V. To the Arguments for the First Way

123. To the arguments for the first way, which seem to follow natural reason [n.9], it can be replied that here a plurality is necessary.

124. To the first proof [n.10] it is plain from what was said [n.100] that to desire for this while standing on that cannot be formally an act belonging to the same virtue as the act of willing what is ordered in itself belongs to; although to desire this thing for that person, so that the latter tend to the former as it is good in itself, is an act of the same virtue.

125. As to what is added about acquired friendship [n.11], it could be said that acquired friendship has different habits.

126. As to what is added about the certitude of hope and the certitude of the one who hopes [n.12] my reply is that they precede the act of hope and despair. For no one effectively and absolutely hopes for or desires anything save what can be attained by him. And one who despairs does not desire absolutely; and the reason is that he does not believe it is possible for him to attain it, and so persuasion is given to make him believe and not to make him love, because the first root of this error is not in the will (for when the will does not efficaciously desire something, it is because the intellect does not efficaciously show the thing as something to be desired).

127. The same point makes plain the argument about universal and particular [n.19], that to believe ‘I as just am to be finally saved’ is only faith applied to some particular; but to desire it is an act of hope.

128. But then the objection is made: therefore ‘to desire a good of the same idea for one’s neighbor’ will be an act of hope; indeed (what is more) ‘to will a present good of the same idea to blessed Peter’ will be an act of hope -which is absurd.

129. Seek an answer.a

a.a [Interpolation] Note that this reply, which Scotus does not solve, is solved by the definition of the act of hope, that it is said to be ‘to desire’; by which is solved the second reply, for the understanding is that it is not present but absent; and so it is not called hope if it is about the present.

     It was also posited that ‘to desire the infinite Good’ is in me from God [nn.91-92]. And by the ‘in me’, which is the circumstance ‘for whom’ [n.100], is solved the first reply and the whole argument, because hope is not in desiring a good for another, which is rather charity or acquired love. But see Scotus’ intention expressly below, d.31 nn.19-20.