Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum quod peccatum in spiritum sanctum tertio modo accipitur, convenienter praedictae species ei assignantur. Quae distinguuntur secundum remotionem vel contemptum eorum per quae potest homo ab electione peccati impediri. Quae quidem sunt vel ex parte divini iudicii; vel ex parte donorum ipsius; vel etiam ex parte ipsius peccati. Avertitur enim homo ab electione peccati ex consideratione divini iudicii, quod habet iustitiam cum misericordia, et per spem, quae consurgit ex consideratione misericordiae remittentis peccata et praemiantis bona, et haec tollitur per desperationem, et iterum per timorem, qui insurgit ex consideratione divinae iustitiae punientis peccata; et hic tollitur per praesumptionem, dum scilicet aliquis se praesumit gloriam adipisci sine meritis, vel veniam sine poenitentia. I answer that, The above species are fittingly assigned to the sin against the Holy Spirit taken in the third sense, because they are distinguished in respect of the removal or 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. Dona autem Dei quibus retrahimur a peccato sunt duo. Quorum unum est agnitio veritatis, contra quod ponitur impugnatio veritatis agnitae, dum scilicet aliquis veritatem fidei agnitam impugnat ut licentius peccet. Aliud est auxilium interioris gratiae, contra quod ponitur invidentia fraternae gratiae, dum scilicet aliquis non solum invidet personae fratris, sed etiam invidet gratiae Dei crescenti in mundo. God’s gifts whereby we are withdrawn from sin, are two: one is the acknowledgment of the truth, against which there is the resistance of the known truth, when, namely, a man resists the truth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. Ex parte vero peccati duo sunt quae hominem a peccato retrahere possunt. Quorum unum est inordinatio et turpitudo actus, cuius consideratio inducere solet in homine poenitentiam de peccato commisso. Et contra hoc ponitur impoenitentia, non quidem eo modo quo dicit permanentiam in peccato usque ad mortem, sicut supra impoenitentia accipiebatur (sic enim non esset speciale peccatum, sed quaedam peccati circumstantia); sed accipitur hic impoenitentia secundum quod importat propositum non poenitendi. Aliud autem est parvitas et brevitas boni quod quis in peccato quaerit, secundum illud Rom. VI, quem fructum habuistis in quibus nunc erubescitis? Cuius consideratio inducere solet hominem ad hoc quod eius voluntas in peccato non firmetur. Et hoc tollitur per obstinationem, quando scilicet homo firmat suum propositum in hoc quod peccato inhaereat. Et de his duobus dicitur Ierem. VIII, nullus est qui agat poenitentiam super peccato suo, dicens, quid feci? Quantum ad primum; omnes conversi sunt ad cursum quasi equus impetu vadens ad praelium, quantum ad secundum. 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 Rom. 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 (Jer 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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod peccatum desperationis vel praesumptionis non consistit in hoc quod Dei iustitia vel misericordia non credatur, sed in hoc quod contemnatur. Reply Obj. 1: The sins of despair and presumption consist, not in disbelieving in God’s justice and mercy, but in contemning them. Ad secundum dicendum quod obstinatio et impoenitentia non solum differunt secundum praeteritum et futurum, sed secundum quasdam formales rationes ex diversa consideratione eorum quae in peccato considerari possunt, ut dictum est. Reply Obj. 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod gratiam et veritatem Christus fecit per dona spiritus sancti, quae hominibus dedit. Reply Obj. 3: Grace and truth were the work of Christ through the gifts of the Holy Spirit which He gave to men. Ad quartum dicendum quod nolle obedire pertinet ad obstinationem; simulatio poenitentiae ad impoenitentiam; schisma ad invidentiam fraternae gratiae, per quam membra Ecclesiae uniuntur. Reply Obj. 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. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum peccatum in Spiritum Sanctum sit irremissibile Whether the sin against the Holy Spirit can be forgiven? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccatum in spiritum sanctum non sit irremissibile. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de Verb. Dom., de nullo desperandum est quandiu patientia domini ad poenitentiam adducit. Sed si aliquod peccatum esset irremissibile, esset de aliquo peccatore desperandum. Ergo peccatum in spiritum sanctum non est irremissibile. Objection 1: It would seem that the sin against the Holy Spirit 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 Spirit can be forgiven. Praeterea, nullum peccatum remittitur nisi per hoc quod anima sanatur a Deo. Sed omnipotenti medico nullus insanabilis languor occurrit, sicut dicit Glossa super illud Psalm., qui sanat omnes infirmitates tuas. Ergo peccatum in spiritum sanctum non est irremissibile. Obj. 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 Ps. 102:3, Who healeth all thy diseases. Therefore the sin against the Holy Spirit can be forgiven. Praeterea, liberum arbitrium se habet ad bonum et ad malum. Sed quandiu durat status viae, potest aliquis a quacumque virtute excidere, cum etiam Angelus de caelo ceciderit, unde dicitur Iob IV, in Angelis suis reperit pravitatem, quanto magis qui habitant domos luteas? Ergo pari ratione potest aliquis a quocumque peccato ad statum iustitiae redire. Ergo peccatum in spiritum sanctum non est irremissibile. Obj. 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 Spirit can be forgiven. Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. XII, qui dixerit verbum contra spiritum sanctum, non remittetur ei neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro. Et Augustinus dicit, in libro de Serm. Dom. in monte, quod tanta est labes huius peccati quod humilitatem deprecandi subire non potest. On the contrary, It is written (Matt 12:32): He that shall speak against the Holy Spirit, 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. Respondeo dicendum quod secundum diversas acceptiones peccati in spiritum sanctum, diversimode irremissibile dicitur. Si enim dicatur peccatum in spiritum sanctum finalis impoenitentia, sic dicitur irremissibile quia nullo modo remittitur. Peccatum enim mortale in quo homo perseverat usque ad mortem, quia in hac vita non remittitur per poenitentiam, nec etiam in futuro dimittetur. I answer that, According to the various interpretations of the sin against the Holy Spirit, there are various ways in which it may be said that it cannot be forgiven. For if by the sin against the Holy Spirit 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. Secundum autem alias duas acceptiones dicitur irremissibile, non quia nullo modo remittatur, sed quia, quantum est de se, habet meritum ut non remittatur. Et hoc dupliciter. Uno modo, quantum ad poenam. Qui enim ex ignorantia vel infirmitate peccat, minorem poenam meretur, qui autem ex certa malitia peccat, non habet aliquam excusationem unde eius poena minuatur. Similiter etiam qui blasphemabat in filium hominis, eius divinitate nondum revelata, poterat habere aliquam excusationem propter infirmitatem carnis quam in eo aspiciebat, et sic minorem poenam merebatur, sed qui ipsam divinitatem blasphemabat, opera spiritus sancti Diabolo attribuens, nullam excusationem habebat unde eius poena diminueretur. 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 Spirit, had no excuse in diminution of their punishment. Et ideo dicitur, secundum expositionem Chrysostomi, hoc peccatum Iudaeis non remitti neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro, quia pro eo passi sunt poenam et in praesenti vita per Romanos, et in futura vita in poena Inferni. Sicut etiam Athanasius inducit exemplum de eorum parentibus, qui primo quidem contra Moysen contenderunt propter defectum aquae 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 Aegypto eduxerat, idolo attribuentes, cum dixerunt, hi sunt dii tui, Israel, qui te eduxerunt de terra Aegypti. Et ideo dominus et temporaliter fecit eos puniri, quia ceciderunt in die illo quasi tria millia hominum; et in futurum eis poenam comminatur, dicens, ego autem in die ultionis visitabo hoc peccatum eorum. 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 Spirit, saying (Exod 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 (Exod 32:28), and threatened them with punishment in the life to come, saying, (Exod 32:34): I, in the day of revenge, will visit this sin . . . of theirs. Alio modo potest intelligi quantum ad culpam, sicut aliquis dicitur morbus incurabilis secundum naturam morbi, per quem tollitur id ex quo morbus potest curari, puta cum morbus tollit virtutem naturae, vel inducit fastidium cibi et medicinae; licet etiam talem morbum Deus possit curare. Ita etiam peccatum in spiritum sanctum dicitur irremissibile secundum suam naturam, inquantum excludit ea per quae fit remissio peccatorum. Per hoc tamen non praecluditur via remittendi et sanandi omnipotentiae et misericordiae Dei, per quam aliquando tales quasi miraculose spiritualiter sanantur. Second, 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 Spirit is said to be unpardonable, by reason of its nature, insofar 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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod de nemine desperandum est in hac vita, considerata omnipotentia et misericordia Dei. Sed considerata conditione peccati, dicuntur aliqui filii diffidentiae, ut habetur ad Ephes. II. Reply Obj. 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 (Eph 2:2) children of despair. Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit ex parte omnipotentiae Dei, non secundum conditionem peccati. Reply Obj. 2: This argument considers the question on the part of God’s omnipotence, not on that of the circumstances of sin. Ad tertium dicendum quod liberum arbitrium remanet quidem semper in hac vita vertibile, tamen quandoque abiicit a se id per quod verti potest ad bonum, quantum in ipso est. Unde ex parte sua peccatum est irremissibile, licet Deus remittere possit. Reply Obj. 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. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum homo possit primo peccare in spiritum sanctum non praesuppositis aliis peccatis Whether a man can sin first of all against the Holy Spirit without having committed other sins? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod homo non possit primo peccare in spiritum sanctum, non praesuppositis aliis peccatis. Naturalis enim ordo est ut ab imperfecto ad perfectum quis moveatur. Et hoc quidem in bonis apparet, secundum illud Proverb. IV, iustorum semita quasi lux splendens crescit et proficit usque ad perfectum diem. Sed perfectum dicitur in malis quod est maximum malum, ut patet per philosophum, in V Metaphys. Cum igitur peccatum in spiritum sanctum sit gravissimum, videtur quod homo ad hoc peccatum perveniat per alia peccata minora. Objection 1: It would seem that a man cannot sin first of all against the Holy Spirit, 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 Prov. 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 Spirit is the most grievous sin, it seems that man comes to commit this sin through committing lesser sins. Praeterea, 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., quod, si homo possit iniusta facere, non tamen potest statim operari sicut iniustus, scilicet ex electione. Ergo videtur quod peccatum in spiritum sanctum non possit committi nisi post alia peccata. Obj. 2: Further, to sin against the Holy Spirit 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 Spirit cannot be committed except after other sins. Praeterea, poenitentia et impoenitentia sunt circa idem. Sed poenitentia non est nisi de peccatis praeteritis. Ergo etiam neque impoenitentia, quae est species peccati in spiritum sanctum. Peccatum ergo in spiritum sanctum praesupponit alia peccata. Obj. 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 Spirit. Therefore the sin against the Holy Spirit presupposes other sins. Sed contra est quod facile est in conspectu Dei subito honestare pauperem, ut dicitur Eccli. XI. Ergo e contrario possibile est, secundum malitiam Daemonis suggerentis, ut statim aliquis inducatur in gravissimum peccatum, quod est in spiritum sanctum. On the contrary, It is easy in the eyes of God on a sudden to make a poor man rich (Sir 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 Spirit. 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. 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 abiiciendo per contemptum ea per quae homo retrahitur a peccando, quod proprie est peccare in spiritum sanctum, sicut dictum est. Et hoc etiam plerumque praesupponit alia peccata, quia sicut dicitur Proverb. XVIII, impius, cum in profundum peccatorum venerit, contemnit. I answer that, As stated above (A. 1), in one way, to sin against the Holy Spirit 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 Spirit, nor does a man come to commit this sin all at once, inasmuch as sinful acts must precede so as to cause the habit that induces to sin. Second, 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 Spirit, as stated above (A. 1); and this also, for the most part, presupposes other sins, for it is written (Prov 18:3) that the wicked man, when he is come into the depth of sins, contemneth. 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 Origenes, in I Periarch., non arbitror quod aliquis ex his qui in summo perfectoque gradu constiterint, ad subitum evacuetur aut decidat, sed paulatim ac per partes eum decidere necesse est. Nevertheless it is possible for a man, in his first sinful act, to sin against the Holy Spirit 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 Spirit: 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. 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 malitiae contemptu procedit. The same applies, if the sin against the Holy Spirit be taken literally for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. For such blasphemy as Our Lord speaks of, always proceeds from contemptuous malice. Si vero per peccatum in spiritum sanctum intelligatur finalis impoenitentia, secundum intellectum Augustini, quaestionem non habet, quia ad peccatum in spiritum sanctum requiritur continuatio peccatorum usque in finem vitae. If, however, with Augustine (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi) we understand the sin against the Holy Spirit to denote final impenitence, it does not regard the question in point, because this sin against the Holy Spirit requires persistence in sin until the end of life. 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 maiori quam alius. Et ita illud a quo aliquis incipit, potest esse perfectum in bono vel in malo secundum genus suum; licet sit imperfectum secundum seriem processus hominis in melius vel in peius proficientis. Reply Obj. 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. Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de peccato ex malitia quando est ex inclinatione habitus. Reply Obj. 2: This argument considers the sin which is committed through certain malice, when it proceeds from the inclination of a habit. Ad tertium dicendum quod, si accipiatur impoenitentia secundum intentionem Augustini, secundum quod importat permanentiam in peccato usque in finem, sic planum est quod impoenitentia praesupponit peccata, sicut et poenitentia. Sed si loquamur de impoenitentia habituali, secundum quod ponitur species peccati in spiritum sanctum, sic manifestum est quod impoenitentia potest esse etiam ante peccata, potest enim ille qui nunquam peccavit habere propositum vel poenitendi vel non poenitendi, si contingeret eum peccare. Reply Obj. 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 Spirit, 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. Quaestio 15 Question 15 De vitiis oppositis scientiae et intellectui The Vices Opposed to Knowledge and Understanding Deinde considerandum est de vitiis oppositis scientiae et intellectui. Et quia de ignorantia, quae opponitur scientiae, dictum est supra, cum de causis peccatorum ageretur; quaerendum est nunc de caecitate mentis et hebetudine sensus, quae opponuntur dono intellectus. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. We must now consider the vices opposed to knowledge and understanding. Since, however, we have treated of ignorance which is opposed to knowledge, when we were discussing the causes of sins (I-II, Q. 76), we must now inquire about blindness of mind and dullness of sense, which are opposed to the gift of understanding; and under this head there are three points of inquiry: