Table of Contents | Words: Alphabetical - Frequency - Inverse - Length - Statistics | Help | IntraText Library
Alphabetical    [«  »]
argued 16
argues 44
arguing 10
argument 418
argumentative 2
arguments 60
arian 5
Frequency    [«  »]
419 afterwards
419 sacrifice
419 virtuous
418 argument
418 doing
418 superior
416 33
St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica

IntraText - Concordances

argument

    Part, Question
1 1, 1 | Whether it is a matter of argument?~(9) Whether it rightly 2 1, 1 | doctrine is a matter of argument?~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[1] A[8] 3 1, 1 | doctrine is not a matter of argument. For Ambrose ~says (De Fide 4 1, 1 | doctrine is not a ~matter of argument.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[1] A[8] 5 1, 1 | Further, if it is a matter of argument, the argument is either ~ 6 1, 1 | matter of argument, the argument is either ~from authority 7 1, 1 | doctrine ~is not a matter of argument.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[1] A[8] 8 1, 1 | doctrine, for ~although the argument from authority based on 9 1, 1 | is the ~weakest, yet the argument from authority based on 10 1, 1 | and destroy all force of argument. Hence no argument, but 11 1, 1 | force of argument. Hence no argument, but only ~fallacies, can 12 1, 1 | from which alone can any argument be ~drawn, and not from 13 1, 2 | more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is ~certain, 14 1, 3 | potentiality. The same argument holds good in other things. 15 1, 3 | composite. Hilary implies this ~argument, when he says (De Trin. 16 1, 4 | implies ~the same line of argument by saying of God (Div. Nom. 17 1, 4 | wanting to God. This line of argument, too, ~is implied by Dionysius ( 18 1, 5 | clear from the following argument. The essence of ~goodness 19 1, 17 | R.O. 3 Para. 2/2~To the argument which is urged on the contrary, 20 1, 17 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument proves that the false is 21 1, 19 | does not follow from this argument that God has a will ~that 22 1, 20 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument is based on the intensity 23 1, 21 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument is based on mercy, regarded 24 1, 22 | Apparently it was this argument that moved those who withdrew 25 1, 23 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument shows that predestination 26 1, 26 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument proves that beatitude belongs 27 1, 28 | Philosopher (Phys. iii), this argument ~holds, that whatever things 28 1, 28 | hence there is no parallel argument.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[28] A[ 29 1, 30 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 4: This argument would prove if the Holy 30 1, 30 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument is founded on a real community.~ 31 1, 36 | figure of speech" as the argument concludes from the ~indeterminate 32 1, 41 | so there is no ~parity of argument.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[41] A[ 33 1, 41 | there is but one Son. The argument is similar ~in regard to 34 1, 46 | Reply OBJ 3: This is the argument of Anaxagoras (as quoted 35 1, 46 | But be it noted that this argument considers only a ~particular 36 1, 47 | Reply OBJ 3: This is the argument that persuaded Origen: but 37 1, 48 | In answer to the opposite argument, it must be said that ~the 38 1, 50 | OBJ 3: This is Aristotle's argument (Metaph. xii, text 44), 39 1, 50 | this is not a ~necessary argument, but a probable one. He 40 1, 50 | forced to make use of this ~argument, since only through sensible 41 1, 50 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 4: This argument comes from the opinion of 42 1, 53 | Para. 1/2~Reply OBJ 1: This argument fails of its purpose for 43 1, 62 | angels. Consequently the argument is ~not the same for both.~ 44 1, 63 | A[5] Body Para. 3/4~This argument, however, does not satisfy. 45 1, 63 | man; and therefore ~the argument does not hold good.~Aquin.: 46 1, 63 | alone. Consequently that argument seems to have the more weight 47 1, 63 | intellectual nature; ~hence the argument does not hold.~Aquin.: SMT 48 1, 64 | pardonable. Consequently the argument ~does not hold good.~Aquin.: 49 1, 66 | distinction. As to formation, the argument is ~clear. For it formless 50 1, 66 | 3~In reply to the first argument in the contrary sense, we 51 1, 66 | 3~In reply to the second argument, we say that certain of 52 1, 66 | each other supervene, this argument would ~necessarily be true; 53 1, 68 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: The argument holds good as to the heaven, 54 1, 69 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument is easily solved, according 55 1, 69 | stem, or fruit, affect the argument.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[69] A[ 56 1, 75 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument proceeds from the proximate 57 1, 77 | as loved and known. His argument proceeds in this ~sense; 58 1, 77 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument is verified as regards those 59 1, 41 | so there is no ~parity of argument.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[41] A[ 60 1, 41 | there is but one Son. The argument is similar ~in regard to 61 1, 47 | Reply OBJ 3: This is the argument of Anaxagoras (as quoted 62 1, 47 | But be it noted that this argument considers only a ~particular 63 1, 48 | Reply OBJ 3: This is the argument that persuaded Origen: but 64 1, 49 | In answer to the opposite argument, it must be said that ~the 65 1, 51 | OBJ 3: This is Aristotle's argument (Metaph. xii, text 44), 66 1, 51 | this is not a ~necessary argument, but a probable one. He 67 1, 51 | forced to make use of this ~argument, since only through sensible 68 1, 51 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 4: This argument comes from the opinion of 69 1, 54 | Para. 1/2~Reply OBJ 1: This argument fails of its purpose for 70 1, 63 | angels. Consequently the argument is ~not the same for both.~ 71 1, 64 | A[5] Body Para. 3/4~This argument, however, does not satisfy. 72 1, 64 | man; and therefore ~the argument does not hold good.~Aquin.: 73 1, 64 | alone. Consequently that argument seems to have the more weight 74 1, 64 | intellectual nature; ~hence the argument does not hold.~Aquin.: SMT 75 1, 65 | pardonable. Consequently the argument ~does not hold good.~Aquin.: 76 1, 67 | distinction. As to formation, the argument is ~clear. For it formless 77 1, 67 | 3~In reply to the first argument in the contrary sense, we 78 1, 67 | 3~In reply to the second argument, we say that certain of 79 1, 67 | each other supervene, this argument would ~necessarily be true; 80 1, 69 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: The argument holds good as to the heaven, 81 1, 70 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument is easily solved, according 82 1, 70 | stem, or fruit, affect the argument.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[69] A[ 83 1, 74 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument proceeds from the proximate 84 1, 76 | as loved and known. His argument proceeds in this ~sense; 85 1, 76 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument is verified as regards those 86 1, 83 | the soul, uses the same argument as Aristotle does ~in proving 87 1, 85 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers that knowledge 88 1, 86 | knows: and therefore the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 89 1, 86 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument would hold good if the will 90 1, 87 | Para. 1/2~Reply OBJ 4: This argument of the Commentator fails 91 1, 87 | is imperfect; hence the argument does not ~prove.~ 92 1, 88 | is false in statement or argument is ~contrary to truth. And 93 1, 88 | its contrary ~when a false argument seduces anyone from the 94 1, 88 | on the part of a false argument. ~But these have no place 95 1, 91 | daughter of Adam; and so this argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 96 1, 91 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument is verified when an individual 97 1, 92 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument would avail if the image 98 1, 99 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument is not conclusive, though 99 1, 103 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument holds in regard to that 100 1, 104 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument would hold if God were to 101 1, 104 | bulk," by ~the following argument. The power of the first 102 1, 105 | spiritual nature. ~Hence the argument does not hold.~Aquin.: SMT 103 1, 107 | angels: and hence the same ~argument does not apply to both.~ 104 1, 109 | natural ~bodies; and hence the argument does not hold.~Aquin.: SMT 105 1, 113 | 1/1 ~OBJ 3: Further, an argument is useless which may prove 106 1, 114 | Augustine quotes this as an argument against ~divination by stars: 107 1, 116 | human nature. Hence the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 108 1, 117 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument holds in the case of diverse 109 2, 1 | good is the last end, this argument does not ~prove that there 110 2, 2 | corresponds to the beginning; this argument ~proves that the last end 111 2, 3 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument would hold, if man himself 112 2, 5 | object. Consequently the ~argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 113 2, 6 | threatening. Consequently, this argument proves rather the ~opposite.~ 114 2, 7 | authority and strength to his argument." But ~oratorical arguments 115 2, 7 | orator gives strength to his argument, in the first ~place, from 116 2, 7 | orator "adds strength ~to his argument," as though this were something 117 2, 8 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument holds in respect of the 118 2, 8 | 2/2~The solution to the argument in the contrary sense is 119 2, 12 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument takes intention in the sense 120 2, 14 | inquiry, which is called an argument, "is a reason that ~attests 121 2, 17 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument proves that command is an 122 2, 19 | a ~good will. Hence the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 123 2, 19 | 2 Para. 3/5~To the first argument advanced in a contrary sense, 124 2, 20 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument proves that the internal 125 2, 20 | Para. 1/2~Reply OBJ 2: This argument applies to that goodness 126 2, 20 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 4: This argument would prove if irregularity 127 2, 22 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument is true of passion accompanied 128 2, 24 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers the passions in 129 2, 25 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument would prove, if the formal 130 2, 25 | something as future. Nor can the argument be pressed any further ~ 131 2, 28 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument is true of real union. That 132 2, 28 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument is true of the third kind 133 2, 28 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument is true of the first kind 134 2, 28 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument applies to love of concupiscence, 135 2, 29 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers the universal 136 2, 32 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument avails for the third mode, 137 2, 34 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument is true of the greatest 138 2, 39 | the body. Therefore ~this argument does not prove: nor does 139 2, 43 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument is true of that which is 140 2, 43 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument is true of the cause of 141 2, 45 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument would hold, if good and 142 2, 46 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument regards anger and desire 143 2, 48 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument holds in regard to pleasure 144 2, 49 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument takes "to have" in the general 145 2, 49 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument takes habit in the sense 146 2, 50 | is separate, as ran the argument, given above. But the ~argument 147 2, 50 | argument, given above. But the ~argument is no cogent. For habit 148 2, 53 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument would hold, if the essence 149 2, 57 | syllogism for the sake of argument, just as it employs the ~ 150 2, 58 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument takes "mos" in the sense 151 2, 58 | on which it builds its argument: and this ~is wanting in 152 2, 65 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument holds good of virtue in 153 2, 65 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument is true of faith considered 154 2, 66 | A[3]). Wherefore this argument, too, proves merely that 155 2, 68 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument holds, in the case of an 156 2, 68 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers the gifts as to 157 2, 69 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument proves that no other habits, 158 2, 70 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument proves the beatitudes to 159 2, 73 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument looks upon sin as though 160 2, 73 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers the opposition 161 2, 73 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers the extrinsic 162 2, 73 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers the cause which 163 2, 73 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument does not prove, for two 164 2, 73 | dominion of our will, the argument fails ~to prove, in respect 165 2, 74 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument applies to those efficient 166 2, 74 | in the will; ~hence the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 167 2, 74 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers the defect in 168 2, 74 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers the delectation 169 2, 77 | A[6], ad 1): hence the ~argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 170 2, 79 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument considers hardheartedness 171 2, 87 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument considers sin as turning 172 2, 88 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument considers those sins which 173 2, 88 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers those sins which 174 2, 88 | not vice ~versa. Hence the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 175 2, 90 | thirdly, the syllogism or argument. And since also the ~practical 176 2, 91 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument would hold, if the natural 177 2, 91 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers the "fomes" in 178 2, 91 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument considers law in the light 179 2, 91 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers the "fomes" as 180 2, 94 | Para. 1/2~Reply OBJ 3: This argument proves that the natural 181 2, 94 | R.O. 3 Para. 2/2~To the argument advanced in the contrary 182 2, 94 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers acts in themselves. 183 2, 94 | 1/1 ~Reply OBJ 3: This argument is true of the secondary 184 2, 95 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument avails for those things 185 2, 96 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument is true of laws that are 186 2, 96 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument is true of a law that inflicts 187 2, 96 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument is true of subjection by 188 2, 97 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument proves that laws ought to 189 2, 99 | wherefore ~the process of argument in sciences should be ordered 190 2, 100 | precepts regarding God. This argument holds in respect of affirmative 191 2, 102 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument would avail if the ceremonial 192 2, 104 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument holds in respect of those 193 2, 106 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument holds true of the New Law, 194 2, 109 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument merely proves that man needs 195 2, 1 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers the object of 196 2, 2 | renounce his ~faith, or in an argument persuading him to do so. 197 2, 6 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument again refers to the cause 198 2, 9 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument takes knowledge in the generic 199 2, 10 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument takes unbelief as denoting 200 2, 10 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument considers the various species 201 2, 10 | means of arguments. But an ~argument is a reason in settlement 202 2, 10 | 2/2~With regard to the argument in the contrary [*The Leonine 203 2, 13 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument considers the question on 204 2, 13 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument considers the sin which 205 2, 14 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument considers the second kind 206 2, 18 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument proves that fear is not 207 2, 21 | the passage quoted in the ~argument, "On the contrary," man 208 2, 22 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument would hold, if God and our 209 2, 22 | its proper form: hence the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 210 2, 23 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument holds good in those things 211 2, 23 | follows open vision. Hence the argument does not ~prove.~Aquin.: 212 2, 23 | stated above. Hence the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 213 2, 24 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers friendship as 214 2, 25 | the sense of the Apostle's argument. For, since our neighbor 215 2, 25 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers the quantity of 216 2, 25 | R.O. 3 Para. 2/2~As to the argument in the contrary sense, it 217 2, 25 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument should be granted as to 218 2, 25 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument considers the order of charity 219 2, 27 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument takes the fulness of joy 220 2, 30 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers corporal almsdeeds 221 2, 30 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers abundance of alms 222 2, 32 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument is true of those who see 223 2, 32 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument is true in so far as God 224 2, 34 | 1/1 ~Reply OBJ 2: This argument considers sorrow for another' 225 2, 42 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument proves that the precept 226 2, 43 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument considers, not the wisdom 227 2, 45 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument proves that prudence helps 228 2, 51 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument takes imprudence in the 229 2, 51 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers generality by 230 2, 56 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument again takes legal justice 231 2, 59 | OBJ 3: Further, the chief argument against retaliation is based 232 2, 64 | A[1]). It ~is by this argument that the Philosopher proves ( 233 2, 64 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers the dominion over 234 2, 68 | a punishment. ~Hence the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 235 2, 74 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers cursing by way 236 2, 79 | done voluntarily. Hence the argument proves nothing.~Aquin.: 237 2, 86 | increases devotion. Hence the argument does ~not conclude.~Aquin.: 238 2, 86 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument avails in the case of children 239 2, 86 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument avails in the case of solemn 240 2, 87 | as Augustine states [*See argument On ~the contrary]; the other 241 2, 88 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument considers the adjuration 242 2, 88 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers the adjuration 243 2, 91 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers excess by way 244 2, 92 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers the consummative 245 2, 94 | of the ~future. Hence the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 246 2, 96 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument avails in the case of one 247 2, 101 | 1/1 ~Reply OBJ 1: This argument takes dulia in a wide sense.~ 248 2, 107 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument takes truth in the first 249 2, 109 | deeds, ~he is evil. But this argument proves nothing. Because 250 2, 110 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument takes boasting as exceeding 251 2, 111 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument applies to irony and boasting, 252 2, 113 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument applies to one that flatters 253 2, 121 | 3 Para. 2/2 ~The Fourth argument is granted.~Aquin.: SMT 254 2, 122 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers martyrdom according 255 2, 123 | dangers of death. Hence the argument ~does not prove.~Aquin.: 256 2, 123 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers fear as confined 257 2, 131 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers pusillanimity 258 2, 131 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument considers pusillanimity 259 2, 131 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers the point of view 260 2, 134 | 2/2~We grant the fourth argument. We must observe, however, 261 2, 140 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument takes the term "childish" 262 2, 143 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument applies to the beauty of 263 2, 149 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument takes chastity in the metaphorical 264 2, 149 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers spiritual fornication ~ 265 2, 152 | 1/1 ~Reply OBJ 3: This argument proves that such things 266 2, 154 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument takes incontinence metaphorically 267 2, 154 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers incontinence with 268 2, 156 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument considers the inordinate 269 2, 159 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 5: This argument also considers the degrees 270 2, 161 | 1/1 ~Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers the likeness of 271 2, 161 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers the likeness of 272 2, 161 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers the gravity of 273 2, 161 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument considers the circumstance 274 2, 165 | Reply OBJ 2: Although this argument shows that the knowledge 275 2, 179 | common object. Hence this argument ~clearly considers the matter 276 2, 182 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument also regards the interior 277 2, 182 | Reply OBJ 3: Again this argument considers the interior state. ~ 278 3, 2 | because what is urged in the argument "on the contrary" rests 279 3, 18 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument is based on the will, essentially 280 3, 24 | Para. 1/2~Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers the aforesaid 281 3, 25 | Reply OBJ 1: This was the argument of Vigilantius, whose words 282 3, 26 | perceive the fallacy of the argument, since it ~might be neither 283 3, 26 | time. Hence his line of argument coincides with, ~because 284 3, 28 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 4: This argument is true of those things 285 3, 30 | of Elizabeth, and by the argument from Divine omnipotence.~ 286 3, 30 | adduced, not as a ~sufficient argument, but as a kind of figurative 287 3, 30 | instance, the convincing argument is added taken from ~the 288 3, 31 | Augustine answered this ~argument thus (Contra Faust. xxii): " 289 3, 35 | Reply OBJ 1: This was the argument of a certain heretic, Felician, 290 3, 35 | Reply OBJ 2: This was an argument of Nestorius, and it is 291 3, 35 | Reply OBJ 1: This was an argument of Nestorius, and it is 292 3, 35 | Reply OBJ 2: This was an argument of Nestorius. But Cyril, 293 3, 43 | need to be proved by the argument of ~Divine power: so that 294 3, 43 | Reply OBJ 1: This was the argument of the Gentiles. Wherefore 295 3, 44 | does not seem a sufficient ~argument for the power of forgiving 296 3, 46 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument is based on the necessity 297 3, 46 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument rests on the necessity of 298 3, 46 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument follows from only one of 299 3, 46 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument proceeds from passion on 300 3, 46 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: Such argument holds good of the totality 301 3, 51 | grave was a ~sufficient argument to prove that men are to 302 3, 55 | 1 ~Reply OBJ 3: Such an argument would prove, if they had 303 3, 55 | and this is demonstrative argument. But Christ did not make 304 3, 55 | not make use ~of any such argument for demonstrating His Resurrection.~ 305 3, 55 | Reply OBJ 1: Each separate argument would not suffice of itself 306 3, 57 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument proves that Christ did not 307 3, 57 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument holds good of Christ's body 308 3, 58 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: The argument holds good if sitting at 309 3, 59 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument proves that judiciary power 310 3, 59 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument holds good of judiciary 311 3, 59 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument is based on the ground of 312 3, 59 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument holds good in regard to 313 3, 59 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers judgment as to 314 3, 60 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument considers sacrament in the 315 3, 62 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers that which causes 316 3, 62 | and complete power, as the argument proves. But ~there is nothing 317 3, 65 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 4: This argument would hold if Penance were 318 3, 65 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 4: This argument proceeds on the ground of 319 3, 67 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument avails in those agents that 320 3, 69 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument is true of special remedies. 321 3, 70 | were lost. And ~the same argument avails in regard to those 322 3, 70 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument would prove if justice were 323 3, 74 | the passage quoted in ~the argument: "If necessary, let the 324 3, 75 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 4: This argument holds good of Christ's bodily 325 3, 75 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument also is true of formal conversion 326 3, 75 | serves as answer to the third argument; because faith is not ~contrary 327 3, 76 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument is based on the nature of 328 3, 76 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument deals with accidental movement, 329 3, 76 | Reply OBJ 2: It was this argument which seems to have convinced 330 3, 79 | this sacrament. Hence the argument does ~not prove.~Aquin.: 331 3, 79 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument deals with past venial sins, 332 3, 81 | OBJ 1: This is Hilary's argument, to show that Judas did 333 3, 81 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument would hold, if Christ's 334 3, 84 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers the proximate 335 3, 85 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers penance as a passion.~ 336 3, 86 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument takes Penance as a sacrament.~ 337 3, 86 | R.O. 3 Para. 2/2~To the argument advanced in the contrary 338 3, 89 | R.O. 3 Para. 2/2~To the argument advanced in the contrary 339 3, 89 | such a principle. Hence the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 340 Suppl, 8 | stated above: and ~so the argument proves nothing. Nevertheless 341 Suppl, 8 | uplifting; ~wherefore the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 342 Suppl, 11| opposition; so that the argument proves nothing.~Aquin.: 343 Suppl, 13| Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument proves that it is impossible 344 Suppl, 14| equivalence: so that the argument proves nothing.~Aquin.: 345 Suppl, 16| Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument proves that they do not 346 Suppl, 16| 4,5: We grant the Fourth argument. But since the Fifth ~Objection 347 Suppl, 24| through sickness. Hence the argument is not to the point. ~Aquin.: 348 Suppl, 24| above (A[2]). Hence the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 349 Suppl, 29| in the Old Law. But this argument is not very ~cogent, since, 350 Suppl, 35| Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument considers aptness by way 351 Suppl, 41| not obey reason. Hence the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 352 Suppl, 41| act, and consequently the argument does not ~prove.~ 353 Suppl, 42| Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument would hold if no more efficacious 354 Suppl, 43| Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 7: This argument would hold if each contract 355 Suppl, 48| itself. Consequently the argument ~does not prove.~Aquin.: 356 Suppl, 49| Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument would avail if the evil 357 Suppl, 50| Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument would hold, were there no 358 Suppl, 51| stated above; wherefore ~the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 359 Suppl, 51| slavery ~does. Hence the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 360 Suppl, 52| Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 4: This argument considers corruptible things; 361 Suppl, 52| s, complement. Hence the argument is not to the ~point.~Aquin.: 362 Suppl, 53| already stated. Hence the argument ~is void for it assigns 363 Suppl, 53| above (A[1]). Hence the argument ~does not suffice to prove 364 Suppl, 54| nourishment was taken. The argument however ~would hold according 365 Suppl, 55| it ~has been. Hence the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 366 Suppl, 55| same wife. Wherefore the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 367 Suppl, 55| the degrees. Hence this argument is not to the point.~Aquin.: 368 Suppl, 60| than wife-murder, and the argument is based on a false premiss.~ 369 Suppl, 63| 2], OBJ[3]]. Hence the ~argument is not to the point.~Aquin.: 370 Suppl, 64| other hour; wherefore the argument is not cogent.~Aquin.: SMT 371 Suppl, 65| in point, wherefore the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 372 Suppl, 65| stated above. Hence the argument does ~not prove.~Aquin.: 373 Suppl, 65| intercourse with Thamar. But this argument is ~not conclusive. For 374 Suppl, 65| concubine; wherefore the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 375 Suppl, 67| and for this reason the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 376 Suppl, 67| cause of love. Wherefore the argument does not hold.~Aquin.: SMT 377 Suppl, 69| various abodes. Hence the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 378 Suppl, 70| soul: and consequently the argument is not ~conclusive.~Aquin.: 379 Suppl, 70| stated above. Hence the argument is not to the point.~Aquin.: 380 Suppl, 71| conditionally as it were: hence the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 381 Suppl, 72| that Augustine uses this argument to show that the souls of 382 Suppl, 72| 3~Further, an additional argument is provided by the common 383 Suppl, 72| Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument regards an operation which 384 Suppl, 72| resurrection, and hence the argument is not to the point.~Aquin.: 385 Suppl, 73| Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument holds when all the things 386 Suppl, 73| Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument would avail, if the power 387 Suppl, 76| Hence it is clear that the argument, so far as the meaning of ~ 388 Suppl, 76| R.O. 2 Para. 3/4~The first argument proving that there will 389 Suppl, 76| Para. 1/2~Reply OBJ 3: This argument affords a very good proof 390 Suppl, 76| Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers organic or heterogeneous 391 Suppl, 77| opinion, however, grants ~this argument. ~Aquin.: SMT XP Q[80] A[ 392 Suppl, 77| is easy to reply to this ~argument, because the flesh that 393 Suppl, 77| to the first opinion this argument is easily ~answered. For 394 Suppl, 78| his formation. Thus ~the argument is not to the point.~Aquin.: 395 Suppl, 78| aforesaid motive. Hence the argument does not ~prove.~Aquin.: 396 Suppl, 80| Secondly their aforesaid argument does not ~avail, because 397 Suppl, 80| Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: This argument is sophistical because it 398 Suppl, 80| place, it is clear that the argument ~proves nothing, but begs 399 Suppl, 80| Para. 1/2~Reply OBJ 1: This argument supposes that a glorified 400 Suppl, 80| OBJ 2: The Philosopher's argument is that for the same reason 401 Suppl, 80| stated above. Hence ~the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 402 Suppl, 81| Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument would prove if the glorified 403 Suppl, 81| to that state. ~Hence the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 404 Suppl, 81| understand the Philosopher's argument, as the ~Commentator explains, 405 Suppl, 81| and the ~Philosopher's argument does not apply to these, 406 Suppl, 86| 7] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2~The argument in the contrary sense considered 407 Suppl, 88| Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument considers natural alteration 408 Suppl, 88| remain ~incomplete. But this argument seems improbable, for since 409 Suppl, 88| Reply OBJ 6: This is the argument of Rabbi Moses who endeavors 410 Suppl, 88| Consequently we must answer this argument by ~saying that although 411 Suppl, 89| similar to it. The second argument is that our ~intellect has 412 Suppl, 91| justice. Consequently the argument does not prove.~Aquin.: 413 Suppl, 92| likeness; and consequently the argument we have adduced does not 414 Suppl, 93| above (A[2]~). Hence the argument proves nothing.~Aquin.: 415 Suppl, 94| torments." But this is no argument, if we assert that hell 416 Suppl, 95| Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 2: This argument would prove if the damned 417 Appen1, 1| hence it is clear ~that the argument is not based on a true comparison.~ 418 Appen2, 1| Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers the point of special


Best viewed with any browser at 800x600 or 768x1024 on Tablet PC
IntraText® (V89) - Some rights reserved by Èulogos SpA - 1996-2007. Content in this page is licensed under a Creative Commons License