FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   646   647   648   649   650   651   652   653   654   655   656   657   658   659   660   661   662   663   664   665   666   667   668   669   670  
671   672   673   674   675   676   677   678   679   680   681   682   683   684   685   686   687   688   689   690   691   692   693   694   695   >>   >|  
recepts. Wherefore the affirmative and negative precepts do not belong to different virtues, but to different degrees of virtue; and consequently they are not, of necessity, opposed to sins of different species. Moreover sin is not specified by that from which it turns away, because in this respect it is a negation or privation, but by that to which it turns, in so far as sin is an act. Consequently sins do not differ specifically according to the various precepts of the Law. Reply Obj. 3: This objection considers the material diversity of sins. It must be observed, however, that although, properly speaking, negation is not in a species, yet it is allotted to a species by reduction to the affirmation on which it is based. ________________________ SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 72, Art. 7] Whether Sins Are Fittingly Divided into Sins of Thought, Word, and Deed? Objection 1: It would seem that sins are unfittingly divided into sins of thought, word, and deed. For Augustine (De Trin. xii, 12) describes three stages of sin, of which the first is "when the carnal sense offers a bait," which is the sin of thought; the second stage is reached "when one is satisfied with the mere pleasure of thought"; and the third stage, "when consent is given to the deed." Now these three belong to the sin of thought. Therefore it is unfitting to reckon sin of thought as one kind of sin. Obj. 2: Further, Gregory (Moral. iv, 25) reckons four degrees of sin; the first of which is "a fault hidden in the heart"; the second, "when it is done openly"; the third, "when it is formed into a habit"; and the fourth, "when man goes so far as to presume on God's mercy or to give himself up to despair": where no distinction is made between sins of deed and sins of word, and two other degrees of sin are added. Therefore the first division was unfitting. Obj. 3: Further, there can be no sin of word or deed unless there precede sin of thought. Therefore these sins do not differ specifically. Therefore they should not be condivided with one another. _On the contrary,_ Jerome in commenting on Ezech. 43:23, says: "The human race is subject to three kinds of sin, for when we sin, it is either by thought, or word, or deed." _I answer that,_ Things differ specifically in two ways: first, when each has the complete species; thus a horse and an ox differ specifically: secondly, when the diversity of species is derived from diversity of degree in genera
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   646   647   648   649   650   651   652   653   654   655   656   657   658   659   660   661   662   663   664   665   666   667   668   669   670  
671   672   673   674   675   676   677   678   679   680   681   682   683   684   685   686   687   688   689   690   691   692   693   694   695   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
thought
 

species

 

differ

 

specifically

 

Therefore

 

degrees

 
diversity
 

unfitting

 

belong

 

Further


precepts
 

negation

 

presume

 
despair
 
Gregory
 
reckon
 

reckons

 
formed
 

fourth

 

openly


hidden

 

answer

 

Things

 

subject

 

derived

 
degree
 

genera

 
complete
 

precede

 

division


condivided

 

commenting

 

contrary

 

Jerome

 
distinction
 

observed

 
material
 

objection

 

considers

 

properly


speaking

 

SEVENTH

 

ARTICLE

 
affirmation
 

allotted

 
reduction
 
respect
 

virtue

 
Moreover
 
virtues