The library of christian classics

[[@Summa:STh., II-II q.18]]Question Eighteen THE SUBJECT OF HOPE

We must now consider the subject of hope, concerning which there are four questions, 1. Whether the virtue of hope is in the will as its subject. 2. Whether there is hope in the blessed. 3. Whether there is hope in the damned. 4. Whether the hope of wayfarers is certain.

[[@Summa:STh., II-II q.18 a.1]]Article One Whether Hope is in the Will as its Subject

We proceed to the first article thus:

1. It seems that hope is not in the will as its subject. It was said in the first article of the preceding question, and also in [[12ae, Q. 40, Art. 1 >> Summa:STh., I-II q.40 a.1]], that the object of hope is an arduous good. Now the arduous is not the object of the will, but of the irascible element. Hope is therefore not in the will, but in the irascible element.

2. Again, where one thing is sufficient, it is superfluous to add another. Now charity, which is the most perfect of the virtues, is sufficient to make the power of the will perfect. It follows that hope is not in the will.

3. Again, the same power cannot perform two acts simultaneously. The intellect, for example, cannot understand many things simultaneously. Now an act of hope can be simultaneous with an act of charity, and since the act of charity clearly belongs to the will, it follows that the act of hope does not belong to this same power. Thus hope is not in the will.

On the other hand: in 14 De Trin. [[3 >> Augustine:De Trin. 14.3]] and [[6 >> Augustine:De Trin. 14.6]], Augustine makes it clear that it is only in so far as it is composed of memory, understanding, and will that the soul can apprehend God. Now hope is a theological virtue, having God as its object. But it is neither in the memory nor in the understanding. It remains that hope is in the will as its subject.

I answer: habits are known through their acts, as is plain from what we said in [[Q. 4, Art. 1 >> Summa:STh., II-II q.4 a.1]], and in [[Pt. I, Q. 87, Art. 2 >> Summa:STh., I q.87 a.2]]. Now the act of hope is a movement of the appetitive part of the soul, since its object is the good. But there are two kinds of appetite in man. There is the sensitive appetite, which includes both the irascible and concupiscible elements, and there is also [[@Page:305]]the intellectual appetite which we call the will, as we said in [[Q. 82, Art. 5 >> Summa:STh., I q.82 a.5]]. The movements which belong to the lower appetite are mixed with passion, while the movements of the higher appetite are free from passion, as we said in [[Pt. I, Q. 85, Art. 5 ad 1 >> Summa:STh., I q.85 a.5 ad 1]], and in [[12ae, Q. 22, Art. 3 ad 3 >> Summa:STh., I-II q.22 a.3 ad 3]]. The act of the virtue of hope cannot belong to the sensitive appetite, since the good which is its principal object is not a sensible good, but a divine good. The subject of hope is therefore the higher appetite which we call the will, not the lower appetite to which the irascible element pertains.

On the first point: the object of the irascible element is something which is sensible and arduous. The object of hope is something which is intelligible and arduous, or rather, something which transcends the intellect.

On the second point: charity is sufficient to perfect the will in respect of one action, which is to love. But another virtue is required to perfect it in respect of its other action, which is to hope.

On the third point: it is clear from what we said in [[Q. 17, Art. 8 >> Summa:STh., II-II q.17 a.8]], that the movement of hope and the movement of charity relate to the same thing. There is therefore no reason why both movements should not belong to the same power simultaneously. The intellect can likewise understand many things simultaneously, provided that they relate to the same thing, as we said in [[Pt. I, Q. 85, Art. 4 >> Summa:STh., I q.85 a.4]].

[[@Summa:STh., II-II q.18 a.2]]Article Two Whether there is Hope in the Blessed

We proceed to the second article thus:

1. It seems that there is hope in the blessed. Christ was the perfect comprehensor from the moment of his conception, and he had hope, since it is said in his person in Ps. 31:1: “In thee, O Lord, have I hoped,” as the gloss expounds it. There can therefore be hope in the blessed.

2. Again, just as to obtain blessedness is an arduous good, so is to continue in blessedness. Men hope to obtain blessedness before they obtain it. They can therefore hope to continue in blessedness after they obtain it.

3. Again, it was said in [[Art. 3 of the preceding question >> Summa:STh., II-II q.17 a.3]] that by the virtue of hope one can hope for blessedness for others as well as for oneself. Now in heaven the blessed hope for the blessedness of others, since otherwise they would not pray for them. There can therefore be hope in the blessed. [[@Page:306]]

4. Again, the blessedness of the saints means glory of the body as well as of the soul. But it appears from [[Rev., ch. 6 >> Rev 6]], and also from what Augustine says in 12 De Gen. ad Litt. 35, that the souls of the saints in heaven still await the glory of” the body. There can therefore be hope in the blessed.

On the other hand: the apostle says in Rom. 8:24: “for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?” The blessed enjoy the vision of God. There is therefore no place in them for hope.

I answer: if that which determines the species of a thing is taken away, its species is taken away, and it cannot continue to be of the same species, any more than a natural body whose form has been removed. Now hope, like the other virtues, derives its species from its principal object, as we said in [[Q. 17, Arts. 5 and 6 >> Summa:STh., II-II q.17 a.5-6]], and in [[Pt. I, Q. 54, Art. 2 >> Summa:STh., I q.54 a.2]], and its principal object is eternal blessedness as possible through divine help, as we said in [[Q. 17, Arts. 1 and 2 >> Summa:STh., II-II q.17 a.1-2]]. But a good which is arduous yet possible can be hoped for only when it belongs to the future. There cannot then be hope for blessedness when it is no longer future, but present. Hope, like faith, is therefore done away in heaven, and there can be neither hope nor faith in the blessed.

On the first point: although Christ was a comprehensor, and therefore blessed in the enjoyment of God, he was nevertheless a wayfarer in respect of the passibility of nature, while subject to nature. He could therefore hope for the glory of impassibility and immortality. But he would not do so by the virtue of hope, the principal object of which is not the glory of the body, but the enjoyment of God.

On the second point: the blessedness of the saints is called eternal life because the enjoyment of God makes them in a manner partakers of the divine eternity, which transcends all time. There is therefore no distinction of past, present, and future in the continuation of blessedness. Hence the blessed do not hope for the continuation of blessedness, but have blessedness itself, to which futurity is not applicable.

On the third point: so long as the virtue of hope endures, it is by the same hope that one hopes for blessedness for oneself and for others. But when the hope with which the blessed hoped for blessedness for themselves is done away, they hope for blessedness for others by the love of charity, rather than by the virtue of hope. In a similar way, although one who has charity loves both God and his neighbour with the same charity, one who does not have charity can love his neighbour with a different kind of love. [[@Page:307]]

On the fourth point: hope is a theological virtue which has God as its principal object. The principal object of hope is therefore the glory of the soul which consists of the enjoyment of God, not the glory of the body. Moreover, although glory of the body is arduous in relation to human nature, it is not arduous to one who has glory of the soul; not only because glory of the body is comparatively less than glory of the soul, but because one who has glory of the soul already possesses the sufficient cause of glory of the body.

[[@Summa:STh., II-II q.18 a.3]]Article Three Whether there is Hope in the Damned

We proceed to the third article thus:

1. It seems that there is hope in the damned. For the devil is damned, and the prince of the damned, according to Matt. 25:41: “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” Yet the devil has hope, according to Job 41:9: “Behold, the hope of him is in vain.” It seems, therefore, that the damned have hope.

2. Again, just as faith can be formed and unformed, so can hope. Now there can be unformed faith in devils and in the damned, according to James 2:19: “the devils also believe, and tremble.” It seems, therefore, that there can be unformed hope in the damned.

3. Again, no man after death is credited either with a merit or with a demerit which he did not have in life, according to Eccl. 11:3: “and if the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be.” But many of the damned had hope in this life, and never despaired. They will therefore have hope in the life to come.

On the other hand: hope causes joy, according to Rom. 12:12: “Rejoicing in hope.” Now the damned do not have joy, but rather sorrow and grief, according to Isa. 65:14: “Behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit.” There is therefore no hope in the damned.

I answer: it is of the essence of blessedness that the will should find rest in it. It is likewise of the essence of punishment that the will should find what is inflicted as punishment repugnant. Now when a thing is not known, the will can neither find rest in it nor find it repugnant. Hence Augustine says that the angels could not be perfectly content in their first state, before [[@Page:308]]their confirmation or their lapse, because they were not aware of what was to happen to them (n De Gen. ad Lit. 17, 19). For perfect and true blessedness, one must be certain of having it perpetually, since otherwise the will would not be at rest. Similarly, the eternity of damnation is part of the punishment of the damned, and it would not have the true nature of punishment unless it were repugnant to their will. Now the eternity of damnation would not be repugnant to their will unless the damned were aware that their punishment was everlasting. It is therefore a condition of their misery that they know that they can in no wise escape damnation and reach blessedness. As it is said in Job 15:22: “He believeth not that he shall return out of darkness.” It is clear, then, that the damned cannot look upon blessedness as a good which is possible, any more than the blessed can look upon it as a good which is future. Hence there is hope neither in the blessed nor in the damned. Wayfarers, however, can hope both in this life and in purgatory, since in either state they look upon blessedness as a future good which it is possible to obtain.

On the first point: Gregory says that this is said of the devil’s members, whose hope will be frustrated (33 Moral. 19). Or, if we take it as said of the devil himself, it may refer to the hope with which he hopes to vanquish the saints, in accordance with the preceding words: “he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan with his mouth” (Job 40:23). But this is not the hope of which we are speaking.

On the second point: as Augustine says: “faith is of things both bad and good, whether past, present, or future, whether pertaining to oneself or to another” (Enchirid. [[8 >> Augustine:Enchiridion 8]]). But hope is only of good things of the future which pertain to oneself. It is therefore more possible that there should be unformed faith in the damned than that there should be unformed hope in them, since the good things of God are not possibilities for them, but things which they do not have.

On the third point: the absence of hope in the damned does not alter their demerit, any more than the cessation of hope in the blessed increases their merit. Such absence and cessation is due to the change of state in either case. [[@Page:309]]

[[@Summa:STh., II-II q.18 a.4]]Article Four Whether the Hope of Wayfarers is Certain

We proceed to the fourth article thus:

1. It seems that the hope of wayfarers is not certain. For hope is in the will as its subject, and certainty does not pertain to the will, but to the intellect. It follows that hope cannot be certain.

2. Again, it was said in [[Q. 17, Art. 4 >> Summa:STh., II-II q.17 a.4]], that hope is the result of grace and of merits. But it was also said in [[12ae, Q. 112, Art. 5 >> Summa:STh., I-II q.112 a.5]], that in this life we cannot know with certainty that we have grace. It follows that the hope of wayfarers is not certain.

3. Again, there cannot be certainty of that which can fail. Now many hopeful wayfarers fail to attain blessedness. It follows that the hope of wayfarers is not certain.

On the other hand: the Master says that “hope is the sure expectation of future blessedness” (3 Sent., Dist. 26). This may also be taken to be the meaning of II Tim. 1:12: “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him.”

I answer: there are two ways in which certainty is found in something; essentially, and by participation. It is found in a cognitive power essentially, and by participation in everything that is moved infallibly to its end by a cognitive power. It is in this latter way that nature is said to be certain, since everything in nature is moved infallibly to its end by the divine intellect. It is in this way also that the moral virtues are said to be more certain in their operation than art, since they are moved to their actions by reason, after the manner of nature. In this way also, hope tends to its end with certainty, since it participates in the certainty of faith which is in the cognitive power.

The answer to the first point is thus obvious.

On the second point: hope does not depend principally on the grace which one already possesses, but on the divine omnipotence and mercy, through which even those who do not have grace may receive it, and thereby attain eternal life. Whosoever has faith is certain of the divine omnipotence and mercy.

On the third point: the reason why some who have hope fail to attain blessedness is that the deficiency of their free will puts an obstacle of sin in the way. Their failure is not due to any defect of the divine power or mercy on which hope is founded, and does not prejudice the certainty of hope. [[@Page:310]]