Dist. 42, Art. 3, Q. 2
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 42
Articulus III. De modis dividendi peccata.
Quaestio II. Utrum peccatum habeat dividi per aversionem et conversionem tanquam per diversas peccatorum differentias.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum peccatum habeat dividi per aversionem et conversionem tanquam per diversas peccatorum differentias sive diversa peccata.
Et quod sic, videtur.
1. Ieremiae secundo1: Duo mala fecit populus meus: me dereliquerunt, fontem aquae vitae etc.: ergo derelinquere Deum et adhaerere creaturae sunt duo mala, ergo sunt duo peccata.
2. Item, aversio est per contemptum, conversio autem per cupiditatem: si ergo cupiditas et contemptus sunt diversa2 peccatorum genera, videtur, quod aversio et conversio faciat peccata diversa.
3. Item, in bonis sic est, quod alius est habitus, quo quis declinat a malo, et alius, quo facit bonum; similiter et alius actus, sicut patet in timore et amore: ergo si multo maior est diversificatio ex parte malorum quam ex parte bonorum; multo fortius videtur, quod aliud sit peccatum, quo quis avertitur a Deo, et aliud, quo convertitur ad commutabile bonum.
4. Item, aliud est praeceptum, quo praecipitur facere bonum, et aliud3, quo praecipitur declinare a malo; sed aversio est contra illud praeceptum, quo quis praecipitur facere bonum, utpote Deo adhaerere et ad ipsum converti; conversio vero est contra illud praeceptum, quo praecipitur declinare a malo: ergo si diversa sunt praecepta, quibus opponuntur conversio et aversio, ergo sunt diversa peccata.
5. Item, plus convenit aversio cum alia aversione, quam aversio cum conversione; sed aversio cum alia aversione facit4 diversa peccata: ergo multo fortius conversio cum aversione diversa faciet peccata.
Sed contra: 1. Super illud Ecclesiastici decimo5: Initium omnis peccati superbia; Glossa: « Caveamus superbiam et cupiditatem, non tanquam duo mala, sed unum, a quo omnia oriuntur »: ergo si superbia facit averti, et cupiditas converti; videtur, quod penes aversionem et conversionem non attendantur duo peccata, sed unum.
2. Item, Augustinus contra Pelagium6: « Peccatum non est appetitus rerum malarum, sed desertio meliorum »: ergo nunquam conversio facit peccatum completum, nisi adsit aversio. Si ergo aversio concurrit ad omne peccatum, videtur, quod penes illam non sumatur differentia peccati.
3. Item, omne peccatum mortale est voluntarium; sed non est voluntarium nisi ratione conversionis ad commutabile bonum7: ergo conversio concurrit ad omne peccatum: ergo conversio non potest esse peccati differentia.
4. Item, recessus a termino a quo et accessus ad terminum ad quem non facit diversos motus nec diversos actus8; sed aversio dicit recessum a termino a quo, conversio accessum ad terminum ad quem: ergo non faciunt diversum actum vel motum. Sed ab unitate actus est peccatum unum: ergo non faciunt diversa peccata.
5. Item, in peccato aversio est formalis respectu conversionis; sed formale non ponit in numerum cum suo materiali9: ergo nec aversio ponit in numerum cum conversione: ergo conversio et aversio non faciunt diversa peccata.
Conclusio
> Aversio et conversio non faciunt duo peccata, nisi prout aversio dicit actum distinctum a conversione.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod aversio dupliciter accipitur: uno modo, prout dicit deordinationem circa actum conversionis; alio modo, prout dicit actum a conversione distinctum. Primo modo conversio non ponit in numerum cum aversione nec facit10 diversa peccata, immo illa duo essentialiter clauduntur in omni peccato mortali. Nam conversio non est culpa, nisi quia inordinata; non est autem inordinata, nisi quia avertitur homo a Deo, cui deberet inhaerere tanquam fini ultimo; et haec aversio est in peccato, in cuius perpetratione peccator nihil cogitat de Deo. — Secundo modo, scilicet prout aversio dicit actum distinctum contra conversionem11, sic constituit diversum peccati genus. Hoc enim modo « averti est odio habere vel invidere », sicut supra dixit Magister distinctione quinta; et constat, quod aliud genus peccati est odire Deum, et aliud amare commutabile bonum. Et quoniam ut plurimum aversio in peccato accipitur12, prout dicit deordinationem a Deo tanquam a fine, quam prout dicit motum inordinatum contra Deum; hinc est, quod conversio et aversio potius comparantur ad peccatum sicut differentiae constituentes quam sicut differentiae dividentes. — Et ideo concedendum, quod hoc modo aversio et conversio non faciunt diversa peccata; et rationes, quae hoc ostendunt, concedendae sunt, quia ista via procedunt.
Ad argumenta: Ad 1. Ad illud quod primo obiicitur de Ieremia; Duo mala fecit populus meus etc.; responderi potest, quod derelictio non tantum dicitur ibi pro deordinatione, quae est coniuncta conversioni, sed etiam pro omissione mandatorum Dei; et tunc distinguuntur illa duo mala non sicut aversio et conversio, sed sicut omissio et commissio. — Vel dicendum, quod duo mala dicuntur, non quia sint duo peccata, sed quia sunt duae diversae malae radices, concurrentes ad completionem unius peccati, sicut dicit Glossa praehabita super decimum Ecclesiastici.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod aversio est per contemptum, et conversio per cupiditatem; iam patet responsio; loquitur enim de conversione et aversione pro diverso actu et motu. Quod si aliter intelligat, ut accipiatur contemptus et cupiditas large, prout concurrit13 ad unum peccatum; sic non sunt duo mala, sed unum.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod alius est habitus14, quo quis declinat a malo, et quo quis facit bonum; dicendum, quod declinare a malo dicitur dupliciter, sicut dictum est de aversione. Prout enim declinare a malo dicit actum detestationis et fugae respectu mali, dicit diversum actum et motum ab eo quod est facere bonum. Prout autem dicit recessum a malo, sic non dicit diversum actum et habitum, quia eodem motu et habitu, quo quis accedit ad bonum, elongatur a malo.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod alii praecepto opponitur conversio, et alii aversio; dicendum, quod falsum est; nam aversio et conversio non sunt contra diversa praecepta, sed concurrunt ad idem peccatum, quod est tam contra praeceptum affirmativum quam contra praeceptum negativum; nisi forte accipiatur aversio, prout nominat actum vel motum contra Deum.
Ad 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod plus convenit aversio cum aversione etc.; dicendum, quod verum est convenientia15 formali, quae est in hoc, quod assignatur in aliquo tanquam in uno communi; sed non est verum de convenientia ordinis, quae concurrit ad constitutionem unius tertii. Non enim unum peccatum constituitur ex pluribus aversionibus, sicut ex aversione et conversione simul concurrentibus.
---
Article III. On the modes of dividing sins.
Question II. Whether sin must be divided by aversion and conversion as by diverse differences of sins.
Secondly it is asked whether sin must be divided by aversion and conversion as by diverse differences of sins, that is, diverse sins.
And that it must, seems [to be the case].
1. Jeremiah 21: My people have done two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living water, etc.: therefore to forsake God and to cleave to a creature are two evils, therefore they are two sins.
2. Likewise, aversion is through contempt, but conversion through desire: if therefore desire and contempt are diverse2 genera of sins, it seems that aversion and conversion make diverse sins.
3. Likewise, among good things it is so, that one habit is that by which someone turns away from evil, and another that by which he does good; and likewise there is another act, as is evident in fear and love: therefore if the diversification on the side of evils is much greater than on the side of goods; much more does it seem that the sin by which one turns away from God is one thing, and the sin by which he turns toward a changeable good another.
4. Likewise, the precept by which one is commanded to do good is one thing, and another3 is that by which one is commanded to turn away from evil; but aversion is against that precept by which one is commanded to do good, namely to cleave to God and to turn toward him; whereas conversion is against that precept by which one is commanded to turn away from evil: therefore if the precepts to which conversion and aversion are opposed are diverse, then they are diverse sins.
5. Likewise, aversion agrees more with another aversion than aversion with conversion; but aversion together with another aversion makes4 diverse sins: therefore much more will conversion together with aversion make diverse sins.
On the contrary: 1. Upon that text of Ecclesiasticus 105: The beginning of all sin is pride; the Gloss: « Let us beware of pride and covetousness, not as two evils, but as one, from which all things arise »: therefore if pride makes one be turned away, and covetousness makes one be turned toward; it seems that with respect to aversion and conversion two sins are not reckoned, but one.
2. Likewise, Augustine against Pelagius6: « Sin is not the appetite for evil things, but the desertion of better things »: therefore conversion never makes a complete sin, unless aversion be present. If therefore aversion concurs in every sin, it seems that with respect to it the difference of sin is not taken.
3. Likewise, every mortal sin is voluntary; but it is not voluntary except by reason of conversion to a changeable good7: therefore conversion concurs in every sin: therefore conversion cannot be a difference of sin.
4. Likewise, withdrawal from the terminus from which and approach to the terminus to which do not make diverse motions nor diverse acts8; but aversion signifies withdrawal from the terminus from which, conversion the approach to the terminus to which: therefore they do not make a diverse act or motion. But from the unity of act the sin is one: therefore they do not make diverse sins.
5. Likewise, in sin aversion is formal with respect to conversion; but the formal does not enter into number with its material9: therefore neither does aversion enter into number with conversion: therefore conversion and aversion do not make diverse sins.
Conclusion
> Aversion and conversion do not make two sins, except insofar as aversion signifies an act distinct from conversion.
I respond: It must be said that aversion is taken in two ways: in one way, insofar as it signifies a disorder concerning the act of conversion; in another way, insofar as it signifies an act distinct from conversion. In the first way conversion does not enter into number with aversion nor make10 diverse sins; rather those two are essentially included in every mortal sin. For conversion is not a fault except because it is disordered; and it is not disordered except because man is turned away from God, to whom he ought to cleave as to his ultimate end; and this aversion is in the sin, in the perpetration of which the sinner thinks nothing of God. — In the second way, namely insofar as aversion signifies an act distinct over against conversion11, it constitutes a diverse genus of sin. For in this way « to be turned away is to hate or to envy », as the Master said above in distinction five; and it is established that to hate God is one genus of sin, and to love a changeable good another. And since for the most part aversion is taken in sin12 as signifying disorder away from God as from an end, rather than as signifying a disordered motion against God; hence it is that conversion and aversion are compared to sin rather as constituting differences than as dividing differences. — And therefore it must be conceded that in this way aversion and conversion do not make diverse sins; and the reasons that show this are to be conceded, since they proceed by this way.
To the arguments: To 1. To that which is first objected concerning Jeremiah; My people have done two evils, etc.; it can be answered that forsaking is there said not only for the disorder that is joined to conversion, but also for the omission of the commandments of God; and then those two evils are distinguished not as aversion and conversion, but as omission and commission. — Or it must be said that they are called two evils, not because they are two sins, but because they are two diverse evil roots, concurring in the completion of one sin, as the Gloss already cited upon the tenth chapter of Ecclesiasticus says.
To 2. To that which is objected, that aversion is through contempt, and conversion through desire; the response is already evident; for it speaks of conversion and aversion as a diverse act and motion. But if it understands otherwise, so that contempt and desire be taken broadly, insofar as they concur13 in one sin; thus they are not two evils, but one.
To 3. To that which is objected, that one habit14 is that by which someone turns away from evil, and [another] that by which one does good; it must be said that to turn away from evil is said in two ways, as was said of aversion. For insofar as turning away from evil signifies an act of detestation and flight with respect to evil, it signifies an act and motion diverse from that which is to do good. But insofar as it signifies withdrawal from evil, thus it does not signify a diverse act and habit, because by the same motion and habit by which one approaches the good, he is removed far from evil.
To 4. To that which is objected, that conversion is opposed to one precept, and aversion to another; it must be said that this is false; for aversion and conversion are not against diverse precepts, but concur in the same sin, which is both against the affirmative precept and against the negative precept; unless perhaps aversion be taken insofar as it names an act or motion against God.
To 5. To that which is objected, that aversion agrees more with aversion, etc.; it must be said that it is true of formal agreement15, which consists in this, that it is assigned in something as in one common [thing]; but it is not true of agreement of order, which concurs in the constitution of one third [thing]. For one sin is not constituted out of several aversions, as out of aversion and conversion concurring together.
---
- Vers. 13. — Mox primo ergo Vat. et edd. 3, 4 praeligunt si.[Jeremiah 2:]13. — Soon afterward, before the first ergo, the Vatican edition and editions 3 and 4 prefix si.
- Cod. K duo diversa. Deinde pro faciat Vat. contra codd. et primas edd. faciant.Codex K reads duo diversa. Then for faciat the Vatican edition, against the codices and the first editions, reads faciant.
- Cod. T hic repetit est praeceptum.Codex T here repeats est praeceptum.
- Multi codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 faciunt, et mox pro faciet codd. X Z bb facient.Many codices, together with editions 1, 2, and 3, read faciunt, and soon after, for faciet, codices X, Z, and bb read facient.
- Vers. 15. — Glossa est ordinaria et habetur apud Strabum et Lyranum.[Ecclesiasticus 10:]15. — The Gloss is the Ordinary Gloss and is found in Strabo and in Lyra.
- De hac definitione cfr. supra pag. 838, nota 8. Potest etiam ad eam referri quae s. Doctor in libr. I. contra Iulian. Pelagian. c. 8. n. 37. malam voluntatem describens dicit, nimirum quod mala voluntas « non miscetur naturae, quae aliquod malum est, quia nulla natura, in quantum natura est, malum est; sed cum deficit a natura, quae summum atque incommutabile est bonum ». — Post pauca Vat. omittit completum.On this definition cf. above, p. 838, note 8. To it may also be referred what the holy Doctor says in Book I Against Julian the Pelagian, c. 8, n. 37, in describing the evil will, namely that the evil will « is not mixed with the nature, which is some evil thing, since no nature, insofar as it is a nature, is evil; but [it errs] when it falls away from the nature, which is the highest and unchangeable good ». — A little after, the Vatican edition omits completum.
- De his duabus proposs. cfr. supra d. 41. a. 2. q. 1. et hic a. 2. q. 1.On these two propositions cf. above, d. 41, a. 2, q. 1, and here, a. 2, q. 1.
- Vide Aristot., V. Phys. text. 3. seq., ubi docet, omnem motum esse a termino ex quo in terminum ad quem et denominari magis a termino ad quem. Ibid. text. 31. seqq. (c. 4.) tractat de iis quae ad unitatem motus requiruntur. Ultimum arg. verbum peccata abest a multis codd. et etiam a primis edd.See Aristotle, Physics V, text 3 ff., where he teaches that every motion is from a terminus from which to a terminus to which and is named rather from the terminus to which. Ibid., text 31 ff. (c. 4) he treats of those things which are required for the unity of motion. The last word of the argument, peccata, is absent from many codices and also from the first editions.
- Cfr. supra pag. 445, nota 5.Cf. above, p. 445, note 5.
- Edd. praeter 1 faciunt.The editions except the first read faciunt.
- Cap. 1. — Paulo superius pro contra conversionem in codd. L O legitur a conversione, et subinde pro sic constituit in cod. B sic dicit aliquod.Chapter 1. — A little above, for contra conversionem, codices L and O read a conversione, and immediately after, for sic constituit, codex B reads sic dicit aliquod.
- Post accipitur supple vel cum cod. Q (a secunda manu) magis, vel potius, quae vocula in cod. W secundis curis paulo inferius adiecta est post a fine; Vat. minus recte supplevit tam post accipitur.After accipitur supply vel, with codex Q (by a second hand) magis, or potius, which little word in codex W was, by a second revision, added a little lower down after a fine; the Vatican edition less correctly supplied tam after accipitur.
- Cod. F concurrunt.Codex F reads concurrunt.
- Codd. W Y subiiciunt scilicet.Codices W and Y add scilicet.
- Codd. K V ee de convenientia. Mox pro assignatur cod. T assignantur.Codices K, V, and ee read de convenientia. Soon after, for assignatur, codex T reads assignantur.