Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in Enchirid., quod spes non est nisi rerum ad eum pertinentium qui earum spem gerere perhibetur. On the contrary, Augustine says (Enchiridion viii) that hope is only of such things as belong to him who is supposed to hope for them. Respondeo dicendum quod spes potest esse alicuius dupliciter. Uno quidem modo, absolute, et sic est solum boni ardui ad se pertinentis. Alio modo, ex praesuppositione alterius, et sic potest esse etiam eorum quae ad alium pertinent. Ad cuius evidentiam sciendum est quod amor et spes in hoc differunt quod amor importat quandam unionem amantis ad amatum; spes autem importat quendam motum sive protensionem appetitus in aliquod bonum arduum. Unio autem est aliquorum distinctorum, et ideo amor directe potest respicere alium, quem sibi aliquis unit per amorem, habens eum sicut seipsum. Motus autem semper est ad proprium terminum proportionatum mobili, et ideo spes directe respicit proprium bonum, non autem id quod ad alium pertinet. Sed praesupposita unione amoris ad alterum, iam aliquis potest desiderare et sperare aliquid alteri sicut sibi. Et secundum hoc aliquis potest sperare alteri vitam aeternam, inquantum est ei unitus per amorem. Et sicut est eadem virtus caritatis qua quis diligit Deum, seipsum et proximum, ita etiam est eadem virtus spei qua quis sperat sibi ipsi et alii. I answer that, We can hope for something in two ways: first, absolutely, and thus the object of hope is always something arduous and pertaining to the person who hopes. Second, we can hope for something, through something else being presupposed, and in this way its object can be something pertaining to someone else. In order to explain this we must observe that love and hope differ in this, that love denotes union between lover and beloved, while hope denotes a movement or a stretching forth of the appetite towards an arduous good. Now union is of things that are distinct, wherefore love can directly regard the other whom a man unites to himself by love, looking upon him as his other self: whereas movement is always towards its own term which is proportionate to the subject moved. Therefore hope regards directly one’s own good, and not that which pertains to another. Yet if we presuppose the union of love with another, a man can hope for and desire something for another man, as for himself; and, accordingly, he can hope for another’s eternal life, inasmuch as he is united to him by love, and just as it is the same virtue of charity whereby a man loves God, himself, and his neighbor, so too it is the same virtue of hope, whereby a man hopes for himself and for another. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. This suffices for the Replies to the Objections. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum aliquis possit licite sperare in homine Whether a man can lawfully hope in man? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquis possit licite sperare in homine. Spei enim obiectum est beatitudo aeterna. Sed ad beatitudinem aeternam consequendam adiuvamur patrociniis sanctorum, dicit enim Gregorius, in I Dial., quod praedestinatio iuvatur precibus sanctorum. Ergo aliquis potest in homine sperare. Objection 1: It would seem that one may lawfully hope in man. For the object of hope is eternal happiness. Now we are helped to obtain eternal happiness by the patronage of the saints, for Gregory says (Dial. i, 8) that predestination is furthered by the saints’ prayers. Therefore one may hope in man. Praeterea, si non potest aliquis sperare in homine, non esset reputandum alicui in vitium quod in eo aliquis sperare non possit. Sed hoc de quibusdam in vitium dicitur, ut patet Ierem. IX, unusquisque a proximo suo se custodiat, et in omni fratre suo non habeat fiduciam. Ergo licite potest aliquis sperare in homine. Obj. 2: Further, if a man may not hope in another man, it ought not to be reckoned a sin in a man, that one should not be able to hope in him. Yet this is reckoned a vice in some, as appears from Jer. 9:4: Let every man take heed of his neighbor, and let him not trust in any brother of his. Therefore it is lawful to trust in a man. Praeterea, petitio est interpretativa spei, sicut dictum est. Sed licite potest homo aliquid petere ab homine. Ergo licite potest sperare de eo. Obj. 3: Further, prayer is the expression of hope, as stated above (A. 2, Obj. 2). But it is lawful to pray to a man for something. Therefore it is lawful to trust in him. Sed contra est quod dicitur Ierem. XVII, maledictus homo qui confidit in homine. On the contrary, It is written (Jer 17:5): Cursed be the man that trusteth in man. Respondeo dicendum quod spes, sicut dictum est, duo respicit, scilicet bonum quod obtinere intendit; et auxilium per quod illud bonum obtinetur. Bonum autem quod quis sperat obtinendum habet rationem causae finalis; auxilium autem per quod quis sperat illud bonum obtinere habet rationem causae efficientis. In genere autem utriusque causae invenitur principale et secundarium. Principalis enim finis est finis ultimus; secundarius autem finis est bonum quod est ad finem. Similiter principalis causa agens est primum agens; secundaria vero causa efficiens est agens secundarium instrumentale. Spes autem respicit beatitudinem aeternam sicut finem ultimum; divinum autem auxilium sicut primam causam inducentem ad beatitudinem. I answer that, Hope, as stated above (A. 1; I-II, Q. 40, A. 7), regards two things, viz. the good which it intends to obtain, and the help by which that good is obtained. Now the good which a man hopes to obtain, has the aspect of a final cause, while the help by which one hopes to obtain that good, has the character of an efficient cause. Now in each of these kinds of cause we find a principal and a secondary cause. For the principal end is the last end, while the secondary end is that which is referred to an end. In like manner the principal efficient cause is the first agent, while the secondary efficient cause is the secondary and instrumental agent. Now hope regards eternal happiness as its last end, and the Divine assistance as the first cause leading to happiness. Sicut igitur non licet sperare aliquod bonum praeter beatitudinem sicut ultimum finem, sed solum sicut id quod est ad finem beatitudinis ordinatum; ita etiam non licet sperare de aliquo homine, vel de aliqua creatura, sicut de prima causa movente in beatitudinem; licet autem sperare de aliquo homine, vel de aliqua creatura, sicut de agente secundario et instrumentali, per quod aliquis adiuvatur ad quaecumque bona consequenda in beatitudinem ordinata. Et hoc modo ad sanctos convertimur; et ab hominibus aliqua petimus; et vituperantur illi de quibus aliquis confidere non potest ad auxilium ferendum. Accordingly, just as it is not lawful to hope for any good save happiness, as one’s last end, but only as something referred to final happiness, so too, it is unlawful to hope in any man, or any creature, as though it were the first cause of movement towards happiness. It is, however, lawful to hope in a man or a creature as being the secondary and instrumental agent through whom one is helped to obtain any goods that are ordained to happiness. It is in this way that we turn to the saints, and that we ask men also for certain things; and for this reason some are blamed in that they cannot be trusted to give help. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. This suffices for the Replies to the Objections. Articulus 5 Article 5 Utrum spes sit virtus theologica Whether hope is a theological virtue? Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod spes non sit virtus theologica. Virtus enim theologica est quae habet Deum pro obiecto. Sed spes non habet solum Deum pro obiecto, sed etiam alia bona quae a Deo obtinere speramus. Ergo spes non est virtus theologica. Objection 1: It would seem that hope is not a theological virtue. For a theological virtue is one that has God for its object. Now hope has for its object not only God but also other goods which we hope to obtain from God. Therefore hope is not a theological virtue. Praeterea, virtus theologica non consistit in medio duorum vitiorum, ut supra habitum est. Sed spes consistit in medio praesumptionis et desperationis. Ergo spes non est virtus theologica. Obj. 2: Further, a theological virtue is not a mean between two vices, as stated above (I-II, Q. 64, A. 4). But hope is a mean between presumption and despair. Therefore hope is not a theological virtue. Praeterea, expectatio pertinet ad longanimitatem, quae est pars fortitudinis. Cum ergo spes sit quaedam expectatio, videtur quod spes non sit virtus theologica, sed moralis. Obj. 3: Further, expectation belongs to longanimity which is a species of fortitude. Since, then, hope is a kind of expectation, it seems that hope is not a theological, but a moral virtue. Praeterea, obiectum spei est arduum. Sed tendere in arduum pertinet ad magnanimitatem, quae est virtus moralis. Ergo spes est virtus moralis, et non theologica. Obj. 4: Further, the object of hope is something arduous. But it belongs to magnanimity, which is a moral virtue, to tend to the arduous. Therefore hope is a moral, and not a theological virtue. Sed contra est quod, I ad Cor. XIII, connumeratur fidei et caritati quae sunt virtutes theologicae. On the contrary, Hope is enumerated (1 Cor 13) together with faith and charity, which are theological virtues. Respondeo dicendum quod, cum differentiae specificae per se dividant genus, oportet attendere unde habeat spes rationem virtutis, ad hoc quod sciamus sub qua differentia virtutis collocetur. I answer that, Since specific differences, by their very nature, divide a genus, in order to decide under what division we must place hope, we must observe whence it derives its character of virtue. Dictum est autem supra quod spes habet rationem virtutis ex hoc quod attingit supremam regulam humanorum actuum; quam attingit et sicut primam causam efficientem, inquantum eius auxilio innititur; et sicut ultimam causam finalem, inquantum in eius fruitione beatitudinem expectat. Et sic patet quod spei, inquantum est virtus, principale obiectum est Deus. Cum igitur in hoc consistat ratio virtutis theologicae quod Deum habeat pro obiecto, sicut supra dictum est, manifestum est quod spes est virtus theologica. Now it has been stated above (A. 1) that hope has the character of virtue from the fact that it attains the supreme rule of human actions: and this it attains both as its first efficient cause, inasmuch as it leans on its assistance, and as its last final cause, inasmuch as it expects happiness in the enjoyment thereof. Hence it is evident that God is the principal object of hope, considered as a virtue. Since, then, the very idea of a theological virtue is one that has God for its object, as stated above (I-II, Q. 62, A. 1), it is evident that hope is a theological virtue. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quaecumque alia spes adipisci expectat, sperat in ordine ad Deum sicut ad ultimum finem et sicut ad primam causam efficientem, ut dictum est. Reply Obj. 1: Whatever else hope expects to obtain, it hopes for it in reference to God as the last end, or as the first efficient cause, as stated above (A. 4). Ad secundum dicendum quod medium accipitur in regulatis et mensuratis secundum quod regula vel mensura attingitur; secundum autem quod exceditur regula, est superfluum; secundum autem defectum a regula, est diminutum. In ipsa autem regula vel mensura non est accipere medium et extrema. Virtus autem moralis est circa ea quae regulantur ratione sicut circa proprium obiectum, et ideo per se convenit ei esse in medio ex parte proprii obiecti. Sed virtus theologica est circa ipsam regulam primam, non regulatam alia regula, sicut circa proprium obiectum. Et ideo per se, et secundum proprium obiectum, non convenit virtuti theologicae esse in medio. Sed potest sibi competere per accidens, ratione eius quod ordinatur ad principale obiectum. Sicut fides non potest habere medium et extrema in hoc quod innitatur primae veritati, cui nullus potest nimis inniti, sed ex parte eorum quae credit, potest habere medium et extrema, sicut unum verum est medium inter duo falsa. Et similiter spes non habet medium et extrema ex parte principalis obiecti, quia divino auxilio nullus potest nimis inniti, sed quantum ad ea quae confidit aliquis se adepturum, potest ibi esse medium et extrema, inquantum vel praesumit ea quae sunt supra suam proportionem, vel desperat de his quae sunt sibi proportionata. Reply Obj. 2: In things measured and ruled the mean consists in the measure or rule being attained; if we go beyond the rule, there is excess, if we fall short of the rule, there is deficiency. But in the rule or measure itself there is no such thing as a mean or extremes. Now a moral virtue is concerned with things ruled by reason, and these things are its proper object; wherefore it is proper to it to follow the mean as regards its proper object. On the other hand, a theological virtue is concerned with the First Rule not ruled by another rule, and that Rule is its proper object. Wherefore it is not proper for a theological virtue, with regard to its proper object, to follow the mean, although this may happen to it accidentally with regard to something that is referred to its principal object. Thus faith can have no mean or extremes in the point of trusting to the First Truth, in which it is impossible to trust too much; whereas on the part of the things believed, it may have a mean and extremes; for instance one truth is a mean between two falsehoods. So too, hope has no mean or extremes, as regards its principal object, since it is impossible to trust too much in the Divine assistance; yet it may have a mean and extremes, as regards those things a man trusts to obtain, insofar as he either presumes above his capability, or despairs of things of which he is capable. Ad tertium dicendum quod expectatio quae ponitur in definitione spei non importat dilationem, sicut expectatio quae pertinet ad longanimitatem, sed importat respectum ad auxilium divinum, sive illud quod speratur differatur, sive non differatur. Reply Obj. 3: The expectation which is mentioned in the definition of hope does not imply delay, as does the expectation which belongs to longanimity. It implies a reference to the Divine assistance, whether that which we hope for be delayed or not. Ad quartum dicendum quod magnanimitas tendit in arduum sperans aliquid quod est suae potestatis. Unde proprie respicit operationem aliquorum magnorum. Sed spes, secundum quod est virtus theologica, respicit arduum alterius auxilio assequendum, ut dictum est. Reply Obj. 4: Magnanimity tends to something arduous in the hope of obtaining something that is within one’s power, wherefore its proper object is the doing of great things. On the other hand hope, as a theological virtue, regards something arduous, to be obtained by another’s help, as stated above (A. 1). Articulus 6 Article 6 Utrum spes sit virtus distincta ab aliis virtutibus theologicis Whether hope is distinct from the other theological virtues? Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod spes non sit virtus distincta ab aliis theologicis. Habitus enim distinguuntur secundum obiecta, ut supra dictum est. Sed idem est obiectum spei et aliarum virtutum theologicarum. Ergo spes non distinguitur ab aliis virtutibus theologicis. Objection 1: It would seem that hope is not distinct from the other theological virtues. For habits are distinguished by their objects, as stated above (I-II, Q. 54, A. 2). Now the object of hope is the same as of the other theological virtues. Therefore hope is not distinct from the other theological virtues. Praeterea, in symbolo fidei, in quo fidem profitemur, dicitur, expecto resurrectionem mortuorum et vitam futuri saeculi. Sed expectatio futurae beatitudinis pertinet ad spem, ut supra dictum est. Ergo spes a fide non distinguitur. Obj. 2: Further, in the symbol of faith, whereby we make profession of faith, we say: I expect the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Now expectation of future happiness belongs to hope, as stated above (A. 5). Therefore hope is not distinct from faith. Praeterea, per spem homo tendit in Deum. Sed hoc proprie pertinet ad caritatem. Ergo spes a caritate non distinguitur. Obj. 3: Further, by hope man tends to God. But this belongs properly to charity. Therefore hope is not distinct from charity. Sed contra, ubi non est distinctio ibi non est numerus. Sed spes connumeratur aliis virtutibus theologicis, dicit enim Gregorius, in I Moral., esse tres virtutes, fidem, spem et caritatem. Ergo spes est virtus distincta ab aliis theologicis. On the contrary, There cannot be number without distinction. Now hope is numbered with the other theological virtues: for Gregory says (Moral. i, 16) that the three virtues are faith, hope, and charity. Therefore hope is distinct from the theological virtues. Respondeo dicendum quod virtus aliqua dicitur theologica ex hoc quod habet Deum pro obiecto cui inhaeret. Potest autem aliquis alicui rei inhaerere dupliciter, uno modo, propter seipsum; alio modo, inquantum ex eo ad aliud devenitur. Caritas igitur facit hominem Deo inhaerere propter seipsum, mentem hominis uniens Deo per affectum amoris. I answer that, A virtue is said to be theological from having God for the object to which it adheres. Now one may adhere to a thing in two ways: first, for its own sake; second, because something else is attained thereby. Accordingly charity makes us adhere to God for His own sake, uniting our minds to God by the emotion of love. Spes autem et fides faciunt hominem inhaerere Deo sicut cuidam principio ex quo aliqua nobis proveniunt. De Deo autem provenit nobis et cognitio veritatis et adeptio perfectae bonitatis. Fides ergo facit hominem Deo inhaerere inquantum est nobis principium cognoscendi veritatem, credimus enim ea vera esse quae nobis a Deo dicuntur. Spes autem facit Deo adhaerere prout est nobis principium perfectae bonitatis, inquantum scilicet per spem divino auxilio innitimur ad beatitudinem obtinendam. On the other hand, hope and faith make man adhere to God as to a principle wherefrom certain things accrue to us. Now we derive from God both knowledge of truth and the attainment of perfect goodness. Accordingly faith makes us adhere to God, as the source whence we derive the knowledge of truth, since we believe that what God tells us is true: while hope makes us adhere to God, as the source whence we derive perfect goodness, i.e., insofar as, by hope, we trust to the Divine assistance for obtaining happiness. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Deus secundum aliam et aliam rationem est obiectum harum virtutum, ut dictum est. Ad distinctionem autem habituum sufficit diversa ratio obiecti, ut supra habitum est. Reply Obj. 1: God is the object of these virtues under different aspects, as stated above: and a different aspect of the object suffices for the distinction of habits, as stated above (I-II, Q. 54, A. 2). Ad secundum dicendum quod expectatio ponitur in symbolo fidei non quia sit actus proprius fidei, sed inquantum actus spei praesupponit fidem, ut dicetur, et sic actus fidei manifestantur per actus spei. Reply Obj. 2: Expectation is mentioned in the symbol of faith, not as though it were the proper act of faith, but because the act of hope presupposes the act of faith, as we shall state further on (A. 7). Hence an act of faith is expressed in the act of hope. Ad tertium dicendum quod spes facit tendere in Deum sicut in quoddam bonum finale adipiscendum, et sicut in quoddam adiutorium efficax ad subveniendum. Sed caritas proprie facit tendere in Deum uniendo affectum hominis Deo, ut scilicet homo non sibi vivat sed Deo. Reply Obj. 3: Hope makes us tend to God, as to a good to be obtained finally, and as to a helper strong to assist: whereas charity, properly speaking, makes us tend to God, by uniting our affections to Him, so that we live, not for ourselves, but for God.