are infused all moral virtues needed in order that man may be able to perfect the various kinds of good works belonging to his supernatural life. He, then, who loses charity through mortal sin, loses also all infused moral virtues.

(1) These are not superfluous where charity exists. For in following the means by which the supernatural end is reached, man must not only have the virtue which concerns the end-i.e., charity-but also the virtues which concern the means. These, indeed, are subordinate to the other, but nevertheless they are also requisite. And S. Paul, in speaking of charity (1 Cor. xiii.), is pointing out the principle and the motive of the subordinate virtues, which principle and motive is charity alone.

(2) It may still farther be objected that one who has a virtuous habit finds pleasure in the exercise of that habit; whereas many who have charity, and are free from mortal sin, nevertheless find difficulty in virtuous acts, and no pleasure except as the acts are referred to the motive of charity which produces them. But the answer is that the habits of infused moral virtues encounter difficulty of this kind through some contrary dispositions which are due to the effect of preceding acts. This difficulty does not appear in the acquired moral virtues, because, through the exercise of those acts by which they are acquired, the contrary dispositions are removed.

(3) All the true children of God have the grace of charity; but they may lack some virtues. "The saints are more humbled on account of the virtues which they do not possess, than exalted by the virtues which they have." But the truth is that they have the habits of all the (infused) virtues, but may find difficulty in the exercise of

them.

Can faith and hope exist without charity?

We may consider faith and hope as existing, like moral virtues, in a certain inchoate state, which is very different

from their perfection as virtues. Perfect virtue produces perfectly good work. Not only is that good which is done, but it is well done. Thus, if any one does just actions, he does good things, but they are not perfectly good, unless they are well done, i.e., through rectitude of choice, which is prudence. Therefore justice without prudence cannot be perfect virtue. In like manner, faith and hope may exist after a manner without charity, but they are not perfect virtues. For since it is faith's office to believe God, but to believe means to assent with one's will, if a man does not duly will, faith will not have its perfect work. But it is by charity that one wills in due manner, since charity perfects the will. The same thing is to be said of hope. For the act of hope is the expecting future beatitude from God. And this act is perfect if it is a well-grounded hope; and this requires charity. But if one expects the same things through merits which he has not as yet, but proposes to acquire, this imperfect act of hope can exist without charity.

Can charity exist without faith and hope?

Charity signifies more than loving God. It implies what we may call a fellowship of mutual love and communion. So S. John says (1 Ep. iv. 16), "He that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God and God in him." This converse with God begins in this life through grace, but it will be perfected in the future life. Now, no one can have such friendship with another if he disbelieve or despair of the possibility of having fellowship with him. So one cannot be truly called (as Abraham) the "friend of God," unless he have faith in this converse of man with God, and hope that he will attain to it. So charity cannot exist without faith and hope.

CHAPTER VI.

ON VICES AND SINS.

§ 1. The nature of vice and sin.

Is vice contrary to nature?

Vice is contrary to virtue. But the virtue of each thing consists in its being well disposed towards what is agreeable to its nature. And vice consists in the contrary disposition. But man is specifically distinguished by his rational soul. Therefore that which is contrary to the order of reason, is contrary to the nature of man, as man. But man's good is the living according to reason, and his evil is the living unreasonably. Therefore human virtue which "makes a man good, and his work good," is so far according to his nature, as it agrees with reason; but vice is so far against human nature, as it is contrary to the order of

reason.

(1) But virtues are not naturally in us, since they are produced either by inspiration, or by practical efforts: how, then, can vices be contrary to nature? I answer that it is true that perfect virtue is not caused by nature, but yet virtue inclines to what is according to nature, i.e., what is according to the order of reason. So far, virtue is according to nature, and vice contrary to it.

(2) It may be objected, also, that nothing which is contrary to nature is found in the majority of those who have that nature; but vices are found in the majority of men. But man has a two-fold nature, sensitive and rational. Through the operations of sense man arrives at rational

acts; and more follow the inclinations of the sensitive nature, than those who follow the order of reason, and so they fall into vices and sins.

Can sin coexist together with virtue?

Sin is related to virtue as a bad act to a good habit. But a habit in the soul does not necessarily produce its operation; but a man uses that habit when he wills to do so. Hence, while a habit remains in a man, he is able to refrain from using that habit, or he can produce an opposite act. So, while still having a virtue, he may proceed to the act of sin.. And a single act does not destroy a habit, any more than it creates such a habit. But if we consider the causes of virtues, we shall see that some virtues may be corrupted. by a single act. For every mortal sin is contrary to charity, which is the root of all the infused virtues as virtues. And therefore by one act of mortal sin, charity being excluded, all the inspired virtues are excluded also as virtues. Faith and hope, then, may remain in a dead condition after mortal sin, but they are not virtues.

But venial sin, since it is not contrary to charity, excludes neither it nor the other virtues.

But the acquired virtues are not taken away by any one act of sin. So, then, mortal sin cannot coexist with the infused virtues; but it can so exist along with the acquired virtues; but venial sin may coexist with both.

S. James answers this question (iv. 17), saying, "To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." Sins of omission are now before us. And if we consider in them that only which, per se, pertains to the idea of sin, we see that sometimes the sin of omission is accompanied by an inward act, as when one wills not to go to church, to stay away. But sometimes the sin of omission has no act either inward or outward, as when one, at the

hour in which he is bound to go to church, does not think either of going or of not going.

But if in the sin of omission we include the causes or the occasions of the omission, then it is necessary that there be some act. For there is no sin of omission unless one pretermit what he is able to do or to leave undone. But our not doing that which we can do or leave undone, must be from some cause or occasion conjoined or preceding. And if, on the one hand, that cause is not in a man's power, the omission is no sin, as when one omits going to church on account of some (physical) infirmity. But if the cause or occasion of the omission is subject to the will, the omission is sin; and then, in every case, that cause, as voluntary, has some act, at least the interior act of the will. This act indeed is sometimes directly turned to that omission, as when one wills not to go to church in order to avoid the trouble of doing so. Then such an act, per se, pertains to the omission. For the willing of any sin pertains to that sin, since all sin is voluntary.

But sometimes the act of the will is directed to something else, through which a man is hindered from doing what he ought. This may be conjoined to the omission, as when one wills to play at some game when he ought to go to church; or it may precede the omission, as when one wills to sit up late, and in consequence misses the morning service in church (when he ought to be there). In this case the inward act is per accidens with respect to the omission, since the latter was not intended. We may say, then, that some sin can exist without any

act.

Remember that more is required for good than for evil, since the good demands "the whole, complete cause, but evil arises from particular defects." Merit, therefore, cannot exist unless what one does he does voluntarily and as he ought. So it requires an act. The act of sin is not parallel with this.