, when they ascribed to the prince of devils those works which Christ did by the power of His own Divine Nature and by the operation of the Holy Ghost.
Augustine, however (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi), says that blasphemy or the sin against the Holy Ghost, is final impenitence when, namely, a man perseveres in mortal sin until death, and that it is not confined to utterance by word of mouth, but extends to words in thought and deed, not to one word only, but to many. Now this word, in this sense, is said to be uttered against the Holy Ghost, because it is contrary to the remission of sins, which is the work of the Holy Ghost, Who is the charity both of the Father and of the Son. Nor did Our Lord say this to the Jews, as though they had sinned against the Holy Ghost, since they were not yet guilty of final impenitence, but He warned them, lest by similar utterances they should come to sin against the Holy Ghost: and it is in this sense that we are to understand Mark 3:29-30, where after Our Lord had said: "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost," etc. the Evangelist adds, "because they said: He hath an unclean spirit."
But others understand it differently, and say that the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, is a sin committed against that good which is appropriated to the Holy Ghost: because goodness is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, just a power is appropriated to the Father, and wisdom to the Son. Hence they say that when a man sins through weakness, it is a sin "against the Father"; that when he sins through ignorance, it is a sin "against the Son"; and that when he sins through certain malice, i.e. through the very choosing of evil, as explained above (I-II, 78, 1,3), it is a sin "against the Holy Ghost."
Now this may happen in two ways. First by reason of the very inclination of a vicious habit which we call malice, and, in this way, to sin through malice is not the same as to sin against the Holy Ghost. On another way it happens that by reason of contempt, that which might have prevented the choosing of evil, is rejected or removed; thus hope is removed by despair, and fear by presumption, and so on, as we shall explain further on (Q 20,21). Now all these things which prevent the choosing of sin are effects of the Holy Ghost in us; so that, in this sense, to sin through malice is to sin against the Holy Ghost.
[II-II.q.14.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod de peccato seu blasphemia in Spiritum sanctum tripliciter aliqui loquuntur. Antiqui enim doctors, scilicet Athanasius, Hilarius, Ambrosius, Hieronymus et Chrysostomus dicunt esse peccatum in Spiritum sanctum quando ad litteram aliquid blasphemum dicitur contra Spiritum sanctum; sive Spiritus sanctus, accipiatur, secundum quod est nomen essentiale conveniens toti Trinitati, cujus quælibet persona et spiritus est, et sanctus est, sive prout est nomen personale unius in Trinitate personæ; et secundum hoc distinguitur Matth., xii, blasphemia in Spiritum sanctum contra blasphemiam in filium hominis. Christus enim operabatur quædam humanitus, comedendo, bibendo et alia hujusmodi faciendo; et quædam divinitus, scilicet dæmones ejiciendo, mortuos suscitando et cætera hujusmodi: quæ quidem agebat et per virtutem propriæ divinitatis, et per operationem Spiritus sancti, quo secundum humanitatem erat repletus. Judæi autem primo quidem dixerant blasphemiam in filium hominis, cum dicebant eum voracem, potatore vini et publicanorum amatorem, ut habetur Matth., xi. Postmodum autem blasphemaverunt in Spiritum sanctum, dum opera quæ ipse operabatur virtute propriæ divinitatis, et per operationem Spiritus sancti, attribuebant principi dæmoniorum. Et propter hoc dicuntur in Spiritum sanctum blasphemasse. Augustinus autem, in lib. De verb. Dom., serm. Lxxi, cap. xxI, col. 464, t. 5, blasphemiam, vel peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, dicit esse finalem impcenitentiam, quando scilicet aliquis perseverat in peccato mortali usque ad mortem. Quod quidem non solum verbo oris fit, sed etiam verbo cordis et operis, non uno, sed multis. Hoc autem verbum sic acceptum dicitur esse contra Spiritum sanctum, quia est contra remissionem peccatorum, quæ fit per Spiritum sanctum, qui est charitas et Patris, et Filii. Nec hoc Dominus dicit Judæis, quasi ipsi peccarent in Spiritum sanctum, nondum enim erant finaliter impcenitentes; sed admonuit eos, ne taliter loquentes ad hoc pervenirent quod in Spiritum sanctum peccarent. Et sic intelligendum est quod dicitur Marc., III, 29, ubi postquam dixerat: Qui autem blasphemaverit in Spiritum sanctum, etc., subjungit Evangelista: Quoniam dicebant: Spiritum immundum habet. Alii vero aliter accipiunt, dicentes peccatum vel blasphemiam in Spiritum sanctum esse, quando aliquis peccat contra appropriatum bonum Spiritui sancto; sic enim Spiritui sancto appropriatur bonitas, sicut et Patri appropriatur potentia, et Filio sapientia. Unde « peccatum in Patrem » dicunt esse, quando peccatur ex infirmitate; « peccatum » autem « in Filium, » quando peccatur ex ignorantia; « peccatum » autem « in Spiritum sanctum, » quando peccatur ex certa malitia, id est ex ipsa electione mali, ut supra expositum est. Quod quidem contingit dupliciter: uno modo ex inclinatione habitus vitiosi, qui malitia dicitur; et sic non est idem peccare ex malitia quod peccare in Spiritum sanctum. Alio modo contingit ex eo quod per contemptum abjicitur et removetur id quod electionem peccati poterat impedire, sicut spes per desperationem, et timor per præsumptionem, et quædam alia ejusmodi, ut ut infra dicetur. Hæc autem omnia quæ peccati electionem impediunt, sunt effectus Spiritus sancti in nobis; et ideo sic ex malitia peccare, est peccare in Spiritum sanctum.
[II-II.q.14.a.1.ad.1] Just as the confession of faith consists in a protestation not only of words but also of deeds, so blasphemy against the Holy Ghost can be uttered in word, thought and deed.
[II-II.q.14.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod sicut confessio fidei non solum consistit in protestatione oris, sed etiam in protestatione operis; ita etiam blasphemia Spiritus sancti potest considerari et in ore, et in corde, et in opere.
[II-II.q.14.a.1.ad.2] According to the third interpretation, blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is condivided with blasphemy against the Son of Man, forasmuch as He is also the Son of God, i.e. the "power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24). Wherefore, in this sense, the sin against the Son of Man will be that which is committed through ignorance, or through weakness.
[II-II.q.14.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod secundum tertiam acceptionem blasphemia in Spiritum sanctum distinguitur contra blasphemiam in filium hominis, secundum quod filius hominis est etiam filius Dei, id est, Dei virtus et Athanasius, Comm. in Matth., tract. in c. xII, v. 31 et 32, col. 1383, t. 3; Hilarius, In Matth. xII, § 17, col. 989, t. 1; Ambrosius, In Luc. xII, v. 10, col. 1817, t. 2; Hieronymus, In Matth. xII, v. 32, col. 81, t. 7; Chrysostomus, Hom. xLII in Matth. Parm.: « alia. » Ita cod. Alcan. et editi nonnulli; al: « contra appropriatum bonum sibi. » Item: « contra appropriatum Spiritui sancto. » Editi passim: « contra appropriatum bonum Spiritui sancti. » Dei sapientia. Unde secundum hoc, peccatum in filium hominis erit peccatum ex ignorantia, vel ex infirmitate.
[II-II.q.14.a.1.ad.3] Sin committed through certain malice, in so far as it results from the inclination of a habit, is not a special sin, but a general condition of sin: whereas, in so far as it results from a special contempt of an effect of the Holy Ghost in us, it has the character of a special sin. According to this interpretation the sin against the Holy Ghost is a special kind of sin, as also according to the first interpretation: whereas according to the second, it is not a species of sin, because final impenitence may be a circumstance of any kind of sin.
[II-II.q.14.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod peccatum ex certa malitia secundum quod provenit ex inclinatione habitus, non est speciale peccatum, sed quædam generalis conditio peccati; prout vero est ex speciali contemptu effectus Spiritus sancti in nobis, habet rationem specialis peccati: et secundum hoc etiam peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est speciale genus peccati; et similiter secundum primam expositionem. Secundum autem secundam expositionem non est speciale genus peccati; nam finalis impœnitentia potest esse circumstantia cujuslibet generis peccati.
Article 2
[II-II.q.14.a.2.arg.1] It would seem unfitting to distinguish six kinds of sin against the Holy Ghost, viz. despair, presumption, impenitence, obstinacy, resisting the known truth, envy of our brother's spiritual good, which are assigned by the Master (Sent. ii, D, 43). For to deny God's justice or mercy belongs to unbelief. Now, by despair, a man rejects God's mercy, and by presumption, His justice. Therefore each of these is a kind of unbelief rather than of the sin against the Holy Ghost.
[II-II.q.14.a.2.arg.1] Ad secundum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod inconvenienter assignentur sex species peccati in Spiritum sanctum, scilicet « desperatio, præsumptio, impœnitentia, obstinatio, impugnatio veritatis agnitæ et invidentia fraternæ gratiae; quas species ponit Magister., xlini dist., II lib. Sentent. Negare enim divinam justitiam vel misericordiam, ad infidelitatem pertinet. Sed per desperationem aliquis rejicit divinam misericordiam, per præsumptionem autem divinam justitiam. Ergo unumquodque eorum potius est species infidelitatis, quam peccati in Spiritum sanctum.
[II-II.q.14.a.2.arg.2] Further, impenitence, seemingly, regards past sins, while obstinacy regards future sins. Now past and future time do not diversify the species of virtues or vices, since it is the same faith whereby we believe that Christ was born, and those of old believed that He would be born. Therefore obstinacy and impenitence should not be reckoned as two species of sin against the Holy Ghost.
[II-II.q.14.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, impœnitentia videtur respicere peccatum præteritum, obstinatio autem peccatum futurum. Sed præteritum vel turum non diversificant speciem virtutis vel vitii: secundum enim eamdem fidem qua credimus Christum natum, antiqui crediderunt eum nasciturum. Ergo obstinatio et impœnitentia non debent poni duæ species peccati in Spiritum sanctum.
[II-II.q.14.a.2.arg.3] Further, "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). Therefore it seem that resistance of the known truth, and envy of a brother's spiritual good, belong to blasphemy against the Son rather than against the Holy Ghost.
[II-II.q.14.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, gratia et veritas per Jesum Christum facta est, ut habetur Joan., 1, 17. Ergo videtur quod impugnatio veritatis agnitæ et invidentia fraternæ gratiae magis pertineant ad blasphemiam in Filium hominis quam ad blasphemiam in Spiritum sanctum.
[II-II.q.14.a.2.arg.4] Further, Bernard says (De Dispens. et Praecept. xi) that "to refuse to obey is to resist the Holy Ghost." Moreover a gloss on Leviticus 10:16, says that "a feigned repentance is a blasphemy against the Holy Ghost." Again, schism is, seemingly, directly opposed to the Holy Ghost by Whom the Church is united together. Therefore it seems that the species of sins against the Holy Ghost are insufficiently enumerated.
[II-II.q.14.a.2.arg.4] 4. Præterea, Bernardus dicit in lib. De dispens. et præcept., cap. xi, § 26, col. 264, t. 2, edit. Vivès, quod « nolle obedire est resistere Spiritui sancto. » Glossa etiam ord., dicit Lev., x, sup. illud: Inter hæc hircum, col. 327, t. 4, quod « simulata pœnitentia est blasphemia Spiritus sancti. » Schisma etiam videtur directe opponi Spiritui sancto per quem Ecclesia unitur. Et ita videtur quod non sufficienter tradantur species peccati in Spiritum sanctum.
[II-II.q.14.a.2.sc] Augustine [Fulgentius] (De Fide ad Petrum iii) says that "those who despair of pardon for their sins, or who without merits presume on God's mercy, sin against the Holy Ghost," and (Enchiridion lxxxiii) that "he who dies in a state of obstinacy is guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost," and (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi) that "impenitence is a sin against the Holy Ghost," and (De Serm. Dom. in Monte xxii), that "to resist fraternal goodness with the brands of envy is to sin against the Holy Ghost," and in his book De unico Baptismo (De Bap. contra Donat. vi, 35) he says that "a man who spurns the truth, is either envious of his brethren to whom the truth is revealed, or ungrateful to God, by Whose inspiration the Church is taught," and therefore, seemingly, sins against the Holy Ghost.
[II-II.q.14.a.2.sc] Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit in lib. De fide ad Petrum, cap. Ⅲ, quod « illi qui desperant de indulgentia peccatorum, vel qui sine meritis de misericordia Dei præsumunt, peccant in Spiritum sanctum. » Et in Enchirid., cap. Lxxxiii, col. 272, t. 6, dicit, quod « qui in obstinatione mentis diem claudit extremum, reus est peccati in Spiritum sanctum; » et in lib. De verbis Domini, serm. Lxxi, cap. xxi, col. 464, t. 5, dicit quod « impœnitentia est peccatum in Spiritum sanctum; » et in lib. I De serm. Dom. in monte, cap. xxii, col. 1266, t. 6, dicit quod « invidiæ facibus fraternitatem impugnare, est peccatum in Spiritum sanctum; » et in lib. VI De bapt. cont. Donatist., cap. xxxv, col. 219, t. 9, dicit quod « qui veritatem contemnit, aut circa fratres malignus est, quibus veritas revelatur, aut circa Deum ingratus, cujus inspiratione Ecclesia instruitur. » Et sic videtur quod peccet in Spiritum sanctum. Parm. omittit: « hominis. » Colligitur quoad sensum, non expresse quoad verba, in editione Migne. Liber De fide ad Petrum sub Augustini nomine refertur a D. Thoma, et inter ejus Opera spuria legitur, sed restituendus est Fulgentio, inter cujus opera videos col. 690. Citata vero quoad sensum colliguntur ex §§ 38 et 39. Colligitur quoad sensum ex §§ 73 et 75. Nil simile in libro De unico baptismo contra Petilianum, licet edita exemplaria Summæ sic notent: « et in libro De unico baptismo. » Legitur qui dem in VI libro De baptismo contra Donatistas, ex ore cujusdam Casti Donatistae prolatum, sed ad rectam interpretationem in sequentibus ab Augustino reductum.
[II-II.q.14.a.2.co] The above species are fittingly assigned to the sin against the Holy Ghost taken in the third sense, because they are distinguished in respect of the removal of contempt of those things whereby a man can be prevented from sinning through choice. These things are either on the part of God's judgment, or on the part of His gifts, or on the part of sin. For, by consideration of the Divine judgment, wherein justice is accompanied with mercy, man is hindered from sinning through choice, both by hope, arising from the consideration of the mercy that pardons sins and rewards good deeds, which hope is removed by "despair"; and by fear, arising from the consideration of the Divine justice that punishes sins, which fear is removed by "presumption," when, namely, a man presumes that he can obtain glory without merits, or pardon without repentance.
God's gifts whereby we are withdrawn from sin, are two: one is the acknowledgment of the truth, against which there is the "resistance of the known truth," when, namely, a man resists the truth which he has acknowledged, in order to sin more freely: while the other is the assistance of inward grace, against which there is "envy of a brother's spiritual good," when, namely, a man is envious not only of his brother's person, but also of the increase of Divine grace in the world.
On the part of sin, there are two things which may withdraw man therefrom: one is the inordinateness and shamefulness of the act, the consideration of which is wont to arouse man to repentance for the sin he has committed, and against this there is "impenitence," not as denoting permanence in sin until death, in which sense it was taken above (for thus it would not be a special sin, but a circumstance of sin), but as denoting the purpose of not repenting. The other thing is the smallness or brevity of the good which is sought in sin, according to Romans 6:21: "What fruit had you therefore then in those things, of which you are now ashamed?" The consideration of this is wont to prevent man's will from being hardened in sin, and this is removed by "obstinacy," whereby man hardens his purpose by clinging to sin. Of these two it is written (Jeremiah 8:6): "There is none that doth penance for his sin, saying: What have I done?" as regards the first; and, "They are all turned to their own course, as a horse rushing to the battle," as regards the second.
[II-II.q.14.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod secundum quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum tertio modo accipitur, convenienter prædictæ species ei assignantur; quæ distinguuntur secundum remotionem vel contemptum eorum per quæ potest homo ab electione peccati impediri. Quæ quidem sunt vel ex parte divini judicii, vel ex parte donorum ipsius, vel etiam ex parte ipsius peccati. Avertitur enim homo ab electione peccati ex consideratione divini judicii, quod habet justitiam cum misericordia, et per spem, quæ consurgit ex consideratione misericordia re-mittentis peccata, et præmiantis bona, et hæc tollitur per « desperationem; » et iterum per timorem, qui consurgit ex consideratione divinæ justitiæ punientis peccata; et hic tollitur per « præsumptionem, » dum scilicet aliquis præsumit se gloriam posse adipisci sine meritis, vel veniam sine pœnitentia. Dona autem Dei, quibus retrahimur a peccato, sunt duo; quorum unum est cognitio veritatis, contra quod ponitur « impugnatio veritatis agnitæ; » dum scilicet aliquis veritatem fidei agnitam impugnat, ut licentius peccet; aliud est auxilium interioris gratiae; contra quod ponitur « invidentia fraternæ gratiae; » dum scilicet aliquis non solum invidet personæ fratris, sed etiam invidet gratiae Dei crescenti in mundo. Ex parte vero peccati duo sunt quæ hominem a peccato retrahere possunt: quorum unum est inordinatio et turpitudo actus, cujus consideratio inducere solet in homine pœnitentiam de peccato commisso; et contra hoc ponitur « impœnitentia, » non quidem eo modo quo dicit permanentiam in peccato usque ad mortem, sicut supra impœnitentia accipiebatur, sic enim non esset speciale peccatum, sed quædam peccati circumstantia; sed accipitur hic « impœnitentia » secundum quod importat propositum non pœnitendi. Aliud autem est parvi-tas et brevitas boni quod quis in peccato quærit, secundum illud Rom., vi, 21: Quem ergo fructum habuistis tunc in illis in quibus nunc erubescitis? Cujus consideratio inducere solet hominem ad hoc quod ejus voluntas in peccato non firmetur; et hoc tollitur per « obstinationem, » quando scilicet homo firmat suum propositum in hoc quod peccato inhæreat. Et de his duobus dicitur Jerem., viii, 6: Nullus est qui agat pœnitentiam super peccato suo, dicens: Quid feci? quantum ad primum; omnes conversi sunt ad cursum, quasi equus impetu vadens ad prælium, quantum ad secundum.
[II-II.q.14.a.2.ad.1] The sins of despair and presumption consist, not in disbelieving in God's justice and mercy, but in contemning them.
[II-II.q.14.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod peccatum desperationis vel præsumptionis non consistit in hoc quod justitia Dei vel misericordia non credatur, sed in hoc quod contemnatur.
[II-II.q.14.a.2.ad.2] Obstinacy and impenitence differ not only in respect of past and future time, but also in respect of certain formal aspects by reason of the diverse consideration of those things which may be considered in sin, as explained above.
[II-II.q.14.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod obstinatio et impœnitentia non solum differunt secundum præteritum et futurum, sed secundum quasdam formales rationes ex diversa consideratione eorum quæ in peccato considerari possunt, ut dictum est.
[II-II.q.14.a.2.ad.3] Grace and truth were the work of Christ through the gifts of the Holy Ghost which He gave to men.
[II-II.q.14.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod gratiam et veritatem Christus fecit per dona Spiritus sancti, quæ hominibus dedit.
[II-II.q.14.a.2.ad.4] To refuse to obey belongs to obstinacy, while a feigned repentance belongs to impenitence, and schism to the envy of a brother's spiritual good, whereby the members of the Church are united together.
[II-II.q.14.a.2.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod nolle obedire pertinet ad obstinationem; simulatio pœnitentia ad impœnitentiam; schisma ad invidentiam gratiae fraternæ, per quam membra Ecclesiæ uniuntur.
Article 3
[II-II.q.14.a.3.arg.1] It would seem that the sin against the Holy Ghost can be forgiven. For Augustine says (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi): "We should despair of no man, so long as Our Lord's patience brings him back to repentance." But if any sin cannot be forgiven, it would be possible to despair of some sinners. Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost can be forgiven.
[II-II.q.14.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum non sit irremissibile. Dicit enim Augustinus, in lib. De verbis Domini, serm. lxxi, cap. xiii, § 21, col. 456, t. 5: « De nullo desperandum est, quamdiu patientia Domini ad pœnitentiam eum adducit. » Sed si aliquod peccatum esset irremissibile, esset de aliquo peccatore desperandum. Ergo peccatum in Spiritum sanctum non est irremissibile.
[II-II.q.14.a.3.arg.2] Further, no sin is forgiven, except through the soul being healed by God. But "no disease is incurable to an all-powerful physician," as a gloss says on Psalm 102:3, "Who healeth all thy diseases." Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost can be forgiven.
[II-II.q.14.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, nullum peccatum remittitur, nisi per hoc quod anima sanatur a Deo. Sed « omnipotenti medico nullus insanabilis languor occurrit, » sicut dicit Glossa super illud psal. cii: Qui sanat omnes infirmitates Magister quatuor tantum species peccati in Spiritum sanctum ponit expresse; sed cum D. Thoma sex species S. Bonaventura, Guillelmus, Richardus, et allii doctores concorditer agnoscunt. tuas. Ergo peccatum in Spiritum sanctum non est irremissibile.
[II-II.q.14.a.3.arg.3] Further, the free-will is indifferent to either good or evil. Now, so long as man is a wayfarer, he can fall away from any virtue, since even an angel fell from heaven, wherefore it is written (Job 4:18-19): "In His angels He found wickedness: how much more shall they that dwell in houses of clay?" Therefore, in like manner, a man can return from any sin to the state of justice. Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost can be forgiven.
[II-II.q.14.a.3.arg.3] 3. Præterea, liberum arbitrium se habet ad bonum et malum. Sed quamdiu durat status vitæ, potest aliquis a quacumque virtute excidere, cum etiam angelus de cælo ceciderit: unde dicitur Job, iv, 18: In angelis suis reperit pravitatem; quanto magis hi qui habitant domos luteas? Ergo pari ratione potest aliquis a quocumque peccato ad statum justitiæ redire. Ergo peccatum in Spiritum sanctum non est irremissibile.
[II-II.q.14.a.3.sc] It is written (Matthew 12:32): "He that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come": and Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 22) that "so great is the downfall of this sin that it cannot submit to the humiliation of asking for pardon."
[II-II.q.14.a.3.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth., xii, 32: Qui dixerit verbum contra Spiritum sanctum, non remittitur ei neque in hoc sæculo, neque in futuro; et Augustinus dicit in lib. I De sermone Domini in monte, cap. xxii, col. 74, col. 1266, t. 3, quod « tanta est labes hujus peccati, quod humilitatem deprecandi subire non potest. »
[II-II.q.14.a.3.co] According to the various interpretations of the sin against the Holy Ghost, there are various ways in which it may be said that it cannot be forgiven. For if by the sin against the Holy Ghost we understand final impenitence, it is said to be unpardonable, since in no way is it pardoned: because the mortal sin wherein a man perseveres until death will not be forgiven in the life to come, since it was not remitted by repentance in this life.
According to the other two interpretations, it is said to be unpardonable, not as though it is nowise forgiven, but because, considered in itself, it deserves not to be pardoned: and this in two ways. First, as regards the punishment, since he that sins through ignorance or weakness, deserves less punishment, whereas he that sins through certain malice, can offer no excuse in alleviation of his punishment. Likewise those who blasphemed against the Son of Man before His Godhead was revealed, could have some excuse, on account of the weakness of the flesh which they perceived in Him, and hence, they deserved less punishment; whereas those who blasphemed against His very Godhead, by ascribing to the devil the works of the Holy Ghost, had no excuse in diminution of their punishment. Wherefore, according to Chrysostom's commentary (Hom. xlii in Matth.), the Jews are said not to be forgiven this sin, neither in this world nor in the world to come, because they were punished for it, both in the present life, through the Romans, and in the life to come, in the pains of hell. Thus also Athanasius adduces the example of their forefathers who, first of all, wrangled with Moses on account of the shortage of water and bread; and this the Lord bore with patience, because they were to be excused on account of the weakness of the flesh: but afterwards they sinned more grievously when, by ascribing to an idol the favors bestowed by God Who had brought them out of Egypt, they blasphemed, so to speak, against the Holy Ghost, saying (Exodus 32:4): "These are thy gods, O Israel, that have brought thee out of the land of Egypt." Therefore the Lord both inflicted temporal punishment on them, since "there were slain on that day about three and twenty thousand men" (Exodus 32:28), and threatened them with punishment in the life to come, saying, (Exodus 32:34): "I, in the day of revenge, will visit this sin . . . of theirs."
Secondly, this may be understood to refer to the guilt: thus a disease is said to be incurable in respect of the nature of the disease, which removes whatever might be a means of cure, as when it takes away the power of nature, or causes loathing for food and medicine, although God is able to cure such a disease. So too, the sin against the Holy Ghost is said to be unpardonable, by reason of its nature, in so far as it removes those things which are a means towards the pardon of sins. This does not, however, close the way of forgiveness and healing to an all-powerful and merciful God, Who, sometimes, by a miracle, so to speak, restores spiritual health to such men.
[II-II.q.14.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod secundum diversas acceptiones peccati in Spiritum sanctum, diversimode irremissibile dicitur. Si enim dicatur peccatum in Spiritum sanctum finalis impenitentia, sic dicitur irremissibile, quia nullo modo remittitur. Peccatum enim mortale in quo homo perseverat usque ad mortem, quia in hac vita non remittitur per pœnitentiam, nec etiam in futuro dimittetur. Secundum autem alias duas acceptiones dicitur irremissibile, non quod nullo modo remittatur, sed quia, quantum est de se habet meritum ut non remittatur; et hoc dupliciter: uno modo quantum ad pœnam; qui enim ex ignorantia vel infirmitate peccat, minorem pœnam meretur; qui autem ex certa malitia peccat, non habet aliquam excusationem, unde ejus pœna minuatur. Similiter etiam qui blasphemabat in Filium hominis, ejus divinitate nondum revelata, poterat habere aliquam excusationem propter infirmitatem carnis, quam in eo aspiciebat; et sic minorem pœnam merebatur. Sed qui ipsam divinitatem blasphemabat, opera Spiritus sancti diabolo attribuens, nullam excusationem habebat, unde ejus pœna diminueretur. Et ideo dicitur secundum expositionem Chrysostomi, Hom. xlii in Matth., a med., hoc ipsum peccatum remitti neque in hoc sæculo neque in futuro, quia pro eo passi sunt pœnam et in præsenti vita per Romanos, et in futura vita in pœna inferni; sicut etiam Athanasius, in tract. Sup. illud Matth., xii: Quicumque dixerit verbum, etc., inducit exemplum de eorum parentibus, qui primo quidem contra Moysem contenderunt propter defectum aquæ et panis; et hoc Dominus sustinuit patienter; habebant enim excusationem ex infirmitate carnis, sed postmodum gravius peccaverunt, quasi blasphemantes in Spiritum sanctum, beneficia Dei, qui eos de Ægypto eduxerat, idolo attribuentes, cum dixerunt: Hi sunt diii tui, Israel, qui te eduxerunt de terra Ægypti. Et ideo Dominus et temporaliter fecit eos puniri, quia ceciderunt in die illa quasi viginti tria millia hominum; et in futuro eis pœnam comminatur, dicens: Ego autem in die ultionis visitabo hoc peccatum eorum, Exod., xxxii. Alio modo potest intelligi quoad culpam: sicut aliquis dicitur morbus incurabilis secundum naturam morbi, per quem tollitur id ex quo morbus potest curari; puta cum morbus tollit virtutem naturæ, vel inducit fastidium cibi et medicinæ, licet talem morbum Deus possit curare; ita etiam peccatum in Spiritum sanctum dicitur irremissibile secundum suam naturam, inquantum excludit ea per quæ fit remissio peccatorum. Per hoc tamen non præcluditur via remittendi et sanandi omnipotentiae et misericordiae Dei, per quam aliquando tales quasi miraculose spiritualiter sanantur.
[II-II.q.14.a.3.ad.1] We should despair of no man in this life, considering God's omnipotence and mercy. But if we consider the circumstances of sin, some are called (Ephesians 2:2) "children of despair" ['Filios diffidentiae,' which the Douay version renders 'children of unbelief.'].
[II-II.q.14.a.3.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod de ne mine desperandum est in hac vita, considerata omnipotentia et misericordia Dei; sed considerata conditione peccati, dicuntur aliqui filii diffidentiae, ut habetur ad Ephes., ii.
[II-II.q.14.a.3.ad.2] This argument considers the question on the part of God's omnipotence, not on that of the circumstances of sin.
[II-II.q.14.a.3.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod ratio illa procedit ex parte omnipotentiae Dei, non secundum conditionem peccati.
[II-II.q.14.a.3.ad.3] In this life the free-will does indeed ever remain subject to change: yet sometimes it rejects that whereby, so far as it is concerned, it can be turned to good. Hence considered in itself this sin is unpardonable, although God can pardon it.
[II-II.q.14.a.3.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod liberum arbitrium remanet quidem semper in hac vita vertibile; tamen quandoque abjicit a se id per quod verti potest ad bonum, quantum in ipso est. Unde ex parte sua peccatum est irremissibile, licet Deus remittere possit.
Article 4
[II-II.q.14.a.4.arg.1] It would seem that a man cannot sin first of all against the Holy Ghost, without having previously committed other sins. For the natural order requires that one should be moved to perfection from imperfection. This is evident as regards good things, according to Proverbs 4:18: "The path of the just, as a shining light, goeth forwards and increases even to perfect day." Now, in evil things, the perfect is the greatest evil, as the Philosopher states (Metaph. v, text. 21). Since then the sin against the Holy Ghost is the most grievous sin, it seems that man comes to commit this sin through committing lesser sins.
[II-II.q.14.a.4.arg.1] Ad quartum sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod homo non possit primo peccare in Spiritum sanctum, non praesuppositis aliis peccatis. Naturalis enim ordo est ut ab im-perfecto ad perfectum quis moveatur. Et hoc quidem in bonis apparet, secundum illud Proverb., iv, 18: Justorum semita quasi lux splendens crescit et proficit* usque ad perfectam diem. Sed perfectum dicitur in malis quod est maximum malum, ut patet per Philosophum in V Metaph., text. 21. Cum ergo peccatum in Spiritum sanctum sit gravissimum, videtur quod homo ad hoc peccatum perveniat per alia peccata minora. Antequam quæstionem de vitiis oppositis scientiæ et intellectui aggrediamur, non indignum judicamus sermonem quemdam referre de blasphemia in Spiritum sanctum. Hunc colligimus ex quadragesimali De peccato B. Petri Hieremiæ, ordinis prædicatorum. Veteres enim divini verbi præcones, decurrentibus sæculis illis quæ audacter nos ignorantiæ sæcula vocamus plebem christianam, licet illitteratam ut indocti dictitant hodie, de subtilioribus catholicæ disciplinæ doctrinis ex professo erudiebant. Audi B. Petrum Hieremiam: « De peccato in Spiritum sanctum hoc mane pra-dicare intendo, Domino concedente. Pro declaratione hujus materiæ, tria puncta sunt principaliter videnda: Primo quidem de ipsius quidditate; Secundo de specierum ejus diversitate; Tertio de ejus irremissibilitate. Quantum ad primum, nota quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum dicitur quia committitur contra Spiritum sanctum, « in » pro « contra. » Quia autem Spiritus sanctus dupliciter potest accipi, ideo dupliciter potest dici peccatum in Spiritum sanctum. Uno quidem modo potest accipi in virtute duarum divisionum, et hoc modo quælibet persona Trinitatis potest dici Spiritus sanctus. Nam et Pater spiritus est, et est sanctus; et Filius spiritus est et est sanctus. Joan., iv: Deus spiritus est, etc. Ergo, etc. Per hoc enim quod dicitur spiritus, im-materialitas divinæ substantiæ designatur. Spiritus enim incorporeus et invisibilis est, et parum habet de materia. Unde omnibus substantiis immaterialibus et invisibilibus hoc nomen attribuimus. Per hoc vero quod dicitur sanctus, significatur puritas divinæ bonitatis. Alio modo potest accipi Spiritus sanctus in vi unius divisionis, et hoc modo ex usu Ecclesiæ hoc nomen Spiritus sanctus est accommodatum ad significandum unam trium personarum Trinitatis quæ procedit per modum amoris a Patre et Filio. Secundum hanc ergo duplicem differentiam potest dupliciter accipi peccatum in Spiritum sanctum. Nam si accipimus primo modo, peccatum in Spiritum sanctum dicitur quælibet blasphemia dicta contra divinitatem Patris, aut Filii, aut Spiritus sancti, aut contra opera ejus. Et distinguitur hoc modo peccatum in Spiritum sanctum contra peccatum seu blasphemia in Filium hominis, de quo scribitur Matth., xxii: Quicumque dixerit verbum contra Filium hominis remittetur ei; qui autem dixerit contra Spiritum sanctum non remittetur ei, neque in hoc sæculo, neque in futuro. Peccatum enim in Filium hominis intelligitur blasphemia in Christum secundum humanitatem. Et utroque modo perfecto ad perfectum quis moveatur. Et hoc quidem in bonis apparet, secundum illud Proverb., iv, 18: Justorum semita quasi lux splendens crescit et proficit* usque ad perfectam diem. Sed perfectum dicitur in malis quod est maximum malum, ut patet per Philosophum in V Metaph., text. 21. Cum ergo peccatum in Spiritum sanctum sit gravissimum, videtur quod homo ad hoc peccatum perveniat per alia peccata minora. *Procedit et crescit usque ad perfectum.
[II-II.q.14.a.4.arg.2] Further, to sin against the Holy Ghost is to sin through certain malice, or through choice. Now man cannot do this until he has sinned many times; for the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 6,9) that "although a man is able to do unjust deeds, yet he cannot all at once do them as an unjust man does," viz. from choice. Therefore it seems that the sin against the Holy Ghost cannot be committed except after other sins.
[II-II.q.14.a.4.arg.2] 2. Præterea, peccare in Spiritum sanctum est peccare ex certa malitia, sive ex electione. Sed hoc non statim potest homo, antequam multoties peccaverit; dicit enim Philosophus, in V Ethic., c. vi, in princ., et c. viii, a med., quod « etsi homo possit injusta facere, non tamen potest statim operari sicut injustus, » scilicet ex electione. Ergo videtur quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum non possit committi nisi post alia peccata. timoris, quia timens mortem negavit eum. Non enim peccabat ex ignorantia qui confessus fuerat corde et opere. Et sic ex fragilitate peccavit, et sic dicitur peccasse contra Patrem, cui appropriatur potentia. Paulus autem peccavit ex ignorantia, quia credebat bene facere persequendo Ecclesiam Dei; et sic dicebatur peccare contra Filium, cui appropriatur sapientia. Judas autem peccavit ex malitia. Non enim ex infirmitate, nec ex ignorantia, quia jam noverat quod ad invocationem nominis Jesu Christi ipse faciebat miracula sicut cæteri apostoli, sicut legitur Matth., x. Ideo peccavit in Spiritum sanctum, cui appropriatur bonitas. Sic etiam peccatum diaboli non ex ignorantia, nec ex infirmitate processit. Ex his patet quid est peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, illud scilicet quod ex certa malitia committitur quae opponitur bonitati, quae appropriatur Spiritui sancto. Et hoc vult Magister sententiarum in II, dist. xliii. Tertio vero modo accipit Augustinus peccatum in Spiritum sanctum quod dicit esse finalem impcitenentiam. Et sic patet prima pars, videlicet quid est peccatum in Spiritum sanctum. Quantum ad secundum, scilicet de specierum suarum diversitate, est notandum quod accipiendo peccatum in Spiritum sanctum pro peccato quod ex malitia committitur, dividitur hoc peccatum in sex species quae sunt istæ: desperatio, præsumptio, finalis impcitenentia, obstinatio, impugnatio veritatis agnitæ, invidentia fraternæ gratiae. Et pro sufficientia istarum specierum est notandum quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum dicitur, quando voluntas hominis ex malitia contemnit illa remedia a bonitate Spiritus sancti instituta per quae homo retrahitur a peccato, vel ad pœnitentiam provocatur. Hæc autem remedia sunt sex. Primum est misericordia, et contra hanc peccatur per desperationem. Exemplum habetur de Cain. Secundum est justitia, de qua insurgit homini timor de punitione peccati. Et contra hoc homo peccat per præsumptionem. In hoc peccatum præsumptionis videtur incidisse Origenes qui dixit omnes, etiam dæmones, salvandos esse. Si quis autem peccaret cum spe veniæ, mediante pœnitentia quam putat vel intendit agere, non peccaret in Spiritum sanctum. Peccat ille solus in Spiritum sanctum per præsumptionem qui se præsumit gloriam adipisci sine meritis. Tertium remedium est dolor de peccato. Et contra hoc peccatur per impcitenentiam finalem, quae accipitur non eo modo quo dicit permanentiam in peccato usque ad mortem. Sic enim non esset speciale peccatum, sed quædam peccati circum-
[II-II.q.14.a.4.arg.3] Further, repentance and impenitence are about the same object.
But there is no repentance, except about past sins. Therefore the same applies to impenitence which is a species of the sin against the Holy Ghost. Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost presupposes other sins.
[II-II.q.14.a.4.arg.3] 3. Præterea, pœnitentia et impœnitentia sunt circa idem. Sed pœnitentia non est nisi de peccatis præteritis. Ergo etiam neque impœnitentia, quæ est species peccati in Spiritum sanctum. Peccatum ergo in Spiritum sanctum præsupponit alia peccata.
[II-II.q.14.a.4.sc] "It is easy in the eyes of God on a sudden to make a poor man rich" (Sirach 11:23). Therefore, conversely, it is possible for a man, according to the malice of the devil who tempts him, to be led to commit the most grievous of sins which is that against the Holy Ghost.
[II-II.q.14.a.4.sc] Sed contra est quod facile est in conspectu* Dei subito honestare pauperem, ut dicitur Eccli., xi, 23. Ergo e contrario possiabile est secundum malitiam dæmonis sugge-stantia, et videtur idem esse peccatum cum obstinatione, et sic accipitur impœnitentia ab Augustino. Sed hic accipitur impœnitentia secundum quod importat propositum non pœnitendi et in delicto complacentiam. Quartum remedium est propositum abstinendi a peccatis futuris. Et contra hoc peccatur per obstinationem; quando scilicet homo firmat suum propositum in hoc quod peccato inhæreat, quin immo studet invenire diversos modos patrandi peccata, exultat cum invenerit, etc. Quintum remedium est cognitio veritatis fidei. Et contra hoc opponitur impugnatio veritatis agnitæ. Nota hic contra doctores legistas, qui scienter dicunt contra jus. Sextum est auxilium interioris gratiae, contra quod ponitur invidentia fraternæ gratiae, dum scilicet non solum invidet personæ fratris, sed etiam invidet gratiae Dei crescenti in mundo, ita quod vellet quod nullus haberet gratiam Dei, ut totus mundus esset socius culpæ suæ. Non ergo invidia fratris est peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, puta quando quis invidet de prosperitate vel exaltatione hominis: sed invidia fraternæ gratiae est peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, scilicet, quando quis invidet de exaltatione gratiae, sicut quod multi convertantur, vel aliquid hujusmodi, secundum Thomam in II Sentent., dist. xliii. Nota hic practice contra aliquos prædicatores qui aemmulantur aliis prædicatoribus facientibus fructum, etc. Et sic patet sufficientia istarum specierum peccati in Spiritum sanctum. Quantum ad tertium, scilicet de remissibilitate ipsius peccati in Spiritum sanctum, est notandum quod tripliciter potest accipi peccatum in Spiritum sanctum. Uno modo secundum Augustinum, pro finali impœnitentia, secundum quod est circumstantia quædam peccati: et sic dicitur proprie irremissibile. Secundo modo potest accipi peccatum in Spiritum sanctum pro qualibet blasphemia dicta contra divinitatem Patris, vel Filii, vel Spiritus sancti, vel contra opera ejus: et hoc dicitur irremissibile, quia de difficili remittitur. Tertio modo potest accipi pro peccato ex malitia commisso, prout dictum est supra, quod et dividitur in sex species supra positas: et hoc dicitur irremissibile, non quia nullo modo remittatur, sed quia, quantum est de se, habet meritum ut non remittatur. Et hoc dupliciter. Uno quidem modo, quantum ad culpam. Sicut enim aliquis dicitur morbus incurabilis secundum naturam morbi per quam tollitur illud per quod morbus potest curari, puta cum morbus tollit virtutem naturæ, vel inducit rentis, ut statim aliquis indicatur ad peccatum gravissimum, quod est peccatum in Spiritum sanctum.
[II-II.q.14.a.4.co] As stated above (Article 1), in one way, to sin against the Holy Ghost is to sin through certain malice. Now one may sin through certain malice in two ways, as stated in the same place: first, through the inclination of a habit; but this is not, properly speaking, to sin against the Holy Ghost, nor does a man come to commit this sin all at once, in as much as sinful acts must precede so as to cause the habit that induces to sin. Secondly, one may sin through certain malice, by contemptuously rejecting the things whereby a man is withdrawn from sin. This is, properly speaking, to sin against the Holy Ghost, as stated above (Article 1); and this also, for the most part, presupposes other sins, for it is written (Proverbs 18:3) that "the wicked man, when he is come into the depth of sins, contemneth."
Nevertheless it is possible for a man, in his first sinful act, to sin against the Holy Ghost by contempt, both on account of his free-will, and on account of the many previous dispositions, or again, through being vehemently moved to evil, while but feebly attached to good. Hence never or scarcely ever does it happen that the perfect sin all at once against the Holy Ghost: wherefore Origen says (Peri Archon. i, 3): "I do not think that anyone who stands on the highest step of perfection, can fail or fall suddenly; this can only happen by degrees and bit by bit."
The same applies, if the sin against the Holy Ghost be taken literally for blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. For such blasphemy as Our Lord speaks of, always proceeds from contemptuous malice.
If, however, with Augustine (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi) we understand the sin against the Holy Ghost to denote final impenitence, it does not regard the question in point, because this sin against the Holy Ghost requires persistence in sin until the end of life.
[II-II.q.14.a.4.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut dictum est, peccare in Spiritum sanctum uno modo est peccare ex certa malitia. Ex certa autem malitia dupliciter peccare contingit, sicut dictum est ibid. : uno modo ex inclinatione habitus, quod non est proprie peccare in Spiritum sanctum; et hoc modo peccare ex certa malitia non contingit a principio. Oportet enim actus peccatorum praecedere, ex quibus causetur habitus ad peccandum inclinans. Alio modo potest aliquis peccare ex certa malitia, abjiciendo per contemptum ea per quae homo retrahitur a peccato, quod proprie est peccare in Spiritum sanctum, sicut dictum est. Et hoc etiam plerumque praesupponit alia peccata; quia, sicut dicitur Prov., xviii, 3, impius, cum in profundum venerit peccatorum, contemnit. Potest tamen contingere quod aliquis in primo actu peccati in Spiritum sanctum peccet per contemptum, tum propter libertatem arbitrii, tum etiam propter multas dispositiones praecedentes, vel etiam propter aliquod vehemens motivum ad malum, et debilem affectum hominis ad bonum. Et ideo in viris perfectis hoc vix aut nunquam accidere potest, quod statim a principio peccent in Spiritum sanctum. Unde dicit fastidium cibi et medicinæ, licet etiam talem morbum Deus posset curare, ita etiam peccatum in Spiritum sanctum dicitur irremissibile secundum naturam suam inquantum excludit ea per quae fit remissio peccatorum. Per hoc tamen non praecluditur via remittendi et sanandi omnipotentiæ et misericordiæ Dei, per quam aliquando tales quasi miraculose sanantur. Et sic intelligitur quod hoc peccatum non dimittitur, id est, per hoc privatur aptitudo vel facilitas quædam ad remissionem. Secundo modo hoc peccatum habet meritum ut non remittatur quantum ad pœnam, quia qui peccat ex ignorantia vel infirmitate minorem pœnam meretur; qui autem ex certa malitia peccat, non habet aliquam excusationem, unde ejus pœna minuatur. Similiter etiam qui blasphemabat in Filium hominis, ejus divinitate nondum revelata, poterat habere aliquam excusationem propter infirmitatem carnis quam in eo aspiciebat, et sic minorem pœnam merebatur. Sed qui ipsam divinitatem blasphemabat, opera Spiritus sancti diabolo attribuens, nullam excusationem habebat unde ejus pœna diminueretur. Et ideo dicitur, secundum expositionem Chrysostomi, hoc peccatum non remitti nec in hoc sæculo, nec in futuro, quia pro eo passi sunt pœnam Judæi, et in præsenti vita per Romanos, et in futura vita pœnam inferni. Sic Origenes, in l Periarch., cap. mii, col. 455, t. 4: « Non arbitror quod aliquis ex his qui in summo perfectionis gradu constiterint, ad subitum evacuetur, aut decidat; sed paulatim ac per partes eum decidere, necesse est. » Et eadem ratio est, si peccatum in Spiritum sanctum accipiatur ad litteram pro blasphemia Spiritus sancti. Talis enim blasphemia, de qua Dominus loquitur, semper ex malitiæ contemptu procedit. Si vero per peccatum in Spiritum sanctum intelligatur finalis impœnitentia, secundum intellectum Augustini, De verbis Domini, sermone Lxxi, cap. xxi, col. 464, t. 5, quæstionem non habet, quia ad peccatum in Spiritum sanctum requiritur continuatio peccatorum usque in finem vitæ.
[II-II.q.14.a.4.ad.1] Movement both in good and in evil is made, for the most part, from imperfect to perfect, according as man progresses in good or evil: and yet in both cases, one man can begin from a greater (good or evil) than another man does. Consequently, that from which a man begins can be perfect in good or evil according to its genus, although it may be imperfect as regards the series of good or evil actions whereby a man progresses in good or evil.
[II-II.q.14.a.4.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod tam in bono quam in malo ut in pluribus proceditur ab imperfecto ad perfectum, prout homo proficit vel in bono vel in malo; et tamen in utroque unus potest incipere a majori quam alius; et ita illud a quo aliquid incipit, po-test esse perfectum in bono vel in malo secundum genus suum; licet sit imperfectum secundum seriem processus hominis in melius vel in pejus proficientis.
[II-II.q.14.a.4.ad.2] This argument considers the sin which is committed through certain malice, when it proceeds from the inclination of a habit.
[II-II.q.14.a.4.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod ratio illa procedit de peccato ex malitia, quando est ex inclinatione habitus.
[II-II.q.14.a.4.ad.3] If by impenitence we understand with Augustine (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi) persistence in sin until the end, it is clear that it presupposes sin, just as repentance does. If, however, we take it for habitual impenitence, in which sense it is a sin against the Holy Ghost, it is evident that it can precede sin: for it is possible for a man who has never sinned to have the purpose either of repenting or of not repenting, if he should happen to sin.
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
[II-II.q.14.a.4.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod si accipiatur etiam Athanasius inducit exemplum de eorum parentibus qui primo quidem contra Moysen contenderunt propter defectum aquæ et panis, et hoc Dominus sustinuit patienter; habebant enim excusationem ex infirmitate carnis, sed postmodum gravius peccaverunt, quando blasphemantes in Spiritum sanctum, beneficia Dei qui eos de Ægypto eduxerat idolo attribuentes, dixerunt: Hi sunt diii tui, Israel, qui te eduxerunt de terra Ægypti; et ideo Dominus etiam temporaliter fecit eos puniri, quia ceciderunt in die illo quasi viginti tria millia hominum, Exod., xxxii; et in futurum eis pœnam comminatur, dicens: Ego in die ultionis visitabo hoc peccatum eorum. Hæc nobis ex B. Hieremiæ Sermonibus compendiose expromere placuit, ut discant juvenes quo modo antecessores nostri, neglectis verbis quae pruriunt auribus, dogma catholicum, iis quos asserimus fuisse rudes ac scientiae expertes, exponebant, et ex ipso practicas conclusiones deducere noverant. Nunc fame pereunt populi. B. Hieremias sanctum Thomam inisto sermone luculenter evolvit. Id faciant hodierni, supraque dogmatum in concussam petram præcepta vel consilia moralia fundent; nil magis necessarium semper, sed nostris præcipue temporibus. 1 Edit. addunt: « commisso. » impœnitentia secundum intentionem Augustini, secundum quod importat permanentiam in peccato usque ad finem, sic planum est quod impœnitentia præsupponit peccata, sicut et pœnitentia. Sed si loquamur de impœnitentia habituali, secundum quod ponitur species peccati in Spiritum sanctum, sic manifestum est quod impœnitentia potest esse etiam ante peccata; potest enim ille qui nunquam peccavit, habere propositum vel pœnitendi vel non pœnitendi, si contingeret eum peccare.
JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/secunda-secundae/q014.json