Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 18 [<< | >>]
| Deinde considerandum est de subiecto spei. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. | We must now consider the subject of hope, under which head there are four points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum virtus spei sit in voluntate sicut in subiecto. | (1) Whether the virtue of hope is in the will as its subject? |
| Secundo, utrum sit in beatis. | (2) Whether it is in the blessed? |
| Tertio, utrum sit in damnatis. | (3) Whether it is in the damned? |
| Quarto, utrum in viatoribus habeat certitudinem. | (4) Whether there is certainty in the hope of the wayfarer? |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 18 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod spes non sit in voluntate sicut in subiecto. Spei enim obiectum est bonum arduum, ut supra dictum est. Arduum autem non est obiectum voluntatis, sed irascibilis. Ergo spes non est in voluntate, sed in irascibili. | Objection 1: It would seem that hope is not in the will as its subject. For the object of hope is an arduous good, as stated above (Question [17], Article [1]; FS, Question [40], Article [1]). Now the arduous is the object, not of the will, but of the irascible. Therefore hope is not in the will but in the irascible. |
| Praeterea, ad id ad quod unum sufficit, superflue apponitur aliud. Sed ad perficiendum potentiam voluntatis sufficit caritas, quae est perfectissima virtutum. Ergo spes non est in voluntate | Objection 2: Further, where one suffices it is superfluous to add another. Now charity suffices for the perfecting of the will, which is the most perfect of the virtues. Therefore hope is not in the will. |
| Praeterea, una potentia non potest simul esse in duobus actibus, sicut intellectus non potest simul multa intelligere. Sed actus spei simul esse potest cum actu caritatis. Cum ergo actus caritatis manifeste pertineat ad voluntatem, actus spei non pertinet ad ipsam. Sic ergo spes non est in voluntate/ | Objection 3: Further, the one same power cannot exercise two acts at the same time; thus the intellect cannot understand many things simultaneously. Now the act of hope can be at the same time as an act of charity. Since, then, the act of charity evidently belongs to the will, it follows that the act of hope does not belong to that power: so that, therefore, hope is not in the will. |
| Sed contra, anima non est capax Dei nisi secundum mentem; in qua est memoria, intelligentia et voluntas, ut patet per Augustinum, in libro de Trin. Sed spes est virtus theologica habens Deum pro obiecto. Cum igitur non sit neque in memoria neque in intelligentia, quae pertinent ad vim cognoscitivam, relinquitur quod sit in voluntate sicut in subiecto. | On the contrary, The soul is not apprehensive of God save as regards the mind in which is memory, intellect and will, as Augustine declares (De Trin. xiv, 3,6). Now hope is a theological virtue having God for its object. Since therefore it is neither in the memory, nor in the intellect, which belong to the cognitive faculty, it follows that it is in the will as its subject. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex praedictis patet, habitus per actus cognoscuntur. Actus autem spei est quidam motus appetitivae partis, cum sit eius obiectum bonum. Cum autem sit duplex appetitus in homine, scilicet appetitus sensitivus, qui dividitur per irascibilem et concupiscibilem, et appetitus intellectivus, qui dicitur voluntas, ut in primo habitum est; similes motus qui sunt in appetitu inferiori cum passione, in superiori sunt sine passione, ut ex supradictis patet. Actus autem virtutis spei non potest pertinere ad appetitum sensitivum, quia bonum quod est obiectum principale huius virtutis non est aliquod bonum sensibile, sed bonum divinum. Et ideo spes est in appetitu superiori, qui dicitur voluntas, sicut in subiecto, non autem in appetitu inferiori, ad quem pertinet irascibilis. | I answer that, As shown above (FP, Question [87], Article [2]), habits are known by their acts. Now the act of hope is a movement of the appetitive faculty, since its object is a good. And, since there is a twofold appetite in man, namely, the sensitive which is divided into irascible and concupiscible, and the intellective appetite, called the will, as stated in the FP, Question [82], Article [5], those movements which occur in the lower appetite, are with passion, while those in the higher appetite are without passion, as shown above (FP, Question [87], Article [2], ad 1; FS, Question [22], Article [3], ad 3). Now the act of the virtue of hope cannot belong to the sensitive appetite, since the good which is the principal object of this virtue, is not a sensible but a Divine good. Therefore hope resides in the higher appetite called the will, and not in the lower appetite, of which the irascible is a part. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod irascibilis obiectum est arduum sensibile. Obiectum autem virtutis spei est arduum intelligibile; vel potius supra intellectum existens. | Reply to Objection 1: The object of the irascible is an arduous sensible: whereas the object of the virtue of hope is an arduous intelligible, or rather superintelligible. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod caritas sufficienter perficit voluntatem quantum ad unum actum, qui est diligere. Requiritur autem alia virtus ad perficiendum ipsam secundum alium actum eius, qui est sperare/ | Reply to Objection 2: Charity perfects the will sufficiently with regard to one act, which is the act of loving: but another virtue is required in order to perfect it with regard to its other act, which is that of hoping. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod motus spei et motus caritatis habent ordinem ad invicem, ut ex supradictis patet. Unde nihil prohibet utrumque motum simul esse unius potentiae. Sicut et intellectus potest simul multa intelligere ad invicem ordinata, ut in primo habitum est. | Reply to Objection 3: The movement of hope and the movement of charity are mutually related, as was shown above (Question [17], Article [8]). Hence there is no reason why both movements should not belong at the same time to the same power: even as the intellect can understand many things at the same time if they be related to one another, as stated in the FP, Question [85], Article [4]. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 18 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod spes sit in beatis. Christus enim a principio suae conceptionis fuit perfectus comprehensor. Sed ipse habuit spem, cum ex eius persona dicatur in Psalm., in te, domine, speravi, ut Glossa exponit. Ergo in beatis potest esse spes. | Objection 1: It would seem that in the blessed there is hope. For Christ was a perfect comprehensor from the first moment of His conception. Now He had hope, since, according to a gloss, the words of Ps. 30:2, "In Thee, O Lord, have I hoped," are said in His person. Therefore in the blessed there can be hope. |
| Praeterea, sicut adeptio beatitudinis est quoddam bonum arduum, ita etiam eius continuatio. Sed homines antequam beatitudinem adipiscantur habent spem de beatitudinis adeptione. Ergo postquam sunt beatitudinem adepti, possunt sperare beatitudinis continuationem. | Objection 2: Further, even as the obtaining of happiness is an arduous good, so is its continuation. Now, before they obtain happiness, men hope to obtain it. Therefore, after they have obtained it, they can hope to continue in its possession. |
| Praeterea, per virtutem spei potest aliquis beatitudinem sperare non solum sibi sed etiam aliis, ut supra dictum est. Sed beati qui sunt in patria sperant beatitudinem aliis, alioquin non rogarent pro eis. Ergo in beatis potest esse spes. | Objection 3: Further, by the virtue of hope, a man can hope for happiness, not only for himself, but also for others, as stated above (Question [17], Article [3]). But the blessed who are in heaven hope for the happiness of others, else they would not pray for them. Therefore there can be hope in them. |
| Praeterea, ad beatitudinem sanctorum pertinet non solum gloria animae sed etiam gloria corporis. Sed animae sanctorum qui sunt in patria expectant adhuc gloriam corporis, ut patet Apoc. VI, et XII super Gen. ad Litt. Ergo spes potest esse in beatis. | Objection 4: Further, the happiness of the saints implies not only glory of the soul but also glory of the body. Now the souls of the saints in heaven, look yet for the glory of their bodies (Apoc. 6:10; Augustine, Gen. ad lit. xii, 35). Therefore in the blessed there can be hope. |
| [39515] II-IIae q. 18 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Rom. VIII, quod videt quis, quid sperat? Sed beati fruuntur Dei visione. Ergo in eis spes locum non habet. | On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rm. 8:24): "What a man seeth, why doth he hope for?" Now the blessed enjoy the sight of God. Therefore hope has no place in them. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, subtracto eo quod dat speciem rei, solvitur species, et res non potest eadem remanere, sicut remota forma corporis naturalis, non remanet idem secundum speciem. Spes autem recipit speciem a suo obiecto principali, sicut et ceterae virtutes, ut ex supradictis patet. Obiectum autem principale eius est beatitudo aeterna secundum quod est possibilis haberi ex auxilio divino, ut supra dictum est. | I answer that, If what gives a thing its species be removed, the species is destroyed, and that thing cannot remain the same; just as when a natural body loses its form, it does not remain the same specifically. Now hope takes its species from its principal object, even as the other virtues do, as was shown above (Question [17], Articles [5],6; FS, Question [54], Article [2]): and its principal object is eternal happiness as being possible to obtain by the assistance of God, as stated above (Question [17], Article [2]). |
| Quia ergo bonum arduum possibile non cadit sub ratione spei nisi secundum quod est futurum, ideo, cum beatitudo iam non fuerit futura sed praesens, non potest ibi esse virtus spei. Et ideo spes, sicut et fides, evacuatur in patria, et neutrum eorum in beatis esse potest. | Since then the arduous possible good cannot be an object of hope except in so far as it is something future, it follows that when happiness is no longer future, but present, it is incompatible with the virtue of hope. Consequently hope, like faith, is voided in heaven, and neither of them can be in the blessed. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus, etsi esset comprehensor, et per consequens beatus, quantum ad divinam fruitionem; erat tamen simul viator quantum ad passibilitatem naturae, quam adhuc gerebat. Et ideo gloriam impassibilitatis et immortalitatis sperare poterat. Non tamen ita quod haberet virtutem spei, quae non respicit gloriam corporis sicut principale obiectum, sed potius fruitionem divinam. | Reply to Objection 1: Although Christ was a comprehensor and therefore blessed as to the enjoyment of God, nevertheless He was, at the same time, a wayfarer, as regards the passibility of nature, to which He was still subject. Hence it was possible for Him to hope for the glory of impassibility and immortality, yet not so as to the virtue of hope, the principal object of which is not the glory of the body but the enjoyment of God. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod beatitudo sanctorum dicitur vita aeterna, quia per hoc quod Deo fruuntur, efficiuntur quodammodo participes aeternitatis divinae, quae excedit omne tempus. Et ita continuatio beatitudinis non diversificatur per praesens, praeteritum et futurum. Et ideo beati non habent spem de continuatione beatitudinis, sed habent ipsam rem, quia non est ibi ratio futuri. | Reply to Objection 2: The happiness of the saints is called eternal life, because through enjoying God they become partakers, as it were, of God's eternity which surpasses all time: so that the continuation of happiness does not differ in respect of present, past and future. Hence the blessed do not hope for the continuation of their happiness (for as regards this there is no future), but are in actual possession thereof. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, durante virtute spei, eadem spe aliquis sperat beatitudinem sibi et aliis. Sed evacuata spe in beatis qua sperabant sibi beatitudinem, sperant quidem aliis beatitudinem, sed non virtute spei, sed magis ex amore caritatis. Sicut etiam qui habet caritatem Dei eadem caritate diligit proximum, et tamen aliquis potest diligere proximum non habens virtutem caritatis, alio quodam amore. | Reply to Objection 3: So long as the virtue of hope lasts, it is by the same hope that one hopes for one's own happiness, and for that of others. But when hope is voided in the blessed, whereby they hoped for their own happiness, they hope for the happiness of others indeed, yet not by the virtue of hope, but rather by the love of charity. Even so, he that has Divine charity, by that same charity loves his neighbor, without having the virtue of charity, but by some other love. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod, cum spes sit virtus theologica habens Deum pro obiecto, principale obiectum spei est gloria animae, quae in fruitione divina consistit, non autem gloria corporis. Gloria etiam corporis, etsi habeat rationem ardui per comparationem ad naturam humanam, non habet tamen rationem ardui habenti gloriam animae. Tum quia gloria corporis est minimum quiddam in comparatione ad gloriam animae. Tum etiam quia habens gloriam animae habet iam sufficienter causam gloriae corporis. | Reply to Objection 4: Since hope is a theological virtue having God for its object, its principal object is the glory of the soul, which consists in the enjoyment of God, and not the glory of the body. Moreover, although the glory of the body is something arduous in comparison with human nature, yet it is not so for one who has the glory of the soul; both because the glory of the body is a very small thing as compared with the glory of the soul, and because one who has the glory of the soul has already the sufficient cause of the glory of the body. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 18 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod in damnatis sit spes. Diabolus enim est et damnatus et princeps damnatorum, secundum illud Matth. XXV, ite, maledicti, in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est Diabolo et Angelis eius. Sed Diabolus habet spem, secundum illud Iob XL, ecce spes eius frustrabitur eum. Ergo videtur quod damnati habeant spem. | Objection 1: It would seem that there is hope in the damned. For the devil is damned and prince of the damned, according to Mt. 25:41: "Depart . . . you cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels." But the devil has hope, according to Job 40:28, "Behold his hope shall fail him." Therefore it seems that the damned have hope. |
| Praeterea, sicut fides potest esse formata et informis, ita et spes. Sed fides informis potest esse in Daemonibus et damnatis, secundum illud Iac. II, Daemones credunt et contremiscunt. Ergo videtur quod etiam spes informis potest esse in damnatis. | Objection 2: Further, just as faith is either living or dead, so is hope. But lifeless faith can be in the devils and the damned, according to James 2:19: "The devils . . . believe and tremble." Therefore it seems that lifeless hope also can be in the damned. |
| Praeterea, nulli hominum post mortem accrescit meritum vel demeritum quod in vita non habuit, secundum illud Eccle. XI, si ceciderit lignum ad Austrum aut ad Aquilonem, in quocumque loco ceciderit ibi erit. Sed multi qui damnabuntur habuerunt in hac vita spem, nunquam desperantes. Ergo etiam in futura vita spem habebunt. | Objection 3: Further, after death there accrues to man no merit or demerit that he had not before, according to Eccles. 11:3, "If the tree fall to the south, or to the north, in what place soever it shall fall, there shall it be." Now many who are damned, in this life hoped and never despaired. Therefore they will hope in the future life also. |
| Sed contra est quod spes causat gaudium, secundum illud Rom. XII, spe gaudentes. Sed damnati non sunt in gaudio, sed in dolore et luctu, secundum illud Isaiae LXV, servi mei laudabunt prae exultatione cordis, et vos clamabitis prae dolore cordis et prae contritione spiritus ululabitis. Ergo spes non est in damnatis | On the contrary, Hope causes joy, according to Rm. 12:12, "Rejoicing in hope." Now the damned have no joy, but sorrow and grief, according to Is. 65:14, "My servants shall praise for joyfulness of heart, and you shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for grief of spirit." Therefore no hope is in the damned. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod sicut de ratione beatitudinis est ut in ea quietetur voluntas, ita de ratione poenae est ut id quod pro poena infligitur voluntati repugnet. Non potest autem voluntatem quietare, vel ei repugnare, quod ignoratur. Et ideo Augustinus dicit, super Gen. ad Litt., quod Angeli perfecte beati esse non potuerunt in primo statu ante confirmationem, vel miseri ante lapsum, cum non essent praescii sui eventus, requiritur enim ad veram et perfectam beatitudinem ut aliquis certus sit de suae beatitudinis perpetuitate; alioquin voluntas non quietaretur. | I answer that, Just as it is a condition of happiness that the will should find rest therein, so is it a condition of punishment, that what is inflicted in punishment, should go against the will. Now that which is not known can neither be restful nor repugnant to the will: wherefore Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 17) that the angels could not be perfectly happy in their first state before their confirmation, or unhappy before their fall, since they had no foreknowledge of what would happen to them. For perfect and true happiness requires that one should be certain of being happy for ever, else the will would not rest. |
| Similiter etiam, cum perpetuitas damnationis pertineat ad poenam damnatorum, non vere haberet rationem poenae nisi voluntati repugnaret, quod esse non posset si perpetuitatem suae damnationis ignorarent. Et ideo ad conditionem miseriae damnatorum pertinet ut ipsi sciant quod nullo modo possunt damnationem evadere et ad beatitudinem pervenire, unde dicitur Iob XV, non credit quod reverti possit de tenebris ad lucem. Unde patet quod non possunt apprehendere beatitudinem ut bonum possibile, sicut nec beati ut bonum futurum. Et ideo neque in beatis neque in damnatis est spes. Sed in viatoribus sive sint in vita ista sive in Purgatorio, potest esse spes, quia utrobique apprehendunt beatitudinem ut futurum possibile. | In like manner, since the everlastingness of damnation is a necessary condition of the punishment of the damned, it would not be truly penal unless it went against the will; and this would be impossible if they were ignorant of the everlastingness of their damnation. Hence it belongs to the unhappy state of the damned, that they should know that they cannot by any means escape from damnation and obtain happiness. Wherefore it is written (Job 15:22): "He believeth not that he may return from darkness to light." It is, therefore, evident that they cannot apprehend happiness as a possible good, as neither can the blessed apprehend it as a future good. Consequently there is no hope either in the blessed or in the damned. On the other hand, hope can be in wayfarers, whether of this life or in purgatory, because in either case they apprehend happiness as a future possible thing. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Gregorius dicit, XXXIII Moral., hoc dicitur de Diabolo secundum membra eius, quorum spes annullabitur. Vel si intelligatur de ipso Diabolo, potest referri ad spem qua sperat se de sanctis victoriam obtinere, secundum illud quod supra praemiserat, habet fiduciam quod Iordanis influat in os eius. Haec autem non est spes de qua loquimur. | Reply to Objection 1: As Gregory says (Moral. xxxiii, 20) this is said of the devil as regards his members, whose hope will fail utterly: or, if it be understood of the devil himself, it may refer to the hope whereby he expects to vanquish the saints, in which sense we read just before (Job 40:18): "He trusteth that the Jordan may run into his mouth": this is not, however, the hope of which we are speaking. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in Enchirid., fides est et malarum rerum et bonarum, et praeteritarum et praesentium et futurarum, et suarum et alienarum, sed spes non est nisi rerum bonarum futurarum ad se pertinentium. Et ideo magis potest esse fides informis in damnatis quam spes, quia bona divina non sunt eis futura possibilia, sed sunt eis absentia. | Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (Enchiridion viii), "faith is about things, bad or good, past, present, or future, one's own or another's; whereas hope is only about good things, future and concerning oneself." Hence it is possible for lifeless faith to be in the damned, but not hope, since the Divine goods are not for them future possible things, but far removed from them. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod defectus spei in damnatis non variat demeritum, sicut nec evacuatio spei in beatis auget meritum, sed utrumque contingit propter mutationem status. | Reply to Objection 3: Lack of hope in the damned does not change their demerit, as neither does the voiding of hope in the blessed increase their merit: but both these things are due to the change in their respective states. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 18 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod spes viatorum non habeat certitudinem. Spes enim est in voluntate sicut in subiecto. Sed certitudo non pertinet ad voluntatem, sed ad intellectum. Ergo spes non habet certitudinem. | Objection 1: It would seem that there is no certainty in the hope of a wayfarer. For hope resides in the will. But certainty pertains not to the will but to the intellect. Therefore there is no certainty in hope. |
| Praeterea, spes ex gratia et meritis provenit, ut supra dictum est. Sed in hac vita scire per certitudinem non possumus quod gratiam habeamus, ut supra dictum est. Ergo spes viatorum non habet certitudinem. | Objection 2: Further, hope is based on grace and merits, as stated above (Question [17], Article [1]). Now it is impossible in this life to know for certain that we are in a state of grace, as stated above (FS, Question [112], Article [5]). Therefore there is no certainty in the hope of a wayfarer. |
| Praeterea, certitudo esse non potest de eo quod potest deficere. Sed multi viatores habentes spem deficiunt a consecutione beatitudinis. Ergo spes viatorum non habet certitudinem. | Objection 3: Further, there can be no certainty about that which may fail. Now many a hopeful wayfarer fails to obtain happiness. Therefore wayfarer's hope has no certainty. |
| Sed contra est quod spes est certa expectatio futurae beatitudinis, sicut Magister dicit, XXVI dist. III Sent. Quod potest accipi ex hoc quod dicitur II ad Tim. I, scio cui credidi, et certus sum quia potens est depositum meum servare. | On the contrary, "Hope is the certain expectation of future happiness," as the Master states (Sent. iii, D, 26): and this may be gathered from 2 Tim. 1:12, "I know Whom I have believed, and I am certain that He is able to keep that which I have committed to Him." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod certitudo invenitur in aliquo dupliciter, scilicet essentialiter, et participative. Essentialiter quidem invenitur in vi cognoscitiva, participative autem in omni eo quod a vi cognoscitiva movetur infallibiliter ad finem suum; secundum quem modum dicitur quod natura certitudinaliter operatur, tanquam mota ab intellectu divino certitudinaliter movente unumquodque ad suum finem. Et per hunc etiam modum virtutes morales certius arte dicuntur operari, inquantum per modum naturae moventur a ratione ad suos actus. Et sic etiam spes certitudinaliter tendit in suum finem, quasi participans certitudinem a fide, quae est in vi cognoscitiva. | I answer that, Certainty is found in a thing in two ways, essentially and by participation. It is found essentially in the cognitive power; by participation in whatever is moved infallibly to its end by the cognitive power. In this way we say that nature works with certainty, since it is moved by the Divine intellect which moves everything with certainty to its end. In this way too, the moral virtues are said to work with greater certainty than art, in as much as, like a second nature, they are moved to their acts by the reason: and thus too, hope tends to its end with certainty, as though sharing in the certainty of faith which is in the cognitive faculty. |
| Unde patet responsio ad primum. | This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod spes non innititur principaliter gratiae iam habitae, sed divinae omnipotentiae et misericordiae, per quam etiam qui gratiam non habet eam consequi potest, ut sic ad vitam aeternam perveniat. De omnipotentia autem Dei et eius misericordia certus est quicumque fidem habet. | Reply to Objection 2: Hope does not trust chiefly in grace already received, but on God's omnipotence and mercy, whereby even he that has not grace, can obtain it, so as to come to eternal life. Now whoever has faith is certain of God's omnipotence and mercy. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod hoc quod aliqui habentes spem deficiant a consecutione beatitudinis, contingit ex defectu liberi arbitrii ponentis obstaculum peccati, non autem ex defectu divinae omnipotentiae vel misericordiae, cui spes innititur. Unde hoc non praeiudicat certitudini spei. | Reply to Objection 3: That some who have hope fail to obtain happiness, is due to a fault of the free will in placing the obstacle of sin, but not to any deficiency in God's power or mercy, in which hope places its trust. Hence this does not prejudice the certainty of hope. |