|
Objection 1: It would seem that no precept should be given relating
to the virtue of hope. For when an effect is sufficiently procured by
one cause, there is no need to induce it by another. Now man is
sufficiently induced by his natural inclination to hope for good.
Therefore there is no need of a precept of the Law to induce him to do
this.
Objection 2: Further, since precepts are given about acts of
virtue, the chief precepts are about the acts of the chief virtues.
Now the chief of all the virtues are the three theological virtues,
viz. hope, faith and charity. Consequently, as the chief precepts
of the Law are those of the decalogue, to which all others may be
reduced, as stated above (FS, Question 100, Article 3), it
seems that if any precept of hope were given, it should be found among
the precepts of the decalogue. But it is not to be found there.
Therefore it seems that the Law should contain no precept of hope.
Objection 3: Further, to prescribe an act of virtue is equivalent
to a prohibition of the act of the opposite vice. Now no precept is to
be found forbidding despair which is contrary to hope. Therefore it
seems that the Law should contain no precept of hope.
On the contrary, Augustine says on Jn. 15:12, "This is My
commandment, that you love one another" (Tract. lxxxiii in
Joan.): "How many things are commanded us about faith! How many
relating to hope!" Therefore it is fitting that some precepts should
be given about hope.
I answer that, Among the precepts contained in Holy Writ, some
belong to the substance of the Law, others are preambles to the Law.
The preambles to the Law are those without which no law is possible:
such are the precepts relating to the act of faith and the act of hope,
because the act of faith inclines man's mind so that he believes the
Author of the Law to be One to Whom he owes submission, while, by
the hope of a reward, he is induced to observe the precepts. The
precepts that belong to the substance of the Law are those which relate
to right conduct and are imposed on man already subject and ready to
obey: wherefore when the Law was given these precepts were set forth
from the very outset under form of a command.
Yet the precepts of hope and faith were not to be given under the form
of a command, since, unless man already believed and hoped, it would
be useless to give him the Law: but, just as the precept of faith had
to be given under the form of an announcement or reminder, as stated
above (Question 16, Article 1), so too, the precept of hope,
in the first promulgation of the Law, had to be given under the form
of a promise. For he who promises rewards to them that obey him, by
that very fact, urges them to hope: hence all the promises contained
in the Law are incitements to hope.
Since, however, when once the Law has been given, it is for a wise
man to induce men not only to observe the precepts, but also, and much
more, to safeguard the foundation of the Law, therefore, after the
first promulgation of the Law, Holy Writ holds out to man many
inducements to hope, even by way of warning or command, and not merely
by way of promise, as in the Law; for instance, in the Ps.
61:9: "Hope in Him all ye congregation of the people," and in
many other passages of the Scriptures.
Reply to Objection 1: Nature inclines us to hope for the good which
is proportionate to human nature; but for man to hope for a
supernatural good he had to be induced by the authority of the Divine
law, partly by promises, partly by admonitions and commands.
Nevertheless there was need for precepts of the Divine law to be given
even for those things to which natural reason inclines us, such as the
acts of the moral virtues, for sake of insuring a greater stability,
especially since the natural reason of man was clouded by the lusts of
sin.
Reply to Objection 2: The precepts of the law of the decalogue
belong to the first promulgation of the Law: hence there was no need
for a precept of hope among the precepts of the decalogue, and it was
enough to induce men to hope by the inclusion of certain promises, as
in the case of the first and fourth commandments.
Reply to Objection 3: In those observances to which man is bound as
under a duty, it is enough that he receive an affirmative precept as to
what he has to do, wherein is implied the prohibition of what he must
avoid doing: thus he is given a precept concerning the honor due to
parents, but not a prohibition against dishonoring them, except by the
law inflicting punishment on those who dishonor their parents. And
since in order to be saved it is man's duty to hope in God, he had to
be induced to do so by one of the above ways, affirmatively, so to
speak, wherein is implied the prohibition of the opposite.
|
|