1. First Conclusion

39. Let the first conclusion, then, be this, that the infusion of grace and expulsion of guilt (or more properly the remission of guilt) are not simply one change.

40. The proof of this is fourfold:

First as follows: the simply same thing cannot be multiplied and not multiplied, and this when taking ‘the same’ and ‘multiplied’ uniformly (namely, if really then really, if in reason then in reason); for this includes the opposite of the first principle [sc. the principle of non-contradiction], that the same thing, as the same thing, is one and is not one. But remissions of fault are many (in the way that someone is said to be a sinner after an act of sin that passes, and is said, after he has committed many sins, to be a sinner with many faults). And each of these faults has its own remission, because each remission could be without any other if the sinner had committed only that fault and not any other.

41. Again, second as follows: the same thing is not separate from the same thing, taking identity and separation uniformly (namely, if really then really, if in reason then in reason); for this includes the opposite of the first principle, namely that the same thing, as it is the same, is and is not at the same time. But remission of guilt and infusion of grace can be separated, which is plain both by comparing the first with the second and conversely. For, in the state of innocence in the human race, it were possible (as it was in fact in the angels who did not sin) for grace to be infused without remission of any guilt, because there was no guilt present. Likewise, guilt can be remitted without grace being infused. Proof: God can, of his absolute power, create man in a purely natural state, without fault and without grace; therefore, also after the Fall he can repair such a man and remit guilt without infusion of grace. The evidence for this reasoning is plain above, in d.1, the question on circumcision [Ord. IV d.1 nn.343-345, 357].

42. Third as follows: guilt and grace are not formally opposed nor formally repugnant. Proof: because then an agent that can, by effecting or failing to effect, have power over the being of one, could, by effecting or failing to effect, have power over the non-being of the other, as is plain universally about incompossibilities. But the created will has, by effecting or failing to effect, power over the being of guilt, because the guilt is from itself.     Therefore , it could, by effecting or failing to effect, have power over the nonbeing of grace, which is false, because grace is not destroyed unless it be annihilated, and a creature is not able to annihilate anything. The first proposition [here supra] is therefore plain, namely that ‘there is no formal repugnance between guilt and grace’. But there is no single change from a thing as from the term ‘from which’ to another thing as to the term ‘to which’ unless they are formally repugnant; therefore etc     .

43. Fourth as follows: there is no single change to a positive form save from the proper privation of that form; guilt, as that by which a sinner, after the act, is called a sinner, is not the proper privation of grace, because a single grace has only a single privation, and there are many faults in this way, as was said in the first reason [n.40]. Nor is it valid to object, against the major, that some change has both terms positive, for of this change (which is to grace) the per se term ‘from which’ is privation, and consequently it is the proper privation of the term ‘to which’.