Mortal sin and venial sin

1261–1264 · Thomas Aquinas, Of God and His Creatures: An Annotated Translation (With some Abridgement) of the Summa contra Gentiles 3.140

A noteworthy difference between sins is that between mortal and venial sin. A mortal sin is one that deprives the soul of spiritual life. The essence of spiritual life consists in two things, according to the likeness of natural life. Just as the body lives naturally by its union with the soul, which is the principle of life; and again, quickened by the soul, the body moves of itself, while a dead body either remains immovable, or is moved only by an exterior power: so is man’s will alive, when conjoined by a right intention with its last end, which is its object and, as it were, its form; and in thus cleaving by love to God and to its neighbour, it is moved by an interior principle of action. But when a right intention of the last end and love is gone, the soul is, as it were, dead, and no longer moves of itself to do any right actions, but either wholly gives over doing them, or is led to do them only by an exterior principle, to wit, the fear of punishment. Whatever sins therefore stand not with a right intention of the last end and love, are mortal sins: but, so long as these finalities are attended to, any deficiency in point of right order of reason will not be a mortal sin, but venial.

1265–1273 · Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I-II, q. 88, a. 1, ad 1

Reply to Objection 1: The division of sin into venial and mortal is not a division of a genus into its species which have an equal share of the generic nature: but it is the division of an analogous term into its parts, of which it is predicated, of the one first, and of the other afterwards. Consequently the perfect notion of sin, which Augustine gives, applies to mortal sin. On the other hand, venial sin is called a sin, in reference to an imperfect notion of sin, and in relation to mortal sin: even as an accident is called a being, in relation to substance, in reference to the imperfect notion of being. For it is not "against" the law, since he who sins venially neither does what the law forbids, nor omits what the law prescribes to be done; but he acts "beside" the law, through not observing the mode of reason, which the law intends.

1265–1273 · Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I-II, q. 88, a. 2, co.

For, when the will is directed to a thing that is in itself contrary to charity, whereby man is directed to his last end, the sin is mortal by reason of its object. Consequently it is a mortal sin generically, whether it be contrary to the love of God, e.g. blasphemy, perjury, and the like, or against the love of one's neighbor, e.g. murder, adultery, and such like: wherefore such sins are mortal by reason of their genus. Sometimes, however, the sinner's will is directed to a thing containing a certain inordinateness, but which is not contrary to the love of God and one's neighbor, e.g. an idle word, excessive laughter, and so forth: and such sins are venial by reason of their genus. Nevertheless, since moral acts derive their character of goodness and malice, not only from their objects, but also from some disposition of the agent, as stated above (Q[18], AA[4],6), it happens sometimes that a sin which is venial generically by reason of its object, becomes mortal on the part of the agent, either because he fixes his last end therein, or because he directs it to something that is a mortal sin in its own genus; for example, if a man direct an idle word to the commission of adultery. In like manner it may happen, on the part of the agent, that a sin generically mortal becomes venial, by reason of the act being imperfect, i.e. not deliberated by reason, which is the proper principle of an evil act, as we have said above in reference to sudden movements of unbelief.

1265–1273 · Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I-II, q. 88, a. 2, co.

I answer that, Venial sin is so called from "venia" [pardon]. Consequently a sin may be called venial, first of all, because it has been pardoned: thus Ambrose says that "penance makes every sin venial": and this is called venial "from the result." Secondly, a sin is called venial because it does not contain anything either partially or totally, to prevent its being pardoned: partially, as when a sin contains something diminishing its guilt, e.g. a sin committed through weakness or ignorance: and this is called venial "from the cause": totally, through not destroying the order to the last end, wherefore it deserves temporal, but not everlasting punishment.

1265–1273 · Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I-II, q. 88, a. 6, co.

I answer that, Venial and mortal differ as perfect and imperfect in the genus of sin, as stated above (A[1], ad 1). Now the imperfect can become perfect, by some sort of addition: and, consequently, a venial sin can become mortal, by the addition of some deformity pertaining to the genus of mortal sin, as when a man utters an idle word for the purpose of fornication. On the other hand, the perfect cannot become imperfect, by addition; and so a mortal sin cannot become venial, by the addition of a deformity pertaining to the genus of venial sin, for the sin is not diminished if a man commit fornication in order to utter an idle word; rather is it aggravated by the additional deformity. Nevertheless a sin which is generically mortal, can become venial by reason of the imperfection of the act, because then it does not completely fulfil the conditions of a moral act, since it is not a deliberate, but a sudden act, as is evident from what we have said above (A[2]). This happens by a kind of subtraction, namely, of deliberate reason. And since a moral act takes its species from deliberate reason, the result is that by such a subtraction the species of the act is destroyed.

1265–1273 · Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, q. 87, a. 1, co.

I answer that, Forgiveness of sin, as stated above (Q[86], A[2]), is effected by man being united to God from Whom sin separates him in some way. Now this separation is made complete by mortal sin, and incomplete by venial sin: because, by mortal sin, the mind through acting against charity is altogether turned away from God; whereas by venial sin man's affections are clogged, so that they are slow in tending towards God. Consequently both kinds of sin are taken away by penance, because by both of them man's will is disordered through turning inordinately to a created good; for just as mortal sin cannot be forgiven so long as the will is attached to sin, so neither can venial sin, because while the cause remains, the effect remains.

1265–1273 · Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I-II, q. 71, a. 4, co.

And this sinful act, so long as there is but one, cannot corrupt virtue, if we compare the act to the virtue itself as a habit: since, just as habit is not engendered by one act, so neither is it destroyed by one act as stated above (Q[63], A[2], ad 2). But if we compare the sinful act to the cause of the virtues, then it is possible for some virtues to be destroyed by one sinful act. For every mortal sin is contrary to charity, which is the root of all the infused virtues, as virtues; and consequently, charity being banished by one act of mortal sin, it follows that all the infused virtues are expelled "as virtues." And I say on account of faith and hope, whose habits remain unquickened after mortal sin, so that they are no longer virtues. On the other hand, since venial sin is neither contrary to charity, nor banishes it, as a consequence, neither does it expel the other virtues.

c. 1521–1548 · Ignatius of Loyola, The Spiritual Exercises 1.3

A venial sin is committed when the same thought comes of sinning mortally and one gives ear to it, making some little delay, or receiving some sensual pleasure, or when there is some negligence in rejecting such thought.

1608 · Francis de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life 1.22

You will find then, my child, that besides the mortal sins and their affections from which your soul has already been purged, you are beset by sundry inclinations and tendencies to venial sin; mind, I do not say you will find venial sins, but the inclination and tendency to them. Now, one is quite different from the other. We can never be altogether free from venial sin,—at least not until after a very long persistence in this purity; but we can be without any affection for venial sin. It is altogether one thing to have said something unimportant not strictly true, out of carelessness or liveliness, and quite a different matter to take pleasure in lying, and in the habitual practice thereof. But I tell you that you must purify your soul from all inclination to venial sin;—that is to say, you must not voluntarily retain any deliberate intention of permitting yourself to commit any venial sin whatever. It would be most unworthy consciously to admit anything so displeasing to God, as the will to offend Him in anywise. Venial sin, however small, is displeasing to God, although it be not so displeasing as the greater sins which involve eternal condemnation; and if venial sin is displeasing to Him, any clinging which we tolerate to mortal sin is nothing less than a resolution to offend His Divine Majesty.

1673 · Richard Baxter, A Christian Directory Chapter VII

Understand well the difference between mortal sins and infirmities, that you may not think that every sin is a sign of death or gracelessness; but may know the difference between those sins which should make you think yourselves unjustified, and those sins which only call for particular humiliation, being such as the justified themselves commit. Though in the popish sense we take no sin to be venial, that is, which in itself is properly no sin, nor deserveth death according to the law of works; yet the distinction between mortal and venial sin, is of very great necessity: that is, between sins which prove a man in a state of death, or unjustified, and sins which consist with a state of grace and justification; between sins which the gospel pardoneth not, and those which it pardoneth, that is, all that stand with true repentance. There are some sins which every one that repenteth of them, doth so forsake as to cease committing them; and there are some lesser sins, which they that repent of them do hate indeed, but yet frequently renew, as our defective degrees in the exercise of repentance itself, faith, love, trust, fear, obedience; our vain thoughts and words; some sinful passions, omissions of many duties of thought, affection, word, or deed towards God or man; some minutes of time overslip us; prayer and other duties have a sinful coldness or remissness in them, and such like.

1680–1681 · Thomas Manton, Works, vol. VIII Several Sermons Upon the CXIX. Psalm, Sermon CXLVIII. And let not any iniquity have dominion over me

Many will say, ‘There is not a just man on earth, that doeth good and sinneth not;’ you are sinners as well as we. Ans. There is a difference; though there be not a good man upon earth, that sinneth not, Eccles. vii. 20, yet there is a difference. Some have not the spot of God’s children, Deut. xxxii. 5. There is a difference between sins: Lev. xiii. 24-26. God gave the priest under the law direction how to put a difference between leprous persons. So still there is a great deal of difference between numbness and death, and between dimness of sight and blindness, want of sense and want of life, between stumbling into a ditch and throwing ourselves headlong into an ocean. And so there is a difference between infirmities and iniquities, a failing out of ignorance and weakness, or some powerful temptation, and a running headlong into all ungodliness. God’s children have their failings, but a burning desire to be freed from them, though others wallow in their sin without any care of a remedy. In one there is a failing in point of duty, in the other a rebellion. Take Judas and Peter; both sinned against their Master; the one denied, the other betrayed him; the one denied him out of fear, the other betrayed him out of covetousness and greediness of gain; the one plotted his death, the other was surprised on a sudden. There is a great deal of difference between purpose and a surprise; the one wept bitterly, the other is given up to a raging despair.

1850 · Henry Edward Manning, Sermons, Volume 4 15

Some sins do, and some sins do not, separate the soul from God. All have the sinfulness of sin, but all are not alike. There was sin in Judas: St. James and St. John were not sinless; yet these were in perpetual communion with their Lord; while the traitor, even at the last supper, was already cut off from His fellowship. This shews us the distinction between venial and mortal sins; that is, between those sins which do, and those which do not, separate the soul from God. Such sins need deep repentance, yet they do not separate true but failing hearts from their Redeemer’s grace and love.

c. 210–220 · Tertullian, On Modesty (De pudicitia) 2

Every sin is dischargeable either by pardon or else by penalty: by pardon as the result of chastisement, by penalty as the result of condemnation. Touching this difference, we have not only already premised certain antithetical passages of the Scriptures, on one hand retaining, on the other remitting, sins; but John, too, will teach us: “If any knoweth his brother to be sinning a sin not unto death, he shall request, and life shall be given to him;” because he is not “sinning unto death,” this will be remissible. “(There) is a sin unto death; not for this do I say that any is to request”—this will be irremissible.

393 · Jerome, Against Jovinianus (Adversus Iovinianum) 2.30

Hear what the Apostle John says:“He who knows that his brother sinneth a sin not unto death, let him ask, and he shall give him life, even to him that sinneth not unto death. But he that hath sinned unto death, who shall pray for him?” You observe that if we entreat for smaller offences, we obtain pardon: if for greater ones, it is difficult to obtain our request: and that there is a great difference between sins.

393–428 · Augustine of Hippo, Extracts from Other Works of Augustine on 1 John 5 (appended to the Homilies on 1 John) 3

By this grace such is the liberty they receive, that although as long as they live here they have to fight against the lusts of sins, and are overtaken by some sins for which they must daily pray, “Forgive us our debts,” yet they no longer serve the sin which is unto death, of which the apostle John saith, “There is a sin unto death, I do not say that he shall ask for that.” Concerning which sin (since it is not expressed) many different opinions may be formed: but I affirm that sin to be the forsaking until death the “faith which worketh by love.”

c. 426–429 · John Cassian, Conferences (Conlationes) 11.9

And this must be understood not of all kinds of sins, but only of mortal sins: and if any one will not extricate and cleanse himself from these, for him the aforesaid Apostle tells us in another place that we ought not even to pray, saying: “If a man knows his brother to be sinning a sin not unto death, let him ask, and He will give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he should ask for it.” But of those which he says are not unto death, from which even those who serve Christ faithfully cannot, with whatever care they keep themselves, be free, of these he says: “If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us;” and again: “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.” For it is an impossibility for any one of the saints not to fall into those trivial faults which are committed by word, and thought, and ignorance, and forgetfulness, and necessity, and will, and surprise: which though quite different from that sin which is said to be unto death, still cannot be free from fault and blame.

787 · Second Council of Nicaea (787), The Canons of the Second Council of Nicaea 5

It is a sin unto death when men incorrigibly continue in their sin, but they sin more deeply, who proudly lifting themselves up oppose piety and sincerity, accounting mammon of more worth than obedience to God, and caring nothing for his canonical precepts.

1674 · John Owen, Pneumatologia, or a Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit (Books I-V) 1.1

So Mark iii. 28, 29, “All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness.” Or, “Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come,” Matt. xii. 32. There remains nothing for him who doth despite to the Spirit of grace but a “certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries,” Heb. x. 27, 29. This is that “sin unto death” whose remission is not to be prayed for, John v. 16: for he having taken upon him to make effectual unto us the great remedy provided in the blood of Christ for the pardon of our sins, if he in the prosecution of that work be despised, blasphemed, despitefully used, there neither is relief nor can there be pardon for that sin. For whence, in that case, should they arise or spring? As God hath not another Son to offer another sacrifice for sin, — so that he by whom his sacrifice is despised can have none remaining for him, — no more hath he another Spirit to make that sacrifice effectual unto us, if the Holy Ghost in his work be despised and rejected.

c. 1714 · John Reynolds, Commentary on 1 John 5.14-17

The divine penal constitution in the gospel does not positively and peremptorily threaten death to the more visible sins of the members of Christ, but only some gospel-chastisement; for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth, Heb. xii. 6. There is room left for divine wisdom or goodness, or even gospel severity, to determine how far the chastisement or the scourge shall proceed. And we cannot say but that sometimes it may (in terrorem—for warning to others) proceed even to death. Then, Secondly, There are sins which, by divine constitution, are unto death spiritual and evangelical, that is, are inconsistent with spiritual and evangelical life, with spiritual life in the soul and with an evangelical right to life above. Such are total impenitence and unbelief for the present. Final impenitence and unbelief are infallibly to death eternal, as also a blaspheming of the Spirit of God in the testimony that he has given to Christ and his gospel, and a total apostasy from the light and convictive evidence of the truth of the Christian religion. These are sins involving the guilt of everlasting death.

1754 · John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on 1 John 5.16

If any one see his brother - That is, any man. Sin a sin which is not unto death - That is, any sin but total apostasy from both the power and form of godliness. Let him ask, and God will give him life - Pardon and spiritual life, for that sinner. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for that - That is, let him not pray for it. A sin unto death may likewise mean, one which God has determined to punish with death.

1834 · Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible: 1 John 5.16

A sin which is not unto death - The great question in the interpretation of the whole passage is, what is meant by the "sin unto death." The Greek (ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον hamartia pros thanaton) would mean properly a sin which "tends" to death; which would "terminate" in death; of which death was the penalty, or would be the result, unless it were arrested; a sin which, if it had its own course, would terminate thus, as we should speak of a disease "unto death."

1834 · Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible: 1 John 5.16

It cannot be shown that it refers to the case of those who were condemned by the civil magistrate to death, and for whom there was no hope of reprieve or pardon, for it is not certain that there were such cases; and if there were, and the person condemned were innocent, there was every reason to pray that God would interpose and save them, even when there was no hope from man; and if they were guilty, and deserved to die, there was no reason why they should not pray that the sin might be forgiven, and that they might be prepared to die, unless it were a case where the sin was unpardonable. It seems probable, therefore, to me, that the reference here is to the sin against the Holy Spirit, and that John means here to illustrate the duty and the power of prayer, by showing that for any sin short of that, however aggravated, it was their duty to pray that a brother might be forgiven. Though it might not be easy to determine what was the unpardonable sin, and John does not say that those to whom he wrote could determine that with certainty, yet there were many sins which were manifestly not of that aggravated character, and for those sins it was proper to pray. There was clearly but one sin that was unpardonable - "there is a sin unto death;" there might be many which were not of this description, and in relation to them there was ample scope for the exercise of the prayer of faith.

1871 · A. R. Fausset, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on 1 John 5.17

The sin unto death must be one tending "towards" (so the Greek), and so resulting in, death. Alford makes it to be an appreciable ACT of sin, namely, the denying Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God (in contrast to confess this truth, 1Jo 5:1, 5), 1Jo 2:19, 22; 4:2, 3; 5:10. Such wilful deniers of Christ are not to be received into one's house, or wished "God speed." Still, I think with Bengel, not merely the act, but also the state of apostasy accompanying the act, is included—a "state of soul in which faith, love, and hope, in short, the new life, is extinguished. The chief commandment is faith and love. Therefore, the chief sin is that by which faith and love are destroyed. In the former case is life; in the latter, death. As long as it is not evident (see on 1Jo 5:16, on 'see') that it is a sin unto death, it is lawful to pray. But when it is deliberate rejection of grace, and the man puts from him life thereby, how can others procure for him life?"

c. 1603–1609 · James Arminius, Public Disputations Disputation 8

Sin is also divided into venial and mortal: but this distribution is not deduced from the nature of sin itself, but accidentally from the gracious estimation of God. For every sin is in its own nature mortal, that is, it is that which merits death; because it is declared universally concerning sin, that "its wages is death," (Rom. vi. 23,) which might in truth be brought instantly down upon the offenders, were God wishful to enter into judgment with his servants. But that which denominates sin venial, or capable of being forgiven, is this circumstance, God is not willing to impute sin to believers, or to place sin against them, but is desirous to pardon it; although with this difference, that it requires express penitence from some, while concerning others it is content with this expression: "Who can understand his errors?

1651 · Thomas Manton, Works, vol. IV A Practical Commentary, or an Exposition with Notes on the Epistle of James, Chapter I

The Papists on this point, worse than the heathen, hold some sins venial in their own nature. It is true, it is said, 1 John v. 17, ‘There is a sin not unto death;’ but that place speaketh of the event, not the merit; words, evil thoughts, the least sins, deserve death. Do not think God will be so extreme. If you have no better plea, that will be a sorry refuge in the day of wrath. David a Mauden, a learned Papist, saith, Those sins are only to be counted mortal—(1.) Which are said to be an abomination to God, and hated by him, in scripture; (2.) To which a Voe, or woe, is expressly denounced; or (3.) Are distinctly said to be worthy of eternal death; or (4.) To exclude and shut out from the kingdom of heaven; or (5.) Such as by the law of nature are directly repugnant to the love of God or our neighbour. But, alas! all this is to be wise without the word. It is true God hath expressly declared more of his displeasure against these sins than others, and therefore we are more bound and engaged to avoid them, but they are all mortal in their merit.

1675–1680 · Stephen Charnock, Discourses upon the Existence and Attributes of God 11

The Romanists divide sins into venial and mortal: mortal, are those which deserve eternal death; venial, the lighter sort of sins, which rather deserve to be pardoned than punished; or if punished, not with an eternal, but temporal punishment. This opinion hath no foundation in, but is contrary to, Scripture. How can any sin be in its own nature venial, when the due “wages of every sin is death” (Rom. vi. 23)? and he who “continues not in every thing that the law commands,” falls under a “curse” (Gal. iii. 10). It is a mean thought of the holiness and majesty of God to imagine, that any sin which is against an infinite majesty, and as infinite a purity both in the nature of God and the law of God, should not be considered as infinitely heinous. All sins are transgressions of the eternal law, and in every one the infinite holiness of God is some way slighted.

1692 · Thomas Watson, The Lord's Prayer 5

Some are ex surreptione [surreptitious], they creep unawares into the mind, as vain thoughts, sudden motions of anger and revenge, which Bellarmine says, are in their own nature venial. It is true that the greatest sins are in one sense venial, that is, God is able to forgive them; but the least sin is not in its own nature venial, but deserves damnation.

1754 · John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on 1 Corinthians 6.9

We may learn hence, that we are never secure from the greatest sins, till we guard against those which are thought the least; nor, indeed, till we think no sin is little, since every one is a step toward hell.

1767 · John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal Divinity Chapter 7. Of The Pardon of Sin

Whether any sin is venial or pardonable in its own nature, and does not deserve eternal death? The reason of this question is, the distinction the Papists make between venial and mortal sins; some sins, they say, are in their own nature venial, pardonable, or not deserving of eternal death, only some lesser chastisement, while others are mortal, and deserving of death: but there is no room nor reason for such a distinction; no sin is venial or pardonable in itself but mortal, and deserving of death; though every kind of sin is venial or pardonable, or rather is pardoned through the grace of God and blood of Christ, excepting one.

1823 · Robert South, Sermons Preached Upon Several Occasions, Volume 5 5

But there are no two things that seem to bear so great a resemblance one to another, as the state of the Christian church perverted by the doctors of the church of Rome, and the state of the Jewish church corrupted by the glosses and doctrines of the Pharisees. For as the Romists hold fast the distinction of mortal and venial sins; so the Pharisees, with the same result, distinguished of the divine precepts and commandments, that some were great, that is, necessary to be observed, and some small, that is, such as did not bind the conscience with so strict an obligation, but that the violation of them might, with a very fair comportment with the divine justice, be dispensed with. And it is with direct allusion to this distinction of theirs, that our Saviour speaks in Matt. v. 19, Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men to do so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; that is, in the Hebrew dialect, he shall have nothing to do there at all; least being here not only a term of diminution, but of absolute negation.

1872 · Richard Capel, The Treasury of David, vol. 1 (Psalms 1-26) 19.q66

I hope there is no such meaning in any of our divines as to tie up men’s consciences, to hang on such a distinction of sins; since it is beyond the wit of man to set down a distinct point between mortal and venial sins. Now when it is an impossible matter punctually to set down to the understanding of man which is, and which is not a venial sin, they must pardon me for giving the least way to such divinity as must needs leave the conscience of a man in a maze and labyrinth.

1885 · Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Spurgeon's Sermons, Volume 31 (1885) 1868

When any man commits sin, he dies to holiness and purity. No transgression is venial, but every sin is mortal and genders death.

c. 390 · John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew 86.3

For at any rate, even if the first sins stopped at themselves, not even so were it right to despise the first sins; but now they go on also to what is greater, when the mind is careless. Wherefore we ought to do all things to remove the beginnings of them. For look not now at the nature of the sin, that it is little, but that it becomes a root of great sin when neglected. For if one may say something marvellous, great sins need not so much earnestness, as such as are little, and of small account. For the former the very nature of the sin causes us to abhor, but the little sins by this very thing cast us into remissness; and allow us not to rouse ourselves heartily for their removal.

412 · Augustine of Hippo, On the Spirit and the Letter (De spiritu et littera) 27.48

For as, on the one hand, there are certain venial sins which do not hinder the righteous man from the attainment of eternal life, and which are unavoidable in this life, so, on the other hand, there are some good works which are of no avail to an ungodly man towards the attainment of everlasting life, although it would be very difficult to find the life of any very bad man whatever entirely without them.

c. 421–422 · Augustine of Hippo, Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love 71

Now the daily prayer of the believer makes satisfaction for those daily sins of a momentary and trivial kind which are necessary incidents of this life. For he can say, “Our Father which art in heaven,” seeing that to such a Father he is now born again of water and of the Spirit. And this prayer certainly takes away the very small sins of daily life.

1616 · Francis de Sales, Treatise on the Love of God Book IV. Of The Decay And Ruin Of Charity, Chapter II. How the Soul Grows Cold in Holy Love

We are rarely in this mortal life without many temptations. Now low and slothful hearts, and such as are given to exterior pleasures, not being accustomed to fight nor exercised in spiritual warfare, never preserve charity long, but let themselves ordinarily be surprised by mortal sin, which happens the more easily because the soul is more disposed by venial sin to mortal. For as that man of old, having continued to carry every day the same calf, bore him also when he was grown to be a great ox, custom having by little and little made insensible the increase of so heavy a burden; so he that accustoms himself to play for pence will in the end play for crowns, pistoles and horses, and after his stud all his estate. He that gives the reins to little angers becomes in the end furious and unbearable; he that addicts himself to lying in jest, is in great peril of lying with calumny.

1823 · Robert South, Sermons Preached Upon Several Occasions, Volume 5 10

The difference of a sin of presumption and of infirmity may be drawn from the principle immediately producing the action; as namely, that the will is carried to the one by malice, to the other by inadvertency. And this is that, that reason will force us to pitch upon. For there is no doubt, but an evil choice (the thing here meant by malice) is that which greatens the impiety and guilt of an action into the nature of presumption; which action, done out of a sudden incogitancy, might pass for but a weakness, and so stand rated at a much lower pitch of guilt. Certain it is therefore, that malice is that that constitutes the nature of presumption, and inadvertency that makes a sin to be but an infirmity. But then to draw this down a thesi ad hypothesin, and to determine the bounds of each, by showing exactly where malice ceases, and where a faultless inadvertency begins; this, I confess, is most difficult, and perhaps, by any one common rule, constantly and universally appliable to every particular action, not to be effected.