II Sentences, Distinction 43, Question 1

Concerning the Sin against the Holy Spirit

a. 1: utrum sit aliquod peccatum in
spiritum sanctum.

Article 1: Whether there is a sin against the Holy

Spirit.

ad primum sic proceditur. videtur quod

nullum sit peccatum in spiritum
sanctum.

It would seem that there is no sin against the

Holy Spirit.

quia, secundum quod in littera dicitur,

illi dicuntur in spiritum sanctum
peccare quibus placet malitia propter
se sicut piis bonitas. sed malitia nulli
propter se placet: quia malum est
praeter voluntatem, et nullus ad malum
intendens operatur, ut dionysius dicit.
ergo secundum hoc nullus in spiritum
sanctum peccat.

Objection 1: For, according to what has been

said in the (Lombard's) text, those are said to sin
against the Holy Spirit who find malice itself
pleasing, just as the pious find goodness
pleasing in itself. However, malice is in no way
pleasing in itself. For evil is contrary to the will,
and no one acts intending evil, as Dionysius
states.
Therefore,
according
to
this
consideration, no one sins against the Holy
Spirit.

praeterea, omne peccatum hominis ex

corruptione naturae nascitur. sed
peccatum quod est ex corruptione
naturae, est ex infirmitate. cum autem
peccatur per infirmitatem, non peccatur
in spiritum sanctum, ut in littera dicitur.
ergo nullum peccatum est in spiritum
sanctum.

Objection 2: Furthermore, every sin of man

arises from the corruption of his nature. But that
sin which results from the corruption of nature is
due to weakness. However, when one sins by
reason of weakness, one does not sin against
the Holy Spirit, as has been said in the
(Lombard's) text. Therefore, there is no sin
against the Holy Spirit.

praeterea, augustinus dicit, quod

omne peccatum ex errore est. sed
error ignorantiam includit. quod autem
per ignorantiam est, condividitur contra
peccatum in spiritum sanctum. ergo
nullum peccatum est in spiritum
sanctum.

Objection 3: Furthermore, Augustine says that

every sin is due to error. But error includes
ignorance, and what (is done) through ignorance
is distinguished from the sin against the Holy
Spirit. Therefore, there is no sin against the Holy
Spirit.

praeterea, si aliquis peccat in spiritum

sanctum, aut est in statu viae, aut post
viam. sed post viam esse non potest:
quia tunc non erit tempus merendi et
demerendi, ut plures dicunt: sed

Objection 4: Furthermore, if someone sins

against the Holy Spirit, it is either in this present
life, or in the life to come. But this (sin) cannot be
committed in the life to come, because it will not
then be the time for meriting or not meriting, as

recipiendi pro his quae gessit, sive

bonum sive malum. similiter nec in
statu
viae:
quia
de
nemine
desperandum
est,
secundum
augustinum, dum vivit. peccatum
autem in spiritum sanctum est
peccatum desperantium, quia pro eo
oratio interdicitur 1 joan. ult.. ergo
nullus in spiritum sanctum peccat.

many authors have said, but of receiving either

good or evil in accordance with the things one
did. Likewise (this sin cannot be committed) in
the present life, because, according to
Augustine, no man is to be despaired of while he
lives. However, the sin against the Holy Spirit is
the sin of one despairing, on behalf of whom 1
John 5:16 forbids prayer. Therefore, no one sins
against the Holy Spirit.

praeterea, quorum una est majestas et

gloria, una est offensa. sed patris et filii
et spiritus sancti una est divinitas,
aequalis gloria, coaeterna majestas.
ergo et eorum est una offensa; et ita
cum peccatum in spiritum sanctum
dividatur contra peccatum in patrem et
filium, videtur quod nullum peccatum
sit in spiritum sanctum.

Objection 5: Furthermore, their majesty and glory

are one, as is the offense (committed against
them). But the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are
one in their divinity, equal in glory, and coeternal in majesty. Therefore, the offense
committed against them is concomitant. And so,
as the sin against the Holy Spirit is distinguished
from the sin against the Father and the Son, it
would seem that there is no sin against the Holy
Spirit.

sed contra est quod dicitur matth. 12,

32: qui blasphemaverit in spiritum
sanctum, non remittetur ei in aeternum.

1st. on the contrary: It is said at Matthew 12:32

that "He that shall speak against the Holy Spirit,
it shall not be forgiven him, (neither in this world,
nor) in the world to come."

praeterea, sicut potentia attribuitur

patri, sapientia filio; ita bonitas spiritui
sancto. sed peccatum quod fit ex
impotentia, dicitur peccatum in patrem;
quod fit ex ignorantia, in filium. ergo
quod fit ex malitia, in spiritum sanctum.
cum ergo aliquod tale peccatum sit,
erit aliquod peccatum in spiritum
sanctum.

2nd. on the contrary: Furthermore, as power is

attributed to the Father, and wisdom to the Son,
so is goodness attributed to the Holy Spirit. But a
sin which arises from a lack of power is called a
sin against the Father, and that which arises
from ignorance, a sin against the Son. Therefore,
that which arises from malice is a sin against the
Holy Spirit. Therefore since there is this kind of
sin, there is a sin against the Holy Spirit.

respondeo dicendum, quod peccare in

spiritum sanctum dicitur dupliciter: aut
quia peccatur contra personam spiritus
sancti; aut quia peccatur contra
attributum personae. peccatur contra
personam spiritus sancti, scilicet
quando de ea male sentitur; sicut qui
dixerunt spiritum sanctum creaturam
esse, et ministrum patris et filii: et sic
etiam peccare in filium, est male

Response: To sin against the Holy Spirit is said

in two ways, either because one sins against the
person of the Holy Spirit, or because one sins
against an attribute of the Spirit's person. One
sins against the person of the Holy Spirit when
one considers the Spirit badly, as those who say
that the Holy Spirit is created, and the minister of
the Father and the Son. So too, to sin against the
Son is to consider the person of the Son badly.
However, we do not speak here of a sin against

sentire de persona filii. sic autem non

loquimur hic de peccato in spiritum
sanctum, quia sic est peccatum
infidelitatis.
peccare
autem
in
attributum spiritui sancto, est ex certa
malitia peccare, sicut peccare in
patrem, est peccare ex infirmitate, et
peccare in filium, est peccare ex
ignorantia; ut dicatur peccatum in
patrem, quando deficit istud quod patri
attribuitur,
scilicet
potentia;
et
peccatum in filium, quando deest
sapientia, quae filio attribuitur: et
peccatum in spiritum sanctum, quando
ponitur oppositum bonitatis, quae
spiritui sancto attribuitur.

the Holy Spirit as it is (rather) a sin of infidelity.

But to sin against an attribute of (the person of)
the Holy Spirit is to sin by reason of a definite
malice, just as to sin against the Father is to sin
by reason of weakness, and to sin against the
Son, is to sin by reason of ignorance. One is
said to sin against the Father when one fails in
that very thing that is attributed to the Father,
namely power. One sins against the Son when
one errs in that which is attributed to the Son,
namely wisdom. And one sins against the Holy
Spirit when that which is opposed to goodness
(which goodness is attributed to the Holy Spirit)
is held (by this sinner).

differentia autem horum potest accipi

ex his quae philosophus dicit, ubi
ostendit, quod peccatum tribus modis
committitur; vel ex ignorantia, vel ex
passione, vel ex electione. ex
ignorantia
peccatum
committitur,
quando ignoratur aliquod eorum
quorum
scientia
a
peccato
impedivisset; unde ignorantia est ibi
causa peccati: et hoc dicitur peccatum
in filium. ex passione autem sive
innata sive illata peccatur, quando
propter impetum passionis, rationis
judicium obruitur; et hoc proprie est ex
infirmitate peccare, quod est peccatum
in patrem. ex electione autem
peccatur, quando homo deliberans
peccato adhaeret, non quasi aliqua
tentatione victus, sed quia propter hoc
quod habet corruptum appetitum,
placet sibi illud peccatum secundum
se: et hoc est ex malitia peccare, quod
est peccare in spiritum sanctum.

Now the difference between these can be

understood through that which the Philosopher
says when he shows that a sin can be
committed in three ways, namely through
ignorance, passion or choice. A sin is committed
through ignorance when something pertaining to
one's (action) is unknown, the knowledge of
which would have prevented one from
committing this sin. Hence, ignorance is the
cause of that sin. And this is called a sin against
the Son. One sins by reason of passion, either
innate or inflicted, when due to the impulsion of
the passion, the judgment of reason is
overpowered. And this especially is to sin by
way of weakness, which is to sin against the
Father. But when one sins by choice, when man,
having deliberated, binds himself to sin, not as if
having been overcome by some temptation, but
rather because he has a corrupt appetite, that
very sin in itself is pleasing to him. And this is to
sin by way of malice, which is to sin against the
Holy Spirit.

ad primum ergo dicendum, quod

malitiam sub ratione malitiae nullus
unquam voluit; sed secundum quod
peccatum aestimatur bonum ipsi
peccanti, quasi quietans corruptum
appetitum, propter hoc secundum se

Response to Objection 1: No one ever wills

malice under the description of malice, but rather
as the sin is considered good by the one
committing the sin, as that which quiets the
corrupt appetite, on account of which (this
sin/malicious act) is desired in itself.

desideratur.
ad secundum dicendum, quod res non
habet speciem neque denominatur a
causis primis, sed a causis proximis.
corruptio ergo naturae, quae est
infectio fomitis, non est proxima causa
cujuslibet peccati, cum aliquando
homo
sine
aliquo
incentivo
concupiscentiae peccatum eligat; sed
est causa prima: quia ex corruptione
naturae inest homini
quaedam
debilitas, ut facilius in peccatum ruat:
et ideo non oportet quod omne
peccatum propter hoc ex infirmitate
esse dicatur.

Response to Objection 2: A thing does not have

its species, nor is it denominated by first causes,
but rather by its proximate cause. Therefore, the
corruption of nature, which is the infection of our
concupiscence (infectio fomitis - the infection of
the incitement to evil desiring), is not the
proximate cause of sin, since there are times
when man chooses sin without the provocation
of his concupiscence. But it is the first cause
because from the corruption of his nature, there
is in man a certain frailty such that it is easier for
him descend into sin. And thus, it is not fitting
that every sin be said to arise from weakness on
account of this (line of reasoning).

ad tertium dicendum, quod error ille ex

quo omne peccatum procedit, est error
electionis,
secundum
quem
philosophus
omnem
malum
ignorantem esse dicit. haec autem
ignorantia non causat involuntarium,
immo est ex voluntate causata: quia ex
ipsa inclinatione corruptae voluntatis
in peccatum, quae est per habitum vel
passionem, consequitur ut hoc quasi
bonum aliquis eligat quod voluntati
placet; unde ex tali ignorantia non
dicimus peccatum in filium: peccatum
enimin filium est quando principalis
causa peccati est ignorantia.

Response to Objection 3: That error by reason of

which every sin arises is an error of choice,
according to which the Philosopher says that all
ignorance is evil. This ignorance, however, does
not cause the involuntary, but rather is caused
by way of the will. For from this corrupted
inclination of the will to sin, which comes about
either through habit or passion, it follows that
one chooses this as if it were a good which is
pleasing to the will. Hence from this sort of
ignorance we do not say that one sins against
the Son. For the sin against the Son is when the
principal cause of sin is ignorance.

ad quartum dicendum, quod peccatum

in
spiritum
sanctum
non
est
desperatum ex parte medici curantis,
scilicet dei, qui immensitate suae
misericordiae quemlibet in statu viae
salvare potest: sed est desperatum ex
parte ipsius morbi, qui quantum in se
est, omnem viam curationis excludit, ut
infra patebit.

Response to Objection 4: The sin against the

Holy Spirit is not the cause of despair on the part
of the solicitous physician, namely God, who is
able to save anyone in the present life through
the immensity of His mercy. However, the sin
against the Holy Spirit is the cause of despair on
the part of those the illness itself, which, insofar
as it is in him, excludes every avenue of cure, as
will be made clear in what follows below.

ad quintum dicendum, quod quamvis

sit una majestas trium personarum,
tamen
personae
distinguuntur

Response to Objection 5: Although the majesty

of the three persons is one, nevertheless their
persons are distinguished by what is proper

proprietatibus personalibus, et etiam

quaedam appropriantur uni quae non
appropriantur
alii
personae;
et
secundum hoc contingit quod aliquod
peccatum dicitur esse specialiter in
filium vel in spiritum sanctum
dupliciter: vel quia male sentitur de his
quae sunt propria filii vel spiritus
sancti; et sic non accipitur hic
peccatum in spiritum sanctum: vel quia
peccatur contra appropriatum filii vel
spiritus sancti; et sic hic sumitur
peccatum in spiritum sanctum.

personally to each, and that (consequently)

some things are appropriate to one which are
not appropriate to the other persons. Because of
this, it is fitting that there be a sin said to be
especially against the Son and the Holy Spirit,
and this in a twofold way; either because one
considers badly of those things which are proper
to the Son or the Holy Spirit, and this is not
understood as a sin against the Holy Spirit; or
because one sins against that which is an
attribute of the Son or the Holy Spirit. And this is
so understood as a sin against the Holy Spirit.

The Aquinas Translation Project (http://www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/loughlin/ATP/index.html)