Dist. 43, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 43
Articulus I. De peccato in Spiritum sanctum comparato ad alia peccatorum genera.
Quaestio I. Utrum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum dicat genus peccati distinctum ab aliis generibus peccatorum.
Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum dicat genus peccati distinctum ab aliis generibus peccatorum. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Primo per verbum Magistri in littera1: « Est quoddam peccati genus ceteris gravius et abominabilius, quod dicitur peccatum in Spiritum sanctum ».
2. Item, hoc videtur ratione. Quia mortale et veniale faciunt diversa peccatorum genera, ergo multo fortius remissibile et irremissibile; sed peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est peccatum irremissibile2: ergo videtur, quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum sit aliud genus ab aliis generibus peccatorum.
3. Item, peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est peccatum procedens ex certa malitia: si ergo peccatum ex certa malitia dividitur contra peccatum ex ignorantia et infirmitate3, ergo videtur, quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum sit genus peccati distinctum.
4. Item, quod habet species proprias, a speciebus aliorum peccatorum distinctas, est genus peccati distinctum ab aliis peccatorum generibus; sed peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est huiusmodi, quoniam eius species sunt desperatio et obstinatio et veritatis agnitae impugnatio, quae sunt propriae species huius peccati, ita quod non aliorum4: ergo etc.
Sed contra: 1. « Peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, sicut dicit Magister in littera5 est peccatum ad mortem »; sed omne peccatum mortale est peccatum ad mortem: ergo cum peccatum ad mortem sit generale ad omnes peccatorum differentias, ergo et peccatum in Spiritum sanctum.
2. Item, peccatum in Spiritum sanctum aut sic nominatur, quia est in personam Spiritus sancti, aut quia est contra illud quod est appropriatum Spiritui sancto. Si quia contra personam Spiritus sancti; sed una est maiestas Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti6: ergo omne peccatum, quod est in Spiritum sanctum, est in Patrem, et omne quod est in Patrem, est in Spiritum sanctum: ergo hoc modo est generale ad omne peccatum. Sed si quia contra effectum appropriatum Spiritui sancto, utpote contra bonitatem et gratiam; sed omne peccatum est contra bonitatem et contra gratiam Spiritus sancti: ergo omne peccatum est peccatum in Spiritum sanctum.
3. Item, peccatum dividitur in peccatum ex infirmitate et ex ignorantia et ex malitia, ita quod peccatum ex malitia dicitur esse7 peccatum in Spiritum sanctum; sed peccatum ex ignorantia et peccatum ex infirmitate non dicit speciale genus peccati — omne enim genus peccati ex ignorantia potest esse et ex infirmitate — ergo non videtur similiter, quod peccatum ex malitia dicat determinatum peccati genus.
4. Item, omne quod quis facit ex ignorantia, potest facere ex certa scientia sive ex industria: ergo si omne genus peccati potest fieri ex certa industria, videtur, quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum circumeat omnia peccatorum genera: non ergo videtur esse peccati genus ab aliis peccatorum generibus distinctum.
Conclusio
Peccatum in Spiritum sanctum ratione sui principii, sui oppositi et actus substrati est genus peccati determinatum.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum dicit genus peccati distinctum ab aliis generibus peccatorum ratione triplici, videlicet ratione principii et ratione sui oppositi et ratione actus substrati.
Ratione principii, quia peccatum in Spiritum sanctum dicitur esse illud quod est ex certa malitia sive industria, ex qua non procedit omne peccatum, sed illud solum, quod homo facit scienter. — Ratione oppositi similiter distinguitur, quia, cum triplex sit gratia, videlicet innocentiae, baptismalis et poenitentialis, peccatum in Spiritum sanctum proprie habet opponi gratiae poenitentiali, et eam impugnat quantum ad sui initium et quantum ad sui terminum, sicut per originale perditur gratia innocentiae, et per actualia alia impugnatur gratia baptismalis8. — Ratione vero actus substrati similiter distinguitur, quia, cum peccatum illud sit impugnativum gratiae, et malitia sit in ipso spiritu secundum se, peccatum in Spiritum sanctum consistit circa actum ipsius spiritus, sicut patet in desperatione et obstinatione; unde fornicatio et adulterium non potest aliquo modo dici peccatum in Spiritum sanctum.
Ratione igitur sui principii et oppositi et actus substrati, peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est genus peccati determinatum. Et ratione horum trium sic nominatur, ut dicatur peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, videlicet ratione malitiae, a qua procedit, quae directe opponitur bonitati appropriatae Spiritui sancto; ratione poenitentialis sive finalis gratiae, quam privat, quae est effectus appropriatus Spiritui sancto; ratione etiam actus spiritualis, circa quem consistit; unde directe dicitur peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, quod est in spiritu et circa actum spiritus malignantis. — Et sic patet, quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est genus peccati ab aliis generibus peccatorum distinctum. Et concedendae sunt rationes, quae hoc ostendunt.
Ad oppositorum solutionem: Ad 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est peccatum ad mortem: dicendum, quod peccatum dicitur ad mortem secundum similitudinem ad mortem corporalem. In morte autem corporali tria concurrunt, quorum primum est amissio vitae, aliud est corruptio dispositionis ex parte corporis ad susceptionem animae, tertium est impossibilitas reparationis secundum cursum naturae. Quantum ad primam conditionem omne peccatum, in quo est aversio a Deo, dicitur esse peccatum mortale sive ad mortem. Quantum ad secundam peccatum in Spiritum sanctum dicitur peccatum ad mortem, quia tollit dispositionem ad susceptionem9 vitae, quae quidem consistit in susceptione poenitentiae. Quantum vero ad tertiam conditionem peccatum illud dicitur ad mortem, in quo quis corporaliter moritur. Cum ergo dicitur, quod omne peccatum mortale est ad mortem, et quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est peccatum ad mortem, differenti modo accipitur peccatum ad mortem.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod aut dicitur peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, quia est contra personam etc.; dicendum, quod ideo dicitur peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, non quia est contra personam, sed quia est contra appropriatum effectum; nec quia contra omnem effectum appropriatum, sed quia contra effectum praecipuum inter appropriata Spiritui sancto. Hic10 autem est donum gratiae finalis, sive poenitentialis, et huiusmodi proprie quantum ad statum gratiae finalis, in qua consistit omnis gratiae efficacia; et hoc modo non omne peccatum est contra effectum illum; et per hoc non sequitur, quod omne peccatum sit in Spiritum sanctum.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omne peccatum potest esse peccatum ex ignorantia et infirmitate; dicendum, quod non est simile, quoniam ignorantia non determinat sibi aliquem actum, nec etiam infirmitas11; et ideo non dicit genus peccati determinatum, sed circuit omnia peccatorum genera. Similiter dicendum de peccato, quod est ex infirmitate; non sic autem est de peccato, secundum quod est ex malitia. Ad hoc enim, quod sit peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, non sufficit, quod sit ex certa scientia et industria, sed requiritur determinatio generis quantum ad actum substratum.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omne peccatum potest fieri ex malitia; dicendum, quod etsi malitia concurrere possit ad omne peccatum, non tamen semper facit peccatum in Spiritum sanctum. Unde si aliquis senex, qui non habet12 appetitum fornicandi, excitaret carnem suam, ut fornicaretur, non diceretur in illa fornicatione peccare peccato in Spiritum sanctum, quamvis illud peccatum committeret ex industria et quadam malitia. Cum ergo dicitur, quod peccatum ex malitia est peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, hoc solum intelligitur de illis generibus peccatorum, quae proprie ex malitia habent ortum, sicut invidentia fraternae gratiae et impugnatio veritatis agnitae.
I. Iam Aristoteles (V. Ethic. c. 8.) triplicem distinxit modum peccandi, scilicet ex ignorantia, passione et electione, unde antiqui theologi communiter tria genera peccatorum, scilicet ignorantiae, infirmitatis et malitiae (cfr. supra d. 42. dub. 2.) distinxerunt, et ita ut primum genus dicatur esse appropriate in Filium, secundum in Patrem, tertium in Spiritum S. (vide lit. Magistri, hic in fine dist.). — Praenotandum est, ut docet Alex. Hal. (3. p. II. q. 156. m. I.), quod peccatum contra Spiritum S. interdum largius sumitur pro quocumque peccato mortali ex certa malitia cum mentis pertinacia commisso, et sic « addit conditionem super genus peccati » (ibid.); proprie autem sumtum est genus quoddam peccati, « quo per se impugnatur ipsa gratia Spiritus S., in qua fit remissio peccatorum ». — Item, praenotat S. Thom. (hic a. I.), quod illud peccatum differt ab eo quod committitur directe contra personam Spiritus S., scilicet quando de ea male sentitur, cum sit potius peccatum contra attributum bonitatis, quod Spiritui S. appropriatur. Consentit S. Bonav. (hic in corp. et ad 2.). — Hinc docet Seraphicus, non omne peccatum malitiae esse peccatum in Spiritum S., sed praeter malitiam (de qua cfr. hic a. 2. q. I.) requiri, quod sit peccatum spirituale, et quod eius terminus specialiter opponatur bonitati Spiritui S. appropriatae (cfr. infra a. 3. q. I. 2, et Breviloq. p. III. c. 11.). — Paulo aliter Scot. (hic q. I. n. 7.), qui ad peccatum in Spiritum S. haec tria requiri vult, « scilicet, quod sit ex certa malitia; quod sit contra praeceptum primae tabulae; et quod sit actus oppositus perfectissimo actui conversivo ». Porro S. Thom. (hic a. 2.), praeter malitiam, pro speciali obiecto huius peccati assignat, quod sit contra hoc quod « a peccato natum erat retrahere... Et istud est bonitas quaedam, vel aliquis effectus Spiritui S. appropriabilis ». Alii etiam aliis utuntur loquendi modis; insuper antiquiores etiam in assignatione numeri specierum huius peccati dissidebant, ut iam patet ex littera Magistri. — In ipsa autem conclusione antiqui magistri conveniunt; nisi quod Aegid. R. (qui recedens ab aliis enumerat octo peccata in Spiritum S.) hic distinctione utitur et eorum quatuor tantum dicit esse determinati generis, quae sunt desperatio, praesumtio, impugnatio veritatis agnitae et invidentia fraternae gratiae.
II. Praeter locos citatos: S. Thom., S. II. II. q. 14. a. I; de Malo, q. 3. a. 14. — B. Albert., hic a. 3; S. p. II. tr. 23. q. 140. m. I. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. I. — Aegid. R., hic q. I. a. 2. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. I. — Biel, de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.
III. Quoad solutionem sequentis quaest. Ss. Thomas et Bonav. conveniunt in hoc, quod peccatum in Spiritum S. fere semper sequatur peccata praecedentia; in hoc autem discedit Thom. a Bonav., quod ipse possibile esse putat, in primo actu peccandi etiam eas species huius peccati committi, « quae (secundum S. Bonaventuram) nullo modo possunt esse absque peccato praeambulo, sicut sunt obstinatio, desperatio et finalis impoenitentia ». S. Bonaventurae consentiunt Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., Dionys. Carth.; at Aegid. R. unam tantum speciem excipit, quae non possit fieri nisi post alia peccata.
De hac 2. quaestione specialiter tractant: S. Thom., hic a. 3; S. loc. cit. a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. I. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.
---
Article I. On the sin against the Holy Spirit compared to the other kinds of sins.
Question I. Whether the sin against the Holy Spirit names a kind of sin distinct from the other kinds of sins.
Concerning the first point one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether the sin against the Holy Spirit names a kind of sin distinct from the other kinds of sins. And that it does, it seems:
1. First, by the word of the Master in the text1: « There is a certain kind of sin graver and more abominable than the rest, which is called the sin against the Holy Spirit ».
2. Likewise, this seems so by reason. For the mortal and the venial make different kinds of sins, therefore much more strongly the remissible and the irremissible; but the sin against the Holy Spirit is an irremissible sin2: therefore it seems that the sin against the Holy Spirit is a kind other than the other kinds of sins.
3. Likewise, the sin against the Holy Spirit is a sin proceeding from settled malice: if therefore the sin from settled malice is divided over against the sin from ignorance and from weakness3, therefore it seems that the sin against the Holy Spirit is a distinct kind of sin.
4. Likewise, that which has its own species, distinct from the species of the other sins, is a kind of sin distinct from the other kinds of sins; but the sin against the Holy Spirit is of this sort, since its species are despair and obstinacy and the impugning of acknowledged truth, which are the proper species of this sin, and not of the others4: therefore, etc.
On the contrary: 1. « The sin against the Holy Spirit, as the Master says in the text5, is a sin unto death »; but every mortal sin is a sin unto death: therefore, since the sin unto death is general to all the differences of sins, then so too is the sin against the Holy Spirit.
2. Likewise, the sin against the Holy Spirit is so named either because it is against the person of the Holy Spirit, or because it is against that which is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. If because it is against the person of the Holy Spirit; but the majesty of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one6: therefore every sin that is against the Holy Spirit is against the Father, and everything that is against the Father is against the Holy Spirit: therefore in this way it would be general to every sin. But if because it is against the effect appropriated to the Holy Spirit, namely against goodness and grace; but every sin is against the goodness and against the grace of the Holy Spirit: therefore every sin is a sin against the Holy Spirit.
3. Likewise, sin is divided into sin from weakness and from ignorance and from malice, such that sin from malice is said to be7 the sin against the Holy Spirit; but sin from ignorance and sin from weakness do not name a special kind of sin — for every kind of sin can be from ignorance and from weakness — therefore it does not seem in like manner that sin from malice names a determinate kind of sin.
4. Likewise, everything that anyone does from ignorance, he can do from settled knowledge or from deliberate purpose: therefore if every kind of sin can be done from settled purpose, it seems that the sin against the Holy Spirit would range over all the kinds of sins: therefore it does not seem to be a kind of sin distinct from the other kinds of sins.
Conclusion
The sin against the Holy Spirit, by reason of its principle, of its opposite, and of its underlying act, is a determinate kind of sin.
I respond: It must be said that the sin against the Holy Spirit names a kind of sin distinct from the other kinds of sins by a threefold reason, namely by reason of its principle, by reason of its opposite, and by reason of its underlying act.
By reason of its principle, because the sin against the Holy Spirit is said to be that which is from settled malice or deliberate purpose, from which not every sin proceeds, but only that which a person does knowingly. — By reason of its opposite it is likewise distinguished, because, since grace is threefold, namely of innocence, baptismal, and penitential, the sin against the Holy Spirit properly is opposed to penitential grace, and impugns it both as to its beginning and as to its term, just as through original sin the grace of innocence is lost, and through the other actual sins baptismal grace is impugned8. — And by reason of its underlying act it is likewise distinguished, because, since that sin is impugnative of grace, and the malice is in the spirit itself according to itself, the sin against the Holy Spirit consists about the act of the spirit itself, as is evident in despair and obstinacy; whence fornication and adultery cannot in any way be called a sin against the Holy Spirit.
Therefore by reason of its principle and of its opposite and of its underlying act, the sin against the Holy Spirit is a determinate kind of sin. And by reason of these three it is so named, that it be called the sin against the Holy Spirit, namely by reason of the malice from which it proceeds, which is directly opposed to the goodness appropriated to the Holy Spirit; by reason of the penitential or final grace which it deprives, which is the effect appropriated to the Holy Spirit; and also by reason of the spiritual act about which it consists; whence it is directly called a sin against the Holy Spirit, which is in the spirit and about the act of the malignant spirit. — And thus it is evident that the sin against the Holy Spirit is a kind of sin distinct from the other kinds of sins. And the arguments that show this are to be conceded.
To the solution of the opposed arguments: To 1. To that which is objected, that it is a sin unto death: it must be said that a sin is called "unto death" according to a likeness to bodily death. Now in bodily death three things concur, of which the first is the loss of life, the second is the corruption of the disposition on the part of the body for the reception of the soul, the third is the impossibility of repair according to the course of nature. As to the first condition, every sin in which there is an aversion from God is said to be a mortal sin or unto death. As to the second, the sin against the Holy Spirit is called a sin unto death, because it takes away the disposition for the reception9 of life, which indeed consists in the reception of penance. But as to the third condition, that sin is called "unto death" in which one dies corporeally. When therefore it is said that every mortal sin is unto death, and that the sin against the Holy Spirit is a sin unto death, "sin unto death" is taken in a different way.
To 2. To that which is objected, that the sin against the Holy Spirit is so called either because it is against the person etc.; it must be said that it is called a sin against the Holy Spirit not because it is against the person, but because it is against the appropriated effect; nor because it is against every appropriated effect, but because it is against the chief effect among the things appropriated to the Holy Spirit. And this10 is the gift of final grace, that is, of penitential grace, and such properly as to the state of final grace, in which all efficacy of grace consists; and in this way not every sin is against that effect; and through this it does not follow that every sin is against the Holy Spirit.
To 3. To that which is objected, that every sin can be a sin from ignorance and weakness; it must be said that the case is not alike, since ignorance does not determine for itself any act, nor does weakness either11; and therefore it does not name a determinate kind of sin, but ranges over all the kinds of sins. The like is to be said of the sin which is from weakness; but it is not so of the sin insofar as it is from malice. For in order that it be a sin against the Holy Spirit, it does not suffice that it be from settled knowledge and purpose, but there is required a determination of kind with respect to the underlying act.
To 4. To that which is objected, that every sin can be done from malice; it must be said that although malice can concur in every sin, nevertheless it does not always make a sin against the Holy Spirit. Whence if some old man, who does not have12 an appetite for fornicating, were to arouse his flesh that he might fornicate, he would not be said in that fornication to sin with a sin against the Holy Spirit, although he committed that sin from purpose and a certain malice. When therefore it is said that the sin from malice is a sin against the Holy Spirit, this is understood only of those kinds of sins which properly take their origin from malice, such as envy of a brother's grace and the impugning of acknowledged truth.
I. Already Aristotle (Ethics V, c. 8) distinguished a threefold manner of sinning, namely from ignorance, from passion, and from choice, whence the ancient theologians commonly distinguished three kinds of sins, namely of ignorance, of weakness, and of malice (cf. above d. 42, dub. 2), and so that the first kind is said to be appropriately against the Son, the second against the Father, the third against the Holy Spirit (see the text of the Master, here at the end of the distinction). — It must be noted, as Alexander of Hales teaches (3rd part, II, q. 156, m. I), that sin against the Holy Spirit is sometimes taken more broadly for any mortal sin committed from settled malice with stubbornness of mind, and thus it « adds a condition over and above the kind of sin » (ibid.); but taken properly it is a certain kind of sin, « by which the very grace of the Holy Spirit, in which the remission of sins takes place, is impugned of itself ». — Likewise, St. Thomas notes (here a. I) that that sin differs from the one committed directly against the person of the Holy Spirit, namely when one thinks ill of him, since it is rather a sin against the attribute of goodness, which is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. St. Bonaventure agrees (here in the body and at reply 2). — Hence the Seraphic Doctor teaches that not every sin of malice is a sin against the Holy Spirit, but that besides malice (concerning which cf. here a. 2, q. I) it is required that it be a spiritual sin, and that its term be specially opposed to the goodness appropriated to the Holy Spirit (cf. below a. 3, q. I and 2, and Breviloquium, part III, c. 11). — Somewhat differently Scotus (here q. I, n. 7), who holds that these three are required for the sin against the Holy Spirit, « namely, that it be from settled malice; that it be against a precept of the first table; and that it be an act opposed to the most perfect converting act ». Moreover St. Thomas (here a. 2), besides malice, assigns as the special object of this sin that it be against that which « was apt to draw one back from sin... And this is a certain goodness, or some effect appropriable to the Holy Spirit ». Others too use other modes of speaking; moreover the older writers also disagreed in assigning the number of the species of this sin, as is already evident from the text of the Master. — But in the conclusion itself the ancient masters agree; except that Giles of Rome (who, departing from the others, enumerates eight sins against the Holy Spirit) here uses a distinction and says that only four of them are of a determinate kind, which are despair, presumption, the impugning of acknowledged truth, and envy of a brother's grace.
II. Besides the places cited: St. Thomas, Summa II-II, q. 14, a. I; de Malo, q. 3, a. 14. — Bl. Albert, here a. 3; Summa part II, tr. 23, q. 140, m. I. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. I, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. I, q. I. — Giles of Rome, here q. I, a. 2. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. I. — Biel, on this and the following questions here q. unica.
III. As to the solution of the following question: Sts. Thomas and Bonaventure agree in this, that the sin against the Holy Spirit nearly always follows preceding sins; but in this Thomas departs from Bonaventure, that the latter holds it possible that even those species of this sin be committed in the first act of sinning, « which (according to St. Bonaventure) can in no way be without a preceding sin, such as are obstinacy, despair, and final impenitence ». With St. Bonaventure agree Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, Dionysius the Carthusian; but Giles of Rome excepts only one species, which cannot be done except after other sins.
On this second question there treat specially: St. Thomas, here a. 3; Summa loc. cit. a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. I. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. I, q. 2. — Giles of Rome, here q. 2, a. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.
---
- Hic in principio.Here at the beginning [of the distinction].
- Vide hic lit. Magistri, et infra a. 2. q. 2.See the text of the Master here, and below a. 2, q. 2.
- Secundum Isidorum, de quo vide supra in lit. Magistri, d. XXII. c. 4. in fine. Cfr. etiam hic lit. Magistri, in fine, nec non Aristot., V. Ethic. c. 8. seqq., ubi ostenditur, nocumenta esse ex ignorantia, passione et electione.According to Isidore, on whom see above in the text of the Master, d. XXII, c. 4, at the end. Cf. also the text of the Master here, at the end, and also Aristotle, Ethics V, c. 8 ff., where it is shown that harms come from ignorance, passion, and choice.
- Probatur infra a. 3. q. 2.This is proved below a. 3, q. 2.
- Hic circa initium. — In ultima conclusione Vat. et edd. 3, 4 post ergo et addunt ad ipsum, edd. 1, 2 ipsum.Here near the beginning. — In the last conclusion the Vatican edition and editions 3, 4 add ad ipsum after ergo et; editions 1, 2 [add] ipsum.
- Cfr. Symbol. Athanas. nec non dictum Ambrosii hic in lit. Magistri, in fine, allatum. Specialiter contra personam Spiritus S. peccari potest vel per infidelitatem circa Spiritum S., vel per blasphemiam specialem contra Spiritum S. — Paulo inferius pro secundo in Spiritum sanctum cod. T in Filium.Cf. the Athanasian Creed, and also the saying of Ambrose adduced here in the text of the Master, at the end. One can sin specially against the person of the Holy Spirit either through unbelief concerning the Holy Spirit, or through a special blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. — A little below, for the second against the Holy Spirit codex T reads against the Son.
- Pro dicitur esse, edd. exhibent est, eaedemque paulo inferius post genus peccati inserunt quod est. Pro non dicit speciale cod. Y non dicunt speciale.For is said to be, the editions present is, and the same a little below insert which is after kind of sin. For does not name a special codex Y [reads] do not name a special.
- August., Serm. 71. (alias 11. de Verbis Domini) c. 12. n. 20: Contra hoc donum gratuitum [scil. remissionem peccatorum], contra istam Dei gratiam loquitur cor impoenitens. Ipsa ergo impoenitentia est spiritus blasphemiae, quae non remittetur, neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro. Contra Spiritum enim sanctum, quo baptizantur quorum peccata omnia dimittuntur etc. — Paulo ante nonnulli codd. nec non Vat. et edd. 3, 4 omittunt alia.Augustine, Sermon 71 (otherwise 11, On the Words of the Lord) c. 12, n. 20: Against this gratuitous gift [namely the remission of sins], against that grace of God the impenitent heart speaks. That impenitence, then, is the spirit of blasphemy, which shall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the world to come. For against the Holy Spirit, by whom are baptized those whose sins are all forgiven, etc. — A little before, several codices, as well as the Vatican edition and editions 3, 4, omit other.
- In cod. T deest ad susceptionem. — De quadruplici morte cfr. III. Sent. d. 18. dub. 5; quomodo mors et vita opponantur, I. Sent. d. 8. p. I. dub. 9, supra d. 19. dub. 3; de differentia inter mortem corporalem et spiritualem III. Sent. d. 36. dub. 2.In codex T for the reception is lacking. — On the fourfold death cf. III Sent. d. 18, dub. 5; how death and life are opposed, I Sent. d. 8, p. I, dub. 9, above d. 19, dub. 3; on the difference between bodily and spiritual death, III Sent. d. 36, dub. 2.
- Plurimi codd. atque edd. 1, 2 Hoc.Very many codices, and editions 1, 2, [read] This [neuter Hoc for Hic].
- Vat. omittit nec etiam infirmitas. Paulo inferius cod. Y omittit secundum.The Vatican edition omits nor does weakness either. A little below, codex Y omits according to.
- Codd. I W Z haberet.Codices I, W, Z [read] would have [haberet for habet]. ---