FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 67, Art. 4]

Whether Hope Remains After Death, in the State of Glory?

Objection 1: It would seem that hope remains after death, in the

state of glory. Because hope perfects the human appetite in a more

excellent manner than the moral virtues. But the moral virtues remain

after this life, as Augustine clearly states (De Trin. xiv, 9). Much

more then does hope remain.

Obj. 2: Further, fear is opposed to hope. But fear remains after this

life: in the Blessed, filial fear, which abides for ever--in the

lost, the fear of punishment. Therefore, in a like manner, hope can

remain.

Obj. 3: Further, just as hope is of future good, so is desire. Now in

the Blessed there is desire for future good; both for the glory of

the body, which the souls of the Blessed desire, as Augustine

declares (Gen. ad lit. xii, 35); and for the glory of the soul,

according to Ecclus. 24:29: "They that eat me, shall yet hunger, and

they that drink me, shall yet thirst," and 1 Pet. 1:12: "On Whom the

angels desire to look." Therefore it seems that there can be hope in

the Blessed after this life is past.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 8:24): "What a man seeth,

why doth he hope for?" But the Blessed see that which is the object

of hope, viz. God. Therefore they do not hope.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), that which, in its very

nature, implies imperfection of its subject, is incompatible with the

opposite perfection in that subject. Thus it is evident that movement

of its very nature implies imperfection of its subject, since it is

"the act of that which is in potentiality as such" (Phys. iii): so

that as soon as this potentiality is brought into act, the movement

ceases; for a thing does not continue to become white, when once it

is made white. Now hope denotes a movement towards that which is not

possessed, as is clear from what we have said above about the passion

of hope (Q. 40, AA. 1, 2). Therefore when we possess that which we

hope for, viz. the enjoyment of God, it will no longer be possible to

have hope.

Reply Obj. 1: Hope surpasses the moral virtues as to its object,

which is God. But the acts of the moral virtues are not incompatible

with the perfection of happiness, as the act of hope is; except

perhaps, as regards their matter, in respect of which they do not

remain. For moral virtue perfects the appetite, not only in respect

of what is not yet possessed, but also as regards something which is

in our actual possession.

Reply Obj. 2: Fear is twofold, servile and filial, as we shall state

further on (II-II, Q. 19, A. 2). Servile fear regards punishment, and

will be impossible in the life of glory, since there will no longer

be possibility of being punished. Filial fear has two acts: one is an

act of reverence to God, and with regard to this act, it remains: the

other is an act of fear lest we be separated from God, and as regards

this act, it does not remain. Because separation from God is in the

nature of an evil: and no evil will be feared there, according to

Prov. 1:33: "He . . . shall enjoy abundance without fear of evils."

Now fear is opposed to hope by opposition of good and evil, as stated

above (Q. 23, A. 2; Q. 40, A. 1), and therefore the fear which will

remain in glory is not opposed to hope. In the lost there can be fear

of punishment, rather than hope of glory in the Blessed. Because in

the lost there will be a succession of punishments, so that the

notion of something future remains there, which is the object of

fear: but the glory of the saints has no succession, by reason of its

being a kind of participation of eternity, wherein there is neither

past nor future, but only the present. And yet, properly speaking,

neither in the lost is there fear. For, as stated above (Q. 42, A.

2), fear is never without some hope of escape: and the lost have no

such hope. Consequently neither will there be fear in them; except

speaking in a general way, in so far as any expectation of future

evil is called fear.

Reply Obj. 3: As to the glory of the soul, there can be no desire in

the Blessed, in so far as desire looks for something future, for the

reason already given (ad 2). Yet hunger and thirst are said to be in

them because they never weary, and for the same reason desire is said

to be in the angels. With regard to the glory of the body, there can

be desire in the souls of the saints, but not hope, properly

speaking; neither as a theological virtue, for thus its object is

God, and not a created good; nor in its general signification.

Because the object of hope is something difficult, as stated above

(Q. 40, A. 1): while a good whose unerring cause we already possess,

is not compared to us as something difficult. Hence he that has money

is not, properly speaking, said to hope for what he can buy at once.

In like manner those who have the glory of the soul are not, properly

speaking, said to hope for the glory of the body, but only to desire

it.

________________________

Summa Theologica, Part I-II (Pars Prima Secundae) From the Complete American Edition · 第 433 / 746 题