Dist. 43, Art. 2, Q. 1
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 43
Articulus II. De eodem peccato quoad conditiones proprias.
Consequenter quaeritur de hoc peccati genere quantum ad conditiones proprias, et circa hoc quaeruntur duo.
Primo quaeritur de huius peccati gravitate.
Secundo quaeritur de huius peccati irremissibilitate.
Quaestio I. Utrum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum sit gravissimum.
Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum illud peccati genus sit gravissimum. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Primo per auctoritatem Magistri in littera4: « Est praeterea quoddam peccati genus ceteris gravius et abominabilius ».
2. Item, ratione videtur. Maius est peccatum, quod magis facit distare a venia; sed tale est peccatum in Spiritum sanctum: ergo etc.
3. Item, maius est peccatum, quod minus habet de ratione excusationis; sed peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est huiusmodi, minus enim habet inter cetera peccatorum genera de colore excusationis: ergo etc.
4. Item, maius est peccatum, quod magis inhabilitat animam ad iustitiam; sed peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est huiusmodi, quia maxime voluntatem deordinat: ergo etc.
5. Item, sicut ignorantia excusat peccantem, sic scientia aggravat, quia servus sciens voluntatem Domini sui5 etc.; sed peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est peccatum ex industria sive ex certa malitia: ergo etc.
Sed contra: 1. Super illud Psalmi6: Convertentur ad vesperam etc., Glossa: « Nemo insanabilior eo qui sibi sanus videtur »; ergo minus elongat a sanitate peccatum, in quo quis peccat scienter, quam in quo quis peccat ignoranter; sed peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est peccatum, in quo quis peccat scienter: ergo videtur, quod minus peccatum sit quam peccatum ignorantiae.
2. Item, etsi una sit maiestas Trium, et aequaliter sint omnes honorandi7; tamen maiestas appropriatur Patri, et honor per appropriationem ei debetur: ergo peccatum, quod est in Patrem, vel tantum vel plus Deum inhonorat, quantum peccatum, quod est in Filium, vel Spiritum sanctum. Si ergo qualitas peccati pensatur secundum quantitatem contemptus, videtur, quod non sit magis grave peccatum in Spiritum sanctum quam peccatum in Patrem et Filium.
3. Item, malitia est poena inflicta pro peccato originali, sicut ignorantia et infirmitas8; sed ignorantia et infirmitas, quia sunt poenae, aliquo modo excusant peccatum consequens: ergo pari ratione et malitia.
4. Item, illud peccatum gravius est, in quo magis regnat libido9; sed in peccato, quod est ex concupiscentia, magis regnat libido quam in peccato, quod est ex malitia — sicut patet, quia maior est libido in fornicatione quam in desperatione — ergo videtur, quod maius sit peccatum, quod est ex concupiscentia, quam illud quod est ex malitia: igitur peccatum in Spiritum sanctum non est peccatum gravissimum.
5. Item, gravius est peccatum, in quo est maioris boni corruptio; sed in peccato infidelitatis maior est corruptio quam in peccato in Spiritum sanctum, in illo enim peccato receditur et a veritate et a bonitate10: ergo videtur, quod infidelitas vel haeresis gravior sit quam peccatum in Spiritum sanctum.
Conclusio.
Conclusio. Peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est gravissimum, et quia naturam maxime laedit, et quia oculos Dei maxime offendit.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est peccatum gravissimum, et quia naturam maxime laedit, et quia oculos Dei maxime offendit. — Naturam, inquam, maxime laedit, dum non solum aufert ei sanitatem, sed etiam praecludit viam ad sanitatem; unde sicut morbus periculosior est, qui non tantum laedit naturam, sed etiam praecludit viam ad sumtionem11 cibi vel medicamenti; sic intelligendum est de isto morbo spirituali. Oculos Dei maxime offendit, quia nullum habet colorem excusationis; et ideo peccans hoc genere peccati meretur severius iudicari. Et propter haec duo dicit Magister, quod hoc peccatum « ceteris est gravius et abominabilius », ut gravius dicatur ratione maioris laesionis, abominabilius ratione defectus excusationis.
Ratio autem huius est, quia peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est ex malitia, et non solum ex malitia, sed ex malitia et industria. Tunc enim peccat quis peccato in Spiritum sanctum, quando ad malum movetur ex nequitia spiritus, sciens, se moveri ad malum; unde peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est ex malitia, conflata ex concursu malitiae ex originali peccato contractae et malitiae actualis coniunctae industriae; et ideo non tantum dicitur esse ex malitia, sed ex certa malitia. — Prima autem malitia, scilicet ex originali relicta, hoc peccatum non excusat, quia talis malitia est in ipsa voluntate secundum se; et ideo, cum voluntati subiaceat, non minuit rationem voluntarii, sicut facit infirmitas et ignorantia; et quia non minuit rationem voluntarii, non diminuit de ratione peccati; et propterea non excusat. — Alia autem malitia non solum non excusat, sed etiam multum aggravat tum ratione improbitatis propriae, tum ratione cognitionis adiunctae; utriusque enim est aggravare. — Et sic patet, quare peccatum in Spiritum sanctum maxime oculos Dei offendit, videlicet quia est ex certa malitia.
Ex hac etiam eadem causa naturam laedit1. Laesio enim peccati principaliter consistit in deordinatione voluntatis; et quanto voluntas magis improbe ad aliquid se inclinat, tanto magis se deordinat et depravat. Et quia ex certa malitia hoc peccatum procedit, ideo in hoc peccati genere scienter et prudenter, immo etiam imprudenter, peccator praeeligit malum; et ideo voluntas eius magis in hoc peccato quam in aliis respuit bonum, quia amplius inficitur voluntatis gustus; et hinc est etiam, quod respuit medicamentum, quemadmodum gustus maxime infectus respuit bonum cibum.
Quoniam igitur hoc peccatum ex certa malitia procedit, hinc est, quod est ceteris aliis gravius et abominabilius, quantum est ex genere peccati. Hinc est etiam, quod est maxime naturae laesivum, et maxime oculorum divinae Maiestatis offensivum. — Et ideo concedendae sunt rationes ostendentes, istud peccatum esse gravissimum.
Ad obiecta: 1. Ad illud quod primo obiicitur, quod peccatum ex ignorantia magis a sanitate elongat; dicendum, quod maior insanabilitas ex duplici causa potest venire: aut ex conditione morbi, aut ex conditione infirmi. Cum ergo dicitur, quod nemo est insanabilior eo qui sibi sanus videtur, hoc intelligitur quantum ad conditionem et statum infirmi, pro eo quod talis, non sentiens se infirmum, non quaerit medicum, et ita nunquam sanatur. Quantum autem ad conditionem morbi non habet veritatem. Si enim peccans ex ignorantia erudiatur, de facili recipit sanitatem; peccans autem in Spiritum sanctum rebellis est eruditioni ex ipsa natura talis morbi; et ideo, quantum est de se, peccatum illud et gravius est et insanabilius.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod peccatum in Patrem est aeque grave, vel magis, quam peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, quia Patri appropriatur maiestas; dicendum, quod illud peccatum non dicitur esse gravius aliis, pro eo quod in ipso contemnatur magis persona Spiritus sancti quam persona Patris — nam in omni peccato contemnitur una maiestas trium personarum; unde sicut hoc genus peccati non distinguitur a peccato in Patrem ex hoc, quod hic contemnatur Spiritus sanctus, et ibi Pater, sic nec ex hoc gravius iudicatur5b — sed ex
hoc gravius est, quia in ipso amplius contemnitur trium personarum maiestas quam in aliis generibus peccatorum. Magis enim impugnat gratiam, quae est totius Trinitatis effectus; et ideo maius est peccati genus; et ideo ratio illa procedit ex falso intellectu.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod malitia est poena inflicta, ergo debet excusare, sicut aliae poenae; dicendum, quod non est simile. Et ratio huius est, quia malitia respicit ipsam voluntatem secundum se, sed ignorantia respicit intellectum, et infirmitas respicit carnem2b; et illa non adeo sunt in voluntate sicut ipsa malitia; et ideo magis diminuunt de ratione peccati quam malitia. Praeterea, peccatum in Spiritum sanctum non tantum est ex malitia contracta, immo est ex malitia conflata ex malitia contracta et malitia propria, sicut supra dictum est.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod illud peccatum est gravius, in quo magis regnat libido; dicendum, quod libido maior dicitur dupliciter; aut ratione maioris voluptatis, aut ratione maioris improbitatis. Libido enim nominat voluntatem voluptuosam et improbam3b. Cum igitur dicitur, quod gravitas peccati attenditur secundum quantitatem libidinis; dicendum, quod verum est, secundum quod quantitas libidinis pensatur secundum improbitatem voluntatis; sed non est verum, secundum quod pensatur penes delectationem; sicut patet, quia gravius peccat senex fornicator vel adulterator quam iuvenis; ex improbiori enim voluntate movetur, quamvis iuvenis amplius delectetur. Licet ergo in aliis generibus peccatorum magis abundet libido quantum ad delectationem; quia tamen in hoc peccato magis abundat quantum ad improbitatem voluntatis, istud gravius est.
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod maior est corruptio in peccato infidelitatis; dicendum, quod maior corruptio potest esse dupliciter: aut intensive, aut extensive. Extensive loquendo, plura bona privantur in peccato infidelitatis quam in peccato in Spiritum sanctum, quia in illo peccati genere tollitur totius spiritualis aedificii fundamentum. Intensive autem magis fit privatio in peccato in Spiritum sanctum, pro eo quod magis reddit inhabilem ad bonum et amplius firmat in malo; unde illud peccatum recte dicitur3 gravius, in quo est maior boni privatio intensive. Et quia peccatum haeresis frequentissime habet coniunctum peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, utpote obstinationem; hinc est, quod illud peccatum est valde periculosum. Si enim solum ex ignorantia haeretici moverentur, facilius adhiberetur sibi remedium; sed quia animo obstinato pertinaciter adhaerent errori suo, ideo franguntur potius, quam incurventur.
I. Alii antiqui Scholastici tantum de secunda huius articuli quaestione explicite tractant, exceptis Petro a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2; Richardo a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1; Dionysio Carth., hic q. 1.
II. Quoad sequentem quaest. S. Doctor clarissime suam sententiam explanat et apte conciliat duas opiniones, sive potius modos loquendi, cum scilicet fundentur in diversa, vel strictiore vel largiore, determinatione ipsius peccati in Spiritum S. Omnes doctores autem in hoc consentiunt, quod praeter illas rationes, quae omnibus peccatis ex malitia commissis conveniunt, in ipsa natura huius peccati specialis ratio sit, quare a Domino hoc peccatum appellatum sit irremissibile, scilicet quia in peccante privat dispositionem ad gratiam et veniam suscipiendam, quin tamen omnipotenti Patri misericordiae praecludatur via sanandi hunc morbum quasi desperatum.
III. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 1-36. m. 6. — Scot., hic q. 1. n. 7; Report., hic q. unica n. 6. — S. Thom., hic a. 4; S. II. II. q. 14. a. 3; de Malo, q. 3. a. 15. — B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. p. II. tr. 23. q. 140. m. 3. a. 2. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 1.
---
Article II. On the same sin as to its proper conditions.
It is asked next concerning this kind of sin as to its proper conditions, and concerning this two questions are raised.
First it is asked concerning the gravity of this sin.
Second it is asked concerning the irremissibility of this sin.
Question I. Whether the sin against the Holy Spirit is the gravest.
Concerning the first one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether that kind of sin is the gravest. And that it is, seems to be the case:
1. First, by the authority of the Master in the text4: "There is, moreover, a certain kind of sin graver and more abominable than the rest."
2. Likewise, it seems so by reason. That sin is greater which puts one further from pardon; but such is the sin against the Holy Spirit: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, that sin is greater which has less of the ground of excuse; but the sin against the Holy Spirit is of this kind, for it has, among the other kinds of sins, less of the color of excuse: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, that sin is greater which more disables the soul for justice; but the sin against the Holy Spirit is of this kind, because it most disorders the will: therefore etc.
5. Likewise, just as ignorance excuses the sinner, so knowledge aggravates, because the servant who knows the will of his Lord5 etc.; but the sin against the Holy Spirit is a sin from deliberateness or from settled malice: therefore etc.
On the contrary: 1. Upon that text of the Psalm6: They shall be converted at evening etc., the Gloss: "No one is more incurable than he who seems to himself to be healthy"; therefore the sin in which one sins knowingly puts one less far from health than that in which one sins ignorantly; but the sin against the Holy Spirit is a sin in which one sins knowingly: therefore it seems that it is a lesser sin than the sin of ignorance.
2. Likewise, although the majesty of the Three is one, and all are equally to be honored7; nevertheless majesty is appropriated to the Father, and honor by appropriation is owed to Him: therefore the sin which is against the Father dishonors God either as much as, or more than, the sin which is against the Son or the Holy Spirit. If therefore the quality of a sin is weighed according to the quantity of contempt, it seems that the sin against the Holy Spirit is not more grave than the sin against the Father and the Son.
3. Likewise, malice is a penalty inflicted for original sin, just as ignorance and infirmity are8; but ignorance and infirmity, because they are penalties, in some way excuse the consequent sin: therefore by parity of reasoning malice does too.
4. Likewise, that sin is graver in which lust more reigns9; but in the sin which is from concupiscence lust reigns more than in the sin which is from malice — as is plain, because the lust in fornication is greater than in despair — therefore it seems that the sin which is from concupiscence is greater than that which is from malice: therefore the sin against the Holy Spirit is not the gravest sin.
5. Likewise, that sin is graver in which there is corruption of a greater good; but in the sin of unbelief the corruption is greater than in the sin against the Holy Spirit, for in that sin one departs both from truth and from goodness10: therefore it seems that unbelief or heresy is graver than the sin against the Holy Spirit.
Conclusion.
Conclusion. The sin against the Holy Spirit is the gravest, both because it most harms nature and because it most offends the eyes of God.
I respond: It must be said that the sin against the Holy Spirit is the gravest sin, both because it most harms nature and because it most offends the eyes of God. — It most harms nature, I say, in that it not only takes from it health, but also blocks the way to health; whence, just as that disease is more dangerous which not only harms nature but also blocks the way to the taking11 of food or medicine, so is it to be understood of this spiritual disease. It most offends the eyes of God, because it has no color of excuse; and therefore one who sins by this kind of sin deserves to be judged more severely. And on account of these two things the Master says that this sin is "graver and more abominable than the rest," so that it is called graver by reason of the greater harm, more abominable by reason of the lack of excuse.
The reason for this is that the sin against the Holy Spirit is from malice, and not only from malice, but from malice and deliberateness. For then does one sin by the sin against the Holy Spirit, when one is moved to evil out of wickedness of spirit, knowing oneself to be moved to evil; whence the sin against the Holy Spirit is from malice, fused together from the concurrence of the malice contracted from original sin and the malice of conjoined actual deliberateness; and therefore it is said to be not only from malice, but from settled malice. — Now the first malice, namely that left from original sin, does not excuse this sin, because such malice is in the will itself in its own right; and therefore, since it is subject to the will, it does not lessen the character of the voluntary, as infirmity and ignorance do; and because it does not lessen the character of the voluntary, it does not diminish the character of sin; and therefore it does not excuse. — But the other malice not only does not excuse, but even greatly aggravates, both by reason of its own wickedness and by reason of the adjoined knowledge; for it belongs to each to aggravate. — And thus it is plain why the sin against the Holy Spirit most offends the eyes of God, namely because it is from settled malice.
From this same cause also it harms nature1. For the harm of sin consists principally in the disordering of the will; and the more wickedly the will inclines itself to something, the more it disorders and depraves itself. And because this sin proceeds from settled malice, therefore in this kind of sin the sinner knowingly and deliberately, indeed even imprudently, chooses evil beforehand; and therefore his will, more in this sin than in others, rejects the good, because the will's taste is more deeply infected; and hence it is also that it rejects the medicine, just as a taste most infected rejects good food.
Since therefore this sin proceeds from settled malice, hence it is that it is graver and more abominable than the rest, so far as it is from the kind of sin. Hence it is also that it is most harmful to nature, and most offensive to the eyes of the divine Majesty. — And therefore the arguments showing that this sin is the gravest are to be granted.
To the objections: 1. To that which is first objected, that the sin from ignorance puts one further from health; it must be said that greater incurability can come from two causes: either from the condition of the disease, or from the condition of the sick man. When therefore it is said that no one is more incurable than he who seems to himself to be healthy, this is understood as to the condition and state of the sick man, in that such a one, not feeling himself sick, does not seek the physician, and so is never healed. But as to the condition of the disease it does not hold true. For if one who sins from ignorance is instructed, he easily recovers health; but one who sins against the Holy Spirit is rebellious to instruction by the very nature of such a disease; and therefore, so far as in itself, that sin is both graver and more incurable.
2. To that which is objected, that the sin against the Father is equally grave, or more so, than the sin against the Holy Spirit, because majesty is appropriated to the Father; it must be said that that sin is not called graver than others on the ground that in it the person of the Holy Spirit is contemned more than the person of the Father — for in every sin the one majesty of the three persons is contemned; whence, just as this kind of sin is not distinguished from the sin against the Father by the fact that here the Holy Spirit is contemned, and there the Father, so neither is it on this account judged graver5b — but it is
graver on this account, that in it the majesty of the three persons is more contemned than in the other kinds of sins. For it more assails grace, which is the effect of the whole Trinity; and therefore it is a greater kind of sin; and therefore that argument proceeds from a false understanding.
3. To that which is objected, that malice is a penalty inflicted, therefore it ought to excuse, just as the other penalties; it must be said that it is not the same. And the reason for this is that malice regards the will itself in its own right, but ignorance regards the intellect, and infirmity regards the flesh2b; and these are not so much in the will as malice itself; and therefore they diminish the character of sin more than malice does. Moreover, the sin against the Holy Spirit is not only from contracted malice, but rather is from malice fused together from contracted malice and proper malice, as was said above.
4. To that which is objected, that that sin is graver in which lust more reigns; it must be said that greater lust is so called in two ways; either by reason of greater pleasure, or by reason of greater wickedness. For lust names a will that is pleasure-seeking and wicked3b. When therefore it is said that the gravity of a sin is reckoned according to the quantity of lust; it must be said that this is true insofar as the quantity of lust is weighed according to the wickedness of the will; but it is not true insofar as it is weighed in respect of pleasure; as is plain, because an old fornicator or adulterer sins more gravely than a young one; for he is moved by a more wicked will, although the young man takes more pleasure. Although therefore in the other kinds of sins lust more abounds as to pleasure; nevertheless, because in this sin it more abounds as to the wickedness of the will, this sin is graver.
5. To that which is objected, that the corruption is greater in the sin of unbelief; it must be said that greater corruption can be in two ways: either intensively, or extensively. Speaking extensively, more goods are taken away in the sin of unbelief than in the sin against the Holy Spirit, because in that kind of sin the foundation of the whole spiritual edifice is removed. But intensively the privation is greater in the sin against the Holy Spirit, in that it more renders one unfit for the good and more firmly fixes one in evil; whence that sin is rightly called3 graver in which there is greater privation of good intensively. And because the sin of heresy very frequently has the sin against the Holy Spirit conjoined, as obstinacy; hence it is that that sin is very dangerous. For if heretics were moved only from ignorance, a remedy would more easily be applied to them; but because with obstinate mind they pertinaciously cling to their error, they are broken rather than bent.
I. Other older Scholastics treat explicitly only of the second question of this article, except Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1; Denis the Carthusian, here q. 1.
II. As to the following question, the holy Doctor most clearly sets forth his own opinion and aptly reconciles two opinions, or rather modes of speaking, since they are founded on a different — whether stricter or broader — determination of the sin against the Holy Spirit itself. But all the doctors agree in this, that beyond those reasons which belong to all sins committed from malice, there is in the very nature of this special sin a reason why this sin was called by the Lord irremissible, namely because in the sinner it deprives the disposition to receive grace and pardon, without however the way of healing this disease, as if past hope, being barred to the almighty Father of mercies.
III. Alexander of Hales, S. p. II, q. 1-36, m. 6. — Scotus, here q. 1, n. 7; Reportata, here q. unica, n. 6. — St. Thomas, here a. 4; S. II-II, q. 14, a. 3; de Malo, q. 3, a. 15. — Bl. Albert, here a. 5; S. p. II, tr. 23, q. 140, m. 3, a. 2, 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2. — Giles of Rome, here q. 2, a. 1.
---
- Hic in principio. — In testimonio allato vetustiores codd. pro quoddam exhibent aliud et supprimunt ceteris, quod tamen infra in corp. quaest. restituunt. Insuper cod. bb omittit praeterea, pro quo cod. T substituit enim.Here at the beginning. — In the testimony adduced the older codices read aliud for quoddam and suppress ceteris, which however they restore below in the body of the question. Moreover codex bb omits praeterea, for which codex T substitutes enim.
- Luc. 12, 47.Luke 12:47.
- Psalm. 58, 15. — Glossa sumta est ex August., Enarrat. in hunc Ps. serm. 2. n. 8.Psalm 58:15. — The Gloss is taken from Augustine, Enarrations on this Psalm, sermon 2, n. 8.
- Symbol. Athanas.: Sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti una est divinitas, aequalis gloria, coaeterna maiestas. — Post pauca pro per appropriationem cod. propter appropriationem, et paulo inferius substituimus ex pluribus codd., ut li P Q W Y bb ee, quantum pro quam. Deinde pro Si ergo qualitas cod. Q (T a secunda manu) Si ergo quantitas, et pro magis grave peccatum edd. maius peccatum, refragantibus codd.Athanasian Creed: But of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit the divinity is one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. — A little after, for per appropriationem a codex reads propter appropriationem, and slightly below we have substituted, from several codices such as li P Q W Y bb ee, quantum for quam. Then for Si ergo qualitas codex Q (T at a second hand) reads Si ergo quantitas, and for magis grave peccatum the editions read maius peccatum, against the codices.
- Sicut Beda docet, de quo vide supra d. 22. dub. 2. — De minori cfr. ibid. a. 2. q. 2. seq.As Bede teaches, on which see above, d. 22, dub. 2. — On the minor premise cf. ibid., a. 2, q. 2, following.
- Cfr. August., l. de Lib. Arb. c. 3. n. 8. seqq., ex quo loco iam supra pag. 734, nota 5. quaedam transcripta habentur. Cfr. etiam supra pag. 971, nota 5.Cf. Augustine, On Free Choice bk. 1, c. 3, n. 8 ff., from which place certain things are already transcribed above, p. 734, note 5. Cf. also above, p. 971, note 5.
- Edd. absque auctoritate codd. addunt in peccato in Spiritum sanctum a bonitate tantum. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, in fine.The editions, without the authority of the codices, add in the sin against the Holy Spirit from goodness only. Cf. here the text of the Master, at the end.
- Cod. H susceptionem. Subinde pro medicamenti codd. VV bb medicinae. Paulo post pro morbo spirituali codd. B E P R V W ee peccato spirituali.Codex H susceptionem. Then for medicamenti codices VV bb read medicinae. A little after, for morbo spirituali codices B E P R V W ee read peccato spirituali.
- Scilicet maxime.Namely, most of all.
- Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1. ad 2.Cf. above, a. 1, q. 1, to the second.
- De quo vide supra d. 31. a. 2. q. 3. in corp. — In fine solut. cod. bb post istud interserit ergo.On which see above, d. 31, a. 2, q. 3, in the body. — At the end of the solution codex bb inserts ergo after istud.
- Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1. ad 2. — Libido voluntatem improbam et voluptuosam nominat.Cf. above, a. 1, q. 1, to the second. — Lust names a wicked and pleasure-seeking will.
- Edd. potest dici. In fine solut. pro incurventur, quae lectio commendatur codd. A I Q (T a secunda manu) W Y bb ee, edd. 1, 2 cum paucis codd. exhibent inventur, Vat. et edd. 3, 4 invetur (quae et paulo ante haereticus moveretur… adhaeret… frangitur), cod. V inclinentur, alii codd. intuentur.The editions read potest dici. At the end of the solution, for incurventur, which reading is commended by codices A I Q (T at a second hand) W Y bb ee, editions 1, 2 with a few codices read inventur, the Vatican and editions 3, 4 invetur (which also a little earlier read haereticus moveretur… adhaeret… frangitur), codex V inclinentur, other codices intuentur.