Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/525

 HOOEE

465

HOPE

days before the ecclesiastical court of Mainz to answer to the charges of favouring the Jews and their anti- t'hristian hterature. The latter appealed to Rome; whereupon Leo X authorized the Bishop of Speyer to decide the matter. Meanwhile, Hoogstraten had Reuchlin's '' Augenspiegel", a previously- published re- tort to Pfefferkorn's " Handspiegel", publicly burned at Cologne. On 29 March, 1514, the Bishop of Speyer an- nounced that the " Augenspiegel" contained nothing injurious to the Catholic Faith, pronounced judgment in favour of Reuchlin, and condemned Hoogstraten to pay the expenses consequent upon the process. The latter appealed to Rome, but the pope postponed the trial indefinitely. At the instance of Franz von Sickingen and others, the Dominicans deprived Hoog- straten of the office of prior and inquisitor, but in January, 1520, the pope annulled the decision of the Bishop of Speyer, condemned the "Augenspiegel", and reinstated Hoogstraten.

Although to us living in the twentieth century the attitude of Hoogstraten and his party may be censured as severe, yet when viewed in the light of the medieval spirit we find much that will palliate the views then prevalent. Among the other works of Hoogstraten besides those already mentioned, the following are the more important; (1) "Defensio scholastica principum Aleraanniae in eo, quod sceleratos detinent insepultos in ligno contra P. Ravennatem" (Cologne, 1508); (2) "Justificatorium principum Alemannia;, dissolvens rationes Petri Ravennatis, quibus Principum judicia carpsit" (Cologne, 1508); (li) "Tractatus de cada- veribus maleficorum niorte punitorum" (Cologne, 1508); (4) "Tractatus magistralis, declarans miani eraviter peccent qua-rentes auxilium a maleficis" (Cologne, 1510); (5) "Apologia Fr. Jacobi Hoog- straeten" (Cologne, 1518); (6) "Apologia altera" (Cologne, 1519); (7) " Destructio cabbahe " (Cologne, 1519); (8) "Margarita moralis philosophise in duo- decim redacta Hbros" (Cologne, 1521).

QuETiF AND EcHARD, Script. Ovd. Prttd., II. 67-72; HuRTER, Niirnenclator; Paulus, Die deutschen Dominikancr in Kampfe gegen Luther (1903), 86-106; Reichert, Mon;/mcn^a ord. Prced. historica (Rome. 1900). II, (37; VIII, 432; Cremans, De Jacobi Hoogstraeten vita et scriptis (Bonn, 1S69).

JCSEPH SCHROEDER.

Hooke, Luke Joseph, b. at Dublin in 1716; d. at St. Cloud, Paris, 16 April, 1796, son of Nathaniel Hooke the historian. Owing to the penal laws which forbade the education of Catholics in Ireland, he was sent when young to Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet, Paris, where he remained till he received the licen- tiate. He then entered the Sorbonne and graduated in 1736. In 1742 he was appointed to a chair of theology, and soon earned a high reputation for learning. On 18 November, 1751, he presided at the defence of the famous thesis of de Prades, which con- tained some dangerous errors and aroused violent protestations. Hooke, seeing the full force of the erroneous opinions, confessed that he had not read the thesis, withdrew his signature, and demanded the condemnation of the propositions. De Prades was suspended by the faculty which publicly censured the syndic, the grand-maitre, and Hooke, the three sig- natories. Cardinal de Tencin, visitor of the Sor- bonne, in virtue of a lettre de cachet and of his own authority, deprived Hooke of his chair, 3 May, 1752, and forced him to leave the Sorbonne. In 1754 de Prades was pardoned by Benedict XIV, whereupon Hooke appealed to the cardinal and the papal secre- tary, but obtained only the recall of the lettre de cachet. Louis XV, however, granted him a pension. In 1762 he again presented himself for a chair and was appointed, in preference to a candidate of the archbishop De Beaumont, who refused his sanction and withdrew his students from Hooke's lectures. In consequence Hooke addressed to him his famous letter (1763), pleading for more lenient treatment VII.— 30

in view of the pardon granted to de Prades, and making a profession of faith on the points impugned in the thesis. The Sorbonne upheld him antl ap- pointed him one of the censors who condemned Rousseau's "Emile". But as the archbishop was firm, Hooke resigned his theological professorship and accepted the chair of Hebrew. Some years later he was made curator of the Mazarin lil^rary. He held this position till 1791, when the Directory dismissed him for refusing to take the oath of the civil constitu- tion of the clergy. He then withdrew to Saint-Cloud where he died. His principal work is "Religionis naturalis et revelataj principia" (Paris, 1752), which was edited for the third time and annotated by his friend Dom Brewer, O. S. B. (Paris, 1774), a treatise which is justly regarded as the foundation of the modern science of Christian apologetics. His other writings are " Lettre a Mgr. I'Archeveque de Paris" (Paris, 1763); " Discours et reflexions critiques sur I'histoire et le gouvernement de I'ancienne Rome" (Paris, 1770-84), a translation of his father's history of Rome ; " Memoires du Marechal de Berwick " (Paris, 1778), which he edited with notes; " Principes sur la nature et I'essence du pouvoir de I'l^glise" (Paris, 1791). His "Religionis principia" is contained in Migne's "Cursus Theologian".

Feller. Dictionnairc historique, s. v. : Hurter, Nomenclator; DijUAls in Retuc pratique d'apologctique (July, 1909), p. 501; GiLLOw. Bibl. Diet. Eng. Cath., s. v.

A. A. MacErlean.

Hope, in its widest acceptation, is described as the desire of something together with the expectation of obtaining it. The Scholastics say that it is a move- ment of the appetite towards a future good, which though hard to attain is possible of attainment. Con- sideration of this state of soul is limited in this article to its aspect as a factor in the supernatural order. Looked at in this way it is defined to be a Divine vir- tue by which we confidently expect, with God's help, to reach eternal felicity as well as to have at our dis- posal the means of securing it. It is said to be Divine not merely because its immediate object is God, but also because of the special manner of its origin. Hope, such as we are here contemplating, is an infused virtue; i. e., it is not, like good habits in general, the outcome of repeated acts or the product of our own industry. Like supernatural faith and charity it is directly implanted in the soul by Almighty God. Both in itself and in the scope of its operation it out- strips the limits of the created order, and is to be had if at all only through the direct largess of the Creator. The capacity which it confers is not only the strength- ening of an existing power, but rather the elevation, the transforming of a faculty for the performance of functions essentially outside its natural sphere of activity. All of this is intelligible only on the basis, which we take for granted, that there is such a thing as the supernatural order, and that the only realizable ultimate destiny of man in the present providence of God lies in that order.

Hope is termed a theological virtue because its immediate object is God, as is true of the other two essentially infused virtues, faith and charity. St. Thomas acutely says that the theological virtues are so called "because they have God for their object, both in so far as by them we are properly directed to Him, and because they are infused into our souls by God alone, as also, finally, because we come to know of them only by Divine revelation in the Sacred Scriptures". Theologians enlarge upon this idea by saying that Almighty God is both the material and the formal object of hope. He is the material object be- cause He is that which is chiefly, though not solely, aimed at when we elicit acts of this virtue; i. e., whatever else is looked for is only desired in so far as it bears a relation to Him. Hence according to the generally followed teaching, not only supernatural