Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum philosophum, in II Ethic., virtus uniuscuiusque rei est quae bonum facit habentem et opus eius bonum reddit. Oportet igitur, ubicumque invenitur aliquis actus hominis bonus, quod respondeat alicui virtuti humanae. In omnibus autem regulatis et mensuratis bonum consideratur per hoc quod aliquid propriam regulam attingit, sicut dicimus vestem esse bonam quae nec excedit nec deficit a debita mensura. Humanorum autem actuum, sicut supra dictum est, duplex est mensura, una quidem proxima et homogenea, scilicet ratio; alia autem est suprema et excedens, scilicet Deus. Et ideo omnis actus humanus attingens ad rationem aut ad ipsum Deum est bonus. Actus autem spei de qua nunc loquimur attingit ad Deum. Ut enim supra dictum est, cum de passione spei ageretur, obiectum spei est bonum futurum arduum possibile haberi. Possibile autem est aliquid nobis dupliciter, uno modo, per nos ipsos; alio modo, per alios; ut patet in III Ethic. Inquantum igitur speramus aliquid ut possibile nobis per divinum auxilium, spes nostra attingit ad ipsum Deum, cuius auxilio innititur. Et ideo patet quod spes est virtus, cum faciat actum hominis bonum et debitam regulam attingentem. I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 6) the virtue of a thing is that which makes its subject good, and its work good likewise. Consequently wherever we find a good human act, it must correspond to some human virtue. Now in all things measured and ruled, the good is that which attains its proper rule: thus we say that a coat is good if it neither exceeds nor falls short of its proper measurement. But, as we stated above (Q. 8, A. 3, ad 3) human acts have a twofold measure; one is proximate and homogeneous, viz. the reason, while the other is remote and excelling, viz. God: wherefore every human act is good, which attains reason or God Himself. Now the act of hope, whereof we speak now, attains God. For, as we have already stated (I-II, Q. 40, A. 1), when we were treating of the passion of hope, the object of hope is a future good, difficult but possible to obtain. Now a thing is possible to us in two ways: first, by ourselves; second, by means of others, as stated in Ethic. iii. Wherefore, insofar as we hope for anything as being possible to us by means of the Divine assistance, our hope attains God Himself, on Whose help it leans. It is therefore evident that hope is a virtue, since it causes a human act to be good and to attain its due rule. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in passionibus accipitur medium virtutis per hoc quod attingitur ratio recta, et in hoc etiam consistit ratio virtutis. Unde etiam et in spe bonum virtutis accipitur secundum quod homo attingit sperando regulam debitam, scilicet Deum. Et ideo spe attingente Deum nullus potest male uti, sicut nec virtute morali attingente rationem, quia hoc ipsum quod est attingere est bonus usus virtutis. Quamvis spes de qua nunc loquimur non sit passio, sed habitus mentis, ut infra patebit. Reply Obj. 1: In the passions, the mean of virtue depends on right reason being attained, wherein also consists the essence of virtue. Wherefore in hope too, the good of virtue depends on a man’s attaining, by hoping, the due rule, viz. God. Consequently man cannot make ill use of hope which attains God, as neither can he make ill use of moral virtue which attains the reason, because to attain thus is to make good use of virtue. Nevertheless, the hope of which we speak now, is not a passion but a habit of the mind, as we shall show further on (A. 5; Q. 18, A. 1). Ad secundum dicendum quod spes dicitur ex meritis provenire quantum ad ipsam rem expectatam, prout aliquis sperat se beatitudinem adepturum ex gratia et meritis. Vel quantum ad actum spei formatae. Ipse autem habitus spei, per quam aliquis expectat beatitudinem, non causatur ex meritis, sed pure ex gratia. Reply Obj. 2: Hope is said to arise from merits, as regards the thing hoped for, insofar as we hope to obtain happiness by means of grace and merits; or as regards the act of living hope. The habit itself of hope, whereby we hope to obtain happiness, does not flow from our merits, but from grace alone. Ad tertium dicendum quod ille qui sperat est quidem imperfectus secundum considerationem ad id quod sperat obtinere, quod nondum habet, sed est perfectus quantum ad hoc quod iam attingit propriam regulam, scilicet Deum, cuius auxilio innititur. Reply Obj. 3: He who hopes is indeed imperfect in relation to that which he hopes to obtain, but has not as yet; yet he is perfect, insofar as he already attains his proper rule, viz. God, on Whose help he leans. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum obiectum proprium spei sit beatitudo aeterna Whether eternal happiness is the proper object of hope? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod beatitudo aeterna non sit obiectum proprium spei. Illud enim homo non sperat quod omnem animi sui motum excedit, cum spei actus sit quidam animi motus. Sed beatitudo aeterna excedit omnem humani animi motum, dicit enim apostolus, I ad Cor. II, quod in cor hominis non ascendit. Ergo beatitudo non est proprium obiectum spei. Objection 1: It would seem that eternal happiness is not the proper object of hope. For a man does not hope for that which surpasses every movement of the soul, since hope itself is a movement of the soul. Now eternal happiness surpasses every movement of the human soul, for the Apostle says (1 Cor 2:9) that it hath not entered into the heart of man. Therefore happiness is not the proper object of hope. Praeterea, petitio est spei interpretativa, dicitur enim in Psalm., revela domino viam tuam et spera in eo, et ipse faciet. Sed homo petit a Deo licite non solum beatitudinem aeternam, sed etiam bona praesentis vitae tam spiritualia quam temporalia, et etiam liberationem a malis, quae in beatitudine aeterna non erunt, ut patet in oratione dominica, Matth. VI. Ergo beatitudo aeterna non est proprium obiectum spei. Obj. 2: Further, prayer is an expression of hope, for it is written (Ps 36:5): Commit thy way to the Lord, and trust in Him, and He will do it. Now it is lawful for man to pray God not only for eternal happiness, but also for the goods, both temporal and spiritual, of the present life, and, as evidenced by the Lord’s Prayer, to be delivered from evils which will no longer be in eternal happiness. Therefore eternal happiness is not the proper object of hope. Praeterea, spei obiectum est arduum. Sed in comparatione ad hominem multa alia sunt ardua quam beatitudo aeterna. Ergo beatitudo aeterna non est proprium obiectum spei. Obj. 3: Further, the object of hope is something difficult. Now many things besides eternal happiness are difficult to man. Therefore eternal happiness is not the proper object of hope. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Heb. VI, habemus spem incedentem, idest incedere facientem, ad interiora velaminis, idest ad beatitudinem caelestem; ut Glossa ibidem exponit. Ergo obiectum spei est beatitudo aeterna. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Heb 6:19) that we have hope which entereth in, i.e., maketh us to enter . . . within the veil, i.e., into the happiness of heaven, according to the interpretation of a gloss on these words. Therefore the object of hope is eternal happiness. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, spes de qua loquimur attingit Deum innitens eius auxilio ad consequendum bonum speratum. Oportet autem effectum esse causae proportionatum. Et ideo bonum quod proprie et principaliter a Deo sperare debemus est bonum infinitum, quod proportionatur virtuti Dei adiuvantis, nam infinitae virtutis est proprium ad infinitum bonum perducere. Hoc autem bonum est vita aeterna, quae in fruitione ipsius Dei consistit, non enim minus aliquid ab eo sperandum est quam sit ipse, cum non sit minor eius bonitas, per quam bona creaturae communicat, quam eius essentia. Et ideo proprium et principale obiectum spei est beatitudo aeterna. I answer that, As stated above (A. 1), the hope of which we speak now, attains God by leaning on His help in order to obtain the hoped for good. Now an effect must be proportionate to its cause. Wherefore the good which we ought to hope for from God properly and chiefly is the infinite good, which is proportionate to the power of our divine helper, since it belongs to an infinite power to lead anyone to an infinite good. Such a good is eternal life, which consists in the enjoyment of God Himself. For we should hope from Him for nothing less than Himself, since His goodness, whereby He imparts good things to His creature, is no less than His Essence. Therefore the proper and principal object of hope is eternal happiness. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod beatitudo aeterna perfecte quidem in cor hominis non ascendit, ut scilicet cognosci possit ab homine viatore quae et qualis sit, sed secundum communem rationem, scilicet boni perfecti, cadere potest in apprehensione hominis. Et hoc modo motus spei in ipsam consurgit. Unde et signanter apostolus dicit quod spes incedit usque ad interiora velaminis, quia id quod speramus est nobis adhuc velatum. Reply Obj. 1: Eternal happiness does not enter into the heart of man perfectly, i.e., so that it be possible for a wayfarer to know its nature and quality; yet, under the general notion of the perfect good, it is possible for it to be apprehended by a man, and it is in this way that the movement of hope towards it arises. Hence the Apostle says pointedly (Heb 6:19) that hope enters in, even within the veil, because that which we hope for is as yet veiled, so to speak. Ad secundum dicendum quod quaecumque alia bona non debemus a Deo petere nisi in ordine ad beatitudinem aeternam. Unde et spes principaliter quidem respicit beatitudinem aeternam; alia vero quae petuntur a Deo respicit secundario, in ordine ad beatitudinem aeternam. Sicut etiam fides respicit principaliter Deum, et secundario respicit ea quae ad Deum ordinantur, ut supra dictum est. Reply Obj. 2: We ought not to pray God for any other goods, except in reference to eternal happiness. Hence hope regards eternal happiness chiefly, and other things, for which we pray God, it regards secondarily and as referred to eternal happiness: just as faith regards God principally, and, secondarily, those things which are referred to God, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 1). Ad tertium dicendum quod homini qui anhelat ad aliquid magnum, parvum videtur omne aliud quod est eo minus. Et ideo homini speranti beatitudinem aeternam, habito respectu ad istam spem, nihil aliud est arduum. Sed habito respectu ad facultatem sperantis, possunt etiam quaedam alia ei esse ardua. Et secundum hoc eorum potest esse spes in ordine ad principale obiectum. Reply Obj. 3: To him that longs for something great, all lesser things seem small; wherefore to him that hopes for eternal happiness, nothing else appears arduous, as compared with that hope; although, as compared with the capability of the man who hopes, other things besides may be arduous to him, so that he may have hope for such things in reference to its principal object. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum unus homo possit sperare beatitudinem alterius Whether one man may hope for another’s eternal happiness? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquis possit sperare alteri beatitudinem aeternam. Dicit enim apostolus, Philipp. I, confidens hoc ipsum, quia qui coepit in vobis opus bonum perficiet usque in diem Christi Iesu. Perfectio aut illius diei erit beatitudo aeterna. Ergo aliquis potest alteri sperare beatitudinem aeternam. Objection 1: It would seem that one may hope for another’s eternal happiness. For the Apostle says (Phil 1:6): Being confident of this very thing, that He Who hath begun a good work in you, will perfect it unto the day of Jesus Christ. Now the perfection of that day will be eternal happiness. Therefore one man may hope for another’s eternal happiness. Praeterea, ea quae a Deo petimus speramus obtinere ab eo. Sed a Deo petimus quod alios ad beatitudinem aeternam perducat, secundum illud Iac. ult., orate pro invicem ut salvemini. Ergo possumus aliis sperare beatitudinem aeternam. Obj. 2: Further, whatever we ask of God, we hope to obtain from Him. But we ask God to bring others to eternal happiness, according to James 5:16: Pray for one another that you may be saved. Therefore we can hope for another’s eternal happiness. Praeterea, spes et desperatio sunt de eodem. Sed aliquis potest desperare de beatitudine aeterna alicuius, alioquin frustra diceret Augustinus, in libro de Verb. Dom., de nemine esse desperandum dum vivit. Ergo etiam potest aliquis sperare alteri vitam aeternam. Obj. 3: Further, hope and despair are about the same object. Now it is possible to despair of another’s eternal happiness, else Augustine would have no reason for saying (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi) that we should not despair of anyone so long as he lives. Therefore one can also hope for another’s eternal salvation. 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.