Section 3: Sins Against Hope

Man sins against the theological virtue of hope either by wilfully entertaining an aversion for God and heavenly things or by confiding in Him either too much or too little.

1. Aversion for God is not the same as hatred of God. The latter is a sin against charity rather than against hope. To have an aversion for God means not to wish Him evil, but simply to prefer the earth and its attractions to Him and to the happiness He has prepared for His rational creatures. To do this is obviously a mortal sin.

In this connection theologians discuss the question whether it is a mortal sin to wish that this terrestrial life might last forever. Noldin says that if this wish is accompanied by a disposition to leave Heaven to God, provided He will give us the earth, it is a mortal sin against hope because by entertaining such a desire the creature turns away from the Creator and seeks its happiness in created things. If, however, it is merely a sign of excessive absorption in earthly pleasures, or of fear of death on account of the uncertainty of reaching Heaven, it is not necessarily a mortal sin against hope because such a disposition of mind does not per se exclude the desire of beatitude. Married people who say that they would like to live together forever, as often as not merely mean to give utterance to the ardor of their mutual affection.¹

¹ Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, 11th ed., p. 55.

2. Against the confidence that forms an essential constituent of hope we may sin either by excess (per excessum) or by defect (per defectum).

We sin by excess of hope, a) If we entertain presumption, which is an inordinate confidence of being able to attain Heaven without employing the necessary means. This may manifest itself in a twofold manner:

α) By tempting God. “Tentatio Dei” is a Biblical term² which denotes the expectation of extraordinary divine help or miraculous intervention when there is no legitimate reason for it. The term may also be applied to anything that is done with the purpose of eliciting such help, as, for example by ordeals (ordalia) or so-called divine judgments (iudicia divina),³ which are based on the belief that God, being just and all-powerful, will, if solemnly invoked by public authority, rather work a miracle than allow his rational creatures to be unjustly punished or to escape punishment when guilty of a serious crime. This belief is contrary to the revealed truth that God’s distributive justice does not work itself out fully in this world.⁴

² Ex. XVII, 7; Deut. VI, 16; Ps. LXXVII, 18; Is. VII, 12; Matt. IV, 7; Acts XV, 10.

³ See, however, A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Theologia Moralis, Vol. I, 11th ed., p. 250, n. 1: “Nevertheless, if a miraculous intervention of God is expected in the matter of eternal salvation, there is indeed in this expectation or request a certain disorder contrary to theological hope; but this must not be confused with the temptation of God itself. The latter also extends more broadly, since it is committed in any matter whatsoever if such an intervention of God is requested without a just cause and is of itself constitutes a graver malice.”—Gury (I, n. 273) says: “The temptation of God is a request for and expectation from God of some unusual effect placed outside the order of things. It is certain that a formal and express temptation of God is always a mortal sin against religion. . . . If, however, it is only implicit, it can often be merely a venial sin because of ignorance, inadvertence, or smallness of matter. . . . 1. He sins gravely against religion who demands to prove his innocence by duel, red-hot iron, etc., or who offers himself voluntarily for martyrdom, unless he is excused by good faith or divine inspiration. 2. Likewise one who exposes himself to great danger of death without a just cause, relying on divine aid. But if he acts merely from rashness without trusting in divine providence, he does not sin against religion, but only against the fifth commandment of the Decalogue. 3. He sins only lightly who, in a slight illness, rejects remedies and hopes for health from God, because there is no grave disorder there. Indeed, he is excused from every fault if he hopes that, with God’s aid, he will be freed naturally from such a slight illness. 4. Likewise, he sins venially in itself who through negligence approaches unprepared to preach the word of God, hoping for special aid from God.”—On ordeals, etc., see A. Franz, Das Rituale von St. Florian, Freiburg 1904, pp. 180 sqq.; IDEM, Die kirchlichen Benediktionen im Mittelalter, Vol. II, pp. 307 sqq.; E. Vacandard, Études de Critique et d’Histoire Religieuses, 2nd ed., Paris 1906, pp. 204 sqq.; J. P. Kirsch in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XI, pp. 276 sqq.

⁴ John III, 17.

β) We further sin by presumption if we harbor the inordinate confidence that, no matter what we do, we shall get to Heaven, because it lies entirely with God not only to call men to eternal beatitude but to enable them to obey the call.⁵ This is what theologians call praesumptio salutis.

⁵ Phil. II, 12 sq.—Gury (I, n. 185): “Presumption is a disordered confidence of obtaining beatitude by means not ordained by God.”

Its wrongness lies in seeking certainty of salvation in conditions other than those prescribed by the Christian religion.⁶

⁶ St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., III, n. 21.—Gury, I, 187: “In how many ways is the sin of presumption committed? Principally: 1. by presuming to obtain eternal life by one’s own powers; 2. by expecting it without labor, from the mercy of God alone; 3. by sinning because of the hope of easily obtaining pardon from God; 4. by persevering in sin because of the hope of conversion at death.”—St. Augustine, Serm., 13 (al. 94, De Temp.), n. 2: “This is the sum of instruction: Serve the Lord in fear and rejoice in Him with trembling (Ps. II). Rejoice in Him, not in yourself: for from Him you have what you are, both that you are a man and that you are just, if nevertheless you are already just. But if you think that you are a man from Him but are just from yourself, you do not serve the Lord in fear and rejoice with trembling, but in presumption toward yourself. . . . For now you seem just to yourself by not taking another’s property, not committing adultery, not committing murder, not bearing false witness against your neighbor, honoring father and mother, worshipping the one God, and not serving idols and demons; but you will perish from this way if you presume that these things come from yourself, if you think that you have them from yourself. . . . What, then, must be done so that we do not perish from the just way? ‘Blessed are all who trust in Him’ (Ps. II, 13). If those who trust in Him are blessed, those who trust in themselves are wretched. For ‘cursed is every man who places his hope in man’ (Jer. XVII, 5). Therefore do not place it in yourself either, because you too are a man. For if you place your hope in another man, you will be inordinately humble; but if you place your hope in yourself, you will be dangerously proud. What difference does it make? Both are ruinous; neither is to be chosen. The inordinately humble man is not raised up; the dangerously proud man is cast down.” (Migne, P. L., XXXVIII, 107).

This sin assumes different forms according to the character of the sects that encourage it. Thus theologians speak of a praesumptio lutherana, a praesumptio calviniana, a praesumptio pelagiana, and a praesumptio pia, or, more correctly, pietistica. The Lutherans base their presumption upon the theory that salvation depends solely on the confidence a man has (fides fiducialis) in the grace of God and the merits of Jesus Christ, i. e., on faith alone (sola fides) without good works.⁷ The Calvinists believe in absolute predestination.⁸ The Pelagians held that man can work out his eternal salvation without the aid of supernatural grace.⁹ A certain class of Pietists make salvation depend on mere “ortho- doxy.”¹⁰ All these theories are false and pernicious.

⁷ Rom. III, 28; Jas. II, 14 sqq.— Conc. Trident., Sess. VI, can. 9–15.—B. Bartmann, St. Paulus und St. Jakobus über die Rechtfertigung, Freiburg 1897, pp. 140 sqq.—Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Actual and Habitual, pp. 274 sqq.

⁸ Cfr. Conc. Arausic. II., c. 25 (epilog.): “We not only do not believe that any persons are predestined to evil by divine power, but if there are any who wish to believe so great an evil, we say anathema to them with all detestation.”—A. Zahn, Über den biblischen und kirchlichen Begriff der Anrechnung, Amsterdam 1899.—Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Actual and Habitual, pp. 152 sqq.

⁹ Rom. X, 3; 1 Cor. X, 12.—St. Augustine, Epist., 196 (al. 200), c. 2, n. 7: “Similar to these [Rom. X, 3] are those who, although they profess themselves Christians, oppose the grace of Christ in such a way that they think they fulfill the divine commandments by human powers; as though they too, ignorant of the justice of God and wishing to establish their own, are not subject to the justice of God, and Judaize not indeed in name but nevertheless in error. This kind of men had found for itself as leaders Pelagius and Coelestius, the most vigorous defenders of this impiety.” (Migne, P. L., XXXIII, 893).—IDEM, Confess., IV, c. 16, n. 31: “Our firmness is firmness when You [God] are it; but when it is our own, it is weakness.” (P. L., XXXII, 706).—On the Pelagian heresy see Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Actual and Habitual, pp. 82 sqq. On the prevalence of the same error at the present day see G. H. Joyce, S.J., The Catholic Doctrine of Grace, London 1920, pp. 65 sqq. Father Joyce says: “The idea that a man’s soul is disabled, and that in order to resist temptation he needs a new force infused into him, is, outside the Catholic Church, almost forgotten. Religion is reduced to the recognition of God’s sovereignty and the observance of a certain standard of morality; but it is not supposed that there is anything in this beyond the scope of our natural powers. The idea that man comes into the world spiritually crippled, and that the religion of Jesus Christ can remedy his ills simply because it communicates to him a new principle of life, has disappeared. What, for instance, is the view taken of Baptism by the vast majority of our fellow-countrymen? It is probably true to say that by most non-Catholics it is at most held to secure to the recipient a certain external favor on God’s part. Many, certainly, regard it as strictly obligatory by reason of Christ’s command. Yet even they do not consider that the rite confers any internal gift, and would very likely dismiss as absurd the idea that the child who dies unbaptized must remain for ever deprived of the beatitude conferred on those who have received that sacrament. There is no mystery as to the source of these errors. They have their origin in a reaction against the false teaching of the Protestant Reformers. Luther and Calvin grossly exaggerated the effects of original sin. They declared that it had so vitiated and corrupted human nature, that fallen man is incapable of the smallest good. Indeed, according to Luther, even after justification, every act that man performs is stained with sin. The justified are saved, not because they are delivered from sin, but solely by the imputation to them of Christ’s merits. A teaching so manifestly false could not but provoke a reaction. Experience teaches us plainly enough that fallen man is not wholly destitute of virtue: that even bad men are capable, from time to time, of good and generous actions. Hence it is no matter of surprise that those who have been brought up to believe that this travesty of Christian teaching is the teaching of Scripture as to human nature, should in preference accept the solution of Rationalism and deny original sin altogether. But when sanctifying grace and original sin are both gone, what remains of Christianity is hardly distinguishable from pure and simple Pelagianism. One of the most marked features of this modern view of religion is the almost universal acceptance of the principle that one religion is as good as another. This is not looked upon as a matter admitting of argument or discussion. It is assumed as one of those self-evident truths which are beyond dispute: and the fact that Catholics deny it is regarded as a standing proof of their wrongheadedness. It is accepted equally by the sincerely pious and by those who are wholly indifferent to religious motives. The pious appeal to it as justifying their charitable hopes for the salvation of all. There are, they say, many roads to heaven: we must not condemn those who are not travelling along the same road as ourselves. The indifferent find in it an adequate excuse for the neglect of all religion. So indubitable does the principle appear to the modern Protestant, that nothing is commoner than to hear the opinion expressed that foreign missions are the most futile of enterprises. Why, it is asked, can we not leave the Mohammedan to serve his God in his own way? A sincere Mohammedan is just as likely to be saved as any Christian: to start a religious propaganda in a Moslem or pagan country may cause much political trouble, and can do no good to anyone. It is, of course, manifest that if the Christian religion has nothing more to offer to its adherents than a somewhat clearer knowledge of the moral law than is to be found in other creeds, there is much to be said for the objection. It might reasonably be doubted in that case, whether it is worth while to disturb the rooted beliefs of a nation in order to confer on it the problematic benefit of Christianity. Far better, it would seem, to try to induce them to observe the law which they already acknowledge as divine. The preaching of a new faith, even though it propose a higher ideal, may well cause more harm by the unsettlement to which it must give rise, than it will do good. But in fact this new form of belief, is, as we have urged, not Christianity at all. It may be said without irreverence that it would not have been worth while for God to become incarnate and die upon the Cross, to give man a gift such as that. The true religion of Jesus Christ does not consist simply in an example of the perfect fulfilment of the law. It is a stupendous gift to our race—the transformation of our nature by grace, the elevation of man to the high dignity of a child of God. It alone comes from God, and it alone can bring man to eternal beatitude. All other religions are the work of human imagination, and are powerless to save us. The Catholic missionary goes out to heathen countries knowing that he brings with him a boon that is beyond all price. Were the result of his life’s work but to make a single convert, his labors would have been well spent. Without him that soul would never have obtained grace, but would have passed out of this life still in the bondage of sin: through him it has been delivered from Satan and raised to be a partaker of the divine nature. He has achieved a result of inestimable value.”

¹⁰ Gen. XVII, 10–14; Deut. X, 16 sqq.; Matt. III, 8–10; XII, 50; Luke III, 8 sq.; John I, 12 sq.; VIII, 33, 39 sq.; Acts III, 25 sq.; X, 28; Rom. II, 28 sq.; VIII, 14; 1 Cor. VII, 19; 2 Cor. XI, 22; Gal. III, 2–29; V, 5 sqq.; VI, 15; Eph. II, 11–22; Phil. III, 2–9; Apoc. II, 9; III, 9.

What is ordinarily called presumption has its origin in a sinful life inspired by the confident expectation that God will not punish sin, or at least will grant the sinner an opportunity to repent before death. This is a crime against the Holy Ghost, because, as St. Thomas says, “by presuming thus a man removes or despises the assistance of the Holy Spirit, whereby he is withdrawn from sin.”¹¹ Presumption is not, however, always the inspiring motive of such seemingly presumptuous conduct. Father Noldin says:

¹¹ Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 21, art. 1: “Concerning hope, through which someone adheres to divine power, presumption can arise through excess when someone tends toward some good as possible through divine power and mercy although it is not possible, as when someone hopes to obtain pardon without repentance or glory without merits. This presumption is properly a species of sin against the Holy Spirit, because through presumption of this kind the assistance of the Holy Spirit, by which man is recalled from sin, is removed or despised.”—IDEM, ibid., art. 2, ad 3: “To sin with the intention of persevering in sin under the hope of pardon pertains to presumption, and this does not diminish but increases the sin. But to sin under the hope of obtaining pardon at some time, with the intention of abstaining from sin and repenting of it, is not presumption; rather, this diminishes the sin, because through it the person appears to have a will less firmly fixed upon sinning.”

(1) To sin, or to persevere in sin, through passion or weakness, with the hope of eventually obtaining forgiveness (cum spe), is not presumption, because in that case the hope of forgiveness is not the motive of sin, but merely a sentiment accompanying it; as when a soldier who is leading a sinful life defers confession until his time of service expires.

(2) To sin because it is so easy to accuse oneself of repeated sins of the same species, or because the confessional is open at all times, or because it is no harder to confess many sins than one or two, is not presumption, because the real motive in such cases is not the ease with which it is possible to obtain forgiveness, but the facility of confession.

(3) To sin or persevere in sin because of the hope of forgiveness (propter spem veniae), i. e., because God forgives many sins as readily as one, or because He will forgive sins as easily later as now, is presumptuous because the hope of forgiveness in that case is the direct motive of sin and therefore an inordinate confidence in divine mercy. However, this sin is committed but rarely because in most instances the hope of obtaining forgiveness is an occasion rather than a motive.¹²

¹² H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, p. 57.

Presumption is of itself grave (ex toto genere suo grave) and therefore always a mortal sin if it involves heresy or blasphemy; otherwise it admits of smallness of matter.¹³

¹³ Ibid., p. 58.

Certain deep-seated prejudices have recently been corrected by a non-Catholic savant as follows:

“It is a Protestant prejudice . . . that the Evangelical Church alone knows what it is to struggle for certainty in regard to, and to be personally conscious of, salvation. Current opinion [among Protestants] entirely ignores Monasticism, which for two important branches of the Christian Church represents the ideal Christian life. In judging the Catholicism of the western world we must never forget that to St. Thomas (who advanced in this matter beyond Augustine) belongs the merit of having first discussed the question,¹⁴ ‘whether man can know that he has grace,’ and of having laid down certain rules by which it is possible to arrive at an empiric, though not absolute, assurance on this point.”¹⁵

¹⁴ Summa Theol., 1a 2ae, qu. 112, art. 5: “Utrum homo possit scire se habere gratiam?”

¹⁵ K. Holl, Enthusiasmus und Bussgewalt beim griechischen Mönchtum, Leipsic 1898, p. 85.—Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. VI, can. 16.—H. Schell, Kath. Dogmatik, Vol. III, P. 1, pp. 346 sq.

It has been pointed out that St. Bernard of Clairvaux speaks of “certitude” in connection with hope and charity. But the certitude he means has as little in common with the Lutheran brand as St. Bernard’s theory of justification has with that of the Protestant reformers, for according to the Abbot of Clairvaux confidence in God has no justifying power, but justification flows from charity and is never absolutely certain until man has reached Heaven.¹⁶

¹⁶ St. Augustine, Serm., 130, n. 5: “When the doors are closed and the bolts shot, no friend departs, no enemy enters. There we have true and certain security, if here we have not abandoned the truth.” (Migne, P. L., XXXVIII, 728).—Cfr. Ps. CXLVII, 12–14.—Cfr. P. O’Neill, Divine Charity, Dublin 1918, pp. 45 sq.

We sin against hope per defectum if we have too little confidence or none at all in God and His mercy. This want of confidence may manifest itself in the form of a) Pusillanimity (pusillanimitas), which, however, is not always an act of the will, but often a mere sentiment or mood, or a temptation arising from timidity, scrupulousness, disease, lack of instruction, or momentary weakness. In such cases, though there have perhaps been manifestations of a violent grief bordering on despair, there may be little or no real guilt; nay, if these periods of mental depression are borne with Christian fortitude, they may lead to a closer union with God.

b) Want of confidence in God may manifest itself also in a feeling of hopelessness, owing to an overpowering realization of one’s own weakness and the consciousness of being unworthy of further graces from above. This is despair in an improper sense, and is frequently only a venial sin.

Despair in the proper sense of the word (desperatio positiva) is a voluntary diffidence in regard to reaching Heaven and the means necessary thereto; a complete and formal surrender of trust in the promises of God and of the hope of ever breaking with sin and leading a better life.¹⁷ This utter loss of confidence in one’s own strength and in the power of divine grace may spring from unbelief or from the positive con- viction that one cannot escape God’s punitive justice. The disposition which leads to despair frequently arises from spiritual or mental indolence, or from excessive indulgence in sensual pleasures, which may so completely ruin a man in body and mind that he loses confidence in himself.¹⁸ Thus despair, by its very nature, excludes the possibility of amendment or conversion, and is a grievous sin against the Holy Ghost,—more grievous even than presumption, first, because divine Revelation is primarily a manifestation of charity and mercy;¹⁹ second, because it is a greater injustice against God to reject His loving mercy than to disregard His justice,²⁰ and, third, because despair entails many other sins and is the proximate cause of eternal damnation.²¹

¹⁷ Gen. IV, 13 sq.; 2 Kings XVII, 23; Matt. XXVII, 3–5.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1a 2ae, qu. 40, art. 4, ad 3: “Despair imports not only the privation of hope, but also a certain withdrawal from the desired thing because of the estimated impossibility of attaining it.”—Cfr. 2a 2ae, qu. 20, art. 1.—P. O’Neill, Divine Charity, p. 46.—Vol. II of this Handbook, pp. 94 sq.

¹⁸ Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 20, art. 4: “The object of hope is an arduous good possible to attain either by oneself or through another. Therefore hope of obtaining beatitude can fail in someone in two ways: in one way, because he does not regard it as an arduous good; in another way, because he does not regard it as possible to attain either by himself or through another. That spiritual goods do not taste good to us, as it were, or do not appear to us as great goods, is chiefly brought about by the fact that our affection is infected with the love of bodily pleasures, among which the chief are venereal pleasures; for from affection for these pleasures it happens that man disdains spiritual goods and does not hope for them as arduous goods. And in this way despair is caused by lust. But that someone should not judge an arduous good possible for him to attain either by himself or through another is brought about by excessive dejection; when this dominates a man’s affection, it seems to him that he can never be raised up to any good. And because sloth is a sorrow that casts down the spirit, despair is generated from sloth in this way. Now this belongs properly to the object of hope, namely, that it be possible; for the good and the arduous also pertain to other passions. Hence despair arises especially from sloth. It can nevertheless arise from lust for the reason already stated.”

¹⁹ Ez. XVIII, 23, 32; XXXIII, 11–16; John III, 16; XII, 47; 1 Tim. II, 4; 2 Pet. III, 9.

²⁰ St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 21, art. 2: “Presumption is a sin, yet less than despair, because it is more proper to God to have mercy and to pardon than to punish, because of His infinite goodness; the former belongs to God in Himself, but the latter according to our sins.”—Cfr. Ps. CXXIX, 7 sq.—Missale Roman., Dom. X post Pentec.: “O God, who chiefly manifestest Thy omnipotence by sparing and having mercy, multiply Thy mercy upon us. . . .”—Brev. Rom., Litaniae Sanct. Omnium: “O God, whose property it is always to have mercy and to spare, receive our supplication. . . .”

²¹ St. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps., L, n. 5: “Sin with certain despair is death.” (Migne, P. L., XXXVI, 588).—St. Isidore, Sent., l. II, c. 14: “To commit some disgraceful act is the death of the soul; to despise repentance and to remain in guilt is to descend into hell after death. Therefore to sin pertains to death, but to despair pertains to descending into hell.” (Migne, P. L., LXXXIII, 617).—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 20, art. 3: “If despair is compared with the other two sins [infidelity and hatred of God] on our part, despair is more dangerous, because through hope we are recalled from evils and induced to pursue good things; and therefore, once hope is removed, men fall without restraint into vices and are withdrawn from good works.”

Sometimes what is called despair is a mere motus desperationis, essentially a temptation, and therefore not in itself a sin, and it may be made a means of exercising the soul in virtue.

Despair itself is either partial or total. It is partial if it is not entirely voluntary, and total if it is entirely voluntary. Despair is never complete or total as long as a man continues to pray, or to perform good works, or if he resumes the practice of his religion at least temporarily.

The confessor should know that despair is sometimes a consequence and sometimes a symptom of partial or total insanity.

The sacred writers of both the Old and the New Testament never tire of extolling the mercy of God, i. e., His infinite love and paternal affection for men. He “shows mercy unto thousands;”²² He “is patient and full of mercy;”²³ His mercy is vast and tender beyond human understanding;²⁴ He is “a God of compassion, merciful and patient;”²⁵ “as a father hath compassion on his children, so hath the Lord compassion on them that fear Him, for He knoweth our frame;”²⁶ His “mercy is from eternity and unto eternity”²⁷ and “from generation unto generations;”²⁸ He is “the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort;”²⁹ He “saves us not by the works of justice which we have done, but according to His mercy,”³⁰ and so forth. In view of these assurances no sinner need lose confidence, even though he has offended grievously and against his better knowledge,³¹ for God “spared not even His own Son, but delivered him up for us all.”³²

²² Ex. XX, 6.

²³ Numb. XIV, 17–19.

²⁴ Ps. LX, 8; LXVIII, 17; LXXXV, 5.

²⁵ Ps. LXXXV, 15.

²⁶ Ps. CII, 13.

²⁷ Ps. CII, 17.

²⁸ Luke I, 50; cfr. I, 54, 72, 78.

²⁹ 2 Cor. I, 3; cfr. Eph. II, 4.

³⁰ Tit. III, 5.

³¹ Is. I, 18; Ez. XVIII, 23, 32; 2 Pet. III, 9.—St. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps., L, n. 18: “So full art Thou [God] of the richness of mercy that those who turn to Thee must not despair, not only whatever sinners they may be, but even whatever impious men they may be.” (Migne, P. L., XXXVI, 597).—IDEM, ibid., n. 6: “Come to the aid [O God] of my grave wound according to Thy great medicine. What I have is grave, but I flee to the Omnipotent. I would despair of so deadly a wound of mine if I did not find so great a physician. . . . David himself could not say: ‘I did it ignorantly’ (1 Tim. I, 13). For he was not ignorant how great an evil intercourse with another man’s wife was and how great an evil the killing of her husband was. Those who did it ignorantly, therefore, obtain the Lord’s mercy; and those who did it knowingly obtain not just any mercy, but great mercy.” (Migne, P. L., XXXVI, 588).—IDEM, Enarr. in Ps., 36, 3, n. 11: “We must not despair of others to such an extent that I do not despair even of the man himself so long as he lives. For we must despair of no one who is living.” (Migne, P. L., XXXVI, 370).—IDEM, Serm., 351 (al. inter Hom. 50), c. 5, n. 12: “Whatever you have done, whatever you have sinned, you are still in this life, from which God would have removed you entirely if He had not wished to heal you. Why, then, do you not know that the patience of God leads you to repentance?” (P. L., XXXIX, 1548).

³² Rom. VIII, 32; cfr. John III, 16; Rom. III, 25; 1 John IV, 9 sq.—St. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps., 57, n. 17: “This is the most unconquerable shield by which the enemy of salvation, suggesting despair through the multitude of tribulations and temptations, is repelled.” (Migne, P. L., XXXVIII, 89).

But, though the mercy of God is infinite, we must not abuse it or act with presumption, for, like mercy, “wrath quickly cometh from Him, and His wrath looketh upon sinners. Delay not [therefore] to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day, for His wrath shall come on a sudden, and in the time of vengeance He will destroy thee.”³³

³³ Ecclus. V, 7–9; cfr. Ps. CII, 18; Ecclus. XVI, 12 sq.—St. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps., 144, n. 11: “Do not therefore say: Tomorrow I shall turn, tomorrow I shall please God, and all today’s and yesterday’s sins will be forgiven me. You speak truly that God has promised pardon to your conversion, but He has not promised tomorrow’s day to your delay.” (Migne, P. L., XXXVII, 1877).—IDEM, Serm., 20, n. 1: “Let the soul that has sinned say, ‘Create a clean heart in me, O God,’ etc. (Ps. L, 12), lest it perish more by despairing than it destroyed itself by sinning.” (P. L., XXXVIII, 138).

READINGS.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 20 sq.—Billuart, De Spe, art. 5.—St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., lib. III, n. 20 sq.—Sporer-Bierbaum, Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 341 sqq.—Ad. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 409 sqq.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 54 sqq.—A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 11th ed., pp. 247 sqq.—P. O’Neill, Divine Charity, Dublin 1918, pp. 28 sqq.