No More Learning

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.
2:3: "And the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. "], namely
Antichrist, "together with the ungodly and sinners will be cast into
everlasting fire, not material fire, such as that which we have, but
such as God knoweth. " Now everything corporeal is material. Therefore
the fire of hell will not be corporeal.

Objection 2: Further, the souls of the damned when severed from their
bodies are cast into hell fire. But Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii,
32): "In my opinion the place to which the soul is committed after
death is spiritual and not corporeal. " Therefore, etc.

Objection 3: Further, corporeal fire in the mode of its action does not
follow the mode of guilt in the person who is burned at the stake,
rather does it follow the mode of humid and dry: for in the same
corporeal fire we see both good and wicked suffer. But the fire of
hell, in its mode of torture or action, follows the mode of guilt in
the person punished; wherefore Gregory says (Dial. iv, 63): "There is
indeed but one hell fire, but it does not torture all sinners equally.
For each one will suffer as much pain according as his guilt deserves. "
Therefore this fire will not be corporeal.

On the contrary, He says (Dial. iv, 29): "I doubt not that the fire of
hell is corporeal, since it is certain that bodies are tortured there. "

Further, it is written (Wis. 5:21): "The . . . world shall fight . . .
against the unwise. " But the whole world would not fight against the
unwise if they were punished with a spiritual and not a corporeal
punishment. Therefore they will be punished with a corporeal fire.

I answer that, There have been many opinions about the fire of hell.
For some philosophers, as Avicenna, disbelieving in the resurrection,
thought that the soul alone would be punished after death. And as they
considered it impossible for the soul, being incorporeal, to be
punished with a corporeal fire, they denied that the fire whereby the
wicked are punished is corporeal, and pretended that all statements as
to souls being punished in future after death by any corporeal means
are to be taken metaphorically. For just as the joy and happiness of
good souls will not be about any corporeal object, but about something
spiritual, namely the attainment of their end, so will the torment of
the wicked be merely spiritual, in that they will be grieved at being
separated from their end, the desire whereof is in them by nature.
Wherefore, just as all descriptions of the soul's delight after death
that seem to denote bodily pleasure---for instance, that they are
refreshed, that they smile, and so forth---must be taken
metaphorically, so also are all such descriptions of the soul's
suffering as seem to imply bodily punishment---for instance, that they
burn in fire, or suffer from the stench, and so forth. For as spiritual
pleasure and pain are unknown to the majority, these things need to be
declared under the figure of corporeal pleasures and pains, in order
that men may be moved the more to the desire or fear thereof. Since,
however, in the punishment of the damned there will be not only pain of
loss corresponding to the aversion that was in their sin, but also pain
of sense corresponding to the conversion, it follows that it is not
enough to hold the above manner of punishment. For this reason Avicenna
himself (Met. ix) added another explanation, by saying that the souls
of the wicked are punished after death, not by bodies but by images of
bodies; just as in a dream it seems to a man that he is suffering
various pains on account of such like images being in his imagination.
Even Augustine seems to hold this kind of punishment (Gen. ad lit. xii,
32), as is clear from the text. But this would seem an unreasonable
statement. For the imagination is a power that makes use of a bodily
organ: so that it is impossible for such visions of the imagination to
occur in the soul separated from the body, as in the soul of the
dreamer. Wherefore Avicenna also that he might avoid this difficulty,
said that the soul separated from the body uses as an organ some part
of the heavenly body, to which the human body needs to be conformed, in
order to be perfected by the rational soul, which is like the movers of
the heavenly body---thus following somewhat the opinion of certain
philosophers of old, who maintained that souls return to the stars that
are their compeers. But this is absolutely absurd according to the
Philosopher's teaching, since the soul uses a definite bodily organ,
even as art uses definite instruments, so that it cannot pass from one
body to another, as Pythagoras is stated (De Anima i, text. 53) to have
maintained. As to the statement of Augustine we shall say below how it
is to be answered (ad 2). However, whatever we may say of the fire that
torments the separated souls, we must admit that the fire which will
torment the bodies of the damned after the resurrection is corporeal,
since one cannot fittingly apply a punishment to a body unless that
punishment itself be bodily. Wherefore Gregory (Dial. iv) proves the
fire of hell to be corporeal from the very fact that the wicked will be
cast thither after the resurrection. Again Augustine, as quoted in the
text of Sentent. iv, D, 44, clearly admits (De Civ. Dei xxi, 10) that
the fire by which the bodies are tormented is corporeal. And this is
the point at issue for the present. We have said elsewhere
([5157]Q[70], A[3]) how the souls of the damned are punished by this
corporeal fire.

Reply to Objection 1: Damascene does not absolutely deny that this fire
is material, but that it is material as our fire, since it differs from
ours in some of its properties. We may also reply that since that fire
does not alter bodies as to their matter, but acts on them for their
punishment by a kind of spiritual action, it is for this reason that it
is stated not to be material, not as regards its substance, but as to
its punitive effect on bodies and, still more, on souls.

Reply to Objection 2: The assertion of Augustine may be taken in this
way, that the place whither souls are conveyed after death be described
as incorporeal, in so far as the soul is there, not corporeally, i. e.
as bodies are in a place, but in some other spiritual way, as angels
are in a place. Or we may reply that Augustine is expressing an opinion
without deciding the point, as he often does in those books.

Reply to Objection 3: That fire will be the instrument of Divine
justice inflicting punishment. Now an instrument acts not only by its
own power and in its own way, but also by the power of the principal
agent, and as directed thereby. Wherefore although fire is not able, of
its own power, to torture certain persons more or less, according to
the measure of sin, it is able to do so nevertheless in so far as its
action is regulated by the ordering of Divine justice: even so the fire
of the furnace is regulated by the forethought of the smith, according
as the effect of his art requires.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the fire of hell is of the same species as ours?

Objection 1: It would seem that this fire is not of the same species as
the corporeal fire which we see. For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xx,
16): "In my opinion no man knows of what kind is the everlasting fire,
unless the Spirit of God has revealed it to anyone. " But all or nearly
all know the nature of this fire of ours. Therefore that fire is not of
the same species as this.

Objection 2: Further, Gregory commenting on Job 10:26, "A fire that is
not kindled shall devour him," says (Moral. xv): "Bodily fire needs
bodily fuel in order to become fire; neither can it be except by being
kindled, nor live unless it be renewed. On the other hand the fire of
hell, since it is a bodily fire, and burns in a bodily way the wicked
cast therein, is neither kindled by human endeavor, nor kept alive with
fuel, but once created endures unquenchably; at one and the same time
it needs no kindling, and lacks not heat. " Therefore it is not of the
same nature as the fire that we see.

Objection 3: Further, the everlasting and the corruptible differ
essentially, since they agree not even in genus, according to the
Philosopher (Metaph. x). But this fire of ours is corruptible, whereas
the other is everlasting: "Depart from Me, you cursed, into everlasting
fire" (Mat. 25:41). Therefore they are not of the same nature.

Objection 4: Further, it belongs to the nature of this fire of ours to
give light. But the fire of hell gives no light, hence the saying of
Job 18:5: "Shall not the light of the wicked be extinguished? "
Therefore . . . as above.

On the contrary, According to the Philosopher (Topic. i, 6), "every
water is of the same species as every other water. " Therefore in like
manner every fire is of the same species as every other fire.

Further, it is written (Wis. 11:17): "By what things a man sinneth by
the same also he is tormented. " Now men sin by the sensible things of
this world. Therefore it is just that they should be punished by those
same things.

I answer that, As stated in Meteor. iv, 1 fire has other bodies for its
matter, for the reason that of all the elements it has the greatest
power of action. Hence fire is found under two conditions: in its own
matter, as existing in its own sphere, and in a strange matter, whether
of earth, as in burning coal, or of air as in the flame. Under whatever
conditions however fire be found, it is always of the same species, so
far as the nature of fire is concerned, but there may be a difference
of species as to the bodies which are the matter of fire. Wherefore
flame and burning coal differ specifically, and likewise burning wood
and red-hot iron; nor does it signify, as to this particular point,
whether they be kindled by force, as in the case of iron, or by a
natural intrinsic principle, as happens with sulphur. Accordingly it is
clear that the fire of hell is of the same species as the fire we have,
so far as the nature of fire is concerned. But whether that fire
subsists in its proper matter, or if it subsists in a strange matter,
what that matter may be, we know not. And in this way it may differ
specifically from the fire we have, considered materially. It has,
however, certain properties differing from our fire, for instance that
it needs no kindling, nor is kept alive by fuel. But the differences do
not argue a difference of species as regards the nature of the fire.

Reply to Objection 1: Augustine is speaking of that fire with regard to
its matter, and not with regard to its nature.

Reply to Objection 2: This fire of ours is kept alive with fuel, and is
kindled by man, because it is introduced into a foreign matter by art
and force. But that other fire needs no fuel to keep it alive, because
either it subsists in its own matter, or is in a foreign matter, not by
force but by nature from an intrinsic principle. Wherefore it is
kindled not by man but by God, Who fashioned its nature. This is the
meaning of the words of Isaias (30:33): "The breath of the Lord is as a
torrent of brimstone kindling it. "

Reply to Objection 3: Even as the bodies of the damned will be of the
same species as now, although now they are corruptible, whereas then
they will be incorruptible, both by the ordering of Divine justice, and
on account of the cessation of the heavenly movement, so is it with the
fire of hell whereby those bodies will be punished.

Reply to Objection 4: To give light does not belong to fire according
to any mode of existence, since in its own matter it gives no light;
wherefore it does not shine in its own sphere according to the
philosophers: and in like manner in certain foreign matters it does not
shine, as when it is in an opaque earthly substance such as sulphur.
The same happens also when its brightness is obscured by thick smoke.
Wherefore that the fire of hell gives no light is not sufficient proof
of its being of a different species.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the fire of hell is beneath the earth?

Objection 1: It would seem that this fire is not beneath the earth. For
it is said of the damned (Job 18:18), "And God shall remove him out of
the globe [Douay: 'world']. " Therefore the fire whereby the damned will
be punished is not beneath the earth but outside the globe.

Objection 2: Further, nothing violent or accidental can be everlasting.
But this fire will be in hell for ever. Therefore it will be there, not
by force but naturally. Now fire cannot be under the earth save by
violence. Therefore the fire of hell is not beneath the earth.

Objection 3: Further, after the day of judgment the bodies of all the
damned will be tormented in hell. Now those bodies will fill a place.
Consequently, since the multitude of the damned will be exceeding
great, for "the number of fools is infinite" (Eccles. 1:15), the space
containing that fire must also be exceeding great. But it would seem
unreasonable to say that there is so great a hollow within the earth,
since all the parts of the earth naturally tend to the center.
Therefore that fire will not be beneath the earth.

Objection 4: Further, "By what things a man sinneth, by the same also
he is tormented" (Wis. 11:17). But the wicked have sinned on the earth.
Therefore the fire that punishes them should not be under the earth.

On the contrary, It is written (Is. 14:9): "Hell below was in an uproar
to meet Thee at Thy coming. " Therefore the fire of hell is beneath us.

Further, Gregory says (Dial. iv): "I see not what hinders us from
believing that hell is beneath the earth. "

Further, a gloss on Jonah 2:4, "Thou hast cast me forth . . . into the
heart of the sea," says, "i. e. into hell," and in the Gospel (Mat.
12:40) the words "in the heart of the earth" have the same sense, for
as the heart is in the middle of an animal, so is hell supposed to be
in the middle of the earth.