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
|