Therefore
the whole reward should
be in the soul.
be in the soul.
Summa Theologica
" Now an aureole is
due to virginity, and consequently also to martyrdom.
Further, the crown is due to one who has striven. But in martyrdom the
strife presents a special difficulty. Therefore a special aureole is
due thereto.
I answer that, Just as in the spirit there is a conflict with the
internal concupiscences, so is there in man a conflict with the passion
that is inflicted from without. Wherefore, just as a special crown,
which we call an aureole, is due to the most perfect victory whereby we
triumph over the concupiscences of the flesh, in a word to virginity,
so too an aureole is due to the most perfect victory that is won
against external assaults. Now the most perfect victory over passion
caused from without is considered from two points of view. First from
the greatness of the passion. Now among all passions inflicted from
without, death holds the first place, just as sexual concupiscences are
chief among internal passions. Consequently, when a man conquers death
and things directed to death, his is a most perfect victory. Secondly,
the perfection of victory is considered from the point of view of the
motive of conflict, when, to wit, a man strives for the most honorable
cause; which is Christ Himself. Both these things are to be found in
martyrdom, which is death suffered for Christ's sake: for "it is not
the pain but the cause that makes the martyr," as Augustine says
(Contra Crescon. iii). Consequently an aureole is due to martyrdom as
well as to virginity.
Reply to Objection 1: To suffer death for Christ's sake, is absolutely
speaking, a work of supererogation; since every one is not bound to
confess his faith in the face of a persecutor: yet in certain cases it
is necessary for salvation, when, to wit, a person is seized by a
persecutor and interrogated as to his faith which he is then bound to
confess. Nor does it follow that he does not merit an aureole. For an
aureole is due to a work of supererogation, not as such, but as having
a certain perfection. Wherefore so long as this perfection remains,
even though the supererogation cease, one merits the aureole.
Reply to Objection 2: A reward is due to martyrdom, not in respect of
the exterior infliction, but because it is suffered voluntarily: since
we merit only through that which is in us. And the more that which one
suffers voluntarily is difficult and naturally repugnant to the will
the more is the will that suffers it for Christ's sake shown to be
firmly established in Christ, and consequently a higher reward is due
to him.
Reply to Objection 3: There are certain acts which, in their very
selves, contain intense pleasure or difficulty: and in such the act
always adds to the character of merit or demerit, for as much as in the
performance of the act the will, on account of the aforesaid intensity,
must needs undergo an alteration from the state in which it was before.
Consequently, other things being equal, one who performs an act of lust
sins more than one who merely consents in the act, because in the very
act the will is increased. In like manner since in the act of suffering
martyrdom there is a very great difficulty, the will to suffer
martyrdom does not reach the degree of merit due to actual martyrdom by
reason of its difficulty: although, indeed it may possibly attain to a
higher reward, if we consider the root of merit since the will of one
man to suffer martyrdom may possibly proceed from a greater charity
than another man's act of martyrdom. Hence one who is willing to be a
martyr may by his will merit an essential reward equal to or greater
than that which is due to an actual martyr. But the aureole is due to
the difficulty inherent to the conflict itself of martyrdom: wherefore
it is not due to those who are martyrs only in will.
Reply to Objection 4: Just as pleasures of touch, which are the matter
of temperance, hold the chief place among all pleasures both internal
and external, so pains of touch surpass all other pains. Consequently
an aureole is due to the difficulty of suffering pains of touch, for
instance, from blows and so forth, rather than to the difficulty of
bearing internal sufferings, by reason of which, however, one is not
properly called a martyr, except by a kind of comparison. It is in this
sense that Jerome speaks.
Reply to Objection 5: The sufferings of penance are not a martyrdom
properly speaking, because they do not consist in things directed to
the causing of death, since they are directed merely to the taming of
the flesh: and if any one go beyond this measure, such afflictions will
be deserving of blame. However such afflictions are spoken of as a
martyrdom by a kind of comparison. and they surpass the sufferings of
martyrdom in duration but not in intensity.
Reply to Objection 6: According to Augustine (De Civ. Dei i) it is
lawful to no one to lay hands on himself for any reason whatever;
unless perchance it be done by Divine instinct as an example of
fortitude that others may despise death. Those to whom the objection
refers are believed to have brought death on themselves by Divine
instinct, and for this reason the Church celebrates their martyrdom
[*Cf. [5148]SS, Q[64], A[5]].
Reply to Objection 7: If any one receive a mortal wound for the faith
and survive, without doubt he merits the aureole: as instanced in
blessed Cecilia who survived for three days, and many martyrs who died
in prison. But, even if the wound he receives be not mortal, yet be the
occasion of his dying, he is believed to merit the aureole: although
some say that he does not merit the aureole if he happen to die through
his own carelessness or neglect. For this neglect would not have
occasioned his death, except on the supposition of the wound which he
received for the faith: and consequently this wound previously received
for the faith is the original occasion of his death, so that he would
not seem to lose. the aureole for that reason, unless his neglect were
such as to involve a mortal sin, which would deprive him of both aurea
and aureole. If, however, by some chance or other he were not to die of
the mortal wound received, or again if the wounds received were not
mortal, and he were to die while in prison, he would still merit the
aureole. Hence the martyrdom of some saints is celebrated in the Church
for that they died in prison, having been wounded long before, as in
the case of Pope Marcellus. Accordingly in whatever way suffering for
Christ's sake be continued unto death, whether death ensue or not, a
man becomes a martyr and merits the aureole. If, however, it be not
continued unto death, this is not a reason for calling a person a
martyr, as in the case of the blessed Sylvester, whose feast the Church
does not solemnize as a martyr's, since he ended his days in peace,
although previously he had undergone certain sufferings.
Reply to Objection 8: Even as temperance is not about pleasures of
money, honors, and the like, but only about pleasures of touch as being
the principal of all, so fortitude is about dangers of death as being
the greatest of all (Ethic. iii, 6). Consequently the aureole is due to
such injuries only as are inflicted on a person's own body and are of a
nature to cause death. Accordingly whether a person lose his
temporalities, or his good name, or anything else of the kind, for
Christ's sake, he does not for that reason become a martyr, nor merit
the aureole. Nor is it possible to love ordinately external things more
than one's body; and inordinate love does not help one to merit an
aureole: nor again can sorrow for the loss of corporeal things be equal
to the sorrow for the slaying of the body and other like things [*Cf.
[5149]SS, Q[124], A[5]].
Reply to Objection 9: The sufficient motive for martyrdom is not only
confession of the faith, but any other virtue, not civic but infused,
that has Christ for its end. For one becomes a witness of Christ by any
virtuous act, inasmuch as the works which Christ perfects in us bear
witness to His goodness. Hence some virgins were slain for virginity
which they desired to keep, for instance blessed Agnes and others whose
martyrdom is celebrated by the Church.
Reply to Objection 10: The truth of faith has Christ for end and
object; and therefore the confession thereof, if suffering be added
thereto, merits an aureole, not only on the part of the end but also on
the part of the matter. But the confession of any other truth is not a
sufficient motive for martyrdom by reason of its matter, but only on
the part of the end; for instance if a person were willing to be slain
for Christ's sake rather than sin against Him by telling any lie
whatever.
Reply to Objection 11: The uncreated good surpasses all created good.
Hence any created end, whether it be the common or a private good,
cannot confer so great a goodness on an act as can the uncreated end,
when, to wit, an act is done for God's sake. Hence when a person dies
for the common good without referring it to Christ, he will not merit
the aureole; but if he refer it to Christ he will merit the aureole and
he will be a martyr; for instance, if he defend his country from the
attack of an enemy who designs to corrupt the faith of Christ, and
suffer death in that defense.
Reply to Objection 12: Some say that the use of reason was by the
Divine power accelerated in the Innocents slain for Christ's sake, even
as in John the Baptist while yet in his mother's womb: and in that case
they were truly martyrs in both act and will, and have the aureole.
others say, however, that they were martyrs in act only and not in
will: and this seems to be the opinion of Bernard, who distinguishes
three kinds of martyrs, as stated above (OBJ 3). In this case the
Innocents, even as they do not fulfill all the conditions of martyrdom,
and yet are martyrs in a sense, in that they died for Christ, so too
they have the aureole, not in all its perfection, but by a kind of
participation, in so far as they rejoice in having. been slain in
Christ's service; thus it was stated above [5150](A[5]) in reference to
baptized children, that they will have a certain joy in their innocence
and carnal integrity [*Cf. [5151]SS, Q[124], A[1], ad 1, where St.
Thomas declares that the Holy Innocents were truly martyrs. ]
__________________________________________________________________
Whether an aureole is due to doctors?
Objection 1: It would seem that an aureole is not due to doctors. For
every reward to be had in the life to come will correspond to some act
of virtue. But preaching or teaching is not the act of a virtue.
Therefore an aureole is not due to teaching or preaching.
Objection 2: Further, teaching and preaching are the result of studying
and being taught. Now the things that are rewarded in the future life
are not acquired by a man's study, since we merit not by our natural
and acquired gifts. Therefore no aureole will be merited in the future
life for teaching and preaching.
Objection 3: Further, exaltation in the life to come corresponds to
humiliation in the present life, because "he that humbleth himself
shall be exalted" (Mat. 23:12). But there is no humiliation in teaching
and preaching, in fact they are occasions of pride; for a gloss on Mat.
4:5, "Then the devil took Him up," says that "the devil deceives many
who are puffed up with the honor of the master's chair. " Therefore it
would seem that an aureole is not due to preaching and teaching.
On the contrary, A gloss on Eph. 1:18,19, "That you may know . . . what
is the exceeding greatness," etc. says: "The holy doctors will have an
increase of glory above that which all have in common. " Therefore, etc.
Further, a gloss on Canticle of Canticles 8:12, "My vineyard is before
me," says: "He describes the peculiar reward which He has prepared for
His doctors. " Therefore doctors will have a peculiar reward: and we
call this an aureole.
I answer that, Just as by virginity and martyrdom a person wins a most
perfect victory over the flesh and the world, so is a most perfect
victory gained over the devil, when a person not only refuses to yield
to the devil's assaults, but also drives him out, not from himself
alone, but from others also. Now this is done by preaching and
teaching: wherefore an aureole is due to preaching and teaching, even
as to virginity and martyrdom. Nor can we admit, as some affirm, that
it is due to prelates only, who are competent to preach and teach by
virtue of their office. but it is due to all whosoever exercise this
act lawfully. Nor is it due to prelates, although they have the office
of preaching, unless they actually preach, since a crown is due not to
the habit, but to the actual strife, according to 2 Tim. 2:5, "He . . .
shall not be [Vulg. : 'is not'] crowned, except he strive lawfully. "
Reply to Objection 1: Preaching and teaching are acts of a virtue,
namely mercy, wherefore they are reckoned among the spiritual alms
deeds [*Cf. [5152]SS, Q[32], A[2]].
Reply to Objection 2: Although ability to preach and teach is sometimes
the outcome of study, the practice of teaching comes from the will,
which is informed with charity infused by God: and thus its act can be
meritorious.
Reply to Objection 3: Exaltation in this life does not lessen the
reward of the other life, except for him who seeks his own glory from
that exaltation: whereas he who turns that exaltation to the profit of
others acquires thereby a reward for himself. Still, when it is stated
that an aureole is due to teaching, this is to be understood of the
teaching of things pertaining to salvation, by which teaching the devil
is expelled from men's hearts, as by a kind of spiritual weapon, of
which it is said (2 Cor. 10:4): "The weapons of our warfare are not
carnal but spiritual" [Vulg. : 'but mighty to God'].
__________________________________________________________________
Whether an aureole is due to Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that an aureole is due to Christ. For an
aureole is due to virginity, martyrdom, and teaching. Now these three
were pre-eminently in Christ. Therefore an aureole is especially due to
Him.
Objection 2: Further, whatever is most perfect in human things must ne
especially ascribed to Christ. Now an aureole is due as the reward of
most excellent merits. Therefore it is also due to Christ.
Objection 3: Further, Cyprian says (De Habit. Virg. ) that "virginity
bears a likeness to God. " Therefore the exemplar of virginity is in
God. Therefore it would seem that an aureole is due to Christ even as
God.
On the contrary, An aureole is described as "joy in being conformed to
Christ. " Now no one is conformed or likened to himself, as the
Philosopher says (Metaph. , lib. ix, 3). Therefore an aureole is not due
to Christ.
Further, Christ's reward was never increased. Now Christ had no aureole
from the moment of His conception, since then He had never fought.
Therefore He never had an aureole afterwards.
I answer that, There are two opinions on this point. For some say that
Christ has an aureole in its strict sense, seeing that in Him there is
both conflict and victory, and consequently a crown in its proper
acceptation. But if we consider the question carefully, although the
notion of aurea or crown is becoming to Christ, the notion of aureole
is not. For from the very fact that aureole is a diminutive term it
follows that it denotes something possessed by participation and not in
its fulness. Wherefore an aureole is becoming to those who participate
in the perfect victory by imitating Him in Whom the fulness of perfect
victory is realized. And therefore, since in Christ the notion of
victory is found chiefly and fully, for by His victory others are made
victors---as shown by the words of Jn. 16:33, "Have confidence, I have
overcome the world," and Apoc. 5:5, "Behold the lion of the tribe of
Juda . . . hath prevailed"---it is not becoming for Christ to have an
aureole, but to have something from which all aureoles are derived.
Hence it is written (Apoc. 3:21): "To him that shall overcome, I will
give to sit with Me in My throne, as I also have overcome, and am set
down in My Father's throne [Vulg. : 'With My Father in His throne']. "
Therefore we must say with others that although there is nothing of the
nature of an aureole in Christ, there is nevertheless something more
excellent than any aureole.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ was most truly virgin, martyr, and doctor;
yet the corresponding accidental reward in Christ is a negligible
quantity in comparison with the greatness of His essential reward.
Hence He has not an aureole in its proper sense.
Reply to Objection 2: Although the aureole is due to a most perfect
work, yet with regard to us, so far as it is a diminutive term, it
denotes the participation of a perfection derived from one in whom that
perfection is found in its fulness. Accordingly it implies a certain
inferiority, and thus it is not found in Christ in Whom is the fulness
of every perfection.
Reply to Objection 3: Although in some way virginity has its exemplar
in God, that exemplar is not homogeneous. For the incorruption of God,
which virginity imitates is not in God in the same way as in a virgin.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether an aureole is due to the angels?
Objection 1: It would seem that an aureole is due to the angels. For
Jerome (Serm. de Assump. [*Ep. ad Paul. et Eustoch. ix]) speaking of
virginity says: "To live without the flesh while living in the flesh is
to live as an angel rather than as a man": and a gloss on 1 Cor. 7:26,
"For the present necessity," says that "virginity is the portion of the
angels. " Since then an aureole corresponds to virginity, it would seem
due to the angels.
Objection 2: Further, incorruption of the spirit is more excellent than
incorruption of the flesh. Now there is incorruption of spirit in the
angels, since they never sinned. Therefore an aureole is due to them
rather than to men incorrupt in the flesh and who have sinned at some
time.
Objection 3: Further, an aureole is due to teaching. Now angels teach
us by cleansing, enlightening, and perfecting [*Cf. [5153]FP, Q[111],
A[1]] us, as Dionysius says (Hier. Eccles. vi). Therefore at least the
aureole of doctors is due to them.
On the contrary, It is written (2 Tim. 2:5): "He . . . shall not be
[Vulg. : 'is not'] crowned, except he strive lawfully. " But there is no
conflict in the angels. Therefore an aureole is not due to them.
Further, an aureole is not due to an act that is not performed through
the body: wherefore it is not due to lovers of virginity, martyrdom or
teaching, if they do not practice them outwardly. But angels are
incorporeal spirits. Therefore they have no aureole.
I answer that, An aureole is not due to the angels. The reason of this
is that an aureole, properly speaking, corresponds to some perfection
of surpassing merit. Now those things which make for perfect merit in
man are connatural to angels, or belong to their state in general, or
to their essential reward. Wherefore the angels have not an aureole in
the same sense as an aureole is due to men.
Reply to Objection 1: Virginity is said to be an angelic life, in so
far as virgins imitate by grace what angels have by nature. For it is
not owing to a virtue that angels abstain altogether from pleasures of
the flesh, since they are incapable of such pleasures.
Reply to Objection 2: Perpetual incorruption of the spirit in the
angels merits their essential reward: because it is necessary for their
salvation, since in them recovery is impossible after they have fallen
[*Cf. [5154]FP, Q[64], A[2]].
Reply to Objection 3: The acts whereby the angels teach us belong to
their glory and their common state: wherefore they do not merit an
aureole thereby.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether an aureole is also due to the body?
Objection 1: It would seem that an aureole is also due to the body. For
the essential reward is greater than the accidental. But the dowries
which belong to the essential reward are not only in the soul but also
in the body. Therefore there is also an aureole which pertains to the
accidental reward.
Objection 2: Further, punishment in soul and body corresponds to sin
committed through the body. Therefore a reward both in soul and in body
is due to merit gained through the body. But the aureole is merited
through works of the body. Therefore an aureole is also due to the
body.
Objection 3: Further, a certain fulness of virtue will shine forth in
the bodies of martyrs, and will be seen in their bodily scars:
wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii): "We feel an undescribable
love for the blessed martyrs so as to desire to see in that kingdom the
scars of the wounds in their bodies, which they bore for Christ's name.
Perchance indeed we shall see them, for this will not make them less
comely, but more glorious. A certain beauty will shine in them, a
beauty, though in the body, yet not of the body but of virtue. "
Therefore it would seem that the martyr's aureole is also in his body;
and in like manner the aureoles of others.
On the contrary, The souls now in heaven have aureoles; and yet they
have no body. Therefore the proper subject of an aureole is the soul
and not the body.
Further, all merit is from the soul.
Therefore the whole reward should
be in the soul.
I answer that, Properly speaking the aureole is in the mind: since it
is joy in the works to which an aureole is due. But even as from the
joy in the essential reward, which is the aurea, there results a
certain comeliness in the body, which is the glory of the body, so from
the joy in the aureole there results a certain bodily comeliness: so
that the aureole is chiefly in the mind, but by a kind of overflow it
shines forth in the body.
This suffices for the Replies to the Objections. It must be observed,
however, that the beauty of the scars which will appear in the bodies
of the martyrs cannot be called an aureole, since some of the martyrs
will have an aureole in which such scars will not appear, for instance
those who were put to death by drowning, starvation, or the squalor of
prison.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether three aureoles are fittingly assigned, those of virgins, of martyrs,
and of doctors?
Objection 1: It would seem that the three aureoles of virgins, martyrs,
and doctors are unfittingly assigned. For the aureole of martyrs
corresponds to their virtue of fortitude, the aureole of virgins to the
virtue of temperance, and the aureole of doctors to the virtue of
prudence. Therefore it seems that there should be a fourth aureole
corresponding to the virtue of justice.
Objection 2: Further, a gloss on Ex. 25:25: "A polished crown, etc.
says that a golden [aurea] crown is added, when the Gospel promises
eternal life to those who keep the commandments: 'If thou wilt enter
into life, keep the commandments' (Mat. 19:17). To this is added the
little golden crown [aureola] when it is said: 'If thou wilt be
perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor'" (Mat.
19:21). Therefore an aureole is due to poverty.
Objection 3: Further, a man subjects himself wholly to God by the vow
of obedience: wherefore the greatest perfection consists in the vow of
obedience. Therefore it would seem that an aureole is due thereto.
Objection 4: Further, there are also many other works of supererogation
in which one will rejoice in the life to come. Therefore there are many
aureoles besides the aforesaid three.
Objection 5: Further, just as a man spreads the faith by preaching and
teaching, so does he by publishing written works. Therefore a fourth
aureole is due to those who do this.
I answer that, An aureole is an exceptional reward corresponding to an
exceptional victory: wherefore the three aureoles are assigned in
accordance with the exceptional victories in the three conflicts which
beset every man. For in the conflict with the flesh, he above all wins
the victory who abstains altogether from sexual pleasures which are the
chief of this kind; and such is a virgin. Wherefore an aureole is due
to virginity. In the conflict with the world, the chief victory is to
suffer the world's persecution even until death: wherefore the second
aureole is due to martyrs who win the victory in this battle. In the
conflict with the devil, the chief victory is to expel the enemy not
only from oneself but also from the hearts of others: this is done by
teaching and preaching, and consequently the third aureole is due to
doctors and preachers.
Some, however, distinguish the three aureoles in accordance with the
three powers of the soul, by saying that the three aureoles correspond
to the three chief acts of the soul's three highest powers. For the act
of the rational power is to publish the truth of faith even to others,
and to this act the aureole of doctors is due: the highest act of the
irascible power is to overcome even death for Christ's sake, and to
this act the aureole of martyrs is due: and the highest act of the
concupiscible power is to abstain altogether from the greatest carnal
pleasures, and to this act the aureole of virgins is due.
Others again, distinguish the three aureoles in accordance with those
things whereby we are most signally conformed to Christ. For He was the
mediator between the Father and the world. Hence He was a doctor, by
manifesting to the world the truth which He had received from the
Father; He was a martyr, by suffering the persecution of the world; and
He was a virgin, by His personal purity. Wherefore doctors, martyrs and
virgins are most perfectly conformed to Him: and for this reason an
aureole is due to them.
Reply to Objection 1: There is no conflict to be observed in the act of
justice as in the acts of the other virtues. Nor is it true that to
teach is an act of prudence: in fact rather is it an act of charity or
mercy---inasmuch as it is by such like habits that we are inclined to
the practice of such an act---or again of wisdom, as directing it.
We may also reply, with others, that justice embraces all the virtues,
wherefore a special aureole is not due to it.
Reply to Objection 2: Although poverty is a work of perfection, it does
not take the highest place in a spiritual conflict, because the love of
temporalities assails a man less than carnal concupiscence or
persecution whereby his own body is broken. Hence an aureole is not due
to poverty; but judicial power by reason of the humiliation consequent
upon poverty. The gloss quoted takes aureole in the broad sense for any
reward given for excellent merit.
We reply in the same way to the Third and Fourth Objections.
Reply to Objection 5: An aureole is due to those who commit the sacred
doctrine to writing: but it is not distinct from the aureole of
doctors, since the compiling of writing is a way of teaching.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the virgin's aureole is the greatest of all?
Objection 1: It would seem that the virgin's aureole is the greatest of
all. For it is said of virgins (Apoc. 14:4) that they "follow the Lamb
whithersoever He goeth," and (Apoc. 14:3) that "no" other "man could
say the canticle" which the virgins sang. Therefore virgins have the
most excellent aureole.
Objection 2: Further, Cyprian (De Habit. Virg. ) says of virgins that
they are "the more illustrious portion of Christ's flock. " Therefore
the greater aureole is due to them.
Objection 3: Again, it would seem that the martyr's aureole is the
greatest. For Aymo, commenting on Apoc. 14:3, "No man could say the
hymn," says that "virgins do not all take precedence of married folk;
but only those who in addition to the observance of virginity are by
the tortures of their passion on a par with married persons who have
suffered martyrdom. " Therefore martyrdom gives virginity its precedence
over other states: and consequently a greater aureole is due to
virginity.
Objection 4: Again, it would seem that the greatest aureole is due to
doctors. Because the Church militant is modelled after the Church
triumphant. Now in the Church militant the greatest honor is due to
doctors (1 Tim. 5:17): "Let the priests that rule well be esteemed
worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and
doctrine. " Therefore a greater aureole is due to them in the Church
triumphant.
I answer that, Precedence of one aureole over another may be considered
from two standpoints. First, from the point of view of the conflicts,
that aureole being considered greater which is due to the more
strenuous battle. Looking at it thus the martyr's aureole takes
precedence of the others in one way, and the virgin's in another. For
the martyr's battle is more strenuous in itself, and more intensely
painful; while the conflict with the flesh is fraught with greater
danger, inasmuch as it is more lasting and threatens us at closer
quarters. Secondly, from the point of view of the things about which
the battle is fought: and thus the doctor's aureole takes precedence of
all others, since this conflict is about intelligible goods. while the
other conflicts are about sensible passions. Nevertheless, the
precedence that is considered in view of the conflict is more essential
to the aureole; since the aureole, according to its proper character,
regards the victory and the battle, and the difficulty of fighting
which is viewed from the standpoint of the battle is of greater
importance than that which is considered from our standpoint through
the conflict being at closer quarters. Therefore the martyr's aureole
is simply the greatest of all: for which reason a gloss on Mat. 5:10,
says that "all the other beatitudes are perfected in the eighth, which
refers to the martyrs," namely, "Blessed are they that suffer
persecution. " For this reason, too, the Church in enumerating the
saints together places the martyrs before the doctors and virgins. Yet
nothing hinders the other aureoles from being more excellent in some
particular way. And this suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether one person has an aureole more excellently than another person?
Objection 1: It would seem that one person has not the aureole either
of virginity, or of martyrdom, or of doctrine more perfectly than
another person. For things which have reached their term are not
subject to intension or remission. Now the aureole is due to works
which have reached their term of perfection. Therefore an aureole is
not subject to intension or remission.
Objection 2: Further, virginity is not subject to being more or less,
since it denotes a kind of privation; and privations are not subject to
intension or remission. Therefore neither does the reward of virginity,
the virgin's aureole to wit, receive intension or remission.
On the contrary, The aureole is added to the aurea. But the aurea is
more intense in one than in another. Therefore the aureole is also.
I answer that, Since merit is somewhat the cause of reward, rewards
must needs be diversified, according as merits are diversified: for the
intension or remission of a thing follows from the intension or
remission of its cause. Now the merit of the aureole may be greater or
lesser: wherefore the aureole may also be greater or lesser.
We must observe, however, that the merit of an aureole may be
intensified in two ways: first, on the part of its cause, secondly on
the part of the work. For there may happen to be two persons, one of
whom, out of lesser charity, suffers greater torments of martyrdom, or
is more constant in preaching, or again withdraws himself more from
carnal pleasures. Accordingly, intension not of the aureole but of the
aurea corresponds to the intension of merit derived from its root;
while intension of the aureole corresponds to intension of merit
derived from the kind of act. Consequently it is possible for one who
merits less in martyrdom as to his essential reward, to receive a
greater aureole for his martyrdom.
Reply to Objection 1: The merits to which an aureole is due do not
reach the term of their perfection simply, but according to their
species: even as fire is specifically the most subtle of bodies. Hence
nothing hinders one aureole being more excellent than another, even as
one fire is more subtle than another.
Reply to Objection 2: The virginity of one may be greater than the
virginity of another, by reason of a greater withdrawal from that which
is contrary to virginity: so that virginity is stated to be greater in
one who avoids more the occasions of corruption. For in this way
privations may increase, as when a man is said to be more blind, if he
be removed further from the possession of sight.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE PUNISHMENT OF THE DAMNED (SEVEN ARTICLES)
In due sequence we must consider those things that concern the damned
after the judgment: (1) The punishment of the damned, and the fire by
which their bodies will be tormented; (2) matters relating to their
will and intellect; (3) God's justice and mercy in regard to the
damned.
Under the first head there are seven points of inquiry:
(1) Whether in hell the damned are tormented with the sole punishment
of fire?
(2) Whether the worm by which they are tormented is corporeal?
(3) Whether their weeping is corporeal?
(4) Whether their darkness is material?
(5) Whether the fire whereby they are tormented is corporeal?
(6) Whether it is of the same species as our fire?
(7) Whether this fire is beneath the earth?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in hell the damned are tormented by the sole punishment of fire?
Objection 1: It would seem that in hell the damned are tormented by the
sole punishment of fire; because Mat. 25:41, where their condemnation
is declared, mention is made of fire only, in the words: "Depart from
Me, you cursed, into everlasting fire. "
Objection 2: Further, even as the punishment of purgatory is due to
venial sin, so is the punishment of hell due to mortal sin. Now no
other punishment but that of fire is stated to be in purgatory, as
appears from the words of 1 Cor. 3:13: "The fire shall try every man's
work, of what sort it is. " Therefore neither in hell will there be a
punishment other than of fire.
Objection 3: Further, variety of punishment affords a respite, as when
one passes from heat to cold. But we can admit no respite in the
damned. Therefore there will not be various punishments, but that of
fire alone.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 10:7): "Fire and brimstone and
storms of winds shall be the portion of their cup. "
Further, it is written (Job 24:19): "Let him pass from the snow waters
to excessive heat. "
I answer that, According to Basil (Homilia vi in Hexaemeron and Hom. i
in Ps. 38), at the final cleansing of the world, there will be a
separation of the elements, whatever is pure and noble remaining above
for the glory of the blessed, and whatever is ignoble and sordid being
cast down for the punishment of the damned: so that just as every
creature will be to the blessed a matter of joy, so will all the
elements conduce to the torture of the damned, according to Wis. 5:21,
"the whole world will fight with Him against the unwise. " This is also
becoming to Divine justice, that whereas they departed from one by sin,
and placed their end in material things which are many and various, so
should they be tormented in many ways and from many sources.
Reply to Objection 2: It is because fire is most painful, through its
abundance of active force, that the name of fire is given to any
torment if it be intense.
Reply to Objection 2: The punishment of purgatory is not intended
chiefly to torment but to cleanse: wherefore it should be inflicted by
fire alone which is above all possessed of cleansing power. But the
punishment of the damned is not directed to their cleansing.
Consequently the comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 3: The damned will pass from the most intense heat
to the most intense cold without this giving them any respite: because
they will suffer from external agencies, not by the transmutation of
their body from its original natural disposition, and the contrary
passion affording a respite by restoring an equable or moderate
temperature, as happens now, but by a spiritual action, in the same way
as sensible objects act on the senses being perceived by impressing the
organ with their forms according to their spiritual and not their
material being.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the worm of the damned is corporeal?
Objection 1: It would seem that the worm by which the damned are
tormented is corporeal. Because flesh cannot be tormented by a
spiritual worm. Now the flesh of the damned will be tormented by a
worm: "He will give fire and worms into their flesh" (Judith 16:21),
and: "The vengeance on the flesh of the ungodly is fire and worms"
(Ecclus. 7:19). Therefore that worm will be corporeal.
Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 9): . . . "Both,
namely fire and worm, will be the punishment of the body. " Therefore,
etc.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xx, 22): "The unquenchable
fire and the restless worm in the punishment of the damned are
explained in various ways by different persons. Some refer both to the
body, some, both to the soul: others refer the fire, in the literal
sense, to the body, the worm to the soul metaphorically: and this seems
the more probable. "
I answer that, After the day of judgment, no animal or mixed body will
remain in the renewed world except only the body of man, because the
former are not directed to incorruption [*Cf. [5155] Q[91], A[5]], nor
after that time will there be generation or corruption. Consequently
the worm ascribed to the damned must be understood to be not of a
corporeal but of a spiritual nature: and this is the remorse of
conscience, which is called a worm because it originates from the
corruption of sin, and torments the soul, as a corporeal worm born of
corruption torments by gnawing.
Reply to Objection 1: The very souls of the damned are called their
flesh for as much as they were subject to the flesh. Or we may reply
that the flesh will be tormented by the spiritual worm, according as
the afflictions of the soul overflow into the body, both here and
hereafter.
Reply to Objection 2: Augustine speaks by way of comparison. For he
does not wish to assert absolutely that this worm is material, but that
it is better to say that both are to be understood materially, than
that both should be understood only in a spiritual sense: for then the
damned would suffer no bodily pain. This is clear to anyone that
examines the context of his words in this passage.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the weeping of the damned will be corporeal?
Objection 1: It would seem that the weeping of the damned will be
corporeal. For a gloss on Lk. 13:28, "There will be weeping," says that
"the weeping with which our Lord threatens the wicked is a proof of the
resurrection of the body. " But this would not be the case if that
weeping were merely spiritual. Therefore, etc.
Objection 2: Further, the pain of the punishment corresponds to the
pleasure of the sin, according to Apoc. 18:7: "As much as she hath
glorified herself and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow
give ye to her. " Now sinners had internal and external pleasure in
their sin. Therefore they will also have external weeping.
On the contrary, Corporeal weeping results from dissolving into tears.
Now there cannot be a continual dissolution from the bodies of the
damned, since nothing is restored to them by food; for everything
finite is consumed if something be continually taken from it. Therefore
the weeping of the damned will not be corporeal.
I answer that, Two things are to be observed in corporeal weeping. One
is the resolution of tears: and as to this corporeal weeping cannot be
in the damned, since after the day of judgment, the movement of the
first movable being being at an end, there will be neither generation,
nor corruption, nor bodily alteration: and in the resolution of tears
that humor needs to be generated which is shed forth in the shape of
tears. Wherefore in this respect it will be impossible for corporeal
weeping to be in the damned. The other thing to be observed in
corporeal weeping is a certain commotion and disturbance of the head
and eyes, and in this respect weeping will be possible in the damned
after the resurrection: for the bodies of the damned will be tormented
not only from without, but also from within, according as the body is
affected at the instance of the soul's passion towards good or evil. In
this sense weeping is a proof of the body's resurrection, and
corresponds to the pleasure of sin, experienced by both soul and body.
This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the damned are in material darkness?
Objection 1: It would seem that the damned are not in material
darkness. For commenting on Job 10:22, "But everlasting horror
dwelleth," Gregory says (Moral. ix): "Although that fire will give no
light for comfort, yet, that it may torment the more it does give light
for a purpose, for by the light of its flame the wicked will see their
followers whom they have drawn thither from the world. " Therefore the
darkness there is not material.
Objection 2: Further, the damned see their own punishment, for this
increases their punishment. But nothing is seen without light.
Therefore there is no material darkness there.
Objection 3: Further, there the damned will have the power of sight
after being reunited to their bodies. But this power would be useless
to them unless they see something. Therefore, since nothing is seen
unless it be in the light, it would seem that they are not in absolute
darkness.
On the contrary, It is written (Mat. 22:13): "Bind his hands and his
feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness. " Commenting on these
words Gregory says (Moral. ix): If this fire gave any light, "he would
by no means be described as cast into exterior darkness. "
Further, Basil says (Hom. i in Ps. 28:7, "The voice of the Lord
divideth the flame of fire") that "by God's might the brightness of the
fire will be separated from its power of burning, so that its
brightness will conduce to the joy of the blessed, and the heat of the
flame to the torment of the damned. " Therefore the damned will be in
material darkness.
Other points relating to the punishment of the damned have been decided
above ([5156]Q[86]).
I answer that, The disposition of hell will be such as to be adapted to
the utmost unhappiness of the damned. Wherefore accordingly both light
and darkness are there, in so far as they are most conducive to the
unhappiness of the damned. Now seeing is in itself pleasant for, as
stated in Metaph. i, "the sense of sight is most esteemed, because
thereby many things are known. "
Yet it happens accidentally that seeing is painful, when we see things
that are hurtful to us, or displeasing to our will. Consequently in
hell the place must be so disposed for seeing as regards light and
darkness, that nothing be seen clearly, and that only such things be
dimly seen as are able to bring anguish to the heart. Wherefore, simply
speaking, the place is dark. Yet by Divine disposition, there is a
certain amount of light, as much as suffices for seeing those things
which are capable of tormenting the soul. The natural situation of the
place is enough for this, since in the centre of the earth, where hell
is said to be, fire cannot be otherwise than thick and cloudy, and
reeky as it were.
Some hold that this darkness is caused by the massing together of the
bodies of the damned, which will so fill the place of hell with their
numbers, that no air will remain, so that there will be no translucid
body that can be the subject of light and darkness, except the eyes of
the damned, which will be darkened utterly.
This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the fire of hell will be corporeal?
Objection 1: It would seem that the fire of hell whereby the bodies of
the damned will be tormented will not be corporeal. For Damascene says
(De Fide Orth. iv): The devil, and "demons, and his men" [*Cf. 2 Thess.
due to virginity, and consequently also to martyrdom.
Further, the crown is due to one who has striven. But in martyrdom the
strife presents a special difficulty. Therefore a special aureole is
due thereto.
I answer that, Just as in the spirit there is a conflict with the
internal concupiscences, so is there in man a conflict with the passion
that is inflicted from without. Wherefore, just as a special crown,
which we call an aureole, is due to the most perfect victory whereby we
triumph over the concupiscences of the flesh, in a word to virginity,
so too an aureole is due to the most perfect victory that is won
against external assaults. Now the most perfect victory over passion
caused from without is considered from two points of view. First from
the greatness of the passion. Now among all passions inflicted from
without, death holds the first place, just as sexual concupiscences are
chief among internal passions. Consequently, when a man conquers death
and things directed to death, his is a most perfect victory. Secondly,
the perfection of victory is considered from the point of view of the
motive of conflict, when, to wit, a man strives for the most honorable
cause; which is Christ Himself. Both these things are to be found in
martyrdom, which is death suffered for Christ's sake: for "it is not
the pain but the cause that makes the martyr," as Augustine says
(Contra Crescon. iii). Consequently an aureole is due to martyrdom as
well as to virginity.
Reply to Objection 1: To suffer death for Christ's sake, is absolutely
speaking, a work of supererogation; since every one is not bound to
confess his faith in the face of a persecutor: yet in certain cases it
is necessary for salvation, when, to wit, a person is seized by a
persecutor and interrogated as to his faith which he is then bound to
confess. Nor does it follow that he does not merit an aureole. For an
aureole is due to a work of supererogation, not as such, but as having
a certain perfection. Wherefore so long as this perfection remains,
even though the supererogation cease, one merits the aureole.
Reply to Objection 2: A reward is due to martyrdom, not in respect of
the exterior infliction, but because it is suffered voluntarily: since
we merit only through that which is in us. And the more that which one
suffers voluntarily is difficult and naturally repugnant to the will
the more is the will that suffers it for Christ's sake shown to be
firmly established in Christ, and consequently a higher reward is due
to him.
Reply to Objection 3: There are certain acts which, in their very
selves, contain intense pleasure or difficulty: and in such the act
always adds to the character of merit or demerit, for as much as in the
performance of the act the will, on account of the aforesaid intensity,
must needs undergo an alteration from the state in which it was before.
Consequently, other things being equal, one who performs an act of lust
sins more than one who merely consents in the act, because in the very
act the will is increased. In like manner since in the act of suffering
martyrdom there is a very great difficulty, the will to suffer
martyrdom does not reach the degree of merit due to actual martyrdom by
reason of its difficulty: although, indeed it may possibly attain to a
higher reward, if we consider the root of merit since the will of one
man to suffer martyrdom may possibly proceed from a greater charity
than another man's act of martyrdom. Hence one who is willing to be a
martyr may by his will merit an essential reward equal to or greater
than that which is due to an actual martyr. But the aureole is due to
the difficulty inherent to the conflict itself of martyrdom: wherefore
it is not due to those who are martyrs only in will.
Reply to Objection 4: Just as pleasures of touch, which are the matter
of temperance, hold the chief place among all pleasures both internal
and external, so pains of touch surpass all other pains. Consequently
an aureole is due to the difficulty of suffering pains of touch, for
instance, from blows and so forth, rather than to the difficulty of
bearing internal sufferings, by reason of which, however, one is not
properly called a martyr, except by a kind of comparison. It is in this
sense that Jerome speaks.
Reply to Objection 5: The sufferings of penance are not a martyrdom
properly speaking, because they do not consist in things directed to
the causing of death, since they are directed merely to the taming of
the flesh: and if any one go beyond this measure, such afflictions will
be deserving of blame. However such afflictions are spoken of as a
martyrdom by a kind of comparison. and they surpass the sufferings of
martyrdom in duration but not in intensity.
Reply to Objection 6: According to Augustine (De Civ. Dei i) it is
lawful to no one to lay hands on himself for any reason whatever;
unless perchance it be done by Divine instinct as an example of
fortitude that others may despise death. Those to whom the objection
refers are believed to have brought death on themselves by Divine
instinct, and for this reason the Church celebrates their martyrdom
[*Cf. [5148]SS, Q[64], A[5]].
Reply to Objection 7: If any one receive a mortal wound for the faith
and survive, without doubt he merits the aureole: as instanced in
blessed Cecilia who survived for three days, and many martyrs who died
in prison. But, even if the wound he receives be not mortal, yet be the
occasion of his dying, he is believed to merit the aureole: although
some say that he does not merit the aureole if he happen to die through
his own carelessness or neglect. For this neglect would not have
occasioned his death, except on the supposition of the wound which he
received for the faith: and consequently this wound previously received
for the faith is the original occasion of his death, so that he would
not seem to lose. the aureole for that reason, unless his neglect were
such as to involve a mortal sin, which would deprive him of both aurea
and aureole. If, however, by some chance or other he were not to die of
the mortal wound received, or again if the wounds received were not
mortal, and he were to die while in prison, he would still merit the
aureole. Hence the martyrdom of some saints is celebrated in the Church
for that they died in prison, having been wounded long before, as in
the case of Pope Marcellus. Accordingly in whatever way suffering for
Christ's sake be continued unto death, whether death ensue or not, a
man becomes a martyr and merits the aureole. If, however, it be not
continued unto death, this is not a reason for calling a person a
martyr, as in the case of the blessed Sylvester, whose feast the Church
does not solemnize as a martyr's, since he ended his days in peace,
although previously he had undergone certain sufferings.
Reply to Objection 8: Even as temperance is not about pleasures of
money, honors, and the like, but only about pleasures of touch as being
the principal of all, so fortitude is about dangers of death as being
the greatest of all (Ethic. iii, 6). Consequently the aureole is due to
such injuries only as are inflicted on a person's own body and are of a
nature to cause death. Accordingly whether a person lose his
temporalities, or his good name, or anything else of the kind, for
Christ's sake, he does not for that reason become a martyr, nor merit
the aureole. Nor is it possible to love ordinately external things more
than one's body; and inordinate love does not help one to merit an
aureole: nor again can sorrow for the loss of corporeal things be equal
to the sorrow for the slaying of the body and other like things [*Cf.
[5149]SS, Q[124], A[5]].
Reply to Objection 9: The sufficient motive for martyrdom is not only
confession of the faith, but any other virtue, not civic but infused,
that has Christ for its end. For one becomes a witness of Christ by any
virtuous act, inasmuch as the works which Christ perfects in us bear
witness to His goodness. Hence some virgins were slain for virginity
which they desired to keep, for instance blessed Agnes and others whose
martyrdom is celebrated by the Church.
Reply to Objection 10: The truth of faith has Christ for end and
object; and therefore the confession thereof, if suffering be added
thereto, merits an aureole, not only on the part of the end but also on
the part of the matter. But the confession of any other truth is not a
sufficient motive for martyrdom by reason of its matter, but only on
the part of the end; for instance if a person were willing to be slain
for Christ's sake rather than sin against Him by telling any lie
whatever.
Reply to Objection 11: The uncreated good surpasses all created good.
Hence any created end, whether it be the common or a private good,
cannot confer so great a goodness on an act as can the uncreated end,
when, to wit, an act is done for God's sake. Hence when a person dies
for the common good without referring it to Christ, he will not merit
the aureole; but if he refer it to Christ he will merit the aureole and
he will be a martyr; for instance, if he defend his country from the
attack of an enemy who designs to corrupt the faith of Christ, and
suffer death in that defense.
Reply to Objection 12: Some say that the use of reason was by the
Divine power accelerated in the Innocents slain for Christ's sake, even
as in John the Baptist while yet in his mother's womb: and in that case
they were truly martyrs in both act and will, and have the aureole.
others say, however, that they were martyrs in act only and not in
will: and this seems to be the opinion of Bernard, who distinguishes
three kinds of martyrs, as stated above (OBJ 3). In this case the
Innocents, even as they do not fulfill all the conditions of martyrdom,
and yet are martyrs in a sense, in that they died for Christ, so too
they have the aureole, not in all its perfection, but by a kind of
participation, in so far as they rejoice in having. been slain in
Christ's service; thus it was stated above [5150](A[5]) in reference to
baptized children, that they will have a certain joy in their innocence
and carnal integrity [*Cf. [5151]SS, Q[124], A[1], ad 1, where St.
Thomas declares that the Holy Innocents were truly martyrs. ]
__________________________________________________________________
Whether an aureole is due to doctors?
Objection 1: It would seem that an aureole is not due to doctors. For
every reward to be had in the life to come will correspond to some act
of virtue. But preaching or teaching is not the act of a virtue.
Therefore an aureole is not due to teaching or preaching.
Objection 2: Further, teaching and preaching are the result of studying
and being taught. Now the things that are rewarded in the future life
are not acquired by a man's study, since we merit not by our natural
and acquired gifts. Therefore no aureole will be merited in the future
life for teaching and preaching.
Objection 3: Further, exaltation in the life to come corresponds to
humiliation in the present life, because "he that humbleth himself
shall be exalted" (Mat. 23:12). But there is no humiliation in teaching
and preaching, in fact they are occasions of pride; for a gloss on Mat.
4:5, "Then the devil took Him up," says that "the devil deceives many
who are puffed up with the honor of the master's chair. " Therefore it
would seem that an aureole is not due to preaching and teaching.
On the contrary, A gloss on Eph. 1:18,19, "That you may know . . . what
is the exceeding greatness," etc. says: "The holy doctors will have an
increase of glory above that which all have in common. " Therefore, etc.
Further, a gloss on Canticle of Canticles 8:12, "My vineyard is before
me," says: "He describes the peculiar reward which He has prepared for
His doctors. " Therefore doctors will have a peculiar reward: and we
call this an aureole.
I answer that, Just as by virginity and martyrdom a person wins a most
perfect victory over the flesh and the world, so is a most perfect
victory gained over the devil, when a person not only refuses to yield
to the devil's assaults, but also drives him out, not from himself
alone, but from others also. Now this is done by preaching and
teaching: wherefore an aureole is due to preaching and teaching, even
as to virginity and martyrdom. Nor can we admit, as some affirm, that
it is due to prelates only, who are competent to preach and teach by
virtue of their office. but it is due to all whosoever exercise this
act lawfully. Nor is it due to prelates, although they have the office
of preaching, unless they actually preach, since a crown is due not to
the habit, but to the actual strife, according to 2 Tim. 2:5, "He . . .
shall not be [Vulg. : 'is not'] crowned, except he strive lawfully. "
Reply to Objection 1: Preaching and teaching are acts of a virtue,
namely mercy, wherefore they are reckoned among the spiritual alms
deeds [*Cf. [5152]SS, Q[32], A[2]].
Reply to Objection 2: Although ability to preach and teach is sometimes
the outcome of study, the practice of teaching comes from the will,
which is informed with charity infused by God: and thus its act can be
meritorious.
Reply to Objection 3: Exaltation in this life does not lessen the
reward of the other life, except for him who seeks his own glory from
that exaltation: whereas he who turns that exaltation to the profit of
others acquires thereby a reward for himself. Still, when it is stated
that an aureole is due to teaching, this is to be understood of the
teaching of things pertaining to salvation, by which teaching the devil
is expelled from men's hearts, as by a kind of spiritual weapon, of
which it is said (2 Cor. 10:4): "The weapons of our warfare are not
carnal but spiritual" [Vulg. : 'but mighty to God'].
__________________________________________________________________
Whether an aureole is due to Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that an aureole is due to Christ. For an
aureole is due to virginity, martyrdom, and teaching. Now these three
were pre-eminently in Christ. Therefore an aureole is especially due to
Him.
Objection 2: Further, whatever is most perfect in human things must ne
especially ascribed to Christ. Now an aureole is due as the reward of
most excellent merits. Therefore it is also due to Christ.
Objection 3: Further, Cyprian says (De Habit. Virg. ) that "virginity
bears a likeness to God. " Therefore the exemplar of virginity is in
God. Therefore it would seem that an aureole is due to Christ even as
God.
On the contrary, An aureole is described as "joy in being conformed to
Christ. " Now no one is conformed or likened to himself, as the
Philosopher says (Metaph. , lib. ix, 3). Therefore an aureole is not due
to Christ.
Further, Christ's reward was never increased. Now Christ had no aureole
from the moment of His conception, since then He had never fought.
Therefore He never had an aureole afterwards.
I answer that, There are two opinions on this point. For some say that
Christ has an aureole in its strict sense, seeing that in Him there is
both conflict and victory, and consequently a crown in its proper
acceptation. But if we consider the question carefully, although the
notion of aurea or crown is becoming to Christ, the notion of aureole
is not. For from the very fact that aureole is a diminutive term it
follows that it denotes something possessed by participation and not in
its fulness. Wherefore an aureole is becoming to those who participate
in the perfect victory by imitating Him in Whom the fulness of perfect
victory is realized. And therefore, since in Christ the notion of
victory is found chiefly and fully, for by His victory others are made
victors---as shown by the words of Jn. 16:33, "Have confidence, I have
overcome the world," and Apoc. 5:5, "Behold the lion of the tribe of
Juda . . . hath prevailed"---it is not becoming for Christ to have an
aureole, but to have something from which all aureoles are derived.
Hence it is written (Apoc. 3:21): "To him that shall overcome, I will
give to sit with Me in My throne, as I also have overcome, and am set
down in My Father's throne [Vulg. : 'With My Father in His throne']. "
Therefore we must say with others that although there is nothing of the
nature of an aureole in Christ, there is nevertheless something more
excellent than any aureole.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ was most truly virgin, martyr, and doctor;
yet the corresponding accidental reward in Christ is a negligible
quantity in comparison with the greatness of His essential reward.
Hence He has not an aureole in its proper sense.
Reply to Objection 2: Although the aureole is due to a most perfect
work, yet with regard to us, so far as it is a diminutive term, it
denotes the participation of a perfection derived from one in whom that
perfection is found in its fulness. Accordingly it implies a certain
inferiority, and thus it is not found in Christ in Whom is the fulness
of every perfection.
Reply to Objection 3: Although in some way virginity has its exemplar
in God, that exemplar is not homogeneous. For the incorruption of God,
which virginity imitates is not in God in the same way as in a virgin.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether an aureole is due to the angels?
Objection 1: It would seem that an aureole is due to the angels. For
Jerome (Serm. de Assump. [*Ep. ad Paul. et Eustoch. ix]) speaking of
virginity says: "To live without the flesh while living in the flesh is
to live as an angel rather than as a man": and a gloss on 1 Cor. 7:26,
"For the present necessity," says that "virginity is the portion of the
angels. " Since then an aureole corresponds to virginity, it would seem
due to the angels.
Objection 2: Further, incorruption of the spirit is more excellent than
incorruption of the flesh. Now there is incorruption of spirit in the
angels, since they never sinned. Therefore an aureole is due to them
rather than to men incorrupt in the flesh and who have sinned at some
time.
Objection 3: Further, an aureole is due to teaching. Now angels teach
us by cleansing, enlightening, and perfecting [*Cf. [5153]FP, Q[111],
A[1]] us, as Dionysius says (Hier. Eccles. vi). Therefore at least the
aureole of doctors is due to them.
On the contrary, It is written (2 Tim. 2:5): "He . . . shall not be
[Vulg. : 'is not'] crowned, except he strive lawfully. " But there is no
conflict in the angels. Therefore an aureole is not due to them.
Further, an aureole is not due to an act that is not performed through
the body: wherefore it is not due to lovers of virginity, martyrdom or
teaching, if they do not practice them outwardly. But angels are
incorporeal spirits. Therefore they have no aureole.
I answer that, An aureole is not due to the angels. The reason of this
is that an aureole, properly speaking, corresponds to some perfection
of surpassing merit. Now those things which make for perfect merit in
man are connatural to angels, or belong to their state in general, or
to their essential reward. Wherefore the angels have not an aureole in
the same sense as an aureole is due to men.
Reply to Objection 1: Virginity is said to be an angelic life, in so
far as virgins imitate by grace what angels have by nature. For it is
not owing to a virtue that angels abstain altogether from pleasures of
the flesh, since they are incapable of such pleasures.
Reply to Objection 2: Perpetual incorruption of the spirit in the
angels merits their essential reward: because it is necessary for their
salvation, since in them recovery is impossible after they have fallen
[*Cf. [5154]FP, Q[64], A[2]].
Reply to Objection 3: The acts whereby the angels teach us belong to
their glory and their common state: wherefore they do not merit an
aureole thereby.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether an aureole is also due to the body?
Objection 1: It would seem that an aureole is also due to the body. For
the essential reward is greater than the accidental. But the dowries
which belong to the essential reward are not only in the soul but also
in the body. Therefore there is also an aureole which pertains to the
accidental reward.
Objection 2: Further, punishment in soul and body corresponds to sin
committed through the body. Therefore a reward both in soul and in body
is due to merit gained through the body. But the aureole is merited
through works of the body. Therefore an aureole is also due to the
body.
Objection 3: Further, a certain fulness of virtue will shine forth in
the bodies of martyrs, and will be seen in their bodily scars:
wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii): "We feel an undescribable
love for the blessed martyrs so as to desire to see in that kingdom the
scars of the wounds in their bodies, which they bore for Christ's name.
Perchance indeed we shall see them, for this will not make them less
comely, but more glorious. A certain beauty will shine in them, a
beauty, though in the body, yet not of the body but of virtue. "
Therefore it would seem that the martyr's aureole is also in his body;
and in like manner the aureoles of others.
On the contrary, The souls now in heaven have aureoles; and yet they
have no body. Therefore the proper subject of an aureole is the soul
and not the body.
Further, all merit is from the soul.
Therefore the whole reward should
be in the soul.
I answer that, Properly speaking the aureole is in the mind: since it
is joy in the works to which an aureole is due. But even as from the
joy in the essential reward, which is the aurea, there results a
certain comeliness in the body, which is the glory of the body, so from
the joy in the aureole there results a certain bodily comeliness: so
that the aureole is chiefly in the mind, but by a kind of overflow it
shines forth in the body.
This suffices for the Replies to the Objections. It must be observed,
however, that the beauty of the scars which will appear in the bodies
of the martyrs cannot be called an aureole, since some of the martyrs
will have an aureole in which such scars will not appear, for instance
those who were put to death by drowning, starvation, or the squalor of
prison.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether three aureoles are fittingly assigned, those of virgins, of martyrs,
and of doctors?
Objection 1: It would seem that the three aureoles of virgins, martyrs,
and doctors are unfittingly assigned. For the aureole of martyrs
corresponds to their virtue of fortitude, the aureole of virgins to the
virtue of temperance, and the aureole of doctors to the virtue of
prudence. Therefore it seems that there should be a fourth aureole
corresponding to the virtue of justice.
Objection 2: Further, a gloss on Ex. 25:25: "A polished crown, etc.
says that a golden [aurea] crown is added, when the Gospel promises
eternal life to those who keep the commandments: 'If thou wilt enter
into life, keep the commandments' (Mat. 19:17). To this is added the
little golden crown [aureola] when it is said: 'If thou wilt be
perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor'" (Mat.
19:21). Therefore an aureole is due to poverty.
Objection 3: Further, a man subjects himself wholly to God by the vow
of obedience: wherefore the greatest perfection consists in the vow of
obedience. Therefore it would seem that an aureole is due thereto.
Objection 4: Further, there are also many other works of supererogation
in which one will rejoice in the life to come. Therefore there are many
aureoles besides the aforesaid three.
Objection 5: Further, just as a man spreads the faith by preaching and
teaching, so does he by publishing written works. Therefore a fourth
aureole is due to those who do this.
I answer that, An aureole is an exceptional reward corresponding to an
exceptional victory: wherefore the three aureoles are assigned in
accordance with the exceptional victories in the three conflicts which
beset every man. For in the conflict with the flesh, he above all wins
the victory who abstains altogether from sexual pleasures which are the
chief of this kind; and such is a virgin. Wherefore an aureole is due
to virginity. In the conflict with the world, the chief victory is to
suffer the world's persecution even until death: wherefore the second
aureole is due to martyrs who win the victory in this battle. In the
conflict with the devil, the chief victory is to expel the enemy not
only from oneself but also from the hearts of others: this is done by
teaching and preaching, and consequently the third aureole is due to
doctors and preachers.
Some, however, distinguish the three aureoles in accordance with the
three powers of the soul, by saying that the three aureoles correspond
to the three chief acts of the soul's three highest powers. For the act
of the rational power is to publish the truth of faith even to others,
and to this act the aureole of doctors is due: the highest act of the
irascible power is to overcome even death for Christ's sake, and to
this act the aureole of martyrs is due: and the highest act of the
concupiscible power is to abstain altogether from the greatest carnal
pleasures, and to this act the aureole of virgins is due.
Others again, distinguish the three aureoles in accordance with those
things whereby we are most signally conformed to Christ. For He was the
mediator between the Father and the world. Hence He was a doctor, by
manifesting to the world the truth which He had received from the
Father; He was a martyr, by suffering the persecution of the world; and
He was a virgin, by His personal purity. Wherefore doctors, martyrs and
virgins are most perfectly conformed to Him: and for this reason an
aureole is due to them.
Reply to Objection 1: There is no conflict to be observed in the act of
justice as in the acts of the other virtues. Nor is it true that to
teach is an act of prudence: in fact rather is it an act of charity or
mercy---inasmuch as it is by such like habits that we are inclined to
the practice of such an act---or again of wisdom, as directing it.
We may also reply, with others, that justice embraces all the virtues,
wherefore a special aureole is not due to it.
Reply to Objection 2: Although poverty is a work of perfection, it does
not take the highest place in a spiritual conflict, because the love of
temporalities assails a man less than carnal concupiscence or
persecution whereby his own body is broken. Hence an aureole is not due
to poverty; but judicial power by reason of the humiliation consequent
upon poverty. The gloss quoted takes aureole in the broad sense for any
reward given for excellent merit.
We reply in the same way to the Third and Fourth Objections.
Reply to Objection 5: An aureole is due to those who commit the sacred
doctrine to writing: but it is not distinct from the aureole of
doctors, since the compiling of writing is a way of teaching.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the virgin's aureole is the greatest of all?
Objection 1: It would seem that the virgin's aureole is the greatest of
all. For it is said of virgins (Apoc. 14:4) that they "follow the Lamb
whithersoever He goeth," and (Apoc. 14:3) that "no" other "man could
say the canticle" which the virgins sang. Therefore virgins have the
most excellent aureole.
Objection 2: Further, Cyprian (De Habit. Virg. ) says of virgins that
they are "the more illustrious portion of Christ's flock. " Therefore
the greater aureole is due to them.
Objection 3: Again, it would seem that the martyr's aureole is the
greatest. For Aymo, commenting on Apoc. 14:3, "No man could say the
hymn," says that "virgins do not all take precedence of married folk;
but only those who in addition to the observance of virginity are by
the tortures of their passion on a par with married persons who have
suffered martyrdom. " Therefore martyrdom gives virginity its precedence
over other states: and consequently a greater aureole is due to
virginity.
Objection 4: Again, it would seem that the greatest aureole is due to
doctors. Because the Church militant is modelled after the Church
triumphant. Now in the Church militant the greatest honor is due to
doctors (1 Tim. 5:17): "Let the priests that rule well be esteemed
worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and
doctrine. " Therefore a greater aureole is due to them in the Church
triumphant.
I answer that, Precedence of one aureole over another may be considered
from two standpoints. First, from the point of view of the conflicts,
that aureole being considered greater which is due to the more
strenuous battle. Looking at it thus the martyr's aureole takes
precedence of the others in one way, and the virgin's in another. For
the martyr's battle is more strenuous in itself, and more intensely
painful; while the conflict with the flesh is fraught with greater
danger, inasmuch as it is more lasting and threatens us at closer
quarters. Secondly, from the point of view of the things about which
the battle is fought: and thus the doctor's aureole takes precedence of
all others, since this conflict is about intelligible goods. while the
other conflicts are about sensible passions. Nevertheless, the
precedence that is considered in view of the conflict is more essential
to the aureole; since the aureole, according to its proper character,
regards the victory and the battle, and the difficulty of fighting
which is viewed from the standpoint of the battle is of greater
importance than that which is considered from our standpoint through
the conflict being at closer quarters. Therefore the martyr's aureole
is simply the greatest of all: for which reason a gloss on Mat. 5:10,
says that "all the other beatitudes are perfected in the eighth, which
refers to the martyrs," namely, "Blessed are they that suffer
persecution. " For this reason, too, the Church in enumerating the
saints together places the martyrs before the doctors and virgins. Yet
nothing hinders the other aureoles from being more excellent in some
particular way. And this suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether one person has an aureole more excellently than another person?
Objection 1: It would seem that one person has not the aureole either
of virginity, or of martyrdom, or of doctrine more perfectly than
another person. For things which have reached their term are not
subject to intension or remission. Now the aureole is due to works
which have reached their term of perfection. Therefore an aureole is
not subject to intension or remission.
Objection 2: Further, virginity is not subject to being more or less,
since it denotes a kind of privation; and privations are not subject to
intension or remission. Therefore neither does the reward of virginity,
the virgin's aureole to wit, receive intension or remission.
On the contrary, The aureole is added to the aurea. But the aurea is
more intense in one than in another. Therefore the aureole is also.
I answer that, Since merit is somewhat the cause of reward, rewards
must needs be diversified, according as merits are diversified: for the
intension or remission of a thing follows from the intension or
remission of its cause. Now the merit of the aureole may be greater or
lesser: wherefore the aureole may also be greater or lesser.
We must observe, however, that the merit of an aureole may be
intensified in two ways: first, on the part of its cause, secondly on
the part of the work. For there may happen to be two persons, one of
whom, out of lesser charity, suffers greater torments of martyrdom, or
is more constant in preaching, or again withdraws himself more from
carnal pleasures. Accordingly, intension not of the aureole but of the
aurea corresponds to the intension of merit derived from its root;
while intension of the aureole corresponds to intension of merit
derived from the kind of act. Consequently it is possible for one who
merits less in martyrdom as to his essential reward, to receive a
greater aureole for his martyrdom.
Reply to Objection 1: The merits to which an aureole is due do not
reach the term of their perfection simply, but according to their
species: even as fire is specifically the most subtle of bodies. Hence
nothing hinders one aureole being more excellent than another, even as
one fire is more subtle than another.
Reply to Objection 2: The virginity of one may be greater than the
virginity of another, by reason of a greater withdrawal from that which
is contrary to virginity: so that virginity is stated to be greater in
one who avoids more the occasions of corruption. For in this way
privations may increase, as when a man is said to be more blind, if he
be removed further from the possession of sight.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE PUNISHMENT OF THE DAMNED (SEVEN ARTICLES)
In due sequence we must consider those things that concern the damned
after the judgment: (1) The punishment of the damned, and the fire by
which their bodies will be tormented; (2) matters relating to their
will and intellect; (3) God's justice and mercy in regard to the
damned.
Under the first head there are seven points of inquiry:
(1) Whether in hell the damned are tormented with the sole punishment
of fire?
(2) Whether the worm by which they are tormented is corporeal?
(3) Whether their weeping is corporeal?
(4) Whether their darkness is material?
(5) Whether the fire whereby they are tormented is corporeal?
(6) Whether it is of the same species as our fire?
(7) Whether this fire is beneath the earth?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in hell the damned are tormented by the sole punishment of fire?
Objection 1: It would seem that in hell the damned are tormented by the
sole punishment of fire; because Mat. 25:41, where their condemnation
is declared, mention is made of fire only, in the words: "Depart from
Me, you cursed, into everlasting fire. "
Objection 2: Further, even as the punishment of purgatory is due to
venial sin, so is the punishment of hell due to mortal sin. Now no
other punishment but that of fire is stated to be in purgatory, as
appears from the words of 1 Cor. 3:13: "The fire shall try every man's
work, of what sort it is. " Therefore neither in hell will there be a
punishment other than of fire.
Objection 3: Further, variety of punishment affords a respite, as when
one passes from heat to cold. But we can admit no respite in the
damned. Therefore there will not be various punishments, but that of
fire alone.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 10:7): "Fire and brimstone and
storms of winds shall be the portion of their cup. "
Further, it is written (Job 24:19): "Let him pass from the snow waters
to excessive heat. "
I answer that, According to Basil (Homilia vi in Hexaemeron and Hom. i
in Ps. 38), at the final cleansing of the world, there will be a
separation of the elements, whatever is pure and noble remaining above
for the glory of the blessed, and whatever is ignoble and sordid being
cast down for the punishment of the damned: so that just as every
creature will be to the blessed a matter of joy, so will all the
elements conduce to the torture of the damned, according to Wis. 5:21,
"the whole world will fight with Him against the unwise. " This is also
becoming to Divine justice, that whereas they departed from one by sin,
and placed their end in material things which are many and various, so
should they be tormented in many ways and from many sources.
Reply to Objection 2: It is because fire is most painful, through its
abundance of active force, that the name of fire is given to any
torment if it be intense.
Reply to Objection 2: The punishment of purgatory is not intended
chiefly to torment but to cleanse: wherefore it should be inflicted by
fire alone which is above all possessed of cleansing power. But the
punishment of the damned is not directed to their cleansing.
Consequently the comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 3: The damned will pass from the most intense heat
to the most intense cold without this giving them any respite: because
they will suffer from external agencies, not by the transmutation of
their body from its original natural disposition, and the contrary
passion affording a respite by restoring an equable or moderate
temperature, as happens now, but by a spiritual action, in the same way
as sensible objects act on the senses being perceived by impressing the
organ with their forms according to their spiritual and not their
material being.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the worm of the damned is corporeal?
Objection 1: It would seem that the worm by which the damned are
tormented is corporeal. Because flesh cannot be tormented by a
spiritual worm. Now the flesh of the damned will be tormented by a
worm: "He will give fire and worms into their flesh" (Judith 16:21),
and: "The vengeance on the flesh of the ungodly is fire and worms"
(Ecclus. 7:19). Therefore that worm will be corporeal.
Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 9): . . . "Both,
namely fire and worm, will be the punishment of the body. " Therefore,
etc.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xx, 22): "The unquenchable
fire and the restless worm in the punishment of the damned are
explained in various ways by different persons. Some refer both to the
body, some, both to the soul: others refer the fire, in the literal
sense, to the body, the worm to the soul metaphorically: and this seems
the more probable. "
I answer that, After the day of judgment, no animal or mixed body will
remain in the renewed world except only the body of man, because the
former are not directed to incorruption [*Cf. [5155] Q[91], A[5]], nor
after that time will there be generation or corruption. Consequently
the worm ascribed to the damned must be understood to be not of a
corporeal but of a spiritual nature: and this is the remorse of
conscience, which is called a worm because it originates from the
corruption of sin, and torments the soul, as a corporeal worm born of
corruption torments by gnawing.
Reply to Objection 1: The very souls of the damned are called their
flesh for as much as they were subject to the flesh. Or we may reply
that the flesh will be tormented by the spiritual worm, according as
the afflictions of the soul overflow into the body, both here and
hereafter.
Reply to Objection 2: Augustine speaks by way of comparison. For he
does not wish to assert absolutely that this worm is material, but that
it is better to say that both are to be understood materially, than
that both should be understood only in a spiritual sense: for then the
damned would suffer no bodily pain. This is clear to anyone that
examines the context of his words in this passage.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the weeping of the damned will be corporeal?
Objection 1: It would seem that the weeping of the damned will be
corporeal. For a gloss on Lk. 13:28, "There will be weeping," says that
"the weeping with which our Lord threatens the wicked is a proof of the
resurrection of the body. " But this would not be the case if that
weeping were merely spiritual. Therefore, etc.
Objection 2: Further, the pain of the punishment corresponds to the
pleasure of the sin, according to Apoc. 18:7: "As much as she hath
glorified herself and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow
give ye to her. " Now sinners had internal and external pleasure in
their sin. Therefore they will also have external weeping.
On the contrary, Corporeal weeping results from dissolving into tears.
Now there cannot be a continual dissolution from the bodies of the
damned, since nothing is restored to them by food; for everything
finite is consumed if something be continually taken from it. Therefore
the weeping of the damned will not be corporeal.
I answer that, Two things are to be observed in corporeal weeping. One
is the resolution of tears: and as to this corporeal weeping cannot be
in the damned, since after the day of judgment, the movement of the
first movable being being at an end, there will be neither generation,
nor corruption, nor bodily alteration: and in the resolution of tears
that humor needs to be generated which is shed forth in the shape of
tears. Wherefore in this respect it will be impossible for corporeal
weeping to be in the damned. The other thing to be observed in
corporeal weeping is a certain commotion and disturbance of the head
and eyes, and in this respect weeping will be possible in the damned
after the resurrection: for the bodies of the damned will be tormented
not only from without, but also from within, according as the body is
affected at the instance of the soul's passion towards good or evil. In
this sense weeping is a proof of the body's resurrection, and
corresponds to the pleasure of sin, experienced by both soul and body.
This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the damned are in material darkness?
Objection 1: It would seem that the damned are not in material
darkness. For commenting on Job 10:22, "But everlasting horror
dwelleth," Gregory says (Moral. ix): "Although that fire will give no
light for comfort, yet, that it may torment the more it does give light
for a purpose, for by the light of its flame the wicked will see their
followers whom they have drawn thither from the world. " Therefore the
darkness there is not material.
Objection 2: Further, the damned see their own punishment, for this
increases their punishment. But nothing is seen without light.
Therefore there is no material darkness there.
Objection 3: Further, there the damned will have the power of sight
after being reunited to their bodies. But this power would be useless
to them unless they see something. Therefore, since nothing is seen
unless it be in the light, it would seem that they are not in absolute
darkness.
On the contrary, It is written (Mat. 22:13): "Bind his hands and his
feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness. " Commenting on these
words Gregory says (Moral. ix): If this fire gave any light, "he would
by no means be described as cast into exterior darkness. "
Further, Basil says (Hom. i in Ps. 28:7, "The voice of the Lord
divideth the flame of fire") that "by God's might the brightness of the
fire will be separated from its power of burning, so that its
brightness will conduce to the joy of the blessed, and the heat of the
flame to the torment of the damned. " Therefore the damned will be in
material darkness.
Other points relating to the punishment of the damned have been decided
above ([5156]Q[86]).
I answer that, The disposition of hell will be such as to be adapted to
the utmost unhappiness of the damned. Wherefore accordingly both light
and darkness are there, in so far as they are most conducive to the
unhappiness of the damned. Now seeing is in itself pleasant for, as
stated in Metaph. i, "the sense of sight is most esteemed, because
thereby many things are known. "
Yet it happens accidentally that seeing is painful, when we see things
that are hurtful to us, or displeasing to our will. Consequently in
hell the place must be so disposed for seeing as regards light and
darkness, that nothing be seen clearly, and that only such things be
dimly seen as are able to bring anguish to the heart. Wherefore, simply
speaking, the place is dark. Yet by Divine disposition, there is a
certain amount of light, as much as suffices for seeing those things
which are capable of tormenting the soul. The natural situation of the
place is enough for this, since in the centre of the earth, where hell
is said to be, fire cannot be otherwise than thick and cloudy, and
reeky as it were.
Some hold that this darkness is caused by the massing together of the
bodies of the damned, which will so fill the place of hell with their
numbers, that no air will remain, so that there will be no translucid
body that can be the subject of light and darkness, except the eyes of
the damned, which will be darkened utterly.
This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the fire of hell will be corporeal?
Objection 1: It would seem that the fire of hell whereby the bodies of
the damned will be tormented will not be corporeal. For Damascene says
(De Fide Orth. iv): The devil, and "demons, and his men" [*Cf. 2 Thess.
