D. 43 - The sin against the Holy Spirit

Division of the text

After he has assigned the different kinds of sins, in this part he addresses a kind of sin that we find to be graver than the rest of them, namely, the sin against the Holy Spirit. And it is divided into two parts.

In the first, he shows the gravity of this sin.

In the second, he asks what this sin is, at but it is asked what that sin against the Holy Spirit is. (Sent. II, 43.1(267).2.)

And it is divided into three parts in accord with the three ways he assigns this sin.

The second is at there is also another description of this sin. (Sent. II, 43.1(267).6.)

The third is at discussing this sin against the Holy Spirit, Ambrose . . . hands down a definite description. (Sent. II, 43.1(267).10, quoting Ambrose, De Spiritu Sancto, bk. 1, ch. 3, para. 54 (CSEL 79:37; PL 16:746).)

The first part is divided into two parts.

In the first, he makes a magisterial assignment of the sin against the Holy Spirit.

In the second, he raises a question and resolves it, at but it is asked whether all obstinacy of a mind obdurate in wickedness and all despair is a sin against the Holy Spirit. (Sent. II, 43.1(267).3.)

There is also another description of this sin. (Sent. II, 43.1(267).6.) Here he gives a second description drawn from the words of Augustine.

First, he puts it forward.

Second, from the words of the same he shows how to understand it, at: and yet, in the book of Retractations*, Augustine recalls that definition and reveals that he had not made it by way of assertion and that something ought to be added to it*. (Sent. II, 43.1(267).7, quoting Augustine, Retractations, bk. 1, ch. 19, n. 7 (CCSL 57; PL 32:616).)

Discussing this sin against the Holy Spirit, Ambrose too, in the book On the Holy Spirit*, hands down a definite description*. (Sent. II, 43.1(267).10, quoting Ambrose, De Spiritu Sancto, bk. 1, ch. 3, para. 54 (CSEL 79:37; PL 16:746).) Here he gives a third description according to Ambrose.

And first he puts it forward.

Second, he removes a possible doubt, at *and so that distinction of words is not to be taken as if . *. . (Sent. II, 43.1(267).11.)

Question 1

The sin against the Holy Spirit

Here six questions are asked:

first, whether there is a sin against the Holy Spirit and what it is;

second, whether it is distinct from other sins;

third, on its species;

fourth, on its unforgivableness;

fifth, whether the sin against the Holy Spirit requires other sins as a prerequisite;

sixth, whom it befits to sin against the Holy Spirit.

Article 1

Whether there is a sin against the Holy Spirit

To the first we proceed as follows. (Parallel texts: ST II-II.14.1, 3–4; On Evil, q. 2, a. 8; q. 3, a. 14; Quodl. II, q. 8, a. 1; Commentary on Matthew, ch. 12; Commentary on Romans, ch. 2, lect. 1.) It seems that there is no sin against the Holy Spirit.

Obj. 1: For, according to what it says in the text, (Sent. II, 43.1(267).2.) they are said to sin against the Holy Spirit who are pleased with malice for its own sake as goodness pleases the pious. But no one is pleased with malice for its own sake, since evil is apart from the will and no one acts intending evil, as Dionysius says. (Pseudo-Dionysius, On the Divine Names, ch. 4, nn. 21, 32 (PG 3:722, 731).) Therefore, in accord with this no one sins against the Holy Spirit.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, every sin of man is born of the corruption of nature. But a sin from the corruption of nature is due to weakness. Now, when sin is committed by weakness, it is not committed against the Holy Spirit, as it says in the text. (Sent. II, 43.1(267).11.) Therefore, there is no sin against the Holy Spirit.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, Augustine says (See Augustine, De libero arbitrio, bk. 2, ch. 9 (CCSL 29; PL 32:1254).) that every sin is from error. But error includes ignorance. Now, what is by ignorance is co-divided against the sin against the Holy Spirit. Therefore, no sin is against the Holy Spirit.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, if one sins against the Holy Spirit, either it is in the wayfaring state or after the wayfaring state. But it cannot be after the wayfaring state because that will then not be a time for meriting and demeriting, as many say, but instead for receiving for one’s deeds, whether good or evil. Likewise, it cannot be in the wayfaring state. For we must not despair of anyone, according to Augustine, (Augustine, Retractions, bk. 1, ch. 19, para. 7 (CCSL 57; PL 32:616).) while he lives. But the sin against the Holy Spirit is the sin of those in despair because prayer for them is precluded (1 John 5:16). Therefore, no one sins against the Holy Spirit.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, those who possess majesty and glory as one also possess offense as one. But of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, there is one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty. (See Athanasian Creed, “Quicumque vult” (PG 28:1567).) Therefore, there is also one offense against them. Thus, since sin against the Holy Spirit is divided in distinction from sin against the Father and the Son, it seems that no sin is against the Holy Spirit.

On the contrary, Mark 3:29 says: whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Furthermore, just as power is attributed to the Father, and wisdom to the Son, so also is goodness attributed to the Holy Spirit. But sin done from powerlessness is called a sin “against the Father,” and one from ignorance is said to be “against the Son.” Therefore, what is done out of malice is “against the Holy Spirit.” Therefore, since there is such a sin, there will be a sin against the Holy Spirit.

I answer that we speak of sinning against the Holy Spirit in two ways: either because there is a sin against the person of the Holy Spirit, or because there is a sin against what is attributed to the person.

Sin is committed against the person of the Holy Spirit when one forms a bad opinion of the person, as in the case of those who said that the Holy Spirit is a creature and a minister to the Father and the Son. So, too, sinning against the Son is to form a bad opinion of the person of the Son. This is not how we are speaking here about the sin against the Holy Spirit, since in this case it is the sin of faithlessness.

Now, to sin against what is attributed to the Holy Spirit is to sin out of a certain malice, just as sinning against the Father is sinning from weakness, and sinning against the Son is sinning from ignorance. Thus, we call it a sin against the Father when there is failure in what is attributed to the Father, namely, power, a sin against the Son when wisdom is lacking, seeing as this is attributed to the Son, and a sin against the Holy Spirit when something is put forward opposed to goodness, which is attributed to the Holy Spirit.

We can take the difference of these from what the Philosopher says (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 5.8, 1135b9–25.) where he shows that sin is committed in three ways: by ignorance, by passion, or by choice. Sin is committed by ignorance when one is ignorant of something, the knowledge of which would have impeded him from sin. Hence ignorance is in this case a cause of sin. And this is called a sin “against the Son.” Next, one sins by passion, whether innate or borne out, when the judgment of reason is obstructed by the rush of passion. And this is properly to sin by weakness, which is a sin “against the Father.” But a sin is committed by choice when a man deliberately clings to a sin, not as overcome by temptation, but—due to having a corrupt appetite—because the sin by itself pleases him. And this is to sin by malice, which is also to sin “against the Holy Spirit.”

Reply Obj. 1: No one has ever willed malice under the account of malice, but instead insofar as sin is esteemed good for the very one sinning, as if quieting his corrupt appetite, and on account of this it is desired according to itself.

Reply Obj. 2: A thing possesses species and takes its name not from its primary causes, but from proximate causes. Therefore, the corruption of nature, which is the infection of the fomes, is not the proximate cause of every sin, since sometimes man chooses sin without any enticement of concupiscence. But it is the primary cause, since from the corruption of nature there is in man a weakness such that he more easily falls into the ruin of sin. Thus, not every sin must for this reason be called a “sin by weakness.”

Reply Obj. 3: The error from which every sin proceeds is the error of choice, in accord with which the Philosopher says that every wicked person is ignorant. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 3.1, 1110b31–32.) Now this ignorance does not cause involuntariness. In fact, it is caused by the will because from the inclination of the corrupt will to sin, which is by habit or passion, it follows that one chooses a given thing as a good when it pleases the will. Hence we do not call a sin committed by such ignorance a sin against the Son. For sin against the Son is when ignorance is the principal cause of the sin.

Reply Obj. 4: Sin against the Holy Spirit is not despaired of on the part of the physician who cures, namely, God, who can save anyone in the wayfaring state in the immensity of his mercy. But it is despaired of on the part of the sick person himself, who as far as he himself is concerned, excludes every way to be cured, as will be clear below.

Reply Obj. 5: Although the three persons have one single majesty, the persons are distinguished by the personal properties, and certain things are also appropriated to one person that are not appropriated to another. And in this respect it is the case that a sin is said to be specifically against the Son or the Holy Spirit in two ways: either because one forms a bad opinion of what is proper to the Son or the Holy Spirit, and this is not how we are taking the sin against the Holy Spirit here, or else because the sin is committed against something appropriated to the Son or the Holy Spirit, and this is how the sin against the Holy Spirit is being taken here.

Article 2

Whether the sin against the Holy Spirit is a determinate genus of sin

To the second we proceed as follows. (Parallel texts: ST II-II.14.1, 3–4; On Evil, q. 2, a. 8, ad 14; Quodl. II, q. 8, a. 1; Commentary on Matthew, ch. 12; Commentary on Romans, ch. 2, lect. 1.) It seems that the sin against the Holy Spirit does not determine a genus of sin.

Obj. 1: For just as a sin committed out of diligence is a sin against the Holy Spirit, so also a sin due to weakness is one against the Father and one by ignorance against the Son. But “sin by weakness” does not name determinately a genus of sin, but a circumstance of sin. Therefore, neither is the sin against the Holy Spirit a determinate genus of sin.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, sinning by diligence or out of a certain malice is sinning by choice, as was said. (Above: d. 43, q. 1, a. 1.) But everyone who has a vicious habit sins by choice, as is clear from the Ethics 7, (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 7.8, 1151a7.) where he distinguishes the intemperate person from the incontinent person. The first of these has a habit and sins by choice; the second sins by passion. Therefore, sinning out of habit is sinning out of a certain malice, which is the sin against the Holy Spirit. But “sin that proceeds from habit” does not name a determinate genus of sin. Therefore, neither does sin against the Holy Spirit.

Obj. 3: In the text are assigned different species of sin against the Holy Spirit, such as despair, obstinacy, and many other such things. (Sent. II, 43.1(267).2, 6, 8, 10.) But these relate to every species of sin because there is no genus of sin that cannot at some time arise from despair, and so forth. Therefore, sin against the Holy Spirit is not a determinate genus of sin.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, sin against the Holy Spirit means what is against that which is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. But every mortal sin is contrary to grace, which is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. Therefore, every mortal sin ought to be called a sin against the Holy Spirit.

Obj. 5: As Augustine says, (Augustine, In Iohannis evangelium tractatus, tract. 47, para. 8 (CCSL 36; PL 35:1736); The City of God, bk. 13, ch. 2 (CCSL 48; PL 41:377).) the death of the soul is the soul’s separation from God. But every mortal sin separates the soul from God. Therefore, every mortal sin leads to death. But sin unto death is sin against the Holy Spirit, as the Master says. (Sent. II, 43.1(267).1.) Therefore, every mortal sin is a sin against the Holy Spirit.

On the contrary, every genus of sin is distinguished from other genera. But sin against the Holy Spirit is a genus of sin more grave than the rest, as the Master says. Therefore, it is a determinate genus distinct from the others.

Furthermore, sin against the Holy Spirit, being unforgivable, is distinguished from others that are forgivable by “forgivable” and “unforgivable.” But these differences are the most distant. Therefore, all the more will they produce distinct genera of sins than other differences.

I answer that, as was said above, (Above: d. 43, q. 1, a. 1.) the sin against the Holy Spirit means one that is out of a certain malice or diligence, that is, a choice, which is the same thing.

Now, there are two ways it can happen for someone to choose an act of sin out of a certain deliberation that is not impelled by a passion. Either it is by putting something in the one choosing whereby he inclines to such an act as like himself. For in this way, everyone who has a habit of sin or virtue inclines to acts like his own habits because the natural appetite of a thing is for what is like itself. And this is the way in which anyone who has a habit of intemperance chooses an act of intemperance, and so forth for other sins.

In the other way, sin is chosen out of a certain deliberation when the will rejects that whereby man could be withdrawn from sin. For example, someone refrains from sin because of expecting a future reward. Therefore, if one voluntarily rejects hope of future reward or some such thing that withdrew him from sin, he will choose what will be pleasant to him in terms of the flesh as if it were essentially good, and thus will sin out of a certain malice.

Therefore, taking sin by choice in the first way, it does not name a determinate genus of sin, but instead a given circumstance of sin, namely, that the act proceed from a habit. This is possible in all genera of sins. But, in the second way, it indicates a specific sin that occurs by choice. For a specific object indicates a specific sin. Now, the specific object of the will wherein the sin is committed is that which was naturally apt to withdraw from sin, that with which the will disagrees and from which it withdraws on its own initiative.

But sin against the Holy Spirit does not properly mean that which proceeds from choice in the first way, but instead that which proceeds from choice in the second way. For sins are both specified and named from their objects. But the object in this sin is that which withdrew from sin, and this is a kind of goodness or some effect that can be appropriated to the Holy Spirit. Thus, sin against the Holy Spirit names a determinate genus of sin.

Reply Obj. 1: When one sins by choice in this second way, which is what the sin against the Holy Spirit properly indicates, there are considered to be two acts there. Both of these are a sin, and the first is the cause of the second. For example, by one act of the will someone regards eternal rewards with contempt, rejecting hope of them for himself, and in this he sins. Because he despairs of the reward, he falls into an act of fornication. This act comes to be in him from a certain choice due to the preceding act. Hence it is clear that when we speak of a sin by diligence, the diligence that we note as a cause of the sin is a sin, and is a determinate genus of sin. This is properly the sin against the Holy Spirit. But weakness or ignorance name not a given sin, but punishment only. Thus, a specific sin is not denoted by them.

Reply Obj. 2: The reply is clear from what was said.

Reply Obj. 3: Sin against the Holy Spirit is not said to be the second act that is caused by the first, as was said, except perhaps insofar as the force of the first act remains in it. Rather, the first act itself is properly the sin against the Holy Spirit. Thus, it is not unfitting for all sins to be able to arise from one determinate sin, as was said above.

Reply Obj. 4: There are two ways for something to be contrary to grace. The first is directly and essentially. And this occurs when one actually despises grace or something pertaining to grace. This is the way in which the sin against the Holy Spirit is opposed to grace. The second is indirectly and, as it were, by consequence. And in this way, every mortal sin is opposed to grace. For by mortal sin one seeks something that cannot exist simultaneously with grace.

Reply Obj. 5: Mortal sin is like death in a certain respect and is like sickness in another respect. For inasmuch as it separates from God, who is life, it bears a likeness to death, and this is the first death. But inasmuch as there still remains the possibility of coming back to life, it bears a likeness to sickness that leads to the death of condemnation, which is the second death, which bears total likeness to death when man is separated from God by it and has no possibility of returning to the life of grace. Now, just as in bodily sicknesses there are some that can be cured and others that cannot as far as the nature of the disease goes, and the latter are called “sicknesses unto death,” so also among sins it is only those sins among mortal sins that are called “sins unto death” that, as far as they themselves go, are unforgivable. Therefore, sin is called “mortal” from the first death, but “unto death” because of the second death.

Article 3

Whether the species of sin against the Holy Spirit are fittingly assigned in the text

To the third we proceed as follows. (Parallel texts: ST II-II.14.2; 36.4, ad 2; Commentary on Matthew, ch. 12; Commentary on Romans, ch. 2, lect. 1.) It seems that the species of sin against the Holy Spirit are unfittingly assigned in the text. (The species of sin against the Holy Spirit assigned in the text are obstinacy, despair, presumption, impenitence, impugning the known truth, and envy of a brother’s grace; see Sent. II, 43.1(267).2, 6, 8, 10.)

Obj. 1: For no one can despair while he believes that there is forgiveness of sins in the Church. But to deny that there is forgiveness of sins belongs to faithlessness. Therefore, despair is a species of faithlessness, not of sin against the Holy Spirit.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, no one can stretch what is infinite too much. But God’s mercy is infinite. Therefore, no one sins by stretching God’s mercy too much. Thus, it seems that to presume too much on God’s mercy is not the sin against the Holy Spirit or a species of it.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, accidents do not constitute a species. But impenitence is an accident of a sin, just as the duration of anything is an accident of that thing, which is all that impenitence seems to indicate, namely, such that the sin endures until death. Therefore, impenitence is not a species of sin.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, past and future do not differentiate species. But impenitence and obstinacy only differ with reference to past and future. For impenitence is from man’s not repenting of sins committed in the past, whereas obstinacy is in man’s clinging to a firm plan to commit sins in the future. Therefore, impenitence and obstinacy are not two species of sin against the Holy Spirit.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, truth is appropriated to the Son, as John 14:6 says: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. But sin against the Son is that which is against what is appropriated to the Son. Therefore, impugning the truth is a sin not against the Holy Spirit, but against the Son.

Obj. 6: Furthermore, envy is one of the capital vices, as was said above, (Above, d. 42, q. 1, a. 3.) and there is no gravest among them. But other capital sins are not posited to be species of sins against the Holy Spirit. Therefore, neither should envying one’s brother be called a sin against the Holy Spirit.

Obj. 7: Furthermore, opposite genera have different species. But the sin against the Holy Spirit, which is from a certain malice, is distinguished by opposition to sin against the Father or the Son, which are from weakness or ignorance. Therefore, since any of the aforementioned sins, such as despair, presumption, and so forth, can occur from weakness or from ignorance, it seems that the species of sin against the Holy Spirit is unfittingly assigned.

Obj. 8: Furthermore, as sin against the Holy Spirit means sin by choice, one only sins by choice by removing everything that can withdraw from sin. For while anything that withdraws does remain, sin is not chosen. But everything withdrawing from sin is only taken away by all six things that were enumerated. Therefore, none of these six taken by itself is a species of sin against the Holy Spirit, but taken together as integral parts they make one sin against the Holy Spirit.

On the contrary, there is what is settled in the text (Sent. II, 43.1(267).1–11.) through the authorities of the saints.

I answer that, as was said, (A. 2.) sin against the Holy Spirit, properly speaking, consists, as a determinate genus of sin, in the act of the will that rejects that whereby one is withdrawn from sin.

Now, this is possible in two ways. For one is withdrawn from sin and performs a good action for its own sake while another does the same for the sake of something else.

It can be for the sake of something else in two ways: to avoid penalties or to attain rewards. Neither of these is characteristic of the virtuous person, who does a good action for its own sake and flees evil on its own account. These two are taken away by “presumption,” which deprives one of the fear of penalties, and by “despair,” which takes away hope of rewards.

However, one does good for its own sake or flees evil on its own account when he is moved principally by something in the act of virtue or sin itself. This is in two ways. For in the act of virtue or vice we can consider something as a human good and as a divine good. Therefore, if we consider the act of sin from the perspective of the act’s human element, two things can be said to be there: undue pleasure and the deformity of the act. And one can be withdrawn from sin by both. On this basis there are two species of sin against the Holy Spirit, namely, “obstinacy” and “impenitence.” For by obstinacy one firmly clings to pleasure as if it were not inappropriate, while by impenitence one does not avoid the deformity in the act that was reason for repenting.

Next, there are two divine elements in the act of virtue that also withdraw from sin. One is the truth of the faith, which is like a directive element, and the other is an inclining element, namely, the very grace spread into the Church by the Holy Spirit. Against the first is “impugning the known truth,” and against the second is “envy of a brother’s grace.”

But some take the distinction of these species as follows. They say that the sin against the Holy Spirit is specifically opposed to the grace of repentance, whereby there is forgiveness of sins. Now, for the forgiveness of sin there are some requirements on the part of the one forgiving, others on the part of the one being forgiven, and others on the part of that whereby there is forgiveness. On the part of the forgiver, two elements come together: mercy, and despair is against this, and justice, against which is presumption. On the part of the one forgiven, there are also two elements: the resolve not to sin, against which is obstinacy, and sorrow at sins committed, against which is impenitence. On the part of that whereby there is forgiveness, there are two elements: the faith of the Church, against which is impugning the known truth, and the grace given in the sacraments, and against this is envy at a brother’s grace.

Reply Obj. 1: Despair, as a species of sin against the Holy Spirit, comes not from the fact that one denies the forgiveness of sins, but because by his own choice he rejects from himself the forgiveness of sins that he believes in so that he may sin more freely, being unwilling to tend to what obtains the forgiveness of sins.

Reply Obj. 2: The presumptuous person sins not by thinking too much of God’s mercy, but by holding his justice in contempt. And in this, he also derogates from his mercy, abusing it, as if it were not just.

Reply Obj. 3: We speak of perseverance in two ways. And in one way, it is a specific virtue, indicating the resolve to persevere all the way to the end in the good that has been undertaken. In the other way, it is a circumstance of other virtues, indicating the actual duration in the acts of the virtues till death. So, too, impenitence as indicating the resolve not to repent is a species of sin against the Holy Spirit, while as indicating continuing in sin until death by denying repentance for sin, is an incidental feature or circumstance of other sins.

Reply Obj. 4: Obstinacy and impenitence do not differ with respect to “past” and “future.” For one who proposes not to repent of sins that he will commit can be called “impenitent.” Rather, they differ on the basis of different aspects noted in the sin. These correspond to them like objects, as was stated in the first description.

Reply Obj. 5: Truth, wisdom, and so forth, can be considered in two ways: either in their proper account, and in this case they are appropriated to the Son, or insofar as they have the account of a gift, and in this respect they are appropriated to the Holy Spirit, who is the first gift, in whom all gifts are given, as was said in Book I. (In I Sent., d. 18, q. 1, a. 3.) Thus, one who impugns the known truth out of a certain malice sins against the Holy Spirit.

Reply Obj. 6: There can be two kinds of envy. One is at a man’s prosperity or elevation, and one is at the elevation of grace, such as envy that many are converted to God’s grace or some such thing. Only this kind of envy is a sin against the Holy Spirit: not envy of one’s brother, but envy at the grace of one’s brother.

Reply Obj. 7: Any of the things mentioned can happen in two ways. One way is by the will’s tending essentially to each of them in such a way that one does not will to have hope in future rewards, does not will to assent to the known truth, and so forth. These alone are species of sin against the Holy Spirit. For in this way, speaking of the essential meaning, there is despair, presumption, and so forth, when the will essentially falls into the act of despair. Second, it can happen due to something external, as due to a deficiency of the ruling reason or due to some impulsive force, as when they are done by weakness or ignorance. And in this case, they are not species of the sin against the Holy Spirit. For in this way, one is said to have despaired not essentially, but incidentally.

Reply Obj. 8: Although there are many things that can withdraw from sin, in accord with which are the distinct species of sin against the Holy Spirit, one is withdrawn from sin due to one of them alone, and another due to another. Thus, there is no need for all of them to come together for there to be a sin against the Holy Spirit.

Article 4

Whether sin against the Holy Spirit can be forgiven

To the fourth we proceed as follows. (Parallel texts: ST II-II.14.3; III.86.1, ad 2, 3; On Truth, q. 24, a. 11, ad 7; On Evil, q. 3, a. 15; Quodl. II, q. 8, a. 1; Commentary on Matthew, ch. 12; Commentary on Romans, ch. 2, lect. 1.) It seems that sin against the Holy Spirit is not unforgivable.

Obj. 1: For the forgiveness of sin occurs by grace. But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more (Rom 5:20). Therefore, since the sin against the Holy Spirit is the gravest, it seems that it is the most forgivable.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, charity is more perfect than hope, and faith is prior to it. But the sin opposed to faith, namely, faithlessness, and that opposed to charity, namely, hatred, are forgivable. Therefore, despair, too, which is opposed to hope, is forgivable, and for the same reason the other species of sin against the Holy Spirit.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, we say that four penalties have come to us from the first man’s sin: ignorance, weakness, concupiscence, and malice. But weakness and ignorance, by excusing sin, render it forgivable. Therefore, for the same reason, so does malice. Thus, the sin against the Holy Spirit, which is out of a certain malice, will be forgivable.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, man is said to differ from angels in that man has a changeable ability to turn his choice, while angels have an unchangeable ability, since they will never move away from what they have once chosen. But sin against the Holy Spirit is a sin of man. Therefore, if man consents to it by his choice, he can again change this choice and withdraw from it. But sin is forgiven by being withdrawn from it. Therefore, the sin against the Holy Spirit is forgivable.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, “unforgivable” takes away the power to be forgiven. Therefore, since the sin against the Holy Spirit is called “unforgivable,” either the power of forgiveness is denied on the part of the forgiver, or else it is denied on the part of the one being forgiven. It is not in the first way because the power of God himself, who alone forgives sins, is infinite, extending to the forgiveness of all sins. Likewise, it is not in the second way. For the power for forgiveness on the part of the one being forgiven is free decision in the wayfaring state, which remains even after a sin against the Holy Spirit. Therefore, there is no way in which sin against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.

On the contrary, there are the authorities cited in the text. (Sent. II, 43.1(267).4.)

Furthermore, sin is opposed to virtue. But about the most perfect virtue, namely, charity, 1 Corinthians 13:8 says that it never ends, even though many lose it. Therefore, the sin against the Holy Spirit, which is the gravest of sins, ought also to be called “unforgivable,” even if it is sometimes forgiven.

I answer that there are two opinions about the sin against the Holy Spirit, as can be gathered from the text.

For some, taking impenitence as a circumstance of sin, as has been said, (Above: a. 3.) assign five species of sin against the Holy Spirit, namely, those enumerated in addition to impenitence. They say that none of those species completely has the account of sin against the Holy Spirit, unless this latter circumstance is added to it: namely, the circumstance of continuing in despair or obstinacy until death. And in regard to this, sin against the Holy Spirit is called “unforgivable,” since it is never forgiven nor can be forgiven. For after death man is confirmed in grace or sin, in accord with his state at the point of death, as Ecclesiastes 11:3 says: in the place where the tree falls, there it will lie.

But this does not seem fitting. For in this regard every sin that continues until death is unforgivable, whether against the Father or the Son. Thus, the sin against the Holy Spirit would not be unforgivable in a way other than sin against the Father or the Son, which is against the text of the Gospel. Unless, perhaps, we said that every sin against the Father or the Son is a venial sin, since Gregory says in the Dialogues 4 (Gregory the Great, Dialogorum libri iv, bk. 4, ch. 39 (PL 77:396).) that venial sins are forgiven even after this life. But this is expressly false because ignorance does not always excuse sin in such a way that it is not worthy of damnation, but that it is less worthy of damnation.

Thus, others say that impenitence, which indicates a continuous duration of sin until death, is not necessary for there to be the sin against the Holy Spirit, since even by a single movement of the will man can sin against the Holy Spirit, as is the case in other sins. On this basis six species of sin against the Holy Spirit are assigned, as was said. According to them, we must say that the sin against the Holy Spirit is not called “unforgivable” because it is never forgiven, but because it does not of itself possess the aptitude to be forgivable.

And this is especially for three reasons. One reason is from the cause that moves to sin. For sometimes the weakness or ignorance of the one who sins causes sin, these being naturally apt to excuse sin partially or totally because they cause involuntariness either simply or in a qualified sense. And then sin is called “forgivable” when it possesses in itself the property of being easily forgiven due to proceeding from an excusing cause. However, sin that is committed with diligence has no reason to be excused. Thus, it is called “unforgivable” because it does not possess in itself the property of being excused and thereby being easy to forgive.

The second is the reason drawn from the way in which the will inclines to sin. For, as the Philosopher says in the Ethics 7, (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 7.8, 1151a16.) the end in practical matters is like the indemonstrable principle in speculative ones. Now, in speculative matters, error concerning indemonstrable principles can be difficult to remove by virtue of the fact that they are not susceptible of anything more well known that could disprove the error. So, too, in practical matters, when one clings to a sin as the end as if it constituted his beatitude, he cannot easily employ the remedy for this sin. For there is nothing else the sinner loves more that he would set aside what he has set up as the last end to attain. But whoever sins by choice or diligence clings to the sin he chooses as if it were essentially good and thus the end. Thus, this kind of sin does not easily take its medicine. Hence the Philosopher in Ethics 7 (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 7.8, 1150b30.) thereby shows that the incontinent person, seeing as he sins by passion or weakness, is more easily cured than the intemperate person, who sins by choice or diligence. These two reasons just mentioned show the cause of its inability to be forgiven not only in the sin that is properly called the sin against the Holy Spirit, but also in any sin by choice.

In turn, the third reason, which properly regards the sin against the Holy Spirit, is drawn from its object. For the sin against the Holy Spirit is from the will’s rejecting from itself that whereby there is the forgiveness of sins. Hence just as sickness would be called “incurable” if it produced the inability to take medicine, so also sin is called “unforgivable” when by its act spiritual medicine is directly rejected. And yet, just as bodily illness can be cured miraculously by divine power, so also this kind of sin can be forgiven, as it were miraculously, through the divine mercy.

Reply Obj. 1: The sin against the Holy Spirit cuts off the path of grace. Thus, while the sin against the Holy Spirit remains, the faculty to receive grace does not remain on the part of the sinner. But when this sin is removed by the immensity of divine mercy, there can afterwards be an abundance of grace if man is very much humbled by the gravity of his previous sin.

Reply Obj. 2: Hope directly belongs to that to which we tend as a last end. Thus, removing hope takes away the end. And thus, despair is an unforgivable sin, just as an error in principles is incurable. Now, charity belongs not only to the end but also to what is directed to the end, namely proximate ends. Thus, if one sins against charity to his neighbor, he does not thereby directly sin against charity to God. Hence a path to being cured remains on that side. But if he sins directly against charity to God insofar as it is love of the end, then there will be the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit. This is when one envies the grace whereby he is also reconciled. We must also say something similar about faith because faithlessness can proceed either from ignorance, and then it has the guise of excuse and is easily forgiven, or else from a certain malice, and then it is the sin against the Holy Spirit that is impugning the known truth.

Reply Obj. 3: Malice does not cause involuntariness like weakness and ignorance do. Thus, it need not excuse or alleviate sin as they do.

Or else, it should be said that the malice whereby the sin called the sin against the Holy Spirit proceeds denotes a certain act of sin, such as an act of despair, obstinacy, and so forth, and is not taken to mean a punishment, the latter indicating a defect of the rational soul on the basis of which it can incline easily to evil.

Reply Obj. 4: A given sin can be unforgivable in two ways: either by the genus of the sin, and this is how the sin against the Holy Spirit is called “unforgivable,” or from the state of the one sinning, and in this way, every sin wherein the wayfaring state is ended is unforgivable, whether of man or of angels. The difference between man and the angels is taken from the fact that the wayfaring state in the angels ends immediately after the first choice, whereas this is not the case in men.

Reply Obj. 5: When sin is called “unforgivable,” there is no privation of the power for forgiveness absolutely, but instead an aptitude or facility.

Article 5

Whether one can sin against the Holy Spirit in the first act of sin

To the fifth we proceed as follows. (Parallel texts: ST II-II.14.4; On the Virtues, q. 2, a. 13, ad 1.) It seems that one cannot sin against the Holy Spirit in the first act of sin but instead that this sin requires other sins as a prerequisite.

Obj. 1: For Bernard says: no one becomes the peak all at once, but little by little I will to make progress. (Mandonnet adds a note from Nicolaï that it is actually Bernard, De gradibus humilitatis, ch. 9, para. 26 (PL 182:956).) Therefore, vice versa, no one becomes the worst all at once. But the sin against the Holy Spirit is the most grave. Therefore, one cannot sin with this sin immediately.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, in Morals on the Book of Job, explaining the passage in Job 39:25, the thunder of the captains, and the shouting, Gregory says that the vices that first invade the mind conquer man like a captain, as if by persuasion, with a certain reasoning, but later on the mind is routed in unreason by various vices. (Gregory the Great, Moralia in Job, bk. 31, ch. 45 (CCSL 143B; PL 76:620).) But the sin against the Holy Spirit is the most distant from the persuasion of reason. Therefore, it cannot be the first, but instead must follow other sins.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the Philosopher says in the Ethics 5 (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 5.8, 1135a16–b8.) that it is not in man’s power to perform unjust actions immediately, as the unjust man does. But the unjust man performs unjust actions with pleasure and by choice. Therefore, it is not in man’s power to perform sin immediately and by choice. Now, whoever sins against the Holy Spirit sins by choice. Therefore, and so on.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, just as despair is opposed to hope, so also demerits are opposed to merits. But hope presupposes merits. For hope is the certain expectation of future beatitude that comes by merits and grace. Therefore, despair also presupposes demerits. And so, at least this species of sin against the Holy Spirit must follow other sins.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, penitence and impenitence, since they are opposites, concern the same thing. But penitence is sorrow at what one has committed. Therefore, impenitence also presupposes the commission of some sins.

On the contrary, among sins that have distinct acts, one does not presuppose another for its being. But the sin against the Holy Spirit has an act distinct from other sins, which is rejecting that whereby one withdraws from sin, as was said. (A. 2.) Therefore, it does not of necessity presuppose other sins.

Furthermore, the sin against the Holy Spirit consists in the will’s rejecting that whereby it ought to be withdrawn from sin. But the will is situated to both of the opposites. Therefore, man can immediately sin against the Holy Spirit or not sin against the Holy Spirit.

I answer that, as was said above, (Above, d. 42, q. 2, a. 3.) in sins of which one is said to be born of another, we do not consider what always occurs, but what occurs in the majority of cases due to the aptitude that one sin has to arise frequently from another, just as fraud is assigned as the daughter of greed, despite the fact that it can arise from lust or from another vice, though it more often arises from greed. Now, a sin has the aptitude of having another arise from it when its object is forcefully desirable, as was said above. But this is that which has a greater appearance of good. Hence the sin whose object withdraws most from the good can least of all be the first. Instead, it almost always or very frequently arises from another. And the sin against the Holy Spirit, considered as a specific sin, is this kind. Thus, it more often and almost always follows other sins, though not in such a way that it is not possible for man to sin against the Holy Spirit even in the first act of sin, particularly in the last two species, namely, impugning the known truth and envy of the grace whereby we are reconciled. For these latter species seem to have greater distinction from the other sins. But this can also happen in the other species if we consider the matter with diligence. For, looking carefully at the different states of human beings, one can immediately reject hope of future glory because of the difficulty of reaching it, and because of the pleasures of those who do not care about it. Likewise, one can shore up his spirit on this point so that he follows his will in all things, which belongs to obstinacy, and so forth.

Reply Obj. 1: Progress in virtue and falling into sin are not similar. For more things are required for an act of virtue than for an act of sin. Also, man is righted by grace for the act of virtue, but one can fall by himself into the act of sin.

Reply Obj. 2: In this passage where he assigns the origins of the vices, (Gregory the Great, Moralia in Job, bk. 31, ch. 45 (CCSL 143B; PL 76:620).) Gregory is considering what happens more often, not what cannot happen otherwise. For this pertains to the moral and the natural as well, since natural causes, and all the more moral ones, fall short in the minority of cases because they are not necessary.

Reply Obj. 3: The sin against the Holy Spirit, as was said above, is not by choice in the way that one who has a habit sins by choice. In fact, by the acts of sin against the Holy Spirit that precede a habit, a habit is acquired. Thus, the objection does not proceed. For the unjust person sins by choice in the way that one who has a habit does.

Reply Obj. 4: Hope does not always require actual merits as a prerequisite, but only merits in the resolve of the one hoping. Likewise, too, despair need not presuppose actual preceding demerits.

Reply Obj. 5: Penitence, as indicating an act, is only for past evils. But as indicating the habit whereby one is called “penitent,” it does not require that one has committed certain sins. Rather, it requires that one have the resolve that if it were to be the case that he sinned, he would immediately repent. So, too, for the account of impenitence it suffices that one never repent of sins if he commits them.

Article 6

Whether Adam sinned against the Holy Spirit

To the sixth we proceed as follows. It seems that Adam sinned against the Holy Spirit.

Obj. 1: For he did not sin against the Father, since he did not sin by weakness; nor against the Son, since it was not by ignorance, because there were not weakness and ignorance before sin. Therefore, it remains that he sinned against the Holy Spirit.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, excessive presumption at God’s mercy is a sin against the Holy Spirit. But when Adam sinned he thought about God’s mercy, as Augustine says, (Augustine, The City of God, bk. 14, ch. 11 (CCSL 48; PL 41:420).) and as we have it from what was said above. (Above, d. 22, q. 1, a. 3, ad 5.) Therefore, it seems that he sinned against the Holy Spirit.

On the contrary (3), he sinned by desiring knowledge. But knowledge is appropriated to the Son. Therefore, he sinned against the Son rather than against the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore (4), Augustine says (Augustine, The City of God, bk. 14, ch. 11 (CCSL 48; PL 41:420); On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, bk. 11, ch. 42 (CSEL 28.1:377–78; PL 34:451–54).) that although Adam was not seduced like the woman, he was seduced in believing that what was mortal was venial. But sin by seduction is sin against the Son. Therefore, he sinned against the Son.

Obj. 5: Again, it seems that the first angel sinned against the Holy Spirit. For unforgivability is the property of the sin against the Holy Spirit. But the first angel’s sin was unforgivable. Therefore, it was the sin against the Holy Spirit.

Obj. 6: Furthermore, the devil now sins with the same kind of sin that he sinned at that time. But he now sins against the Holy Spirit, since he envies the grace that works in the saints. Therefore, at that time he sinned as well against the Holy Spirit.

On the contrary (7), the sin of the first angel was by his inordinately desiring power. But power is appropriated to the Father. Therefore, he sinned against the Father.

Furthermore (8), punishment does not precede fault. But malice is reckoned among the punishments for sin. Therefore, the first sin of the first angel could not have been from malice, seeing as no sin had come before it.

I answer that some say that the sin of the first man and the demon’s sin were neither against the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit. For these are not differences of sin taken absolutely, but of sin as it occurs in corrupt nature. For weakness, ignorance, and malice follow on nature corrupted by sin.

But it should be known that although weakness cannot in any way be found in integral nature, and thus neither sin against the Father, ignorance was in a certain way able to be found in integral nature, not as ignorance means a privation, but as it means something negative. For in this sense it is a defect that follows on the created intellect precisely as created. For from this is falls short of the perfect light of the uncreated intellect, so that it does not know everything or at least does not actually consider everything. And sin resulting from this kind of nescience can be called a sin against the Son.

Likewise, too, the malice from which sin against the Holy Spirit proceeds need not be a punishment, but is an act of sin, as was said above. (Above: d. 43, q. 1, a. 4, ad 3.) Hence, too, in integral nature there could have been sin against the Son and the Holy Spirit.

But it should be known that the first act of the first sin of man and angel was not against the Holy Spirit insofar as the sin against the Holy Spirit is a specific sin. This is clear from the very object of the sin. For both sinned by desiring their own exaltation. Thus, as far as the genus of sin goes, this was the sin of pride, whereas regarding the circumstance of the sin both were sins against the Son. For both sinned by not considering what ought to have been given consideration in order to avoid sin. But their first sins were not due to resisting hope, or some such thing by their own will, as occurs in the sin against the Holy Spirit.

Reply Obj. 1: Therefore, the reply to the first objection is clear from what has been said.

Reply Obj. 2: Although when Adam sinned he thought of God’s mercy, he did not sin by the sin of presumption because he did not think that he would obtain mercy without penitence. Instead, he thought simultaneously of mercy and of penitence, as Augustine says in the same place.

Reply Sed Contra 3–4: We concede the other two, although the first of them does not draw the conclusion rightly, as will be said later. (See below, ad 7.)

Reply Obj. 5: The sin of the angel had the property of being unforgivable not from the genus of sin, but rather from the state of the sinner, as was said above. (Above: d. 43, q. 1, a. 4, ad 4.) Thus, the argument does not proceed.

Reply Obj. 6: After the first act of sin in the angel, which was an act of pride, many other deformities of sins followed, such as envy, hatred, and so forth. Among these could have been the sin against the Holy Spirit.

Reply Sed Contra 7: We speak of sin against the Father not on the basis of the object, but rather on the basis of the cause. Thus, even though he desired power, it does not follow that he sinned against the Father, since he did not sin from weakness. Hence, too, the argument similar to this one, showing that the first man sinned against the Son, did not draw a proper conclusion.

Reply Sed Contra 8: The malice on whose basis we speak of the sin against the Holy Spirit need not be a punishment for sin, as was said. (Above: d. 43, q. 1, a. 4, ad 3.) Thus, the argument does not proceed, even though the conclusion is true.

Exposition of the text

‘Neither here, nor in the future.’ (Sent. II, 43.1(267).1, quoting Matthew 12:31–32.) It says this because some sins are also forgiven in the future, such as certain venial sins, as Gregory says, (Gregory the Great, Dialogorum libri iv, bk. 4, ch. 39 (PL 77:396).) not only as regards punishment, but also as regards fault.

‘I do not say that anyone should pray for him.’ (Sent. II, 43.1(267).1, quoting 1 John 5:16.) If “sin unto death” is understood as sin against the Holy Spirit insofar as the sin against the Holy Spirit requires final impenitence, according to one opinion, then this should be understood to mean that no one should pray for sinners of this kind. For one who continues in mortal sin until death is not afterwards helped by prayers. But if it is taken to mean the sin against the Holy Spirit, according to the other opinion, as not requiring final impenitence, then it must be understood in the sense that not just anyone should pray for such a sinner, since the conversion of these kinds of sinners is, as it were, miraculous. Hence just as not just anyone should pray for miracles to be performed, except great and holy men, neither should just anyone pray for the conversion of these kinds of sinners. Even so, according to the form of the words, it is not forbidden for there to be prayer for such a person. Rather, it shows that the precept of praying for the faithful neighbors does not extend to such sinners. For on account of the enormity of their sin, they merit being set apart from the faithful as gentiles and publicans.

As for one who has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, it will not be remitted to him, neither here, nor in the future. (Sent. II, 43.1(267).1, quoting Matthew 12:31–32.) A Gloss on this passage, (Glossa ordinaria, at Matthew 12:31–32, 5.225–26 (PL 114:127).) that is, Matthew 12:31–32, says that blasphemy is forgiven, but the spirit of blasphemy is not forgiven. For “blasphemy” denotes the genus of sin absolutely. This sometimes occurs out of weakness, as when one blasphemes due to the passion of anger, and sometimes by ignorance, as in those who err and form a bad opinion of God. But the spirit of blasphemy is the will to blaspheme, namely, when blasphemy is committed out of a certain malice. And then there is the sin against the Holy Spirit.

It is suitable to discuss whether obstinacy is one sin and impenitence another. (Sent. II, 43.1(267).5.) The solution to this question is apparent in accord with the distinction of impenitence previously posited. For if impenitence is taken to mean the actual duration in obstinacy until death, it is not a different sin from obstinacy, but a circumstance of it, whereas if impenitence is taken to indicate the resolve not to repent, then it is another sin.