Skip to text
JonHaines
Thomas Aquinas / Texts and commentaries

II Sentences, Distinction 43, Question 1
Concerning the Sin against the Holy Spirit

Article 1: Whether there is a sin against the Holy Spirit.
It would seem that there is no sin against the Holy Spirit.
Objection 1: For, according to what has been said in the (Lombard's) text, those are said to sin against the Holy Spirit who find malice itself pleasing, just as the pious find goodness pleasing in itself. However, malice is in no way pleasing in itself. For evil is contrary to the will, and no one acts intending evil, as Dionysius states. Therefore, according to this consideration, no one sins against the Holy Spirit.
Objection 2: Furthermore, every sin of man arises from the corruption of his nature. But that sin which results from the corruption of nature is due to weakness. However, when one sins by reason of weakness, one does not sin against the Holy Spirit, as has been said in the (Lombard's) text. Therefore, there is no sin against the Holy Spirit.
Objection 3: Furthermore, Augustine says that every sin is due to error. But error includes ignorance, and what (is done) through ignorance is distinguished from the sin against the Holy Spirit. Therefore, there is no sin against the Holy Spirit.
Objection 4: Furthermore, if someone sins against the Holy Spirit, it is either in this present life, or in the life to come. But this (sin) cannot be committed in the life to come, because it will not then be the time for meriting or not meriting, as many authors have said, but of receiving either good or evil in accordance with the things one did. Likewise (this sin cannot be committed) in the present life, because, according to Augustine, no man is to be despaired of while he lives. However, the sin against the Holy Spirit is the sin of one despairing, on behalf of whom 1 John 5:16 forbids prayer. Therefore, no one sins against the Holy Spirit.
Objection 5: Furthermore, their majesty and glory are one, as is the offense (committed against them). But the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in their divinity, equal in glory, and co-eternal in majesty. Therefore, the offense committed against them is concomitant. And so, as the sin against the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the sin against the Father and the Son, it would seem that there is no sin against the Holy Spirit.
1st. on the contrary: It is said at Matthew 12:32 that "He that shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, (neither in this world, nor) in the world to come."
2nd. on the contrary: Furthermore, as power is attributed to the Father, and wisdom to the Son, so is goodness attributed to the Holy Spirit. But a sin which arises from a lack of power is called a sin against the Father, and that which arises from ignorance, a sin against the Son. Therefore, that which arises from malice is a sin against the Holy Spirit. Therefore since there is this kind of sin, there is a sin against the Holy Spirit.
Response: To sin against the Holy Spirit is said in two ways, either because one sins against the person of the Holy Spirit, or because one sins against an attribute of the Spirit's person. One sins against the person of the Holy Spirit when one considers the Spirit badly, as those who say that the Holy Spirit is created, and the minister of the Father and the Son. So too, to sin against the Son is to consider the person of the Son badly. However, we do not speak here of a sin against the Holy Spirit as it is (rather) a sin of infidelity. But to sin against an attribute of (the person of) the Holy Spirit is to sin by reason of a definite malice, just as to sin against the Father is to sin by reason of weakness, and to sin against the Son, is to sin by reason of ignorance. One is said to sin against the Father when one fails in that very thing that is attributed to the Father, namely power. One sins against the Son when one errs in that which is attributed to the Son, namely wisdom. And one sins against the Holy Spirit when that which is opposed to goodness (which goodness is attributed to the Holy Spirit) is held (by this sinner).
Now the difference between these can be understood through that which the Philosopher says when he shows that a sin can be committed in three ways, namely through ignorance, passion or choice. A sin is committed through ignorance when something pertaining to one's (action) is unknown, the knowledge of which would have prevented one from committing this sin. Hence, ignorance is the cause of that sin. And this is called a sin against the Son. One sins by reason of passion, either innate or inflicted, when due to the impulsion of the passion, the judgment of reason is overpowered. And this especially is to sin by way of weakness, which is to sin against the Father. But when one sins by choice, when man, having deliberated, binds himself to sin, not as if having been overcome by some temptation, but rather because he has a corrupt appetite, that very sin in itself is pleasing to him. And this is to sin by way of malice, which is to sin against the Holy Spirit.
Response to Objection 1: No one ever wills malice under the description of malice, but rather as the sin is considered good by the one committing the sin, as that which quiets the corrupt appetite, on account of which (this sin/malicious act) is desired in itself.
Response to Objection 2: A thing does not have its species, nor is it denominated by first causes, but rather by its proximate cause. Therefore, the corruption of nature, which is the infection of our concupiscence (infectio fomitis - the infection of the incitement to evil desiring), is not the proximate cause of sin, since there are times when man chooses sin without the provocation of his concupiscence. But it is the first cause because from the corruption of his nature, there is in man a certain frailty such that it is easier for him descend into sin. And thus, it is not fitting that every sin be said to arise from weakness on account of this (line of reasoning).
Response to Objection 3: That error by reason of which every sin arises is an error of choice, according to which the Philosopher says that all ignorance is evil. This ignorance, however, does not cause the involuntary, but rather is caused by way of the will. For from this corrupted inclination of the will to sin, which comes about either through habit or passion, it follows that one chooses this as if it were a good which is pleasing to the will. Hence from this sort of ignorance we do not say that one sins against the Son. For the sin against the Son is when the principal cause of sin is ignorance.
Response to Objection 4: The sin against the Holy Spirit is not the cause of despair on the part of the solicitous physician, namely God, who is able to save anyone in the present life through the immensity of His mercy. However, the sin against the Holy Spirit is the cause of despair on the part of those the illness itself, which, insofar as it is in him, excludes every avenue of cure, as will be made clear in what follows below.
Response to Objection 5: Although the majesty of the three persons is one, nevertheless their persons are distinguished by what is proper personally to each, and that (consequently) some things are appropriate to one which are not appropriate to the other persons. Because of this, it is fitting that there be a sin said to be especially against the Son and the Holy Spirit, and this in a twofold way; either because one considers badly of those things which are proper to the Son or the Holy Spirit, and this is not understood as a sin against the Holy Spirit; or because one sins against that which is an attribute of the Son or the Holy Spirit. And this is so understood as a sin against the Holy Spirit.
The Aquinas Translation Project (http://www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/loughlin/ATP/index.html)