A. First Way

1. Exposition of it

8. The foundation for this is the authority of the Apostle above cited [n.7], on which the saints rely when treating of this matter.

9. However if one were to contemn the authority [of the Apostle] and rest on the support of natural reason alone, then, since ‘a plurality is to be avoided where there is no necessity to posit it’ [Physics 1.4.188a17-18, 8.6.259a8-9], and since in the matter at issue there seems no necessity to posit a third theological virtue distinct from faith and charity, one would deny that hope is a distinct virtue.

10. The proof of the minor of this reasoning (according to supporters of it): The same will that is disposed to willing in ordered way is disposed to refusing or non-willing in ordered way. And the proof is that one cannot refuse something in ordered way unless there is a willing of the opposite of that something in ordered way. This is also confirmed by On the Soul 1.5.411a4-6, ‘The straight is judge of itself and of the curved.’ Also the same thing that is sufficiently disposed to loving a good when present is disposed to desiring a good when absent. And the proof comes from both reason and authority. By reason, because the same thing tends to a term that is not possessed by the same power as rests in it when it is possessed, as is plain of a heavy body. The authority is from Augustine On the Trinity 9.12 n.18, ‘the desire for something when one longs for it becomes love of the thing when one enjoys it’. Therefore if there is some habit whereby the will is disposed sufficiently for an ordered enjoying or willing of a present good, the same habit will suffice for every ordered willing, which will include ordered desiring and ordered not-willing of an absent good; but charity alone sufficiently disposes the will supernaturally to loving every present enjoyable object.

11. A second proof of the minor is that acquired friendship suffices for every ordered willing as to the loved thing - and this both as to the willing of desire and as to the willing that is love of the good when present, and also as to non-willing or refusing the opposite of what is loved; but infused friendship is no less sufficient for a multitude of objects than is acquired friendship, since the will extends itself widely to everything that can be loved by charity; therefore etc.a

a.a [Interpolation] Second, on the part of the intellect, because if hope were a habit it could not be placed in the intellect, because the act of the intellect in general is to understand; so all habits in the intellect will concern some act of understanding; but understanding with respect to a supernatural object is nothing but belief or faith. Therefore etc.

2. What should be Said about this Sort of Way.

12. If one holds this conclusion [n.9], one could say that hope in some way combines in itself two virtues, namely faith and charity; for the act of hope which is expectation [Lombard: ‘hope is the certain expectation of future blessedness’], includes certainty, and this certainty belongs to faith in the intellect, and it includes desire, which pertains to the will; and if so, meritorious desire pertains to charity, which perfects the will. Just as, then, perfect and meritorious expectation includes the certainty of the intellect and the desire of an ordered will, so hope, as a perfect virtue, would be said to include, by a certain combination, both faith and charity; and accordingly hope would not be posited as a third virtue simply but only formally, because it combines two virtualities in itself each of which is a perfect virtue, while hope is not, save formally by the formality of combination.

13. However the desire for what is not possessed can be present in the will without charity; also the whole act of hope, and even hope itself in itself, can be unformed, and so it agrees more with faith than with charity. Therefore it seems better to posit that hope, to the extent it is not a different virtue, agrees with faith, because a habit does not have a different form for universal and particular, as is clear in the case of all the intellectual habits; but faith regards the universal, because by faith I hold that ‘every finally just man is to be saved’, and hope regards the particular, because by hope I hold that ‘I as finally just am to be saved’; therefore the habit is not formally different in the two cases.

14. There is a confirmation, that someone who despairs is not said to hate but to be deceived; and therefore persuasion makes him love and desire, because he would very well desire it if he believed it was attainable by him.

15. Accordingly one would say that faith in all the revealed articles, to whomever the articles pertain and at whatever hour, is true and universal faith.This remark is perhaps to be understood of the parable of the workers in the vineyard, some of whom work the whole day, some lesser parts of the day according as they began at different hours. So true faith is to believe all the articles revealed at the time and in the condition anyone then finds himself in; and so some can have true faith if they believe fewer articles and others only if they believe more. ¹

16. Further too faith is rather in a way particular faith, because it is about revelations pertaining to him who has faith, and only about things pertaining to the future. Nor does this specification vary the habit, just as neither does it do so with other intellectual habits, but the habit is the same, and possesses a certain specification on the part of the object.

17. So no third habit or virtue is posited, but faith as to certain things, namely future things belonging to the believing person, is called hope, although faith does extend itself to the person believing and to other things.

18. But if it be said that futurity in the object varies and so distinguishes faith from the other virtues, there is objection against this:

20. First that the same habit is universal and particular, as is plain in all intellectual habits; so just as there is faith about ‘everyone finally just will be saved’, so there will be faith about ‘I, if I am finally just, will be saved’.

20. Second, that if futurity were the formal idea of an object, then hope would not be a theological virtue, for it would not concern something eternal as object but something temporal, for temporality would be the formal idea of the object.

21. Third, if futurity requires its own object, by parity of reasoning so would pastness, and so there will not be the same habit of faith about the past and the future.

22. Anyone who holds this way [of understanding hope] could say that, just as there are in the soul two powers, namely intellect and will, of a nature to attain God under the idea of object (and that by acts proper to those powers), so each power is sufficiently perfected by a single habit in respect of that object; and thus, just as the intellect is sufficiently perfected in respect of that object by the habit of faith, so the will likewise is sufficiently disposed in respect of the same object by the habit of charity, and the following statements about hope will be preserved: either that it is a third habit, including the other two by combination; or (which is more probable) that it is a certain particular faith respecting future goods to be attained by the person, and that to this extent it is distinguished from faith absolutely taken, which has regard to all persons generally and all articles of faith at any time whatever.

23. This way is not satisfactory, because it seems to oppose the authorities of the saints, which rely on the words of St. Paul (I Corinthians 13, nn.7-8).