Mercurial > hg > Aquinas
diff summa/english/XP_iv.html @ 64:11682db9b870
from auto-split
| author | ht |
|---|---|
| date | Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:43:02 +0000 |
| parents | |
| children | c7ec38b835c6 |
line wrap: on
line diff
--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/summa/english/XP_iv.html Sun Jan 03 14:43:02 2010 +0000 @@ -0,0 +1,6391 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" id="XP.iv" class="div2"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q86_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q87.html"></a> + <h2 id="XP.iv-p0.1">TREATISE ON THE LAST THINGS (QQ[86]-99)</h2> + <div id="XP_Q87" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.XP.iv.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q87_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="XP_Q87-p0.1">OF THE KNOWLEDGE WHICH, AFTER RISING AGAIN, MEN WILL HAVE AT THE JUDGMENT CONCERNING MERITS AND DEMERITS (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="XP_Q87-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q87-p2"> In the next place we must treat of those things which follow the resurrection. The first of these to be considered will be + the knowledge, which after rising again, men will have at the judgment, concerning merits and demerits; the second will be + the general judgment itself, as also the time and place at which it will be; thirdly we shall consider who will judge and + who will be judged; fourthly we shall treat of the form wherein the judge will come to judge; and fifthly we shall + consider what will be after the judgment, the state of the world and of those who will have risen again. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87-p3"> Under the first head there are three points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="XP_Q87-p4"> (1) Whether at the judgment every man will know all his sins?</p> + <p id="XP_Q87-p5"> (2) Whether every one will be able to read all that is on another's conscience?</p> + <p id="XP_Q87-p6"> (3) Whether one will be able at one glance to see all merits and demerits?</p> + <div id="XP_Q87_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q87.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q87_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q87_A1-p0.1">Whether after the resurrection every one will know what sins he has committed?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q87_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that after the resurrection everyone will not be able to know all the sins he has committed. For whatever we know, + either we receive it anew through the senses, or we draw it from the treasure house of the memory. Now after the resurrection + men will be unable to perceive their sins by means of sense, because they will be things of the past, while sense perceives + only the present: and many sins will have escaped the sinner's memory, and he will be + unable to recall them from the treasure house of his memory. Therefore after rising again one will not be cognizant of all + the sins one has committed. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 43), that "there are certain books of the conscience, wherein each one's + merits are inscribed." Now one cannot read a thing in a book, unless it be marked down in the book: and sin leaves its mark + upon the conscience according to a gloss of Origen on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q87_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.2.15" target="asv"> Rom. 2:15, </a> "Their conscience bearing witness," etc. which mark, seemingly, is nothing else than the guilt or stain. Since then in many + persons + the guilt or stain of many sins is blotted out by grace, it would seem that one cannot read in one's conscience all the sins + one has committed: and thus the same conclusion follows as before. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the greater the cause the greater the effect. Now the cause which makes us grieve for the sins which we recall to + memory is charity. Since then charity is perfect in the saints after the resurrection, they will grieve exceedingly for their + sins, if they recall them to memory: yet this is impossible, seeing that according to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q87_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.21.4" target="asv">Apoc. 21:4</a>, "Sorrow and mourning shall flee away from them." [*The quotation is from + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q87_A1-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.35.10" target="asv"> Is. 35:10.</a> The text of + the Apocalypse has: "Nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more."] Therefore they will not recall their own sins + to memory. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, at the resurrection the damned will be to the good they once did as the blessed to the sins they once committed. + Now seemingly the damned after rising again will have no knowledge of the good they once did, since this would alleviate their + pain considerably. Neither therefore will the blessed have any knowledge of the sins they had committed. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A1-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xx) that "a kind of Divine energy will come to our aid, so that we shall recall all of our sins + to mind." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A1-p7"> Further, as human judgment is to external evidence, so is the Divine judgment to the witness of the conscience, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q87_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iKgs.16.7" target="asv">1 Kings 16:7, </a> "Man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now man cannot pass a perfect judgment on a matter + unless evidence be taken on all the points that need to be judged. Therefore, since the Divine judgment is most perfect, it + is necessary for the conscience to witness to everything that has to be + judged. But all works, both good and evil, will have to be judged ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q87_A1-p7.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.5.10" target="asv">2 Cor. 5:10</a>): "We must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, + according as he hath done, whether it be good or evil." Therefore each one's conscience must needs retain all the works he + has done, whether good or evil. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A1-p8"> + <b>I answer that,</b> According to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q87_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.2.15" target="asv"> Rom. 2:15,16, </a> "In the day when God shall judge" each one's conscience will bear witness to him and his thoughts will accuse and defend + him. And since in every judicial hearing, the witness, the accuser, and the defendant need to be acquainted with the matter + on which judgment has to be pronounced, and since at the general judgment all the works of men will be submitted to judgment, + it will behoove every man to be cognizant + then of all his works. Wherefore each man's conscience will be as a book containing his deeds on which judgment will be pronounced, + even as in the human court of law we make use of records. Of these books it is written in the Apocalypse (20:12): "The books + were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged by those things which were written + in the books [Vulg.: 'book'], according to their works." According to Augustine's exposition (De Civ. Dei xx) the + books which are here said to be opened "denote the saints of the New and Old Testaments in whom God's commandments are exemplified." + Hence Richard of St. Victor (De judic. potest.) says: "Their hearts will be like the code of law." But the book of life, of + which the text goes on to speak, signifies each one's conscience, which is said to be one single book, because the one Divine + power will cause all to recall their deeds, and this energy, in so far as it reminds a man of his deeds, is called + the "book of life" [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q87_A1-p8.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q24_A1.html">FP, Q[24], A[1]</a>, ad 1]. Or else we may refer the first books to the conscience, and by the second book we may understand the Judge's sentence + as expressed in His providence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although many merits and demerits will have escaped our memory, yet there will be none of them but will remain somewhat in + its effect, because those merits which are not deadened will remain in the reward accorded to them, while those that are deadened + remain in the guilt of ingratitude, which is increased through the fact that a man sinned after receiving grace. In like manner + those demerits which are not blotted out by repentance remain in the debt + of punishment due to them, while those which have been blotted out by repentance remain in the remembrance of repentance, + which they will recall together with their other merits. Hence in each man there will be something whereby he will be able + to recollect his deeds. Nevertheless, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xx), the Divine energy will especially conduce to this. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Each one's conscience will bear certain marks of the deeds done by him; and it does not follow that these marks are the guilt + alone, as stated above. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although charity is now the cause of sorrow for sin, yet the saints in heaven will be so full of joy, that they will have + no room for sorrow; and so they will not grieve for their sins, but rather will they rejoice in the Divine mercy, whereby + their sins are forgiven them. Even so do the angels rejoice now in the Divine justice whereby those whom they guard fall headlong + into sin through being abandoned by grace. and whose salvation none the less they + eagerly watch over. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A1-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The wicked will know all the good they have done, and this will not diminish their pain; indeed, it will increase it, because + the greatest sorrow is to have lost many goods: for which reason Boethius says (De Consol. ii) that "the greatest misfortune + is to have been happy." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A1-p13"></p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A1-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q87.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q87_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q87_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q87_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q87_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q87_A2-p0.1">Whether every one will be able to read all that is in another's conscience?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q87_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that it will be impossible for every one to read all that is in another's conscience. For the knowledge of those + who rise again will not be clearer than that of the angels, equality with whom is promised us after the resurrection ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q87_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.22.30" target="asv">Mat. 22:30</a>). Now angels cannot read one another's thoughts in matters dependent on the free-will, wherefore they need to speak in order + to notify such things to one another [*Cf. FP, Q[107]]. Therefore + after rising again we shall be unable to read what is contained in another's conscience. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whatever is known is known either in itself, or in its cause, or in its effect. Now the merits or demerits contained + in a person's conscience cannot be known by another in themselves, because God alone enters the heart and reads its secrets. + Neither will it be possible for them to be known in their cause, since all will not see God Who alone can act on the will, + whence merits and demerits proceed. Nor again will it be possible to know them from their + effect, since there will be many demerits, which through being wholly blotted out by repentance will leave no effect remaining. + Therefore it will not be possible for every one to know all that is in another's conscience. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Chrysostom says (Hom. xxxi in Ep. ad Hebr.), as we have quoted before (Sent. iv, D, 17): "If thou remember thy sins + now, and frequently confess them before Cod and beg pardon for them, thou wilt very soon blot them out; but if thou forget + them, thou wilt then remember them unwillingly, when they will be made public, and declared before all thy friends and foes, + and in the presence of the holy angels." Hence it follows that this publication will be the + punishment of man's neglect in omitting to confess his sins. Therefore the sins which a man has confessed will not be made + known to others. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A2-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it is a relief to know that one has had many associates in sin, so that one is less ashamed thereof. If therefore + every one were to know the sin of another, each sinner's shame would be much diminished, which is unlikely. Therefore every + one will not know the sins of all. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A2-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> A gloss on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q87_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.4.5" target="asv">1 Cor. 4:5, </a> "will . . . bring to light the hidden things of darkness," says: "Deeds and thoughts both good and evil will then be revealed + and made known to all." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A2-p7"> Further, the past sins of all the good will be equally blotted out. Yet we know the sins of some saints, for instance of + Magdalen, Peter, and David. Therefore in like manner the sins of the other elect will be known, and much more those of the + damned. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A2-p8"> + <b>I answer that,</b> At the last and general judgment it behooves the Divine justice, which now is in many ways hidden, to appear evidently to + all. Now the sentence of one who condemns or rewards cannot be just, unless it be delivered according to merits and demerits. + Therefore just as it behooves both judge and jury to know the merits of a case, in order to deliver a just verdict, so is + it necessary, in order that the sentence appear to be just, that all who know the sentence + should be acquainted with the merits. Hence, since every one will know of his reward or condemnation, so will every one else + know of it, and consequently as each one will recall his own merits or demerits, so will he be cognizant of those of others. + This is the more probable and more common opinion, although the Master (Sent. iv, D, 43) says the contrary, namely that a + man's sins blotted out by repentance will not be made known to others at the judgment. But it would follow from this that + neither would his repentance for these sins be perfectly known, which would detract considerably from the glory of the saints + and the praise due to God for having so mercifully delivered them. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> All the preceding merits or demerits will come to a certain amount in the glory or unhappiness of each one rising again. + Consequently through eternal things being seen, all things in their consciences will be visible, especially as the Divine + power will conduce to this so that the Judge's sentence may appear just to all. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It will be possible for a man's merits or demerits to be made known by their effects as stated above (A[1], ad 1), or by + the power of God, although the power of the created intellect is not sufficient for this. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A2-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The manifestation of his sins to the confusion of the sinner is a result of his neglect in omitting to confess them. But + that the sins of the saints be revealed cannot be to their confusion or shame, as neither does it bring confusion to Mary + Magdalen that her sins are publicly recalled in the Church, because shame is "fear of disgrace," as Damascene says (De Fide + Orth. ii), and this will be impossible in the blessed. But this manifestation will bring + them great glory on account of the penance they did, even as the confessor hails a man who courageously confesses great crimes. + Sins are said to be blotted out because God sees them not for the purpose of punishing them. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A2-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The sinner's confusion will not be diminished, but on the contrary increased, through his seeing the sins of others, for + in seeing that others are blameworthy he will all the more acknowledge himself to be blamed. For that confusion be diminished + by a cause of this kind is owing to the fact that shame regards the esteem of men, who esteem more lightly that which is customary. + But then confusion will regard the esteem of God, which weighs every sin + according to the truth, whether it be the sin of one man or of many. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A2-p13"></p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A2-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q87_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q87_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q87_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q87_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q88.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q87_A3-p0.1">Whether all merits and demerits, one's own as well as those of others, will be seen by anyone at a single glance?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q87_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that not all merits and demerits, one's own as well as those of others, will be seen by anyone at a single + glance. For things considered singly are not seen at one glance. Now the damned will consider their sins singly and will bewail + them, wherefore they say ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q87_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.5.8" target="asv">Wis. 5:8</a>): "What hath pride profited us?" Therefore they will not see them all at a glance. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Philosopher says (Topic. ii) that "we do not arrive at understanding several things at the same time." Now merits + and demerits, both our own and those of others, will not be visible save to the intellect. Therefore it will be impossible + for them all to be seen at the same time. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the intellect of the damned after the resurrection will not be clearer than the intellect of the blessed and of + the angels is now, as to the natural knowledge whereby they know things by innate species. Now by such knowledge the angels + do not see several things at the same time. Therefore neither will the damned be able then to see all their deeds at the same + time. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> A gloss on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q87_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Job.8.22" target="asv"> Job 8:22, </a> "They . . . shall be clothed with confusion," says: "As soon as they shall see the Judge, all their evil deeds will stand + before their eyes." Now they will see the Judge suddenly. Therefore in like manner will they see the evil they have done, + and for the same reason all others. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A3-p6"> Further, Augustine (De Civ. Dei xx) considers it unfitting that at the judgment a material book should be read containing + the deeds of each individual written therein, for the reason that it would be impossible to measure the size of such a book, + or the time it would take to read. But in like manner it would be impossible to estimate the length of time one would require + in order to consider all one's merits and demerits and those of others, if one saw these various things one + after the other. Therefore we must admit that each one sees them all at the same time. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A3-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> There are two opinions on this question. For some say that one will see all merits and demerits, both one's own and those + of others, at the same time in an instant. This is easily credible with regard to the blessed, since they will see all things + in the Word: and consequently it is not unreasonable that they should see several things at the same time. But with regard + to the damned, a difficulty presents itself, since their intellect is not raised so that + they can see God and all else in Him. Wherefore others say that the wicked will see all their sins and those of others generically + at the same time: and this suffices for the accusation or absolution necessary for the judgment; but that they will not see + them all down to each single one at the same time. But neither does this seem consonant with the words of Augustine (De Civ. + Dei xx), who says that they will count them all with one glance of the mind; and what is known generically is not + counted. Hence we may choose a middle way, by holding that they will consider each sin not instantaneously, but in a very + short time, the Divine power coming to their aid. This agrees with the saying of Augustine (De Civ. Dei xx) that "they will + be discerned with wondrous rapidity." Nor is this impossible, since in a space of time, however short, is potentially an infinite + number of instants. This suffices for the replies to the objections on either side of the question. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A3-p8"></p> + <p id="XP_Q87_A3-p9"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q87_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q88.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.XP.iv.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q87_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q88" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q87_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q88_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="XP_Q88-p0.1">OF THE GENERAL JUDGMENT, AS TO THE TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH IT WILL BE (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="XP_Q88-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q88-p2"> We must next consider the general judgment, as to the time and place at which it will be. Under this head there are four + points of inquiry: + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88-p3"> (1) Whether there will be a general judgment?</p> + <p id="XP_Q88-p4"> (2) Whether as regards the debate it will be conducted by word of mouth?</p> + <p id="XP_Q88-p5"> (3) Whether it will take place at an unknown time?</p> + <p id="XP_Q88-p6"> (4) Whether it will take place in the valley of Josaphat?</p> + <div id="XP_Q88_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q88.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q88_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q88_A1-p0.1">Whether there will be a general judgment?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q88_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there will not be a general judgment. For according to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Nah.1.9" target="asv"> Nahum 1:9, </a> following the Septuagint version, "God will not judge the same thing a second time." But God judges now of mans' every work, + by assigning punishments and rewards to each one after death, and also by rewarding and punishing certain ones in this life + for their good or evil deeds. Therefore it would seem that there will be no other judgment. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in no judicial inquiry is the sentence carried cut before judgment is pronounced. But the sentence of the Divine + judgment on man regards the acquisition of the kingdom or exclusion from the kingdom ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.25.34" target="asv">Mat. 25:34</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A1-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.25.41" target="asv">41</a>). Therefore since some obtain possession of the kingdom now, and some are excluded from it for ever, it would seem that there + will be no other judgment. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the reason why certain things are submitted to judgment is that we may come to a decision about them. Now before + the end of the world each of the damned is awarded his damnation, and each of the blessed his beatitude. Therefore, etc. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.12.41" target="asv">Mat. 12:41</a>): "The men of Nineve shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it." Therefore there will be a judgment + after the resurrection. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A1-p6"> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.5.29" target="asv">Jn. 5:29</a>): "They that have done good things shall come forth unto the resurrection of life, but they that have done evil, unto the + resurrection of judgment." Therefore it would seem that after the resurrection there will be a judgment. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A1-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Just as operation refers to the beginning wherefrom things receive their being, so judgment belongs to the term, wherein + they are brought to their end. Now we distinguish a twofold operation in God. One is that whereby He first gave things their + being, by fashioning their nature and by establishing the distinctions which contribute to the perfection thereof: from this + work God is stated to have rested ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.2.2" target="asv">Gn. 2:2</a>). His other operation is that whereby He works + in governing creatures; and of this it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A1-p7.2" href="./asv.html#John.5.17" target="asv">Jn. 5:17</a>): "My Father worketh until now; and I work." Hence we distinguish in Him a twofold judgment, but in the reverse order. One + corresponds to the work of governance which cannot be without judgment: and by this judgment each one is judged individually + according to his works, not only as adapted to himself, but also as adapted to the government of the universe. Hence one man's + reward is delayed for the good of others + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A1-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Heb.11.13" target="asv">Heb. 11:13</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A1-p7.4" href="./asv.html#Heb.11.39" target="asv">39</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A1-p7.5" href="./asv.html#Heb.11.40" target="asv">40</a>), and the punishment of one conduces to the profit of another. Consequently it is necessary that there should be another, + and that a general judgment corresponding on the other hand with the first formation of things in being, in order that, to + wit, just as then all things proceeded immediately from God, so at length the world will receive its ultimate complement, + by each one receiving finally his own personal due. Hence at this judgment the Divine justice + will be made manifest in all things, whereas now it remains hidden, for as much as at times some persons are dealt with for + the profit of others, otherwise than their manifest works would seem to require. For this same reason there will then be a + general separation of the good from the wicked, because there will be no further motive for the good to profit by the wicked, + or the wicked by the good: for the sake of which profit the good are meanwhile mingled with the wicked, so long as this state + of life is governed by Divine providence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Each man is both an individual person and a part of the whole human race: wherefore a twofold judgment is due to him. One, + the particular judgment, is that to which he will be subjected after death, when he will receive according as he hath done + in the body [*Cf. + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.5.10" target="asv">2 Cor. 5:10</a>], not indeed entirely but only in part since he will receive not in the body but only in the soul. The other judgment will + be passed on him as a part of the human race: thus a man + is said to be judged according to human justice, even when judgment is pronounced on the community of which he is a part. + Hence at the general judgment of the whole human race by the general separation of the good from the wicked, it follows that + each one will be judged. And yet God will not judge "the same thing a second time," since He will not inflict two punishments + for one sin, and the punishment which before the judgment was not inflicted completely will be completed at the last judgment, + after which the wicked will be tormented at the same time in body and soul. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The sentence proper to this general judgment is the general separation of the good from the wicked, which will not precede + this judgment. Yet even now, as regards the particular sentence on each individual, the judgment does not at once take full + effect since even the good will receive an increase of reward after the judgment, both from the added glory of the body and + from the completion of the number of the saints. The wicked also will receive an + increase of torment from the added punishment of the body and from the completion of the number of damned to be punished, + because the more numerous those with whom they will burn, the more will they themselves burn. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The general judgment will regard more directly the generality of men than each individual to be judged, as stated above. + Wherefore although before that judgment each one will be certain of his condemnation or reward, he will not be cognizant of + the condemnation or reward of everyone else. Hence the necessity of the general judgment. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A1-p11"></p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A1-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q88.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q88_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q88_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q88_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q88_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q88_A2-p0.1">Whether the judgment will take place by word of mouth? </h4> + <p id="XP_Q88_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this judgment, as regards the inquiry and sentence, will take place by word of mouth. For according to + Augustine (De Civ. Dei xx) "it is uncertain how many days this judgment will last." But it would not be uncertain if the things + we are told will take place at the judgment were to be accomplished only in the mind. Therefore this judgment will take place + by word of mouth and not only in the mind. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Gregory says (Moral. xxvi): "Those at least will hear the words of the Judge, who have confessed their faith in + Him by words." Now this cannot be understood as referring to the inner word, because thus all will hear the Judge's words, + since all the deeds of other men will be known to all both good and wicked. Therefore it seems that this judgment will take + place by word of mouth. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ will judge according to His human form, so as to be visible in the body to all. Therefore in like manner + it seems that He will speak with the voice of the body, so as to be heard by all. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xx) that the book of life which is mentioned + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.20.12" target="asv">Apoc. 20:12</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A2-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Rev.20.15" target="asv">15</a> "is a kind of Divine energy enabling each one to remember all his good or evil works, and to discern them with the gaze of + the mind, with wondrous rapidity, his knowledge accusing or defending his conscience, so that all and each will be judged + at the same moment." But if each one's merits were discussed by word of mouth, all and each could not be + judged at the same moment. Therefore it would seem that this judgment will not take place by word of mouth. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A2-p6"> Further, the sentence should correspond proportionately to the evidence. Now the evidence both of accusation and of defense + will be mental, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.2.15" target="asv"> Rom. 2:15,16, </a> "Their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing or also defending one another in + the day when God shall judge the secrets of men." Therefore seemingly, this sentence and the entire judgment will take place + mentally. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A2-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It is not possible to come to any certain conclusion about the truth of this question. It is, however, the more probable + opinion that the whole of this judgment, whether as regards the inquiry, or as regards the accusation of the wicked and the + approval of the good or again as regards the sentence on both, will take place mentally. For if the deeds of each individual + were to be related by word of mouth, this would require an inconceivable length of time. + Thus Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xx) that "if we suppose the book, from the pages of which all will be judged according to + + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.20" target="asv">Apoc. 20</a>, to be a material book, who will be able to conceive its size and length? or the length of time required for the reading + of a book that contains the entire life of every individual?" Nor is less time requisite for telling by word of mouth the + deeds of each individual, than for reading them if they were written in a material book. Hence, probably we should + understand that the details set forth in + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.25" target="asv">Mat. 25</a> will be fulfilled not by word of mouth but mentally. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The reason why Augustine says that "it is uncertain how many days this judgment will last" is precisely because it is not + certain whether it will take place mentally or by word of mouth. For if it were to take place by word of mouth, a considerable + time would be necessary. but if mentally, it is possible for it to be accomplished in an instant. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Even if the judgment is accomplished solely in the mind, the saying of Gregory stands, since though all will be cognizant + of their own and of others' deeds, as a result of the Divine energy which the Gospel describes as speech ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.25.84" target="asv">Mat. 25:84-46</a>), nevertheless those who have had the faith which they received through God's words will be judged from those very words, + for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A2-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.2.12" target="asv">Rom. 2:12</a>): "Whosoever have + sinned in the Law shall be judged by the Law." Hence in a special way something will be said to those who had been believers, + which will not be said to unbelievers. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ will appear in body, so that the Judge may be recognized in the body by all, and it is possible for this to take place + suddenly. But speech which is measured by time would require an immense length of time, if the judgment took place by word + of mouth. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A2-p11"></p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A2-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q88_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q88_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q88_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q88_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q88_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q88_A3-p0.1">Whether the time of the future judgment is unknown?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q88_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the time of the future judgment is not unknown. For just as the holy Fathers looked forward to the first + coming, so do we look forward to the second. But the holy Fathers knew the time of the first coming, as proved by the number + of weeks mentioned in + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Dan.9" target="asv">Daniel 9</a>: wherefore the Jews are reproached for not knowing the time of Christ's coming ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A3-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.12.56" target="asv">Lk. 12:56</a>): "You hypocrites, you know how to discern the face of the heaven and of + the earth, but how is it that you do not discern this time?" Therefore it would seem that the time of the second coming when + God will come to judgment should also be certified to us. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, we arrive by means of signs at the knowledge of the things signified. Now many signs of the coming judgment are + declared to us in Scripture ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.24" target="asv">Mat. 24</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A3-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Mark.13" target="asv">Mk. 13</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A3-p3.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.21" target="asv">Lk. 21</a>). Therefore we can arrive at the knowledge of that time. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.11" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:11</a>): "It is on us [*'These things . . . are written for our correction, upon whom the ends of the world are come'] that the + ends of the world are come," and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A3-p4.2" href="./asv.html#iJohn.2.18" target="asv">1 Jn. 2:18</a>): "Little children, it is the last hour," etc. Since then it is a long time since these things were said, it would seem that + now at least we can know that the last judgment is nigh. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A3-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, there is no need for the time of the judgment to be hidden, except that each one may be careful to prepare himself + for judgment, being in ignorance of the appointed time. Yet the same care would still be necessary even were the time known + for certain, because each one is uncertain about the time of his death, of which Augustine says (Ep. ad Hesych. cxcix) that + "as each one's last day finds him, so will the world's last day find him." Therefore there + is no necessity for the time of the judgment to be uncertain. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A3-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.13.32" target="asv">Mk. 13:32</a>): "Of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father." The Son, however, is said + not to know in so far as He does not impart the knowledge to us. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A3-p7"> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iThess.5.2" target="asv">1 Thess. 5:2</a>): "The day of the Lord shall so come as a thief in the night." Therefore seemingly, as the coming of a thief in the night + is altogether uncertain, the day of the last judgment is altogether uncertain. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A3-p8"> + <b>I answer that,</b> God is the cause of things by His knowledge [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q88_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q14_A8.html">FP, Q[14], A[8]</a>]. Now He communicates both these things to His creatures, since He both endows some with the power of action on others whereof + they are the cause, and bestows on some the knowledge of things. But in both cases He reserves something to Himself, for He + operates certain things wherein no creature co-operates with Him, and again He knows certain things which are unknown to + any mere creature. Now this should apply to none more than to those things which are subject to the Divine power alone, and + in which no creature co-operates with Him. Such is the end of the world when the day of judgment will come. For the world + will come to an end by no created cause, even as it derived its existence immediately from God. Wherefore the knowledge of + the end of the world is fittingly reserved to God. Indeed our Lord seems to assign this very reason when He said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A3-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.1.7" target="asv">Acts + 1:7 + </a>): "It is not for you to know the times or moments which the Father hath put in His own power," as though He were to say, + "which are reserved to His power alone." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> At His first coming Christ came secretly according to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.45.15" target="asv">Is. 45:15</a>, "Verily Thou art a hidden God, the God of Israel, the Saviour." Hence, that He might be recognized by believers, it was + necessary for the time to be fixed beforehand with certainty. On the other hand, at the second coming, He will come openly, + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A3-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.49.3" target="asv"> Ps. 49:3, </a> "God shall come manifestly." Consequently there can be no error affecting the knowledge of His coming. + Hence the comparison fails. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says, in his letter to Hesychius concerning the day of judgment (Ep. cxcix), "the signs mentioned in the Gospels + do not all refer to the second advent which will happen at the end of the world, but some of them belong to the time of the + sack of Jerusalem, which is now a thing of the past, while some, in fact many of them, refer to the advent whereby He comes + daily to the Church, whom He visits spiritually when He dwells in us by faith and + love." Moreover, the details mentioned in the Gospels and Epistles in connection with the last advent are not sufficient to + enable us to determine the time of the judgment, for the trials that are foretold as announcing the proximity of Christ's + coming occurred even at the time of the Early Church, in a degree sometimes more sometimes less marked; so that even the days + of the apostles were called the last days ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A3-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.2.17" target="asv">Acts 2:17</a>) when Peter expounded the saying of + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A3-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Joel.2.28" target="asv"> Joel + 2:28, + </a>"It shall come to pass in the last days," etc., as referring to that time. Yet it was already a long time since then: and + sometimes there were more and sometimes less afflictions in the Church. Consequently it is impossible to decide after how + long a time it will take place, nor fix the month, year, century, or thousand years as Augustine says in the same book (Ep. + ad Hesych. cxcix). And even if we are to believe that at the end these calamities will be more frequent, it is + impossible to fix what amount of such calamities will immediately precede the judgment day or the coming of Antichrist, since + even at the time of the Early Church persecutions were so bitter, and the corruptions of error were so numerous, that some + looked forward to the coming of Antichrist as being near or imminent; as related in Eusebius' History of the Church (vi, 7) + and in Jerome's book De Viris Illustribus lii. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A3-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The statement, "It is the last hour" and similar expressions that are to be found in Scripture do not enable us to know the + exact length of time. For they are not intended to indicate a short length of time, but to signify the last state of the world, + which is the last age of all, and it is not stated definitely how long this will last. Thus neither is fixed duration appointed + to old age, which is the last age of man, since sometimes it is seen to + last as long as or even longer than all the previous ages, as Augustine remarks (Qq. 83, qu. lviii). Hence also the Apostle + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#iiThess.2.2" target="asv">2 Thess. 2:2</a>) disclaims the false signification which some had given to his words, by believing that the day of the Lord was already at + hand. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A3-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Notwithstanding the uncertainty of death, the uncertainty of the judgment conduces to watchfulness in two ways. First, as + regards the thing ignored, since its delay is equal to the length of man's life, so that on either side uncertainty provokes + him to greater care. Secondly, for the reason that a man is careful not only of his own person, but also of his family, or + of his city or kingdom, or of the whole Church, the length of whose duration is not + dependent on the length of man's life. And yet it behooves each of these to be so ordered that the day of the Lord find us + not unprepared. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A3-p13"></p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A3-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q88_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q88_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q88_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q88_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q88_A4-p0.1">Whether the judgment will take place in the valley of Josaphat?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q88_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the judgment will not take place in the valley of Josaphat or in the surrounding locality. For at least + it will be necessary for those to be judged to stand on the ground, and those alone to be raised aloft whose business it will + be to judge. But the whole land of promise would not be able to contain the multitude of those who are to be judged. Therefore + it is impossible for the judgment to take place in the neighborhood of that valley. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, to Christ in His human form judgment is given that He may judge justly, since He was judged unjustly in the court + of Pilate, and bore the sentence of an unjust judgment on Golgotha. Therefore these places would be more suitably appointed + for the judgment. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, clouds result from the exhalation of vapors. But then there will be no evaporation or exhalation. Therefore it will + be impossible for the just to be "taken up . . . in the clouds to meet Christ, into the air": and consequently it will be + necessary for both good and wicked to be on the earth, so that a much larger place than this valley will be required. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Joel.3.2" target="asv">Joel 3:2</a>): "I will gather together all nations and will bring them down into the valley of Josaphat, and I will plead with them there." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A4-p6"> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q88_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.1.11" target="asv">Acts 1:11</a>): "(This Jesus) . . . shall so come as you have seen Him going into heaven." Now He ascended into heaven from Mount Olivet + which overlooks the valley of Josaphat. Therefore He will come to judge in the neighborhood of that place. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A4-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> We cannot know with any great certainty the manner in which this judgment will take place, nor how men will gather together + to the place of judgment; but it may be gathered from Scripture that in all probability He will descend in the neighborhood + of Mount Olivet, even as He ascended from there, so as to show that He who descends is the same as He who ascended. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A great multitude can be enclosed in a small space. And all that is required is that in the neighborhood of that locality + there be a space, however great, to contain the multitude of those who are to be judged, provided that Christ can be seen + thence since being raised in the air, and shining with exceeding glory, He will be visible from a great distance. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although through being sentenced unjustly Christ merited His judiciary power, He will not judge with the appearance of infirmity + wherein He was judged unjustly, but under the appearance of glory wherein He ascended to the Father. Hence the place of His + ascension is more suitable to the judgment than the place where He was condemned. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In the opinion of some the name of clouds is here given to certain condensations of the light shining from the bodies of + the saints, and not to evaporations from earth and water. Or we may say that those clouds will be produced by Divine power + in order to show the parallel between His coming to judge and His ascension; so that He Who ascended in a cloud may come to + judgment in a cloud. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A4-p11"> Again the cloud on account of its refreshing influence indicates the mercy of the Judge.</p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A4-p12"></p> + <p id="XP_Q88_A4-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q88_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.XP_Q87_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q88_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q89" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q88_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="XP_Q89-p0.1">OF THOSE WHO WILL JUDGE AND OF THOSE WHO WILL BE JUDGED AT THE GENERAL JUDGMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="XP_Q89-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q89-p2"> We must next consider who will judge and who will be judged at the general judgment. Under this head there are eight points + of inquiry: + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89-p3"> (1) Whether any men will judge together with Christ?</p> + <p id="XP_Q89-p4"> (2) Whether the judicial power corresponds to voluntary poverty?</p> + <p id="XP_Q89-p5"> (3) Whether the angels also will judge?</p> + <p id="XP_Q89-p6"> (4) Whether the demons will carry out the Judge's sentence on the damned?</p> + <p id="XP_Q89-p7"> (5) Whether all men will come up for judgment?</p> + <p id="XP_Q89-p8"> (6) Whether any of the good will be judged?</p> + <p id="XP_Q89-p9"> (7) Whether any of the wicked will be judged?</p> + <p id="XP_Q89-p10"> (8) Whether the angels also will be judged?</p> + <div id="XP_Q89_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q89_A1-p0.1">Whether any men will judge together with Christ?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q89_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that no men will judge with Christ. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.5.22" target="asv">Jn. 5:22,23</a>): "The Father . . . hath given all judgment to the Son, that all men may honor the Son." Therefore, etc. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whoever judges has authority over that which he judges. Now those things about which the coming judgment will have + to be, such as human merits and demerits, are subject to Divine authority alone. Therefore no one is competent to judge of + those things. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, this judgment will take place not vocally but mentally. Now the publication of merits and demerits in the hearts + of all men (which is like an accusation or approval), or the repayment of punishment and reward (which is like the pronouncement + of the sentence) will be the work of God alone. Therefore none but Christ Who is God will judge. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.28" target="asv">Mat. 19:28</a>): "You also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Therefore, etc. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A1-p6"> Further, "The Lord will enter into judgment with the ancients of His people" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.3.14" target="asv">Is. 3:14</a>). Therefore it would seem that others also will judge together with Christ. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A1-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> To judge has several significations. First it is used causally as it were, when we say it of that which proves that some + person ought to be judged. In this sense the expression is used of certain people in comparison, in so far as some are shown + to be deserving of judgment through being compared with others: for instance ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.12.41" target="asv">Mat. 12:41</a>): "The men of Nineve shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it." To rise in + judgment thus is common to the good and the wicked. Secondly, the expression "to judge" is used equivalently, so to say; for + consent to an action is considered equivalent to doing it. Wherefore those who will consent with Christ the Judge, by approving + His sentence, will be said to judge. In this sense it will belong to all the elect to judge: wherefore it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A1-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Wis.3.7" target="asv">Wis. 3:7,8</a>): "The just . . . shall judge nations." Thirdly, a person is said to judge assessorially and by + similitude, because he is like the judge in that his seat* is raised above the others: and thus assessors are said to judge. + [*An "assessor" is one who "sits by" the judge.] Some say that the perfect to whom judiciary power is promised ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A1-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.28" target="asv">Mat. 19:28</a>) will judge in this sense, namely that they will be raised to the dignity of assessors, because they will appear above others + at the judgment, and go forth "to meet Christ, into the air." But this apparently does not suffice for + the fulfilment of our Lord's promise ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A1-p7.4" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.28" target="asv">Mat. 19:28</a>): "You shall sit . . . judging," for He would seem to make "judging" something additional to "sitting." Hence there is a + fourth way of judging, which will be competent to perfect men as containing the decrees of Divine justice according to which + men will be judged: thus a book containing the law might be said to judge: wherefore it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A1-p7.5" href="./asv.html#Rev.20.12" target="asv">Apoc. 20:12</a>): "(Judgment took her seat*) and the books were + opened." [*The words in brackets are not in the Vulgate. + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A1-p7.6" href="./asv.html#Rev.20.4" target="asv">Apoc. 20:4</a> we find: "I saw seats, and they sat upon them and judgment was given to them."] Richard of St. Victor expounds this judging + in this way (De judic. potest.), wherefore he says: "Those who persevere in Divine contemplation, who read every day the book + of wisdom, transcribe, so to speak, in their hearts whatever they grasp by their clear insight of the truth"; and further + on: "What else are the hearts of those who judge, divinely + instructed in all truth, but a codex of the law?" Since, however, judging denotes an action exercised on another person, it + follows that, properly speaking, he is said to judge who pronounces judgment on another. But this happens in two ways. First, + by his own authority: and this belongs to the one who has dominion and power over others, and to whose ruling those who are + judged are subject, wherefore it belongs to him to pass judgment on them. In this sense to judge belongs to God alone. + Secondly, to judge is to acquaint others of the sentence delivered by another's authority, that is to announce the verdict + already given. In this way perfect men will judge, because they will lead others to the knowledge of Divine justice, that + these may know what is due to them on account of their merits: so that this very revelation of justice is called judgment. + Hence Richard of St. Victor says (De judic. potest.) that for "the judges to open the books of their decree in the presence + of + those who are to be judged signifies that they open their hearts to the gaze of all those who are below them, and that they + reveal their knowledge in whatever pertains to the judgment." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This objection considers the judgment of authority which belongs to Christ alone: and the same answer applies to the Second + Objection. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> There is no reason why some of the saints should not reveal certain things to others, either by way of enlightenment, as + the higher angels enlighten the lower [*Cf. FP, Q[106]],: or by way of speech as the lower angels speak to the higher [*Cf. + + <a id="XP_Q89_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q107_A2.html">FP, Q[107], A[2]</a>]. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q89_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q89_A2-p0.1">Whether the judicial power corresponds to voluntary poverty?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q89_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the judicial power does not correspond to voluntary poverty. For it was promised to none but the twelve + apostles ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.28" target="asv">Mat. 19:28</a>): "You shall sit on twelve seats, judging," etc. Since then those who are voluntarily poor are not all apostles, it would + seem that the judicial power is not competent to all. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, to offer sacrifice to God of one's own body is more than to do so of outward things. Now martyrs and also virgins + offer sacrifice to God of their own body. whereas the voluntarily poor offer sacrifice of outward things. Therefore the sublimity + of the judicial power is more in keeping with martyrs and virgins than with those who are voluntarily poor. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.5.45" target="asv">Jn. 5:45</a>): "There is one that accuseth you, Moses in whom you trust---because you believe not his voice," according to a gloss, and + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A2-p4.2" href="./asv.html#John.12.48" target="asv">Jn. 12:48</a>): "The word that I have spoken shall judge him in the last day." Therefore the fact that a man propounds a law, or exhorts + men by word to lead a good life, gives him the right to judge those who scorn his utterances. But this belongs to doctors. + Therefore + it is more competent to doctors than to those who are poor voluntarily. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A2-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Christ through being judged unjustly merited as man to be judge of all in His human nature [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q89_A2-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q59_A6.html">TP, Q[59], A[6]</a>], according to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A2-p5.2" href="./asv.html#John.5.27" target="asv"> Jn. 5:27, </a> "He hath given Him power to do judgment, because He is the Son of man." Now those who suffer persecution for justice' sake + are judged unjustly. Therefore the judicial power is competent to them rather than to the voluntarily poor. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A2-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, a superior is not judged by his inferior. Now many who will have made lawful use of riches will have greater merit + than many of the voluntarily poor. Therefore the voluntarily poor will not judge where those are to be judged. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A2-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Job.36.6" target="asv">Job 36:6</a>): "He saveth not the wicked, and He giveth judgment to the poor." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A2-p8"> Further, a gloss on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.28" target="asv"> Mat. 19:28, </a> "You who have left all things' [*Vulg.: 'You who have followed Me']" says: "Those who left all things and followed God will + be the judges; those who made right use of what they had lawfully will be judged," and thus the same conclusion follows as + before. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A2-p9"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The judicial power is due especially to poverty on three counts. First, by reason of congruity, since voluntary poverty belongs + to those who despise all the things of the world and cleave to Christ alone. Consequently there is nothing in them to turn + away their judgment from justice, so that they are rendered competent to be judges as loving the truth of justice above all + things. Secondly, by reason of merit, since exaltation corresponds by way of merit to + humility. Now of all the things that make man contemptible in this world humility is the chief: and for this reason the excellence + of judicial power is promised to the poor, so that he who humbles himself for Christ's sake shall be exalted. Thirdly, because + poverty disposes a man to the aforesaid manner of judging. For the reason why one of the saints will be said to judge as stated + above [*Cf. A[1]], is that he will have the heart instructed in all Divine truth which he will be thus able to + make known to others. Now in the advancement to perfection, the first thing that occurs to be renounced is external wealth, + because this is the last thing of all to be acquired. And that which is last in the order of generation is the first in the + order of destruction: wherefore among the beatitudes whereby we advance to perfection, the first place is given to poverty. + Thus judicial power corresponds to poverty, in so far as this is the disposition to the aforesaid perfection. Hence also it + is + that this same power is not promised to all who are voluntarily poor, but to those who leave all and follow Christ in accordance + with the perfection of life. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> According to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xx), "we must not imagine that because He says that they will sit on twelve seats only + twelve men will judge with Him. else since we read that Matthias was appointed apostle in the place of the traitor Judas, + Paul who worked more than the rest will have nowhere to sit as judge." Hence "the number twelve," as he states (De Civ. Dei + xx), "signifies the whole multitude of those who will judge, because the two parts of + seven, namely three and four, being multiplied together make twelve." Moreover twelve is a perfect number, being the double + of six, which is a perfect number. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A2-p11"> Or, speaking literally, He spoke to the twelve apostles in whose person he made this promise to all who follow them.</p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A2-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Virginity and martyrdom do not dispose man to retain the precepts of Divine justice in his heart in the same degree as poverty + does: even so, on the other hand, outward riches choke the word of God by the cares which they entail ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A2-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.8.14" target="asv">Lk. 8:14</a>). Or we may reply that poverty does not suffice alone to merit judicial power, but is the fundamental part of that perfection + to which the judicial power corresponds. Wherefore among those things + regarding perfection which follow after poverty we may reckon both virginity and martyrdom and all the works of perfection: + yet they do not rank as high as poverty, since the beginning of a thing is its chief part. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A2-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> He who propounded the law or urged men to good will judge, in the causal (Cf. A[1]) sense, because others will be judged + in reference to the words he has uttered or propounded. Hence the judicial power does not properly correspond to preaching + or teaching. or we may reply that, as some say, three things are requisite for the judicial power; first, that one renounce + temporal cares, lest the mind be hindered from the contemplation of wisdom; secondly + that one possess Divine justice by way of habit both as to knowledge and as to observance; thirdly that one should have taught + others this same justice; and this teaching will be the perfection whereby a man merits to have judicial power. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A2-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Christ humbled Himself in that He was judged unjustly; for "He was offered because it was His own will" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A2-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.7" target="asv">Is. 53:7</a>): and by His humility He merited His exaltation to judicial power, since all things are made subject to Him ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A2-p14.2" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.8" target="asv">Phil. 2:8,9</a>). Hence, judicial power is more due to them who humble themselves of their own will by renouncing temporal goods, on account + of which men are honored by worldlings, than to those + who are humbled by others. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A2-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> An inferior cannot judge a superior by his own authority, but he can do so by the authority of a superior, as in the case + of a judge-delegate. Hence it is not unfitting that it be granted to the poor as an accidental reward to judge others, even + those who have higher merit in respect of the essential reward. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A2-p16"></p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A2-p17"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q89_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q89_A3-p0.1">Whether the angels will judge?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q89_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the angels will judge. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.25.31" target="asv">Mat. 25:31</a>): "When the Son of man shall come in His majesty, and all the angels with Him." Now He is speaking of His coming to judgment. + Therefore it would seem that also the angels will judge. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the orders of the angels take their names from the offices which they fulfill. Now one of the angelic orders is + that of the Thrones, which would seem to pertain to the judicial power, since a throne is the "judicial bench, a royal seat, + a professor's chair" [*Cf. St. Isidore, Etym. vii, 5]. Therefore some of the angels will judge. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, equality with the angels is promised the saints after this life ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.22.30" target="asv">Mat. 22:30</a>). If then men will have this power of judging, much more will the angels have it. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.5.27" target="asv">Jn. 5:27</a>): "He hath given Him power to judgment, because He is the Son of man." But the angels have not the human nature in common + with Him. Neither therefore do they share with Him in the judicial power. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A3-p6"> Further, the same person is not judge and judge's minister. Now in this judgment the angels will act as ministers of the + Judge and, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.13.41" target="asv"> Mat. 13:41</a>: "The Son of man shall send His angels and they shall gather out of His kingdom all scandals." Therefore the angels will + not judge. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A3-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The judge's assessors must be conformed to the judge. Now judgment is ascribed to the Son of man because He will appear to + all, both good and wicked, in His human nature, although the whole Trinity will judge by authority. Consequently it behooves + also the Judge's assessors to have the human nature, so as to be visible to all, both good and wicked. Hence it is not fitting + for the angels to judge, although in a certain sense we may say that the angels will + judge, namely by approving the sentence [*Cf. A[1]]. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As a gloss on this passage observes, the angels will come with Christ, not to judge, but "as witnesses of men's deeds because + it was under their guardianship that men did well or ill." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The name of Thrones is given to angels in reference to the judgment which God is ever pronouncing, by governing all things + with supreme justice: of which judgment angels are in a way the executors and promulgators. On the other hand, the judgment + of men by the man Christ will require human assessors. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Equality with angels is promised to men as regards the essential reward. But nothing hinders an accidental reward from being + bestowed on men to the exclusion of the angels, as in the case of the virgins' and martyrs' crowns: and the same may be said + of the judicial power. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A3-p11"></p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A3-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q89_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q89_A4-p0.1">Whether the demons will carry out the sentence of the Judge on the damned?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q89_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the demons will not carry out the sentence of the Judge on the damned after the day of judgment. For, + according to the Apostle ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.24" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:24</a>): "He will then bring to naught [*Vulg.: 'When He shall have brought to naught', etc.] all principality, and power, and virtue." + Therefore all supremacy will cease then. But the carrying out of the Judge's sentence implies some kind of supremacy. Therefore + after the judgment day the + demons will not carry out the Judge's sentence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the demons sinned more grievously than men. Therefore it is not just that men should be tortured by demons. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as the demons suggest evil things to men, so good angels suggest good things. Now it will not be the duty of + the good angels to reward the good, but this will be done by God, immediately by Himself. Therefore neither will it be the + duty of the demons to punish the wicked. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Sinners have subjected themselves to the devil by sinning. Therefore it is just that they should be subjected to him in their + punishments, and punished by him as it were. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The Master in the text of Sentent. iv, D, 47 mentions two opinions on this question, both of which seem consistent with Divine + justice, because it is just for man to be subjected to the devil for having sinned, and yet it is unjust for the demon to + be over him. Accordingly the opinion which holds that after the judgment day the demons will not be placed over men to punish + them, regards the order of Divine justice on the part of the demons punishing; while + the contrary opinion regards the order of Divine justice on the part of the men punished. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A4-p7"> Which of these opinions is nearer the truth we cannot know for certain. Yet I think it truer to say that just as, among the + saved, order will be observed so that some will be enlightened and perfected by others (because all the orders of the heavenly + hierarchies will continue for ever) [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q89_A4-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q108_A7.html">FP, Q[108], AA[7]</a>,8], so, too, will order be observed in punishments, men being punished by demons, lest the Divine order, whereby the angels + are placed between the + human nature and the Divine, be entirely set aside. Wherefore just as the Divine illuminations are conveyed to men by the + good angels, so too the demons execute the Divine justice on the wicked. Nor does this in any way diminish the punishment + of the demons, since even in torturing others they are themselves tortured, because then the fellowship of the unhappy will + not lessen but will increase unhappiness. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The supremacy which, it is declared, will be brought to nought by Christ in the time to come must be taken in the sense of + the supremacy which is in keeping with the state of this world: wherein men are placed over men, angels over men, angels over + angels, demons over demons, and demons over men; in every case so as either to lead towards the end or to lead astray from + the end. But then when all things will have attained to that end there will be no + supremacy to lead astray from the end or to lead to it, but only that which maintains in the end, good or evil. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although the demerit of the demons does not require that they be placed over men, since they made men subject to them unjustly, + yet this is required by the order of their nature in relation to human nature: since "natural goods remain in them unimpaired" + as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The good angels are not the cause of the principal reward in the elect, because all receive this immediately from God. Nevertheless + the angels are the cause of certain accidental rewards in men, in so far as the higher angels enlighten those beneath them, + both angels and men, concerning certain hidden things of God, which do not belong to the essence of beatitude. In like manner + the damned will receive their principal punishment immediately from God, + namely the everlasting banishment from the Divine vision: but there is no reason why the demons should not torture men with + other sensible punishments. There is, however, this difference: that merit exalts, whereas sin debases. Wherefore since the + angelic nature is higher than the human, some on account of the excellence of their merit will be so far exalted as to be + raised above the angels both in nature and rewards [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q89_A4-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q108_A8.html">FP, Q[108], A[8]</a> ], so that some angels will + be enlightened by some men. On the other hand, no human sinners will, on account of a certain degree of virtue, attain to + the eminence that attaches to the nature of the demons. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A4-p11"></p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A4-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q89_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q89_A5-p0.1">Whether all men will be present at the judgment?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q89_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that men will not all be present at the judgment. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.28" target="asv">Mat. 19:28</a>): "You . . . shall sit on twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." But all men do not belong to those twelve tribes. + Therefore it would seem that men will not all be present at the judgment. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the same apparently is to be gathered from + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.1.5" target="asv"> Ps. 1:5, </a> "The wicked shall not rise again in judgment." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a man is brought to judgment that his merits may be discussed. But some there are who have acquired no merits, such + as children who died before reaching the perfect age. Therefore they need not be present at the judgment. Now there are many + such. Therefore it would seem that not all will be present. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.10.42" target="asv">Acts 10:42</a>) that Christ "was appointed by God to be judge of the living and of the dead." Now this division comprises all men, no matter + how the living be distinct from the dead. Therefore all men will be present at the judgment. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A5-p6"> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.1.7" target="asv">Apoc. 1:7</a>): "Behold He cometh with the clouds, and every eye shall see Him." Now this would not be so unless all were present at the + judgment. Therefore, etc. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A5-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The judicial power was bestowed on Christ as man, in reward for the humility which He showed forth in His passion. Now in + His passion He shed His blood for all in point of sufficiency, although through meeting with an obstacle in some, it had not + its effect in all. Therefore it is fitting that all men should assemble at the judgment, to see His exaltation in His human + nature, in respect of which "He was appointed by God to be judge of the living and of the + dead." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xx, 5), "it does not follow from the saying, 'Judging the twelve tribes of Israel,' that the + tribe of Levi, which is the thirteenth, is not to be judged, or that they will judge that people alone, and not other nations." + The reason why all other nations are denoted by the twelve tribes is because they were called by Christ to take the place + of the twelve tribes. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The words, "The wicked shall not rise in judgment," if referred to all sinners, mean that they will not arise to judge. But + if the wicked denote unbelievers, the sense is that they will not arise to be judged, because they are "already judged" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A5-p9.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.18" target="asv">Jn. 3:18</a>). All, however, will rise again to assemble at the judgment and witness the glory of the Judge. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A5-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Even children who have died before reaching the perfect age will be present at the judgment, not to be judged, but to see + the Judge's glory. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A5-p11"></p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A5-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q89_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A7.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q89_A6-p0.1">Whether the good will be judged at the judgment?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q89_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that none of the good will be judged at the judgment. For it is declared ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.18" target="asv">Jn. 3:18</a>) that "he that believeth in Him is not judged." Now all the good believed in Him. Therefore they will not be judged. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, those who are uncertain of their bliss are not blessed: whence Augustine proves (Gen. ad lit. xi) that the demons + were never blessed. But the saints are now blessed. Therefore they are certain of their bliss. Now what is certain is not + submitted to judgment. Therefore the good will not be judged. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, fear is incompatible with bliss. But the last judgment, which above all is described as terrible, cannot take place + without inspiring fear into those who are to be judged. Hence Gregory observes on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Job.41.16" target="asv"> Job 41:16 </a>"When he shall raise him up, the angels shall fear," etc. (Moral. xxxiv): "Consider how the conscience of the wicked will + then be troubled when even the just are disturbed about their life." Therefore the blessed will not be + judged. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It would seem that all the good will be judged, since it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.5.10" target="asv">2 Cor. 5:10</a>): "We must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, + according as he hath done, whether it be good or evil." Now there is nothing else to be judged. Therefore all, even the good, + will be judged. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A6-p6"> Further, the "general" includes all. Now this is called the general judgment. Therefore all will be judged.</p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A6-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The judgment comprises two things, namely the discussion of merits and the payment of rewards. As regards the payment of + rewards, all will be judged, even the good, since the Divine sentence will appoint to each one the reward corresponding to + his merit. But there is no discussion of merits save where good and evil merits are mingled together. Now those who build + on the foundation of faith, "gold, silver, and precious stones" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.3.12" target="asv">1 Cor. + 3:12 + </a>), by devoting themselves wholly to the Divine service, and who have no notable admixture of evil merit, are not subjected + to a discussion of their merits. Such are those who have entirely renounced the things of the world and are solicitously thoughtful + of the things that are of God: wherefore they will be saved but will not be judged. Others, however, build on the foundation + of faith, wood, hay, stubble [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q89_A6-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q89_A2.html">FS, Q[89], A[2]</a>]; they, in fact, love + worldly things and are busy about earthly concerns, yet so as to prefer nothing to Christ, but strive to redeem their sins + with alms, and these have an admixture of good with evil merits. Hence they are subjected to a discussion of their merits, + and consequently in this account will be judged, and yet they will be saved. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A6-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Since punishment is the effect of justice, while reward is the effect of mercy, it follows that punishment is more especially + ascribed antonomastically to judgment which is the act of justice; so that judgment is sometimes used to express condemnation. + It is thus that we are to understand the words quoted, as a gloss on the passage remarks. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The merits of the elect will be discussed, not to remove the uncertainty of their beatitude from the hearts of those who + are to be judged, but that it may be made manifest to us that their good merits outweigh their evil merits, and thus God's + justice be proved. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A6-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Gregory is speaking of the just who will still be in mortal flesh, wherefore he had already said: "Those who will still be + in the body, although already brave and perfect, yet through being still in the flesh must needs be troubled with fear in + the midst of such a whirlwind of terror." Hence it is clear that this fear refers to the time immediately before the judgment, + most terrible indeed to the wicked, but not to the good, who will have no + apprehension of evil. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A6-p11"> The arguments in the contrary sense consider judgment as regards the payment of rewards.</p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A6-p12"></p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A6-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A7.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q89_A7" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A8.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q89_A7-p0.1">Whether the wicked will be judged?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q89_A7-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A7-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that none of the wicked will be judged. For even as damnation is certain in the case of unbelievers, so is + it in the case of those who die in mortal sin. Now it is declared because of the certainty of damnation ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A7-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.18" target="asv">Jn. 3:18</a>): "He that believeth not is already judged." Therefore in like manner neither will other sinners be judged. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A7-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the voice of the Judge is most terrible to those who are condemned by His judgment. Now according to the text of + Sentent. iv, D, 47 and in the words of Gregory (Moral. xxvi) "the Judge will not address Himself to unbelievers." If therefore + He were to address Himself to the believers about to be condemned, the unbelievers would reap a benefit from their unbelief, + which is absurd. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A7-p4"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It would seem that all the wicked are to be judged, because all the wicked will be sentenced to punishment according to the + degree of their guilt. But this cannot be done without a judicial pronouncement. Therefore all the wicked will be judged. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A7-p5"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The judgment as regards the sentencing to punishment for sin concerns all the wicked. whereas the judgment as regards the + discussion of merits concerns only believers. Because in unbelievers the foundation of faith is lacking, without which all + subsequent works are deprived of the perfection of a right intention, so that in them there is no admixture of good and evil + works or merits requiring discussion. But believers in whom the foundation of faith remains, + have at least a praiseworthy act of faith, which though it is not meritorious without charity, yet is in itself directed to + merit, and consequently they will be subjected to the discussion of merits. Consequently, believers who were at least counted + as citizens of the City of God will be judged as citizens, and sentence of death will not be passed on them without a discussion + of their merits; whereas unbelievers will be condemned as foes, who are wont among men to be exterminated without their + merits being discussed. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A7-p6"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although it is certain that those who die in mortal sin will be damned, nevertheless since they have an admixture of certain + things connected with meriting well, it behooves, for the manifestation of Divine justice, that their merits be subjected + to discussion, in order to make it clear that they are justly banished from the city of the saints, of which they appeared + outwardly to be citizens. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A7-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Considered under this special aspect the words addressed to the believers about to be condemned will not be terrible, because + they will reveal in them certain things pleasing to them, which it will be impossible to find in unbelievers, since "without + faith it is impossible to please God" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A7-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.11.6" target="asv">Heb. 11:6</a>). But the sentence of condemnation which will be passed on them all will be terrible to all of them. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A7-p8"> The argument in the contrary sense considered the judgment of retribution.</p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A7-p9"></p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A7-p10"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A8.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q89_A8" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q90.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q89_A8-p0.1">Whether at the coming judgment the angels will be judged?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q89_A8-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A8-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the angels will be judged at the coming judgment. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A8-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.6.3" target="asv">1 Cor. 6:3</a>): "Know you not that we shall judge angels?" But this cannot refer to the state of the present time. Therefore it should + refer to the judgment to come. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A8-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written concerning Behemoth or Leviathan, whereby the devil is signified ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A8-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Job.40.28" target="asv">Job 40:28</a>): "In the sight of all he shall be cast down"; and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A8-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Mark.1.24" target="asv">Mk. 1:24</a>)* the demon cried out to Christ: "Why art Thou come to destroy us before the time?" for, according to a gloss, "the demons + seeing our Lord on earth thought they were to be judged forthwith." [*The reference should be + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A8-p3.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.8.29" target="asv"> Mat. 8:29</a>: 'Art Thou come + hither to torment us before the time?' The text of Mark reads: 'Art Thou come to destroy us?'] Therefore it would seem that + a final judgment is in store for them. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A8-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A8-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iiPet.2.4" target="asv">2 Pet. 2:4</a>): "God spared not the angels that sinned, but delivered them drawn down by infernal ropes to the lower hell, unto torments, + to be reserved unto judgment." Therefore it seems that the angels will be judged. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A8-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A8-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Nah.1.9" target="asv">Nahum 1:9</a>) according to the Septuagint version: "God will not judge the same thing a second time." But the wicked angels are already + judged, wherefore it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q89_A8-p5.2" href="./asv.html#John.16.11" target="asv">Jn. 16:11</a>): "The prince of this world is already judged." Therefore the angels will not be judged in the time to come. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A8-p6"> Further, goodness and wickedness are more perfect in the angels than in men who are wayfarers. Now some men, good and wicked, + will not be judged as stated in the text of Sentent. iv, D, 47. Therefore neither will good or wicked angels be judged. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A8-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The judgment of discussion nowise concerns either the good or the wicked angels, since neither is any evil to be found in + the good angels, nor is any good liable to judgment to be found in the wicked angels. But if we speak of the judgment of retribution, + we must distinguish a twofold retribution. One corresponds to the angels' personal merits and was made to both from the beginning + when some were raised to bliss, and others plunged into the depths of woe. + The other corresponds to the merits, good or evil, procured through the angels, and this retribution will be made in the judgment + to come, because the good angels will have an increased joy in the salvation of those whom they have prompted to deeds of + merit, while the wicked will have an increase of torment through the manifold downfall of those whom they have incited to + evil deeds. Consequently the judgment will not regard the angels directly, neither as judging nor as judged, but only men; + but it will regard the angels indirectly somewhat, in so far as they were concerned in men's deeds. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A8-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This saying of the Apostle refers to the judgment of comparison, because certain men will be found to be placed higher than + the angels. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A8-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The demons will then be cast down in the sight of all because they will be imprisoned for ever in the dungeon of hell, so + that they will no more be free to go out, since this was permitted to them only in so far as they were directed by Divine + providence to try the life of man. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A8-p10"> The same answer applies to the Third Objection.</p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A8-p11"></p> + <p id="XP_Q89_A8-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q90.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.XP_Q88_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q90" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q90_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="XP_Q90-p0.1">OF THE FORM OF THE JUDGE IN COMING TO THE JUDGMENT (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="XP_Q90-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q90-p2"> We must now consider the form of the Judge in coming to the judgment. Under this head there are three points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="XP_Q90-p3"> (1) Whether Christ will judge under the form or His humanity?</p> + <p id="XP_Q90-p4"> (2) Whether He will appear under the form of His glorified humanity?</p> + <p id="XP_Q90-p5"> (3) Whether His Godhead can be seen without joy?</p> + <div id="XP_Q90_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q90.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q90_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q90_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ will judge under the form of His humanity?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q90_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ will not judge under the form of His humanity. For judgment requires authority in the judge. Now + Christ has authority over the quick and the dead as God, for thus is He the Lord and Creator of all. Therefore He will judge + under the form of His Godhead. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, invincible power is requisite in a judge; wherefore it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Eccl.7.6" target="asv">Eccles. 7:6</a>): "Seek not to be made a judge, unless thou have strength enough to extirpate iniquities." Now invincible power belongs to + Christ as God. Therefore He will judge under the form of the Godhead. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.5.22" target="asv">Jn. 5:22,23</a>): "The Father . . . hath given all judgment to the Son, that all men may honor the Son as they honor the Father." Now equal + honor to that of the Father is not due to the Son in respect of His human nature. Therefore He will not judge under His human + form. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Dan.7.9" target="asv">Dan. 7:9</a>): "I beheld till thrones were placed and the Ancient of days sat." Now the thrones signify judicial power, and God is called + the Ancient by reason of His eternity, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. x). Therefore it becomes the Son to judge as being + eternal; and consequently not as man. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A1-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, Augustine says (Tract. xix in Joan.) that "the resurrection of the soul is the work of the Word the Son of God, + and the resurrection of the body is the work of the Word made the Son of man in the flesh." Now that last judgment regards + the soul rather than the body. Therefore it becomes Christ to judge as God rather than as man. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A1-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.5.27" target="asv">Jn. 5:27</a>): "He hath given Him power to do judgment, because He is the Son of man." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A1-p8"> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Job.36.17" target="asv">Job 36:17</a>): "Thy cause hath been judged as that of the wicked---by Pilate" according to a gloss---therefore, "cause and judgment thou + shalt recover---that thou mayest judge justly," according to the gloss. Now Christ was judged by Pilate with regard to His + human nature. Therefore He will judge under the human nature. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A1-p9"> Further, to Him it belongs to judge who made the law. Now Christ gave us the law of the Gospel while appearing in the human + nature. Therefore He will judge under that same nature. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A1-p10"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Judgment requires a certain authority in the judge. Wherefore it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A1-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.14.4" target="asv">Rom. 14:4</a>): "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" Hence it is becoming that Christ should judge in respect of His having + authority over men to whom chiefly the last judgment will be directed. Now He is our Lord, not only by reason of the Creation, + since "the Lord He is God, He made us and not we ourselves" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A1-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.99.3" target="asv">Ps. 99:3</a>), but also by + reason of the Redemption, which pertains to Him in respect of His human nature. Wherefore "to this end Christ died and rose + again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A1-p10.3" href="./asv.html#Rom.14.9" target="asv">Rom. 14:9</a>). But the goods of the Creation would not suffice us to obtain the reward of eternal life, without the addition of the boon + of the Redemption, on account of the obstacle accruing to created nature through the sin of our first parent. Hence, since + the last judgment is directed to + the admission of some to the kingdom, and the exclusion of others therefrom, it is becoming that Christ should preside at + that judgment under the form of His human nature, since it is by favor of that same nature's Redemption that man is admitted + to the kingdom. In this sense it is stated ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A1-p10.4" href="./asv.html#Acts.10.42" target="asv">Acts 10:42</a>) that "He . . . was appointed by God to be Judge of the living and of the dead." And forasmuch as by redeeming mankind He + restored not only man but all creatures without exception---inasmuch as all + creatures are bettered through man's restoration, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A1-p10.5" href="./asv.html#Col.1.20" target="asv"> Col. 1:20, </a> "Making peace through the blood of His cross, both as to things on earth, and the things that are in heaven"---it follows + that through His Passion Christ merited lordship and judicial power not over man alone, but over all creatures, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A1-p10.6" href="./asv.html#Matt.28.18" target="asv"> Mat. 28:18, </a> "All power is given to Me, in heaven and in earth" [*Cf. TP, Q[59]]. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ, in respect of His Divine nature, has authority of lordship over all creatures by right of creation; but in respect + of His human nature He has authority of lordship merited through His Passion. The latter is secondary so to speak and acquired, + while the former is natural and eternal. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A1-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although Christ as man has not of Himself invincible power resulting from the natural power of the human species, nevertheless + there is also in His human nature an invincible power derived from His Godhead, whereby all things are subjected under His + feet ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A1-p12.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.25" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:25-28</a>; + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A1-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.8" target="asv">Heb. 2:8,9</a>). Hence He will judge in His human nature indeed, but by the power of His Godhead. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A1-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ would not have sufficed for the redemption of mankind, had He been a mere man. Wherefore from the very fact that He + was able as man to redeem mankind, and thereby obtained judicial power, it is evident that He is God, and consequently is + to be honored equally with the Father, not as man but as God. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A1-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> In that vision of Daniel the whole order of the judicial power is clearly expressed. This power is in God Himself as its + first origin, and more especially in the Father Who is the fount of the entire Godhead; wherefore it is stated in the first + place that the "Ancient of days sat." But the judicial power was transmitted from the Father to the Son, not only from eternity + in respect of the Divine nature, but also in time in respect of the human nature + wherein He merited it. Hence in the aforesaid vision it is further stated ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A1-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Dan.7.13" target="asv">Dan. 7:13,14</a>): "Lo, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and He came even to the Ancient of days . . . And He gave + Him power and glory, and a kingdom." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A1-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Augustine is speaking by a kind of appropriation, so as to trace the effects which Christ wrought in the human nature to + causes somewhat similar to them. And since we are made to the image and likeness of God in respect of our soul, and are of + the same species as the man Christ in respect of our body, he ascribes to the Godhead the effects wrought by Christ in our + souls, and those which He wrought or will work in our bodies he ascribes to His flesh; + although His flesh, as being the instrument of His Godhead, has also its effect on our souls as Damascene asserts (De Fide + Orth. iii, 15), according to the saying of + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A1-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.14" target="asv"> Heb. 9:14, </a> that His "blood" hath cleansed "our conscience from dead works." And thus that "the Word was made flesh" is the cause of + the resurrection of souls; wherefore also according to His human nature He is becomingly the Judge not only of bodily but + also of spiritual goods [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q90_A1-p15.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q56_A2.html">TP, + Q[56], A[2] + </a>, ad 1]. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A1-p16"></p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A1-p17"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q90.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q90_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q90_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q90_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q90_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q90_A2-p0.1">Whether at the judgment Christ will appear in His glorified humanity?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q90_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that at the judgment Christ will not appear in His glorified humanity. For a gloss [*St. Augustine, Tract. + cxx in Joan.] on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.19.37" target="asv"> Jn. 19:37, </a> "They shall look on him whom they pierced," says: "Because He will come in the flesh wherein He was crucified." Now He was + crucified in the form of weakness. Therefore He will appear in the form of weakness and not in the form of glory. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is stated ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.24.30" target="asv">Mat. 24:30</a>) that "the sign of the Son of man shall appear in heaven," namely, "the sign of the cross," as Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxvii + in Matth.), for "Christ when coming to the judgment will show not only the scars of His wounds but even His most shameful + death." Therefore it seems that He will not appear in the form of glory. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ will appear at the judgment under that form which can be gazed upon by all. Now Christ will not be visible + to all, good and wicked, under the form of His glorified humanity: because the eye that is not glorified is seemingly unproportionate + to see the clarity of a glorified body. Therefore He will not appear under a glorified form. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A2-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, that which is promised as a reward to the righteous is not granted to the unrighteous. Now it is promised as a reward + to the righteous that they shall see the glory of His humanity ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.10.9" target="asv">Jn. 10:9</a>): "He shall go in, and go out, and shall find pastures, i.e. refreshment in His Godhead and humanity," according to the commentary + of Augustine [*De Spiritu et Anima, work of an unknown author. St. Thomas, De Anima, ascribes it to Alcherus, a + Cistercian monk; see above + <a id="XP_Q90_A2-p5.2" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q70_A2.html"> Q[70], A[2]</a>, ad 1] and + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A2-p5.3" href="./asv.html#Isa.33.17" target="asv"> Is. 33:17</a>: "His eyes shall see the King in his beauty." Therefore He will not appear to all in His glorified form. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A2-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, Christ will judge in the form wherein He was judged: wherefore a gloss [*St. Augustine, Tract. xix, in Joan.] on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.5.21" target="asv"> Jn. 5:21, </a> "So the Son also giveth life to whom He will," says: "He will judge justly in the form wherein He was judged unjustly, that + He may be visible to the wicked." Now He was judged in the form of weakness. Therefore He will appear in the same form at + the judgment. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A2-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.21.27" target="asv">Lk. 21:27</a>): "Then they shall see the Son of man coming in a cloud with great power and majesty." Now majesty and power pertain to glory. + Therefore He will appear in the form of glory. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A2-p8"> Further, he who judges should be more conspicuous than those who are judged. Now the elect who will be judged by Christ will + have a glorified body. Much more therefore will the Judge appear in a glorified form. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A2-p9"> Further, as to be judged pertains to weakness, so to judge pertains to authority and glory. Now at His first coming when + Christ came to be judged, He appeared in the form of weakness. Therefore at the second coming, when He will come to judge, + He will appear in the form of glory. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A2-p10"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Christ is called the mediator of God and men ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A2-p10.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.2.5" target="asv">1 Tim. 2:5</a>) inasmuch as He satisfies for men and intercedes for them to the Father, and confers on men things which belong to the Father, + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A2-p10.2" href="./asv.html#John.17.22" target="asv">Jn. 17:22</a>, "The glory which Thou hast given Me, I have given to them." Accordingly then both these things belong to Him in that He + communicates with both extremes: for in that He communicates with men, He takes their part with the Father, and + in that He communicates with the Father, He bestows the Father's gifts on men. Since then at His first coming He came in order + to make satisfaction for us to the Father, He came in the form of our weakness. But since at His second coming He will come + in order to execute the Father's justice on men, He will have to show forth His glory which is in Him by reason of His communication + with the Father: and therefore He will appear in the form of glory. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A2-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> He will appear in the same flesh, but not under the same form. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A2-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The sign of the cross will appear at the judgment, to denote not a present but a past weakness: so as to show how justly + those were condemned who scorned so great mercy, especially those who persecuted Christ unjustly. The scars which will appear + in His body will not be due to weakness, but will indicate the exceeding power whereby Christ overcame His enemies by His + Passion and infirmity. He will also show forth His most shameful death, not by + bringing it sensibly before the eye, as though He suffered it there; but by the things which will appear then, namely the + signs of His past Passion, He will recall men to the thought of His past death. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A2-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A glorified body has it in its power to show itself or not to show itself to an eye that is not glorified, as stated above + ( + <a id="XP_Q90_A2-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q85_A2.html">Q[85], A[2]</a>, ad 3). Hence Christ will be visible to all in His glorified form. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A2-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Even as our friend's glory gives us pleasure, so the glory and power of one we hate is most displeasing to us. Hence as the + sight of the glory of Christ's humanity will be a reward to the righteous, so will it be a torment to Christ's enemies: wherefore + it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A2-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.26.11" target="asv">Is. 26:11</a>): "Let the envious people see and be confounded and let fire" (i.e. envy) "devour Thy enemies." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A2-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Form is taken there for human nature wherein He was judged and likewise will judge; but not for a quality of nature, namely + of weakness, which will not be the same in Him when judging as when judged (Cf. ad 2). + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A2-p16"></p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A2-p17"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q90_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q90_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q90_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q90_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q90_A3-p0.1">Whether the Godhead can be seen by the wicked without joy?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q90_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Godhead can be seen by the wicked without joy. For there can be no doubt that the wicked will know + with the greatest certainty that Christ is God. Therefore they will see His Godhead, and yet they will not rejoice in seeing + Christ. Therefore it will be possible to see it without joy. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the perverse will of the wicked is not more adverse to Christ's humanity than to His Godhead. Now the fact that + they will see the glory of His humanity will conduce to their punishment, as stated above (A[2], ad 4). Therefore if they + were to see His Godhead, there would be much more reason for them to grieve rather than rejoice. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the course of the affections is not a necessary sequel to that which is in the intellect: wherefore Augustine says + (In + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.118" target="asv">Ps. 118</a>: conc. 8): "The intellect precedes, the affections follow slowly or not at all." Now vision regards the intellect, whereas + joy regards the affections. Therefore it will be possible to see the Godhead without joy. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A3-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, whatever is received into "a thing is received according to the mode of the receiver and not of the received." But + whatever is seen is, in a way, received into the seer. Therefore although the Godhead is in itself supremely enjoyable, nevertheless + when seen by those who are plunged in grief, it will give no joy but rather displeasure. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A3-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, as sense is to the sensible object, so is the intellect to the intelligible object. Now in the senses, "to the unhealthy + palate bread is painful, to the healthy palate sweet," as Augustine says (Confess. vii), and the same happens with the other + senses. Therefore since the damned have the intellect indisposed, it would seem that the vision of the uncreated light will + give them pain rather than joy. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A3-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q90_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.17.3" target="asv">Jn. 17:3</a>): "This is eternal life: That they may know Thee, the . . . true God." Wherefore it is clear that the essence of bliss consists + in seeing God. Now joy is essential to bliss. Therefore the Godhead cannot be seen without joy. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A3-p8"> Further, the essence of the Godhead is the essence of truth. Now it is delightful to every one to see the truth, wherefore + "all naturally desire to know," as stated at the beginning of the Metaphysics. Therefore it is impossible to see the Godhead + without joy. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A3-p9"> Further, if a certain vision is not always delightful, it happens sometimes to be painful. But intellective vision is never + painful since "the pleasure we take in objects of understanding has no grief opposed to it," according to the Philosopher + (Topic. ii). Since then the Godhead cannot be seen save by the intellect, it seems that the Godhead cannot be seen without + joy. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A3-p10"> + <b>I answer that,</b> In every object of appetite or of pleasure two things may be considered, namely the thing which is desired or which gives + pleasure, and the aspect of appetibility or pleasurableness in that thing. Now according to Boethius (De Hebdom.) that which + is can have something besides what it is, but 'being' itself has no admixture of aught else beside itself. Hence that which + is desirable or pleasant can have an admixture of something rendering it undesirable or + unpleasant; but the very aspect of pleasurableness has not and cannot have anything mixed with it rendering it unpleasant + or undesirable. Now it is possible for things that are pleasurable, by participation of goodness which is the aspect of appetibility + or pleasurableness, not to give pleasure when they are apprehended, but it is impossible for that which is good by its essence + not to give pleasure when it is apprehended. Therefore since God is essentially His own goodness, it is impossible + for the Godhead to be seen without joy. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A3-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The wicked will know most clearly that Christ is God, not through seeing His Godhead, but on account of the most manifest + signs of His Godhead. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A3-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> No one can hate the Godhead considered in itself, as neither can one hate goodness itself. But God is said to be hated by + certain persons in respect of some of the effects of the Godhead, in so far as He does or commands something contrary to their + will [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q90_A3-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q34_A1.html">SS, Q[34], A[1]</a>]. Therefore the vision of the Godhead can be painful to no one. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A3-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The saying of Augustine applies when the thing apprehended previously by the intellect is good by participation and not essentially, + such as all creatures are; wherefore there may be something in them by reason of which the affections are not moved. In like + manner God is known by wayfarers through His effects, and their intellect does not attain to the very essence of His goodness. + Hence it is not necessary that the affections follow the intellect, as + they would if the intellect saw God's essence which is His goodness. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A3-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Grief denotes not a disposition but a passion. Now every passion is removed if a stronger contrary cause supervene, and does + not remove that cause. Accordingly the grief of the damned would be done away if they saw God in His essence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A3-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The indisposition of an organ removes the natural proportion of the organ to the object that has a natural aptitude to please, + wherefore the pleasure is hindered. But the indisposition which is in the damned does not remove the natural proportion whereby + they are directed to the Divine goodness, since its image ever remains in them. Hence the comparison fails. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A3-p16"></p> + <p id="XP_Q90_A3-p17"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q90_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.XP_Q89_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q90_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q91" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q90_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="XP_Q91-p0.1">OF THE QUALITY OF THE WORLD AFTER THE JUDGMENT (FIVE ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="XP_Q91-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q91-p2"> We must next discuss the quality which the world and those who rise again will have after the judgment. Here a threefold + matter offers itself to our consideration: (1) The state and quality of the world; (2) The state of the blessed; (3) The state + of the wicked. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91-p3"> Under the first head there are five points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="XP_Q91-p4"> (1) Whether there will be a renewal of the world?</p> + <p id="XP_Q91-p5"> (2) Whether the movement of the heavenly bodies will cease?</p> + <p id="XP_Q91-p6"> (3) Whether the heavenly bodies will be more brilliant?</p> + <p id="XP_Q91-p7"> (4) Whether the elements will receive an additional clarity?</p> + <p id="XP_Q91-p8"> (5) Whether the animals and plants will remain?</p> + <div id="XP_Q91_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q91_A1-p0.1">Whether the world will be renewed?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q91_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the world will never be renewed. For nothing will be but what was at some time as to its species: "What + is it that hath been? the same thing that shall be" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Eccl.1.9" target="asv">Eccles. 1:9</a>). Now the world never had any disposition other than it has now as to essential parts, both genera and species. Therefore + it will never be renewed. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, renewal is a kind of alteration. But it is impossible for the universe to be altered; because whatever is altered + argues some alterant that is not altered, which nevertheless is a subject of local movement: and it is impossible to place + such a thing outside the universe. Therefore it is impossible for the world to be renewed. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is stated ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.2.2" target="asv">Gn. 2:2</a>) that "God . . . rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done," and holy men explain that "He rested from + forming new creatures." Now when things were first established, the mode imposed upon them was the same as they have now in + the natural order. Therefore they will never have any other. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the disposition which things have now is natural to them. Therefore if they be altered to another disposition, this + disposition will be unnatural to them. Now whatever is unnatural and accidental cannot last for ever (De Coelo et Mundo i). + Therefore this disposition acquired by being renewed will be taken away from them; and thus there will be a cycle of changes + in the world as Empedocles and Origen (Peri Archon. ii, 3) maintained, and after this + world there will be another, and after that again another. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A1-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, newness of glory is given to the rational creature as a reward. Now where there is no merit, there can be no reward. + Since then insensible creatures have merited nothing, it would seem that they will not be renewed. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A1-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.65.17" target="asv">Is. 65:17</a>): "Behold I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be in remembrance"; and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A1-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Rev.21.1" target="asv">Apoc. 21:1</a>): "I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth was gone." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A1-p8"> Further, the dwelling should befit the dweller. But the world was made to be man's dwelling. Therefore it should befit man. + Now man will be renewed. Therefore the world will be likewise. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A1-p9"> Further, "Every beast loveth its like" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.13.19" target="asv">Ecclus. 13:19</a>), wherefore it is evident that likeness is the reason of love. Now man has some likeness to the universe, wherefore he is + called "a little world." Hence man loves the whole world naturally and consequently desires its good. Therefore, that man's + desire be satisfied the universe must needs also be made better. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A1-p10"> + <b>I answer that,</b> We believe all corporeal things to have been made for man's sake, wherefore all things are stated to be subject to him [* + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A1-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.8.5" target="asv">Ps. 8:5</a>, seqq.]. Now they serve man in two ways, first, as sustenance to his bodily life, secondly, as helping him to know God, inasmuch + as man sees the invisible things of God by the things that are made ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A1-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.20" target="asv">Rom. 1:20</a>). Accordingly glorified man will nowise need creatures to render him the first of these services, since + his body will be altogether incorruptible, the Divine power effecting this through the soul which it will glorify immediately. + Again man will not need the second service as to intellective knowledge, since by that knowledge he will see God immediately + in His essence. The carnal eye, however, will be unable to attain to this vision of the Essence; wherefore that it may be + fittingly comforted in the vision of God, it will see the Godhead in Its corporeal effects, wherein manifest proofs of the + Divine majesty will appear, especially in Christ's flesh, and secondarily in the bodies of the blessed, and afterwards in + all other bodies. Hence those bodies also will need to receive a greater inflow from the Divine goodness than now, not indeed + so as to change their species, but so as to add a certain perfection of glory: and such will be the renewal of the world. + Wherefore at the one same time, the world will be renewed, and man will be glorified. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Solomon is speaking there of the natural course: this is evident from his adding: "Nothing under the sun is new." For since + the movement of the sun follows a circle, those things which are subject to the sun's power must needs have some kind of circular + movement. This consists in the fact that things which were before return the same in species but different in the individual + (De Generat. i). But things belonging to the state of glory are not "under + the sun." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A1-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This argument considers natural alteration which proceeds from a natural agent, which acts from natural necessity. For such + an agent cannot produce different dispositions, unless it be itself disposed differently. But things done by God proceed from + freedom of will, wherefore it is possible, without any change in God Who wills it, for the universe to have at one time one + disposition, and another at another time. Thus this renewal will not be reduced + to a cause that is moved, but to an immovable principle, namely God. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A1-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> God is stated to have ceased on the seventh day forming new creatures, for as much as nothing was made afterwards that was + not previously in some likeness [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q91_A1-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q73_A1.html">FP, Q[73], A[1]</a>] either generically, or specifically, or at least as in a seminal principle, or even as in an obediential potentiality [*Cf. + + <a id="XP_Q91_A1-p13.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q115_A2.html">FP, Q[115], A[2]</a>, ad 4; + <a id="XP_Q91_A1-p13.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q11_A1.html">TP, Q[11], A[1]</a>]. I say then that the future renewal + of the world preceded in the works of the six days by way of a remote likeness, namely in the glory and grace of the angels. + Moreover it preceded in the obediential potentiality which was then bestowed on the creature to the effect of its receiving + this same renewal by the Divine agency. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A1-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> This disposition of newness will be neither natural nor contrary to nature, but above nature (just as grace and glory are + above the nature of the soul): and it will proceed from an everlasting agent which will preserve it for ever. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A1-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Although, properly speaking, insensible bodies will not have merited this glory, yet man merited that this glory should be + bestowed on the whole universe, in so far as this conduces to man's increase of glory. Thus a man merits to be clothed in + more splendid robes, which splendor the robes nowise merited themselves. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A1-p16"></p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A1-p17"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q91_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q91_A2-p0.1">Whether the movement of the heavenly bodies will cease?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that when the world is thus renewed the movement of the heavenly bodies will not cease. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.8.22" target="asv">Gn. 8:22</a>): "All the days of the earth . . . cold and heat, summer and winter, night and day shall not cease." Now night and day, summer + and winter result from the movement of the sun. Therefore the movement of the sun will never cease. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Jer.31.35" target="asv">Jer. 31:35,36</a>): "Thus saith the Lord Who giveth the sun for the light of the day, the order of the moon and of the stars for the light + of the night: Who stirreth up the sea, and the waves thereof roar . . . If these ordinances shall fail before Me . . . then + also the seed of Israel shall fail, so as not to be a nation before Me for ever." Now the seed of Israel shall never fail, + but will remain for ever. Therefore + the laws of day and of the sea waves, which result from the heavenly movement, will remain for ever. Therefore the movement + of the heaven will never cease. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the substance of the heavenly bodies will remain for ever. Now it is useless to admit the existence of a thing unless + you admit the purpose for which it was made: and the heavenly bodies were made in order "to divide the day and the night"; + and to be "for signs, and for seasons, and for days and for years" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.1.14" target="asv">Gn. 1:14</a>). But they cannot do this except by movement. Therefore their movement will remain for ever, else those bodies would + remain without a purpose. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, in this renewal of the world the whole world will be bettered. Therefore no body will be deprived of what pertains + to its perfection. Now movement belongs to the perfection of a heavenly body, because, as stated in De Coelo et Mundo ii, + "those bodies participate of the Divine goodness by their movement." Therefore the movement of the heaven will not cease. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the sun successively gives light to the various parts of the world, by reason of its circular movement. Therefore + if the circular movement of the heaven ceases, it follows that in some part of the earth's surface there will be perpetual + darkness, which is unbecoming to the aforesaid renewal. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p7"> + <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, if the movement were to cease, this could only be because movement causes some imperfection in the heaven, for instance + wear and tear, which is impossible, since this movement is natural, and the heavenly bodies are impassible, wherefore they + are not worn out by movement (De Coelo et Mundo ii). Therefore the movement of the heaven will never cease. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p8"> + <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, a potentiality is useless if it be not reduced to act. Now in whatever position the heavenly body is placed it is + in potentiality to another position. Therefore unless this potentiality be reduced to act, it would remain useless, and would + always be imperfect. But it cannot be reduced to act save by local movement. Therefore it will always be in motion. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p9"> + <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, if a thing is indifferent in relation to more than one alternation, either both are ascribed to it, or neither. + Now the sun is indifferent to being in the east or in the west, else its movement would not be uniform throughout, since it + would move more rapidly to the place which is more natural to it. Therefore either neither position is ascribed to the sun, + or both. But neither both nor neither can be ascribed to it, except successively by movement; + for if it stand still, it must needs stand in some position. Therefore the solar body will always be in motion, and in like + manner all other heavenly bodies. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p10"> + <b>Objection 9:</b> Further, the movement of the heaven is the cause of time. Therefore if the movement of the heaven fail, time must needs fail: + and if this were to fail, it would fail in an instant. Now an instant is defined (Phys. viii) "the beginning of the future + and the end of the past." Consequently there would be time after the last instant of time, which is impossible. Therefore + the movement of the heavens will never cease. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p11"> + <b>Objection 10:</b> Further, glory does not remove nature. But the movement of the heaven is natural. Therefore it is not deprived thereof by + glory. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p12"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is stated ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A2-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.10.6" target="asv">Apoc. 10:6</a>) that the angel who appeared, "swore by him that liveth for ever and ever . . . that time shall be no longer," namely after + the seventh angel shall have sounded the trumpet, at the sound of which "the dead shall rise again" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A2-p12.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.52" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:52</a>). Now if time be not, there is no movement of the heaven. Therefore the movement of the heaven will cease. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p13"> Further: "Thy sun shall go down no more, and thy moon shall not decrease" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A2-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.60.20" target="asv">Is. 60:20</a>). Now the setting of the sun and the phases of the moon are caused by the movement of the heavens. Therefore the heavenly + movement will cease at length. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p14"> Further, it is shown in De Gener. ii that "the movement of the heaven is for the sake of continual generation in this lower + world." But generation will cease when the number of the elect is complete. Therefore the movement of the heaven will cease. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p15"> Further, all movement is for some end (Metaph. ii). But all movement for an end ceases when the end is obtained. Therefore + either the movement of the heaven will never obtain its end, and thus it would be useless, or it will cease at length. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p16"> Further, rest is more noble than movement, because things are more likened to God, Who is supremely immovable, by being themselves + unmoved. Now the movement of lower bodies terminates naturally in rest. Therefore since the heavenly bodies are far nobler, + their movement terminates naturally in rest. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p17"> + <b>I answer that,</b> There are three opinions touching this question. The first is of the philosophers who assert that the movement of the heaven + will last for ever. But this is not in keeping with our faith, which holds that the elect are in a certain number preordained + by God, so that the begetting of men will not last for ever, and for the same reason, neither will other things that are directed + to the begetting of men, such as the movement of the heaven and the variations of + the elements. Others say that the movement of the heaven will cease naturally. But this again is false, since every body that + is moved naturally has a place wherein it rests naturally, whereto it is moved naturally, and whence it is not moved except + by violence. Now no such place can be assigned to the heavenly body, since it is not more natural to the sun to move towards + a point in the east than to move away from it, wherefore either its movement would not be altogether natural, or its + movement would not naturally terminate in rest. Hence we must agree with others who say that the movement of the heaven will + cease at this renewal of the world, not indeed by any natural cause, but as a result of the will of God. For the body in question, + like other bodies, was made to serve man in the two ways above mentioned + <a id="XP_Q91_A2-p17.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q91_A1.html">(A[1])</a>: and hereafter in the state of glory man will no longer need one of these services, that namely in respect of which the heavenly + bodies + serve man for the sustenance of his bodily life. Now in this way the heavenly bodies serve man by their movement, in so far + as by the heavenly movement the human race is multiplied, plants and animals needful for man's use generated, and the temperature + of the atmosphere rendered conducive to health. Therefore the movement of the heavenly body will cease as soon as man is glorified. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p18"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> These words refer to the earth in its present state, when it is able to be the principle of the generation and corruption + of plants. This is evident from its being said there: "All the days of the earth, seed time and harvest," etc. And it is simply + to be granted that as long as the earth is fit for seed time and harvest, the movement of the heaven will not cease. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p19"> We reply in like manner to OBJ 2 that the Lord is speaking there of the duration of the seed of Israel with regard to the + present state. This is evident from the words: "Then also the seed of Israel shall fail, so as not to be a nation before Me + for ever." For after this state there will be no succession of days: wherefore the laws also which He had mentioned will cease + after this state. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p20"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The end which is there assigned to the heavenly bodies is their proximate end, because it is their proper act. But this act + is directed further to another end, namely the service of man, which is shown by the words of + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A2-p20.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.4.19" target="asv"> Dt. 4:19</a>: "Lest perhaps lifting up thy eyes to heaven, thou see the sun and the moon and all the stars of heaven, and being deceived + by error thou adore and serve them, which the Lord thy God created for the service + of all the nations, that are under heaven." Therefore we should form our judgment of the heavenly bodies from the service + of man, rather than from the end assigned to them in Genesis. Moreover the heavenly bodies, as stated above, will serve glorified + man in another way; hence it does not follow that they will remain without a purpose. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p21"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Movement does not belong to the perfection of a heavenly body, except in so far as thereby it is the cause of generation + and corruption in this lower world: and in that respect also this movement makes the heavenly body participate in the Divine + goodness by way of a certain likeness of causality. But movement does not belong to the perfection of the substance of the + heaven, which substance will remain. Wherefore it does not follow that, when this + movement ceases, the substance of the heaven will lose something of its perfection. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p22"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> All the elemental bodies will have in themselves a certain clarity of glory. Hence though part of the surface of the earth + be not lit up by the sun, there will by no means be any darkness there. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p23"> + <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> A gloss of Ambrose on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A2-p23.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.22" target="asv"> Rom. 8:22, </a> "Every creature groaneth," etc. says explicitly that "all the elements labor to fulfill their offices: thus the sun and moon + fill the places appointed to them not without work: this is for our sake, wherefore they will rest when we are taken up to + heaven." This work, in my opinion, does not signify that any stress or passion occurs to these bodies from their movement, + since this movement is natural + to them and nowise violent, as is proved in De Coelo et Mundo i. But work here denotes a defect in relation to the term to + which a thing tends. Hence since this movement is ordained by Divine providence to the completion of the number of the elect, + it follows that as long as the latter is incomplete, this movement has not reached the term whereto it was ordained: hence + it is said metaphorically to labor, as a man who has not what he intends to have. This defect will be removed from the heaven + when the number of the elect is complete. Or it may refer to the desire of the future renewal which it awaits from the Divine + disposal. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p24"> + <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> In a heavenly body there is no potentiality that can be perfected by place, or that is made for this end which is to be in + such and such a place. But potentiality to situation in a place is related to a heavenly body, as the craftsman's potentiality + to construct various houses of one kind: for if he construct one of these he is not said to have the potentiality uselessly, + and in like manner in whatever situation a heavenly body be placed, its + potentiality to be in a place will not remain incomplete or without a purpose. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p25"> + <b>Reply to Objection 8:</b> Although a heavenly body, so far as regards its nature, is equally inclined to every situation that it can possibly occupy, + nevertheless in comparison with things outside it, it is not equally inclined to every situation: but in respect of one situation + it has a more noble disposition in comparison with certain things than in respect of another situation; thus in our regard + the sun has a more noble disposition at daytime than at night-time. Hence it + is probable, since the entire renewal of the world is directed to man, that the heaven will have in this renewal the most + noble situation possible in relation to our dwelling there. Or, according to some, the heaven will rest in that situation + wherein it was made, else one of its revolutions would remain incomplete. But this argument seems improbable, for since a + revolution of the heaven takes no less than 36,000 years to complete, it would follow that the world must last that length + of time, + which does not seem probable. Moreover according to this it would be possible to know when the world will come to an end. + For we may conclude with probability from astronomers in what position the heavenly bodies were made, by taking into consideration + the number of years that have elapsed since the beginning of the world: and in the same way it would be possible to know the + exact number of years it would take them to return to a like position: whereas the time of the world's end is stated to + be unknown. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p26"> + <b>Reply to Objection 9:</b> Time will at length cease, when the heavenly movement ceases. Yet that last "now" will not be the beginning of the future. + For the definition quoted applies to the "now" only as continuous with the parts of time, not as terminating the whole of + time. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p27"> + <b>Reply to Objection 10:</b> The movement of the heaven is said to be natural, not as though it were part of nature in the same way as we speak of natural + principles; but because it has its principle in the nature of a body, not indeed its active but its receptive principle. Its + active principle is a spiritual substance, as the Commentator says on De Coelo et Mundo; and consequently it is not unreasonable + for this movement to be done away by the renewal of glory, since the + nature of the heavenly body will not alter through the cessation of that movement. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p28"> We grant the other objections which argue in the contrary sense, namely the first three, because they conclude in due manner. + But since the remaining two seem to conclude that the movement of heaven will cease naturally, we must reply to them. To the + first, then, we reply that movement ceases when its purpose is attained, provided this is a sequel to, and does not accompany + the movement. Now the purpose of the heavenly movement, according to philosophers, accompanies that + movement, namely the imitation of the Divine goodness in the causality of that movement with respect to this lower world. + Hence it does not follow that this movement ceases naturally. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p29"> To the second we reply that although immobility is simply nobler than movement, yet movement in a subject which thereby can + acquire a perfect participation of the Divine goodness is nobler than rest in a subject which is altogether unable to acquire + that perfection by movement. For this reason the earth which is the lowest of the elements is without movement: although God + Who is exalted above all things is without movement, by Whom the more noble bodies are moved. Hence also it + is that the movements of the higher bodies might be held to be perpetual, so far as their natural power is concerned, and + never to terminate in rest, although the movement of lower bodies terminates in rest. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p30"></p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A2-p31"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q91_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q91_A3-p0.1">Whether the brightness of the heavenly bodies will be increased at this renewal?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q91_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the brightness of the heavenly bodies will not be increased at this renewal. For this renewal as regards + the lower bodies will be caused by the cleansing fire. But the cleansing fire will not reach the heavenly bodies. Therefore + the heavenly bodies will not be renewed by receiving an increase of brightness. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as the heavenly bodies are the cause of generation in this lower world by their movement, so are they by their + light. But, when generation ceases, movement will cease as stated above + <a id="XP_Q91_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q91_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. Therefore in like manner the light of the heavenly bodies will cease rather than increase. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if the heavenly bodies will be renewed when man is renewed, it follows that when man deteriorated they deteriorated + likewise. But this does not seem probable, since these bodies are unalterable as to their substance. Therefore neither will + they be renewed when man is renewed. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A3-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, if they deteriorated then it follows that their deterioration was on a par with the amelioration which, it is said, + will accrue to them at man's renewal. Now it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.30.26" target="asv">Is. 30:26</a>) that "the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun." Therefore in the original state before sin the moon shone + as much as the sun does now. Therefore whenever the moon was over the earth, it made it to be day as the sun does now: which + is + proved manifestly to be false from the statement of + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A3-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.1.16" target="asv"> Gn. 1:16 </a>that the moon was made "to rule the night." Therefore when man sinned the heavenly bodies were not deprived of their light; + and so their light will not be increased, so it seems, when man is glorified. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A3-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the brightness of the heavenly bodies, like other creatures, is directed to the use of man. Now, after the resurrection, + the brightness of the sun will be of no use to man: for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.60.19" target="asv">Is. 60:19</a>): "Thou shalt no more have the sun for thy light by day, neither shall the brightness of the moon enlighten thee," and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Rev.21.23" target="asv">Apoc. 21:23</a>): "The city hath no need of the sun, nor of the moon to shine in it." Therefore their brightness + will not be increased. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A3-p7"> + <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, it were not a wise craftsman who would make very great instruments for the making of a small work. Now man is a + very small thing in comparison with the heavenly bodies, which by their huge bulk surpass the size of man almost beyond comparison: + in fact the size of the whole earth in comparison with the heaven is as a point compared with a sphere, as astronomers say. + Since then God is most wise it would seem that man is not the end of the creation of + the heavens, and so it is unseemly that the heaven should deteriorate when he sinned, or that it should be bettered when he + is glorified. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A3-p8"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.30.26" target="asv">Is. 30:26</a>): "The light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A3-p9"> Further, the whole world will be renewed for the better. But the heaven is the more noble part of the corporeal world. Therefore + it will be altered for the better. But this cannot be unless it shine out with greater brightness. Therefore its brightness + will be bettered and will increase. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A3-p10"> Further, "every creature that groaneth and travaileth in pain, awaiteth the revelation of the glory of the children of God" + [*'The creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the children of God. + For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain,' etc.] ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A3-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.21" target="asv">Rom. 8:21,22</a>). Now such are the heavenly bodies, as a gloss says on the same passage. Therefore they await the glory of the saints. But + they + would not await it unless they were to gain something by it. Therefore their brightness will increase thereby, since it is + their chief beauty. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A3-p11"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The renewal of the world is directed to the end that, after this renewal has taken place, God may become visible to man by + signs so manifest as to be perceived as it were by his senses. Now creatures lead to the knowledge of God chiefly by their + comeliness and beauty, which show forth the wisdom of their Maker and Governor; wherefore it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.13.5" target="asv">Wis. 13:5</a>): "By the greatness of the beauty and of the creature, the Creator of them may + be seen, so as to be known thereby." And the beauty of the heavenly bodies consists chiefly in light; wherefore it is written + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A3-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Sir.43.10" target="asv">Ecclus. 43:10</a>): "The glory of the stars is the beauty of heaven, the Lord enlighteneth the world on high." Hence the heavenly bodies will + be bettered, especially as regards their brightness. But to what degree and in what way this betterment will take place is + known to Him alone Who will bring it about. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A3-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The cleansing fire will not cause the form of the renewal, but will only dispose thereto, by cleansing from the vileness + of sin and the impurity resulting from the mingling of bodies, and this is not to be found in the heavenly bodies. Hence although + the heavenly bodies are not to be cleansed by fire, they are nevertheless to be Divinely renewed. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A3-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Movement does not denote perfection in the thing moved, considered in itself, since movement is the act of that which is + imperfect: although it may pertain to the perfection of a body in so far as the latter is the cause of something. But light + belongs to the perfection of a lightsome body, even considered in its substance: and consequently after the heavenly body + has ceased to be the cause of generation, its brightness will remain, while its movement + will cease. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A3-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A gloss on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A3-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.30.26" target="asv"> Is. 30:26, </a> "The light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun," says: "All things made for man's sake deteriorated at his fall, + and sun and moon diminished in light." This diminishment is understood by some to mean a real lessening of light. Nor does + it matter that the heavenly bodies are by nature unalterable, because this alteration was brought about by the Divine power. + Others, however, with greater probability, + take this diminishment to mean, not a real lessening of light, but a lessening in reference to man's use; because after sin + man did not receive as much benefit from the light of the heavenly bodies as before. In the same sense we read ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A3-p14.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.3.17" target="asv">Gn. 3:17,18</a>): "Cursed is the earth in thy work . . . Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee"; although it would have brought + forth thorns and thistles before sin, but not as a punishment to man. Nor does it follow that, supposing + the light of the heavenly bodies not to have been lessened essentially through man sinning, it will not really be increased + at man's glorification, because man's sin wrought no change upon the state of the universe, since both before and after sin + man had an animal life, which needs the movement and generation of a corporeal creature; whereas man's glorification will + bring a change upon the state of all corporeal creatures, as stated above ( + <a id="XP_Q91_A3-p14.3" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q76_A7.html">Q[76], A[7]</a>). Hence there is + no comparison. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A3-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> This diminution, according to the more probable opinion, refers not to the substance but to the effect. Hence it does not + follow that the moon while over the earth would have made it to be day, but that man would have derived as much benefit from + the light of the moon then as now from the light of the sun. After the resurrection, however, when the light of the moon will + be increased in very truth, there will be night nowhere on earth but only in the + center of the earth, where hell will be, because then, as stated, the moon will shine as brightly as the sun does now; the + sun seven times as much as now, and the bodies of the blessed seven times more than the sun, although there be no authority + or reason to prove this. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A3-p16"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> A thing may be useful to man in two ways. First, by reason of necessity, and thus no creature will be useful to man because + he will have complete sufficiency from God. This is signified ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A3-p16.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.21.23" target="asv">Apoc. 21:23</a>) by the words quoted, according to which that "city hath no need of the sun," nor "of the moon." Secondly, on account of + a greater perfection, and thus man will make use of other creatures, yet not as needful to him in order to obtain + his end, in which way he makes use of them now. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A3-p17"> + <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> This is the argument of Rabbi Moses who endeavors to prove (Dux errantium iii) that the world was by no means made for man's + use. Wherefore he maintains that what we read in the Old Testament about the renewal of the world, as instanced by the quotations + from Isaias, is said metaphorically: and that even as the sun is said to be darkened in reference to a person when he encounters + a great sorrow so as not to know what to do (which way of speaking is + customary to Scripture), so on the other hand the sun is said to shine brighter for a person, and the whole world to be renewed, + when he is brought from a state of sorrow to one of very great joy. But this is not in harmony with the authority and commentaries + of holy men. Consequently we must answer this argument by saying that although the heavenly bodies far surpass the human body, + yet the rational soul surpasses the heavenly bodies far more than these surpass the human body. Hence it is not + unreasonable to say that the heavenly bodies were made for man's sake; not, however as though this were the principal end, + since the principal end of all things is God. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A3-p18"></p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A3-p19"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q91_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q91_A4-p0.1">Whether the elements will be renewed by an addition of brightness?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q91_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the elements will not be renewed by receiving some kind of brightness. For just as light is a quality + proper to a heavenly body, so are hot and cold, wet and dry. qualities proper to the elements. Therefore as the heaven is + renewed by an increase of brightness, so ought the elements to be renewed by an increase of active and passive qualities. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, rarity, and density are qualities of the elements, and the elements will not be deprived of them at this renewal. + Now the rarity and density of the elements would seem to be an obstacle to brightness, since a bright body needs to be condensed, + for which reason the rarity of the air seems incompatible with brightness, and in like manner the density of the earth which + is an obstacle to transparency. Therefore it is impossible for the elements to be + renewed by the addition of brightness. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is agreed that the damned will be in the earth. Yet they will be in darkness not only internal but also external. + Therefore the earth will not be endowed with brightness in this renewal, nor for the same reason will the other elements. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A4-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, increase of brightness in the elements implies an increase of heat. If therefore at this renewal the brightness + of the elements be greater than it is now, their heat will likewise be greater; and thus it would seem that they will be changed + from their natural qualities, which are in them according to a fixed measure: and this is absurd. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A4-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the good of the universe which consists in the order and harmony of the parts is more excellent than the good of + any individual creature. But if one creature be bettered, the good of the universe is done away, since there will no longer + be the same harmony. Therefore if the elemental bodies, which according to their natural degree in the universe should be + devoid of brightness, were to be endowed with brightness, the perfection of the universe would + be diminished thereby rather than increased. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A4-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.21.1" target="asv">Apoc. 21:1</a>): "I saw a new heaven and a new earth." Now the heaven will be renewed by an increase of brightness. Therefore the earth + and likewise the other elements will also. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A4-p8"> Further, the lower bodies, like the higher, are for man's use. Now the corporeal creature will be rewarded for its services + to man, as a gloss of Ambrose seems to say on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.22" target="asv"> Rom. 8:22, </a> "Every creature groaneth," and a gloss of Jerome on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A4-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.30.26" target="asv"> Is. 30:26, </a> "And the light of the moon shall be," etc. Therefore the elements will be glorified as well as the heavenly bodies. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A4-p9"> Further, man's body is composed of the elements. Therefore the elemental particles that are in man's body will be glorified + by the addition of brightness when man is glorified. Now it is fitting that whole and part should have the same disposition. + Therefore it is fitting that the elements themselves should be endowed with brightness. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A4-p10"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Just as there is a certain order between the heavenly spirits and the earthly or human spirits, so is there an order between + heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. Since then the corporeal creature was made for the sake of the spiritual and is ruled + thereby, it follows that corporeal things are dealt with similarly to spiritual things. Now in this final consummation of + things the lower spirits will receive the properties of the higher spirits, because men will + be as the angels in heaven ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.22.30" target="asv">Mat. 22:30</a>): and this will be accomplished by conferring the highest degree of perfection on that in which the human spirit agrees with + the angelic. Wherefore, in like manner, since the lower bodies do not agree with the heavenly bodies except in the nature + of light and transparency (De Anima ii), it follows that the lower bodies are to be perfected chiefly as regards brightness. + Hence all the elements will be clothed with a certain brightness, + not equally, however, but according to their mode: for it is said that the earth on its outward surface will be as transparent + as glass, water as crystal, the air as heaven, fire as the lights of heaven. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A4-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As stated above + <a id="XP_Q91_A4-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q91_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, the renewal of the world is directed to the effect that man even by his senses may as it were see the Godhead by manifest + signs. Now the most spiritual and subtle of our senses is the sight. Consequently all the lower bodies need to be bettered, + chiefly as regards the visible qualities the principle of which is light. On the other hand, the elemental qualities regard + the touch, which is the most + material of the senses, and the excess of their contrariety is more displeasing than pleasant; whereas excess of light will + be pleasant, since it has no contrariety, except on account of a weakness in the organ, such as will not be then. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A4-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The air will be bright, not as casting forth rays, but as an enlightened transparency; while the earth, although it is opaque + through lack of light, yet by the Divine power its surface will be clothed with the glory of brightness, without prejudice + to its density. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A4-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The earth will not be glorified with brightness in the infernal regions; but instead of this glory, that part of the earth + will have the rational spirits of men and demons who though weak by reason of sin are nevertheless superior to any corporeal + quality by the dignity of their nature. or we may say that, though the whole earth be glorified, the wicked will nevertheless + be in exterior darkness, since even the fire of hell, while shining for them in + one respect, will be unable to enlighten them in another. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A4-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> This brightness will be in these bodies even as it is in the heavenly bodies, in which it causes no heat, because these bodies + will then be unalterable, as the heavenly bodies are now. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A4-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The order of the universe will not be done away by the betterment of the elements, because all the other parts will also + be bettered, and so the same harmony will remain. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A4-p16"></p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A4-p17"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q91_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q92.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q91_A5-p0.1">Whether the plants and animals will remain in this renewal?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q91_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the plants and animals will remain in this renewal. For the elements should be deprived of nothing that + belongs to their adornment. Now the elements are said to be adorned by the animals and plants [*Cf. + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.1.11" target="asv"> Gn. 1:11,12,20,21,24,25</a>]. Therefore they will not be removed in this renewal. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as the elements served man, so also did animals, plants and mineral bodies. But on account of this service + the elements will be glorified. Therefore both animals and plants and mineral bodies will be glorified likewise. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the universe will remain imperfect if anything belonging to its perfection be removed. Now the species of animals, + plants, and mineral bodies belong to the perfection of the universe. Since then we must not say that the world will remain + imperfect when it is renewed, it seems that we should assert that the plants and animals will remain. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A5-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, animals and plants have a more noble form than the elements. Now the world, at this final renewal, will be changed + for the better. Therefore animals and plants should remain rather than the elements, since they are nobler. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A5-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, it is unseemly to assert that the natural appetite will be frustrated. But by their natural appetite animals and + plants desire to be for ever, if indeed not as regards the individual, at least as regards the species: and to this end their + continual generation is directed (De Generat. ii). Therefore it is unseemly to say that these species will at length cease + to be. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A5-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> If plants and animals are to remain, either all of them will, or some of them. If all of them, then dumb animals, which had + previously died, will have to rise again just as men will rise again. But this cannot be asserted for since their form comes + to nothing, they cannot resume the same identical form. On the other hand if not all but some of them remain, since there + is no more reason for one of them remaining for ever rather than another, it would seem + that none of them will. But whatever remains after the world has been renewed will remain for ever, generation and corruption + being done away. Therefore plants and animals will altogether cease after the renewal of the world. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A5-p8"> Further, according to the Philosopher (De Generat. ii) the species of animals, plants and such like corruptible things, are + not perpetuated except by the continuance of the heavenly movement. Now this will cease then. Therefore it will be impossible + for those species to be perpetuated. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A5-p9"> Further, if the end cease, those things which are directed to the end should cease. Now animals and plants were made for + the upkeep of human life; wherefore it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A5-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.9.3" target="asv">Gn. 9:3</a>): "Even as the green herbs have I delivered all flesh to you [*Vulg.: 'have I delivered them all to you']." Therefore when + man's animal life ceases, animals and plants should cease. But after this renewal animal life will cease in man. Therefore + neither plants nor animals ought to + remain. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A5-p10"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Since the renewal of the world will be for man's sake it follows that it should be conformed to the renewal of man. Now by + being renewed man will pass from the state of corruption to incorruptibility and to a state of everlasting rest, wherefore + it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q91_A5-p10.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.53" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:53</a>): "This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality"; and consequently the world will be + renewed in such a way as to throw off all corruption and remain + for ever at rest. Therefore it will be impossible for anything to be the subject of that renewal, unless it be a subject of + incorruption. Now such are the heavenly bodies, the elements, and man. For the heavenly bodies are by their very nature incorruptible + both as to their whole and as to their part: the elements are corruptible as to their parts but incorruptible as a whole: + while men are corruptible both in whole and in part, but this is on the part of their matter not on the part of their + form, the rational soul to wit, which will remain incorrupt after the corruption of man. on the other hand, dumb animals, + plants, and minerals, and all mixed bodies, are corruptible both in their whole and in their parts, both on the part of their + matter which loses its form, and on the part of their form which does not remain actually; and thus they are in no way subjects + of incorruption. Hence they will not remain in this renewal, but those things alone which we have mentioned above. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A5-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> These bodies are said to adorn the elements, inasmuch as the general active and passive forces which are in the elements + are applied to specific actions: hence they adorn the elements in their active and passive state. But this state will not + remain in the elements: wherefore there is no need for animals or plants to remain. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A5-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Neither animals nor plants nor any other bodies merited anything by their services to man, since they lack free-will. However, + certain bodies are said to be rewarded in so far as man merited that those things should be renewed which are adapted to be + renewed. But plants and animals are not adapted to the renewal of incorruption, as stated above. Wherefore for this very reason + man did not merit that they should be renewed, since no one can merit for + another, or even for himself that which another or himself is incapable of receiving. Hence, granted even that dumb animals + merited by serving man, it would not follow that they are to be renewed. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A5-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Just as several kinds of perfection are ascribed to man (for there is the perfection of created nature and the perfection + of glorified nature), so also there is a twofold perfection of the universe, one corresponding to this state of changeableness, + the other corresponding to the state of a future renewal. Now plants and animals belong to its perfection according to the + present state, and not according to the state of this renewal, since they are not + capable thereof. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A5-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Although animals and plants as to certain other respects are more noble than the elements, the elements are more noble in + relation to incorruption, as explained above [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q91_A5-p14.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q74_A1.html"> Q[74], A[1]</a>, ad 3]. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A5-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The natural desire to be for ever that is in animals and plants must be understood in reference to the movement of the heaven, + so that they may continue in being as long as the movement of the heaven lasts: since there cannot be an appetite for an effect + to last longer than its cause. Wherefore if at the cessation of movement in the first movable body, plants and animals cease + as to their species, it does not follow that the natural appetite is + frustrated. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A5-p16"></p> + <p id="XP_Q91_A5-p17"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q92.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.XP_Q90_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q92" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q92_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="XP_Q92-p0.1">OF THE VISION OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE IN REFERENCE TO THE BLESSED* (THREE ARTICLES) [*Cf. FP, Q[12]]</h3> + <p id="XP_Q92-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q92-p2"> In the next place we must consider matters concerning the blessed after the general judgment. We shall consider: (1) Their + vision of the Divine essence, wherein their bliss consists chiefly; (2) Their bliss and their mansions; (3) Their relations + with the damned; (4) Their gifts, which are contained in their bliss; (5) The crowns which perfect and adorn their happiness. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92-p3"> Under the first head there are three points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="XP_Q92-p4"> (1) Whether the saints will see God in His essence?</p> + <p id="XP_Q92-p5"> (2) Whether they will see Him with the eyes of the body?</p> + <p id="XP_Q92-p6"> (3) Whether in seeing God they will see all that God sees?</p> + <div id="XP_Q92_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q92.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q92_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q92_A1-p0.1">Whether the human intellect can attain to the vision of God in His essence?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the human intellect cannot attain to the vision of God in His essence. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.18" target="asv">Jn. 1:18</a>): "No man hath seen God at any time"; and Chrysostom in his commentary says (Hom. xiv in Joan.) that "not even the heavenly + essences, namely the Cherubim and Seraphim, have ever been able to see Him as He is." Now, only equality with the angels is + promised to men ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A1-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.22.30" target="asv">Mat. 22:30</a>): "They . . . shall be as the + angels of God in heaven." Therefore neither will the saints in heaven see God in His essence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Dionysius argues thus (Div. Nom. i): "Knowledge is only of existing things." Now whatever exists is finite, since + it is confined to a certain genus: and therefore God, since He is infinite, is above all existing things. Therefore there + is no knowledge of Him, and He is above all knowledge. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Dionysius (De Myst. Theol. i) shows that the most perfect way in which our intellect can be united to God is when + it is united to Him as to something unknown. Now that which is seen in its essence is not unknown. Therefore it is impossible + for our intellect to see God in His essence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Dionysius says (Ep. ad Caium Monach.) that "the darkness"---for thus he calls the abundance of light---"which screens + God is impervious to all illuminations, and hidden from all knowledge: and if anyone in seeing God understood what he saw, + he saw not God Himself, but one of those things that are His." Therefore no created intellect will be able to see God in His + essence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, according to Dionysius (Ep. ad Hieroth.) "God is invisible on account of His surpassing glory." Now His glory surpasses + the human intellect in heaven even as on the way. Therefore since He is invisible on the way, so will He be in heaven. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p7"> + <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, since the intelligible object is the perfection of the intellect, there must needs be proportion between intelligible + and intellect, as between the visible object and the sight. But there is no possible proportion between our intellect and + the Divine essence, since an infinite distance separates them. Therefore our intellect will be unable to attain to the vision + of the Divine essence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p8"> + <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, God is more distant from our intellect than the created intelligible is from our senses. But the senses can nowise + attain to the sight of a spiritual creature. Therefore neither will our intellect be able to attain to the vision of the Divine + essence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p9"> + <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, whenever the intellect understands something actually it needs to be informed with the likeness of the object understood, + which likeness is the principle of the intellectual operation terminating in that object, even as heat is the principle of + heating. Accordingly if our intellect understands God, this must be by means of some likeness informing the intellect itself. + Now this cannot be the very essence of God, since form and thing informed must needs + have one being, while the Divine essence differs from our intellect in essence and being. Therefore the form whereby our intellect + is informed in understanding God must needs be a likeness impressed by God on our intellect. But this likeness, being something + created, cannot lead to the knowledge of God except as an effect leads to the knowledge of its cause. Therefore it is impossible + for our intellect to see God except through His effect. But to see God through His effect is not to see Him in + His essence. Therefore our intellect will be unable to see God in His essence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p10"> + <b>Objection 9:</b> Further, the Divine essence is more distant from our intellect than any angel or intelligence. Now according to Avicenna + (Metaph. iii), "the existence of an intelligence in our intellect does not imply that its essence is in our intellect," because + in that case our knowledge of the intelligence would be a substance and not an accident, "but that its likeness is impressed + on our intellect." Therefore neither is God in our intellect, to be understood by us, + except in so far as an impression of Him is in our intellect. But this impression cannot lead to the knowledge of the Divine + essence, for since it is infinitely distant from the Divine essence, it degenerates to another image much more than if the + image of a white thing were to degenerate to the image of a black thing. Therefore, just as a person in whose sight the image + of a white thing degenerates to the image of a black thing, on account of an indisposition in the organ, is not said to see + a + white thing, so neither will our intellect be able to see God in His essence, since it understands God only by means of this + impression. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p11"> + <b>Objection 10:</b> Further, "In things devoid of matter that which understands is the same as that which is understood" (De Anima iii). Now + God is supremely devoid of matter. Since then our intellect, which is created, cannot attain to be an uncreated essence, it + is impossible for our intellect to see God in His essence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p12"> + <b>Objection 11:</b> Further, whatever is seen in its essence is known as to what it is. But our intellect cannot know of God what He is, but + only what He is not as Dionysius (Coel. Hier. ii) and Damascene (De Fide Orth. i) declare. Therefore our intellect will be + unable to see God in His essence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p13"> + <b>Objection 12:</b> Further, every infinite thing, as such, is unknown. But God is in every way infinite. Therefore He is altogether unknown. + Therefore it will be impossible for Him to be seen in His essence by a created intellect. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p14"> + <b>Objection 13:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Videndo Deo: Ep. cxlvii): "God is by nature invisible." Now that which is in God by nature cannot + be otherwise. Therefore it is impossible for Him to be seen in His essence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p15"> + <b>Objection 14:</b> Further, whatever is in one way and is seen in another way is not seen as it is. Now God is in one way and will be seen in + another way by the saints in heaven: for He according to His own mode, but will be seen by the saints according to their mode. + Therefore He will not be seen by the saints as He is, and thus will not be seen in His essence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p16"> + <b>Objection 15:</b> Further, that which is seen through a medium is not seen in its essence. Now God will be seen in heaven through a medium + which is the light of glory, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A1-p16.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.35.10" target="asv"> Ps. 35:10, </a> "In Thy light we shall see light." Therefore He will not be seen in His essence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p17"> + <b>Objection 16:</b> Further, in heaven God will be seen face to face, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A1-p17.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.13.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 13:12.</a> Now when we see a man face to face, we see him through his likeness. Therefore in heaven God will be seen through His likeness, + and consequently not in His essence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p18"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A1-p18.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.13.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 13:12</a>): "We see now through a glass in a dark manner, but then face to face." Now that which is seen face to face is seen in its + essence. Therefore God will be seen in His essence by the saints in heaven. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p19"> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A1-p19.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.3.2" target="asv">1 Jn. 3:2</a>): "When He shall appear we shall be like to Him, because we shall see Him as He is." Therefore we shall see Him in His essence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p20"> Further, a gloss on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A1-p20.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.24" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:24, </a> "When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father," says: "Where," i.e. in heaven, "the essence of Father, + Son, and Holy Ghost shall be seen: this is given to the clean of heart alone and is the highest bliss." Therefore the blessed + will see God in His essence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p21"> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A1-p21.1" href="./asv.html#John.14.21" target="asv">Jn. 14:21</a>): "He that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father; and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him." Now that which is + manifested is seen in its essence. Therefore God will be seen in His essence by the saints in heaven. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p22"> Further, Gregory commenting (Moral. xviii) on the words of + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A1-p22.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.33.20" target="asv"> Ex. 33:20, </a> "Man shall not see Me and live," disapproves of the opinion of those who said that "in this abode of bliss God can be seen + in His glory but not in His nature; for His glory differs not from His nature." But His nature is His essence. Therefore He + will be seen in His essence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p23"> Further, the desire of the saints cannot be altogether frustrated. Now the common desire of the saints is to see God in His + essence, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A1-p23.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.33.13" target="asv"> Ex. 33:13, </a> "Show me Thy glory"; + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A1-p23.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.79.20" target="asv"> Ps. 79:20, </a> "Show Thy face and we shall be saved"; and + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A1-p23.3" href="./asv.html#John.14.8" target="asv"> Jn. 14:8, </a> "Show us the Father and it is enough for us." Therefore the saints will see God in His essence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p24"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Even as we hold by faith that the last end of man's life is to see God, so the philosophers maintained that man's ultimate + happiness is to understand immaterial substances according to their being. Hence in reference to this question we find that + philosophers and theologians encounter the same difficulty and the same difference of opinion. For some philosophers held + that our passive intellect can never come to understand separate substances. thus Alfarabius + expresses himself at the end of his Ethics, although he says the contrary in his book On the Intelligence, as the Commentator + attests (De Anima iii). In like manner certain theologians held that the human intellect can never attain to the vision of + God in His essence. on either side they were moved by the distance which separates our intellect from the Divine essence and + from separate substances. For since the intellect in act is somewhat one with the intelligible object in act, it would seem + difficult to understand how the created intellect is made to be an uncreated essence. Wherefore Chrysostom says (Hom. xiv + in Joan.): "How can the creature see the uncreated?" Those who hold the passive intellect to be the subject of generation + and corruption, as being a power dependent on the body, encounter a still greater difficulty not only as regards the vision + of God but also as regards the vision of any separate substances. But this opinion is altogether untenable. First, because + it is in + contradiction to the authority of canonical scripture, as Augustine declares (De Videndo Deo: Ep. cxlvii). Secondly, because, + since understanding is an operation most proper to man, it follows that his happiness must be held to consist in that operation + when perfected in him. Now since the perfection of an intelligent being as such is the intelligible object, if in the most + perfect operation of his intellect man does not attain to the vision of the Divine essence, but to something else, we + shall be forced to conclude that something other than God is the object of man's happiness: and since the ultimate perfection + of a thing consists in its being united to its principle, it follows that something other than God is the effective principle + of man, which is absurd, according to us, and also according to the philosophers who maintain that our souls emanate from + the separate substances, so that finally we may be able to understand these substances. Consequently, according to us, it + must be asserted that our intellect will at length attain to the vision of the Divine essence, and according to the philosophers, + that it will attain to the vision of separate substances. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p25"> It remains, then, to examine how this may come about. For some, like Alfarabius and Avempace, held that from the very fact + that our intellect understands any intelligible objects whatever, it attains to the vision of a separate substance. To prove + this they employ two arguments. The first is that just as the specific nature is not diversified in various individuals, except + as united to various individuating principles, so the idea understood is not diversified in me and you, + except in so far as it is united to various imaginary forms: and consequently when the intellect separates the idea understood + from the imaginary forms, there remains a quiddity understood, which is one and the same in the various persons understanding + it, and such is the quiddity of a separate substance. Hence, when our intellect attains to the supreme abstraction of any + intelligible quiddity, it thereby understands the quiddity of the separate substance that is similar to it. The second + argument is that our intellect has a natural aptitude to abstract the quiddity from all intelligible objects having a quiddity. + If, then, the quiddity which it abstracts from some particular individual be a quiddity without a quiddity, the intellect + by understanding it understands the quiddity of the separate substance which has a like disposition, since separate substances + are subsisting quiddities without quiddities; for the quiddity of a simple thing is the simple thing itself, as Avicenna + says (Met. iii). On the other hand if the quiddity abstracted from this particular sensible be a quiddity that has a quiddity, + it follows that the intellect has a natural aptitude to abstract this quiddity, and consequently since we cannot go on indefinitely, + we shall come to some quiddity without a quiddity, and this is what we understand by a separate quiddity [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q92_A1-p25.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q88_A2.html">FP, Q[88], A[2]</a>]. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p26"> But this reasoning is seemingly inconclusive. First, because the quiddity of the material substance, which the intellect + abstracts, is not of the same nature as the quiddity of the separate substances, and consequently from the fact that our intellect + abstracts the quiddities of material substances and knows them, it does not follow that it knows the quiddity of a separate + substance, especially of the Divine essence, which more than any other is of a different nature from any + created quiddity. Secondly, because granted that it be of the same nature, nevertheless the knowledge of a composite thing + would not lead to the knowledge of a separate substance, except in the point of the most remote genus, namely substance: and + such a knowledge is imperfect unless it reach to the properties of a thing. For to know a man only as an animal is to know + him only in a restricted sense and potentially: and much less is it to know only the nature of substance in him. Hence to + know + God thus, or other separate substances, is not to see the essence of God or the quiddity of a separate substance, but to know + Him in His effect and in a mirror as it were. For this reason Avicenna in his Metaphysics. propounds another way of understanding + separate substances, to wit that separate substances are understood by us by means of intentions of their quiddities, such + intentions being images of their substances, not indeed abstracted therefrom, since they are immaterial, but impressed + thereby on our souls. But this way also seems inadequate to the Divine vision which we seek. For it is agreed that "whatever + is received into any thing is therein after the mode of the recipient": and consequently the likeness of the Divine essence + impressed on our intellect will be according to the mode of our intellect: and the mode of our intellect falls short of a + perfect reception of the Divine likeness. Now the lack of perfect likeness may occur in as many ways, as unlikeness may occur. + For in one way there is a deficient likeness, when the form is participated according to the same specific nature, but not + in the same measure of perfection: such is the defective likeness in a subject that has little whiteness in comparison with + one that has much. In another way the likeness is yet more defective, when it does not attain to the same specific nature + but only to the same generic nature: such is the likeness of an orange-colored or yellowish object in comparison with a white + one. + In another way, still more defective is the likeness when it does not attain to the same generic nature, but only to a certain + analogy or proportion: such is the likeness of whiteness to man, in that each is a being: and in this way every likeness received + into a creature is defective in comparison with the Divine essence. Now in order that the sight know whiteness, it is necessary + for it to receive the likeness of whiteness according to its specific nature, although not according to the same + manner of being because the form has a manner of being in the sense other from that which it has in the thing outside the + soul: for if the form of yellowness were received into the eye, the eye would not be said to see whiteness. In like manner + in order that the intellect understand a quiddity, it is necessary for it to receive its likeness according to the same specific + nature, although there may possibly not be the same manner of being on either side: for the form which is in the intellect + or + sense is not the principle of knowledge according to its manner of being on both sides, but according to its common ratio + with the external object. Hence it is clear that by no likeness received in the created intellect can God be understood, so + that His essence be seen immediately. And for this reason those who held the Divine essence to be seen in this way alone, + said that the essence itself will not be seen, but a certain brightness, as it were a radiance thereof. Consequently neither + does + this way suffice for the Divine vision that we seek. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p27"> Therefore we must take the other way, which also certain philosophers held, namely Alexander and Averroes (De Anima iii.). + For since in every knowledge some form is required whereby the object is known or seen, this form by which the intellect is + perfected so as to see separate substances is neither a quiddity abstracted by the intellect from composite things, as the + first opinion maintained, nor an impression left on our intellect by the separate substance, as the second + opinion affirmed; but the separate substance itself united to our intellect as its form, so as to be both that which is understood, + and that whereby it is understood. And whatever may be the case with other separate substances, we must nevertheless allow + this to be our way of seeing God in His essence, because by whatever other form our intellect were informed, it could not + be led thereby to the Divine essence. This, however, must not be understood as though the Divine essence were in reality + the form of our intellect, or as though from its conjunction with our intellect there resulted one being simply, as in natural + things from the natural form and matter: but the meaning is that the proportion of the Divine essence to our intellect is + as the proportion of form to matter. For whenever two things, one of which is the perfection of the other, are received into + the same recipient, the proportion of one to the other, namely of the more perfect to the less perfect, is as the proportion + of form to matter: thus light and color are received into a transparent object, light being to color as form to matter. When + therefore intellectual light is received into the soul, together with the indwelling Divine essence, though they are not received + in the same way, the Divine essence will be to the intellect as form to matter: and that this suffices for the intellect to + be able to see the Divine essence by the Divine essence itself may be shown as follows. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p28"> As from the natural form (whereby a thing has being) and matter, there results one thing simply, so from the form whereby + the intellect understands, and the intellect itself, there results one thing intelligibly. Now in natural things a self-subsistent + thing cannot be the form of any matter, if that thing has matter as one of its parts, since it is impossible for matter to + be the form of a thing. But if this self-subsistent thing be a mere form, nothing hinders it from being the + form of some matter and becoming that whereby the composite itself is [*Literally,---and becoming the 'whereby-it-is' of the + composite itself] as instanced in the soul. Now in the intellect we must take the intellect itself in potentiality as matter, + and the intelligible species as form; so that the intellect actually understanding will be the composite as it were resulting + from both. Hence if there be a self-subsistent thing, that has nothing in itself besides that which is intelligible, such + a thing can by itself be the form whereby the intellect understands. Now a thing is intelligible in respect of its actuality + and not of its potentiality (Met. ix): in proof of which an intelligible form needs to be abstracted from matter and from + all the properties of matter. Therefore, since the Divine essence is pure act, it will be possible for it to be the form whereby + the intellect understands: and this will be the beatific vision. Hence the Master says (Sent. ii, D, 1) that the union of + the body with the soul is an illustration of the blissful union of the spirit with God. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p29"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The words quoted can be explained in three ways, according to Augustine (De Videndo Deo: Ep. cxlvii). In one way as excluding + corporeal vision, whereby no one ever saw or will see God in His essence; secondly, as excluding intellectual vision of God + in His essence from those who dwell in this mortal flesh; thirdly, as excluding the vision of comprehension from a created + intellect. It is thus that Chrysostom understands the saying wherefore he adds: + "By seeing, the evangelist means a most clear perception, and such a comprehension as the Father has of the Son." This also + is the meaning of the evangelist, since he adds: "The Only-begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared + Him": his intention being to prove the Son to be God from His comprehending God. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p30"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Just as God, by His infinite essence, surpasses all existing things which have a determinate being, so His knowledge, whereby + He knows, is above all knowledge. Wherefore as our knowledge is to our created essence, so is the Divine knowledge to His + infinite essence. Now two things contribute to knowledge, to wit, the knower and the thing known. Again, the vision whereby + we shall see God in His essence is the same whereby God sees Himself, as regards + that whereby He is seen, because as He sees Himself in His essence so shall we also see Him. But as regards the knower there + is the difference that is between the Divine intellect and ours. Now in the order of knowledge the object known follows the + form by which we know, since by the form of a stone we see a stone: whereas the efficacy of knowledge follows the power of + the knower: thus he who has stronger sight sees more clearly. Consequently in that vision we shall see the same thing that + God + sees, namely His essence, but not so effectively. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p31"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Dionysius is speaking there of the knowledge whereby wayfarers know God by a created form, whereby our intellect is informed + so as to see God. But as Augustine says (De Videndo Deo: Ep. cxlvii), "God evades every form of our intellect," because whatever + form our intellect conceive, that form is out of proportion to the Divine essence. Hence He cannot be fathomed by our intellect: + but our most perfect knowledge of Him as wayfarers is to know that He is + above all that our intellect can conceive, and thus we are united to Him as to something unknown. In heaven, however, we shall + see Him by a form which is His essence, and we shall be united to Him as to something known. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p32"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> God is light ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A1-p32.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.9" target="asv">Jn. 1:9</a>). Now illumination is the impression of light on an illuminated object. And since the Divine essence is of a different mode + from any likeness thereof impressed on the intellect, he (Dionysius) says that the "Divine darkness is impervious to all illumination," + because, to wit, the Divine essence, which he calls "darkness" on account of its surpassing brightness, remains undemonstrated + by the impression on our + intellect, and consequently is "hidden from all knowledge." Therefore if anyone in seeing God conceives something in his mind, + this is not God but one of God's effects. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p33"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Although the glory of God surpasses any form by which our intellect is informed now, it does not surpass the Divine essence, + which will be the form of our intellect in heaven: and therefore although it is invisible now, it will be visible then. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p34"> + <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Although there can be no proportion between finite and infinite, since the excess of the infinite over the finite is indeterminate, + there can be proportionateness or a likeness to proportion between them: for as a finite thing is equal to some finite thing, + so is an infinite thing equal to an infinite thing. Now in order that a thing be known totally, it is sometimes necessary + that there be proportion between knower and known, because the power of the + knower needs to be adequate to the knowableness of the thing known, and equality is a kind of proportion. Sometimes, however, + the knowableness of the thing surpasses the power of the knower, as when we know God, or conversely when He knows creatures: + and then there is no need for proportion between knower and known, but only for proportionateness; so that, to wit, as the + knower is to the knowable object, so is the knowable object to the fact of its being known: and this proportionateness + suffices for the infinite to be known by the finite, or conversely. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p35"> We may also reply that proportion according to the strict sense in which it is employed signifies a ratio of quantity to + quantity based on a certain fixed excess or equality; but is further transferred to denote any ratio of any one thing to another; + and in this sense we say that matter should be proportionate to its form. In this sense nothing hinders our intellect, although + finite, being described as proportionate to the vision of the Divine essence; but not to the + comprehension thereof, on account of its immensity. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p36"> + <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> Likeness and distance are twofold. One is according to agreement in nature; and thus God is more distant from the created + intellect than the created intelligible is from the sense. The other is according to proportionateness; and thus it is the + other way about, for sense is not proportionate to the knowledge of the immaterial, as the intellect is proportionate to the + knowledge of any immaterial object whatsoever. It is this likeness and not the former + that is requisite for knowledge, for it is clear that the intellect understanding a stone is not like it in its natural being; + thus also the sight apprehends red honey and red gall, though it does not apprehend sweet honey, for the redness of gall is + more becoming to honey as visible, than the sweetness of honey to honey. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p37"> + <b>Reply to Objection 8:</b> In the vision wherein God will be seen in His essence, the Divine essence itself will be the form, as it were, of the intellect, + by which it will understand: nor is it necessary for them to become one in being, but only to become one as regards the act + of understanding. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p38"> + <b>Reply to Objection 9:</b> We do not uphold the saying of Avicenna as regards the point at issue, for in this other philosophers also disagree with + him. Unless perhaps we might say that Avicenna refers to the knowledge of separate substances, in so far as they are known + by the habits of speculative sciences and the likeness of other things. Hence he makes this statement in order to prove that + in us knowledge is not a substance but an accident. Nevertheless, although the Divine + essence is more distant, as to the property of its nature, from our intellect, than is the substance of an angel, it surpasses + it in the point of intelligibility, since it is pure act without any admixture of potentiality, which is not the case with + other separate substances. Nor will that knowledge whereby we shall see God in His essence be in the genus of accident as + regards that whereby He will be seen, but only as regards the act of the one who understands Him, for this act will not be + the + very substance either of the person understanding or of the thing understood. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p39"> + <b>Reply to Objection 10:</b> A substance that is separate from matter understands both itself and other things; and in both cases the authority quoted + can be verified. For since the very essence of a separate substance is of itself intelligible and actual, through being separate + from matter, it is clear that when a separate substance understands itself, that which understands and that which is understood + are absolutely identical, for it does not understand itself by an intention + abstracted from itself, as we understand material objects. And this is apparently the meaning of the Philosopher (De Anima + iii.) as indicated by the Commentator (De Anima iii). But when it understands other things, the object actually understood + becomes one with the intellect in act, in so far as the form of the object understood becomes the form of the intellect, for + as much as the intellect is in act; not that it becomes identified with the essence of the intellect, as Avicenna proves (De + Natural. vi.), because the essence of the intellect remains one under two forms whereby it understands two things in succession, + in the same way as primary matter remains one under various forms. Hence also the Commentator (De Anima iii.) compares the + passive intellect, in this respect, to primary matter. Thus it by no means follows that our intellect in seeing God becomes + the very essence of God, but that the latter is compared to it as its perfection or form. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p40"> + <b>Reply to Objection 11:</b> These and all like authorities must be understood to refer to the knowledge whereby we know God on the way, for the reason + given above. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p41"> + <b>Reply to Objection 12:</b> The infinite is unknown if we take it in the privative sense, as such, because it indicates removal of completion whence + knowledge of a thing is derived. Wherefore the infinite amounts to the same as matter subject to privation, as stated in Phys. + iii. But if we take the infinite in the negative sense, it indicates the absence of limiting matter, since even a form is + somewhat limited by its matter. Hence the infinite in this sense is of itself most + knowable; and it is in this way that God is infinite. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p42"> + <b>Reply to Objection 13:</b> Augustine is speaking of bodily vision, by which God will never be seen. This is evident from what precedes: "For no man + hath seen God at any time, nor can any man see Him as these things which we call visible are seen: in this way He is by nature + invisible even as He is incorruptible." As, however, He is by nature supremely being, so He is in Himself supremely intelligible. + But that He be for a time not understood by us is owing to our defect: + wherefore that He be seen by us after being unseen is owing to a change not in Him but in us. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p43"> + <b>Reply to Objection 14:</b> In heaven God will be seen by the saints as He is, if this be referred to the mode of the object seen, for the saints will + see that God has the mode which He has. But if we refer the mode to the knower, He will not be seen as He is, because the + created intellect will not have so great an efficacy in seeing, as the Divine essence has to the effect of being seen. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p44"> + <b>Reply to Objection 15:</b> There is a threefold medium both in bodily and in intellectual vision. The first is the medium "under which" the object is + seen, and this is something perfecting the sight so as to see in general, without determining the sight to any particular + object. Such is bodily light in relation to bodily vision; and the light of the active intellect in relation to the passive + intellect, in so far as this light is a medium. The second is the light "by which" + the object is seen, and this is the visible form whereby either sight is determined to a special object, for instance by the + form of a stone to know a stone. The third is the medium "in which" it is seen; and this is something by gazing on which the + sight is led to something else: thus by looking in a mirror it is led to see the things reflected in the mirror, and by looking + at an image it is led to the thing represented by the image. In this way, too, the intellect from knowing an effect is + led to the cause, or conversely. Accordingly in the heavenly vision there will be no third medium, so that, to wit, God be + known by the images of other things, as He is known now, for which reason we are said to see now in a glass: nor will there + be the second medium, because the essence itself of God will be that whereby our intellect will see God. But there will only + be the first medium, which will upraise our intellect so that it will be possible for it to be united to the uncreated + substance in the aforesaid manner. Yet this medium will not cause that knowledge to be mediate, because it does not come in + between the knower and the thing known, but is that which gives the knower the power to know [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q92_A1-p44.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q12_A5.html">FP, Q[12], A[5]</a>]. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p45"> + <b>Reply to Objection 16:</b> Corporeal creatures are not said to be seen immediately, except when that which in them is capable of being brought into + conjunction with the sight is in conjunction therewith. Now they are not capable of being in conjunction with the sight of + their essence on account of their materiality: hence they are seen immediately when their image is in conjunction with the + sight. But God is able to be united to the intellect by His essence: wherefore He would + not be seen immediately, unless His essence were united to the intellect: and this vision, which is effected immediately, + is called "vision of face." Moreover the likeness of the corporeal object is received into the sight according to the same + ratio as it is in the object, although not according to the same mode of being. Wherefore this likeness leads to the object + directly: whereas no likeness can lead our intellect in this way to God, as shown above: and for this reason the comparison + fails. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p46"></p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A1-p47"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q92.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q92_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q92_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q92_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q92_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q92_A2-p0.1">Whether after the resurrection the saints will see God with the eyes of the body? [*Cf. FP, Q[12], A[3]]</h4> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that after the resurrection the saints will see God with the eyes of the body. Because the glorified eye has + greater power than one that is not glorified. Now the blessed Job saw God with his eyes ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Job.42.5" target="asv">Job 42:5</a>): "With the hearing of the ear, I have heard Thee, but now my eye seeth Thee." Much more therefore will the glorified eye + be able to see God in His essence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Job.19.26" target="asv">Job 19:26</a>): "In my flesh I shall see God my Saviour [Vulg.: 'my God']." Therefore in heaven God will be seen with the eyes of the body. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further. Augustine, speaking of the sight of the glorified eyes, expresses himself as follows (De Civ. Dei xxii): "A greater + power will be in those eyes, not to see more keenly, as certain serpents or eagles are reported to see (for whatever acuteness + of vision is possessed by these animals they can see only corporeal things), but to see even incorporeal things." Now any + power that is capable of knowing incorporeal things can be upraised to see God. Therefore + the glorified eyes will be able to see God. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the disparity of corporeal to incorporeal things is the same as of incorporeal to corporeal. Now the incorporeal + eye can see corporeal things. Therefore the corporeal eye can see the incorporeal: and consequently the same conclusion follows. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, Gregory, commenting on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Job.4.16" target="asv"> Job 4:16, </a> "There stood one whose countenance I knew not," says (Moral. v): "Man who, had he been willing to obey the command, would + have been spiritual in the flesh, became, by sinning, carnal even in mind." Now through becoming carnal in mind, "he thinks + only of those things which he draws to his soul by the images of bodies" (Moral. v). Therefore when he will be spiritual in + the flesh (which is promised to + the saints after the resurrection), he will be able even in the flesh to see spiritual things. Therefore the same conclusion + follows. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p7"> + <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, man can be beatified by God alone. Now he will be beatified not only in soul but also in body. Therefore God will + be visible not only to his intellect but also to his flesh. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p8"> + <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, even as God is present to the intellect by His essence, so will He be to the senses, because He will be "all in + all" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.28" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:28</a>). Now He will be seen by the intellect through the union of His essence therewith. Therefore He will also be visible to the + sense. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p9"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Ambrose, commenting on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.2" target="asv"> Lk. 1:2, </a> "There appeared to him an angel," says: "God is not sought with the eyes of the body, nor surveyed by the sight, nor clasped + by the touch." Therefore God will by no means be visible to the bodily sense. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p10"> Further, Jerome, commenting on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A2-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.6.1" target="asv"> Is. 6:1, </a> "I saw the Lord sitting," says: "The Godhead not only of the Father, but also of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is visible, + not to carnal eyes, but only to the eyes of the mind, of which it is said: Blessed are the pure in heart." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p11"> Further, Jerome says again (as quoted by Augustine, Ep. cxlvii): "An incorporeal thing is invisible to a corporeal eye." + But God is supremely incorporeal. Therefore, etc. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p12"> Further, Augustine says (De Videndo Deo, Ep. cxlvii): "No man hath seen God as He is at any time, neither in this life, nor + in the angelic life, in the same way as these visible things which are seen with the corporeal sight." Now the angelic life + is the life of the blessed, wherein they will live after the resurrection. Therefore, etc. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p13"> Further, according to Augustine (De Trin. xiv.), "man is said to be made to God's image inasmuch as he is able to see God." + But man is in God's image as regards his mind, and not as regards his flesh. Therefore he will see God with his mind and not + with his flesh. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p14"> + <b>I answer that,</b> A thing is perceptible to the senses of the body in two ways, directly and indirectly. A thing is perceptible directly if + it can act directly on the bodily senses. And a thing can act directly either on sense as such or on a particular sense as + such. That which acts directly in this second way on a sense is called a proper sensible, for instance color in relation to + the sight, and sound in relation to the hearing. But as sense as such makes use of a bodily + organ, nothing can be received therein except corporeally, since whatever is received into a thing is therein after the mode + of the recipient. Hence all sensibles act on the sense as such, according to their magnitude: and consequently magnitude and + all its consequences, such as movement, rest, number, and the like, are called common sensibles, and yet they are direct objects + of sense. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p15"> An indirect object of sense is that which does not act on the sense, neither as sense nor as a particular sense, but is annexed + to those things that act on sense directly: for instance Socrates; the son of Diares; a friend and the like which are the + direct object of the intellect's knowledge in the universal, and in the particular are the object of the cogitative power + in man, and of the estimative power in other animals. The external sense is said to perceive things of this + kind, although indirectly, when the apprehensive power (whose province it is to know directly this thing known), from that + which is sensed directly, apprehends them at once and without any doubt or discourse (thus we see that a person is alive from + the fact that he speaks): otherwise the sense is not said to perceive it even indirectly. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p16"> I say then that God can nowise be seen with the eyes of the body, or perceived by any of the senses, as that which is seen + directly, neither here, nor in heaven: for if that which belongs to sense as such be removed from sense, there will be no + sense, and in like manner if that which belongs to sight as sight be removed therefrom, there will be no sight. Accordingly + seeing that sense as sense perceives magnitude, and sight as such a sense perceives color, it is impossible for + the sight to perceive that which is neither color nor magnitude, unless we call it a sense equivocally. Since then sight and + sense will be specifically the same in the glorified body, as in a non-glorified body, it will be impossible for it to see + the Divine essence as an object of direct vision; yet it will see it as an object of indirect vision, because on the one hand + the bodily sight will see so great a glory of God in bodies, especially in the glorified bodies and most of all in the body + of Christ, and, on the other hand, the intellect will see God so clearly, that God will be perceived in things seen with the + eye of the body, even as life is perceived in speech. For although our intellect will not then see God from seeing His creatures, + yet it will see God in His creatures seen corporeally. This manner of seeing God corporeally is indicated by Augustine (De + Civ. Dei xxii), as is clear if we take note of his words, for he says: "It is very credible that we shall so see the + mundane bodies of the new heaven and the new earth, as to see most clearly God everywhere present, governing all corporeal + things, not as we now see the invisible things of God as understood by those that are made, but as when we see men . . . we + do not believe but see that they live." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p17"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This saying of Job refers to the spiritual eye, of which the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A2-p17.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.1.18" target="asv">Eph. 1:18</a>): "The eyes of our [Vulg.: 'your'] heart enlightened." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p18"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The passage quoted does not mean that we are to see God with the eyes of the flesh, but that, in the flesh, we shall see + God. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p19"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In these words Augustine speaks as one inquiring and conditionally. This appears from what he had said before: "Therefore + they will have an altogether different power, if they shall see that incorporeal nature": and then he goes on to say: "Accordingly + a greater power," etc., and afterwards he explains himself. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p20"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> All knowledge results from some kind of abstraction from matter. Wherefore the more a corporeal form is abstracted from matter, + the more is it a principle of knowledge. Hence it is that a form existing in matter is in no way a principle of knowledge, + while a form existing in the senses is somewhat a principle of knowledge, in so far as it is abstracted from matter, and a + form existing in the intellect is still better a principle of knowledge. + Therefore the spiritual eye, whence the obstacle to knowledge is removed, can see a corporeal object: but it does not follow + that the corporeal eye, in which the cognitive power is deficient as participating in matter, be able to know perfectly incorporeal + objects of knowledge. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p21"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Although the mind that has become carnal cannot think but of things received from the senses, it thinks of them immaterially. + In like manner whatever the sight apprehends it must always apprehend it corporeally: wherefore it cannot know things which + cannot be apprehended corporeally. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p22"> + <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Beatitude is the perfection of man as man. And since man is man not through his body but through his soul, and the body is + essential to man, in so far as it is perfected by the soul: it follows that man's beatitude does not consist chiefly otherwise + than in an act of the soul, and passes from the soul on to the body by a kind of overflow, as explained above ( + <a id="XP_Q92_A2-p22.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q85_A1.html">Q[85], A[1]</a>). Yet our body will have a certain beatitude from seeing + God in sensible creatures: and especially in Christ's body. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p23"> + <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> The intellect can perceive spiritual things, whereas the eyes of the body cannot: wherefore the intellect will be able to + know the Divine essence united to it, but the eyes of the body will not. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p24"></p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A2-p25"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q92_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q92_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q92_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q92_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q93.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q92_A3-p0.1">Whether the saints, seeing God, see all that God sees? [*Cf. FP, Q[12], AA[7],8]</h4> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the saints, seeing God in His essence, see all that God sees in Himself. For as Isidore says (De Sum. + Bon. 1.): "The angels know all things in the World of God, before they happen." Now the saints will be equal to the angels + of God ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.22.30" target="asv">Mat. 22:30</a>). Therefore the saints also in seeing God see all things. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Gregory says (Dial. iv.): "Since all see God there with equal clearness, what do they not know, who know Him Who + knows all things?" and he refers to the blessed who see God in His essence. Therefore those who see God in His essence know + all things. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is stated in De Anima (iii, text. 7), that "when an intellect understands the greatest things, it is all the + more able to understand the least things." Now God is the greatest of intelligible things. Therefore the power of the intellect + is greatly increased by understanding Him. Therefore the intellect seeing Him understands all things. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the intellect is not hindered from understanding a thing except by this surpassing it. Now no creature surpasses + the intellect that understands God, since, as Gregory says (Dial. ii.), "to the soul which sees its Creator all creatures + are small." Therefore those who see God in His essence know all things. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, every passive power that is not reduced to act is imperfect. Now the passive intellect of the human soul is a power + that is passive as it were to the knowledge of all things, since "the passive intellect is in which all are in potentiality" + (De Anima iii, text. 18). If then in that beatitude it were not to understand all things, it would remain imperfect, which + is absurd. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p7"> + <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, whoever sees a mirror sees the things reflected in the mirror. Now all things are reflected in the Word of God as + in a mirror, because He is the type and image of all. Therefore the saints who see the Word in its essence see all created + things. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p8"> + <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.10.24" target="asv"> Prov. 10:24, </a> "to the just their desire shall be given." Now the just desire to know all things, since "all men desire naturally to know," + and nature is not done away by glory. Therefore God will grant them to know all things. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p9"> + <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, ignorance is one of the penalties of the present life [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q92_A3-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q85_A3.html">FS, Q[85], A[3]</a>]. Now all penalty will be removed from the saints by glory. Therefore all ignorance will be removed: and consequently they + will know all. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p10"> + <b>Objection 9:</b> Further, the beatitude of the saints is in their soul before being in their body. Now the bodies of the saints will be reformed + in glory to the likeness of Christ's body ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A3-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.3.21" target="asv">Phil. 3:21</a>). Therefore their souls will be perfected in likeness to the soul of Christ. Now Christ's soul sees all things in the Word. + Therefore all the souls of the saints will also see all things in the Word. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p11"> + <b>Objection 10:</b> Further, the intellect, like the senses, knows all the things with the image of which it is informed. Now the Divine essence + shows a thing forth more clearly than any other image thereof. Therefore since in that blessed vision the Divine essence becomes + the form as it were of our intellect, it would seem that the saints seeing God see all. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p12"> + <b>Objection 11:</b> Further, the Commentator says (De Anima iii), that "if the active intellect were the form of the passive intellect, we should + understand all things." Now the Divine essence represents all things more clearly than the active intellect. Therefore the + intellect that sees God in His essence knows all things. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p13"> + <b>Objection 12:</b> Further, the lower angels are enlightened by the higher about the things they are ignorant of, for the reason that they know + not all things. Now after the day of judgment, one angel will not enlighten another; for then all superiority will cease, + as a gloss observes on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A3-p13.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.24" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:24, </a> "When He shall have brought to nought," etc. Therefore the lower angels will then know all things, and for the same reason + all the other saints who will see + God in His essence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p14"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Dionysius says (Hier. Eccles. vi): "The higher angels cleanse the lower angels from ignorance." Now the lower angels see + the Divine essence. Therefore an angel while seeing the Divine essence may be ignorant of certain things. But the soul will + not see God more perfectly than an angel. Therefore the souls seeing God will not necessarily see all things. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p15"> Further, Christ alone has the spirit not "by measure" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A3-p15.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.34" target="asv">Jn. 3:34</a>). Now it becomes Christ, as having the spirit without measure, to know all things in the Word: wherefore it is stated in + the same place ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A3-p15.2" href="./asv.html#John.3.35" target="asv">Jn. 3:35</a>) that "the Father . . . hath given all things into His hand." Therefore none but Christ is competent to know all things in + the Word. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p16"> Further, the more perfectly a principle is known, the more of its effects are known thereby. Now some of those who see God + in His essence will know God more perfectly than others. Therefore some will know more things than others, and consequently + every one will not know all. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p17"> + <b>I answer that,</b> God by seeing his essence knows all things whatsoever that are, shall be, or have been: and He is said to know these things + by His "knowledge of vision," because He knows them as though they were present in likeness to corporeal vision. Moreover + by seeing this essence He knows all that He can do, although He never did them, nor ever will: else He would not know His + power perfectly; since a power cannot be known unless its objects be known: and this is called + His "science" or "knowledge of simple intelligence." Now it is impossible for a created intellect, by seeing the Divine essence, + to know all that God can do, because the more perfectly a principle is known, the more things are known in it; thus in one + principle of demonstration one who is quick of intelligence sees more conclusions than one who is slow of intelligence. Since + then the extent of the Divine power is measured according to what it can do, if an intellect were to see in the Divine + essence all that God can do, its perfection in understanding would equal in extent the Divine power in producing its effects, + and thus it would comprehend the Divine power, which is impossible for any created intellect to do. Yet there is a created + intellect, namely the soul of Christ [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q92_A3-p17.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q16_A2.html">TP, Q[16], A[2]</a>], which knows in the Word all that God knows by the knowledge of vision. But regarding others who see the Divine essence + there are two opinions. For some say that all + who see God in His essence see all that God sees by His knowledge of vision. This, however, is contrary to the sayings of + holy men, who hold that angels are ignorant of some things; and yet it is clear that according to faith all the angels see + God in His essence. Wherefore others say that others than Christ, although they see God in His essence, do not see all that + God sees because they do not comprehend the Divine essence. For it is not necessary that he who knows a cause should know + all its + effects, unless he comprehend the cause: and this is not in the competency of a created intellect. Consequently of those who + see God in His essence, each one sees in His essence so much the more things according as he sees the Divine essence the more + clearly: and hence it is that one is able to instruct another concerning these things. Thus the knowledge of the angels and + of the souls of the saints can go on increasing until the day of judgment, even as other things pertaining to the accidental + reward. But afterwards it will increase no more, because then will be the final state of things, and in that state it is possible + that all will know everything that God knows by the knowledge of vision. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p18"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The saying of Isidore, that "the angels know in the Word all things before they happen," cannot refer to those things which + God knows only by the knowledge of simple intelligence, because those things will never happen; but it must refer to those + things which God knows only by the knowledge of vision. Even of these he does not say that all the angels know them all, but + that perhaps some do; and that even those who know do not know all perfectly. For + in one and the same thing there are many intelligible aspects to be considered, such as its various properties and relations + to other things: and it is possible that while one thing is known in common by two persons, one of them perceives more aspects, + and that the one learns these aspects from the other. Hence Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "the lower angels learn from + the higher angels the intelligible aspects of things." Wherefore it does not follow that even the angels who know all + creatures are able to see all that can be understood in them. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p19"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It follows from this saying of Gregory that this blessed vision suffices for the seeing of all things on the part of the + Divine essence, which is the medium by which one sees, and whereby God sees all things. That all things, however, are not + seen is owing to the deficiency of the created intellect which does not comprehend the Divine essence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p20"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The created intellect sees the Divine essence not according to the mode of that same essence, but according to its own mode + which is finite. Hence its efficacy in knowing would need to be infinitely increased by reason of that vision in order for + it to know all things. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p21"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Defective knowledge results not only from excess and deficiency of the knowable object in relation to the intellect, but + also from the fact that the aspect of knowableness is not united to the intellect: thus sometimes the sight sees not a stone, + through the image of the stone not being united to it. And although the Divine essence which is the type of all things is + united to the intellect of one who sees God, it is united thereto not as the type of + all things, but as the type of some and of so much the more according as one sees the Divine essence more fully. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p22"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> When a passive power is perceptible by several perfections in order, if it be perfected with its ultimate perfection, it + is not said to be imperfect, even though it lack some of the preceding dispositions. Now all knowledge by which the created + intellect is perfected is directed to the knowledge of God as its end. Wherefore he who sees God in His essence, even though + he know nothing else, would have a perfect intellect: nor is his intellect more + perfect through knowing something else besides Him, except in so far as it sees Him more fully. Hence Augustine says (Confess. + v.): "Unhappy is he who knoweth all these" (namely, creatures), "and knoweth not Thee: but happy whoso knoweth Thee, though + he know not these. And whoso knoweth both Thee and them is not the happier for them but for Thee only." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p23"> + <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> This mirror has a will: and even as He will show Himself to whom He will, so will He show in Himself whatsoever He will. + Nor does the comparison with a material mirror hold, for it is not in its power to be seen or not to be seen. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p24"> We may also reply that in a material mirror both object and mirror are seen under their proper image; although the mirror + be seen through an image received from the thing itself, whereas the stone is seen through its proper image reflected in some + other thing, where the reason for seeing the one is the reason for seeing the other. But in the uncreated mirror a thing is + seen through the form of the mirror, just as an effect is seen through the image of its cause and conversely. + Consequently it does not follow that whoever sees the eternal mirror sees all that is reflected in that mirror: since he who + sees the cause does not of necessity see all its effects, unless he comprehend the cause. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p25"> + <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> The desire of the saints to know all things will be fulfilled by the mere fact of their seeing God: just as their desire + to possess all good things will be fulfilled by their possessing God. For as God suffices the affections in that He has perfect + goodness, and by possessing Him we possess all goods as it were, so does the vision of Him suffice the intellect: "Lord, show + us the Father and it is enough for us" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A3-p25.1" href="./asv.html#John.14.8" target="asv">Jn. 14:8</a>). + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p26"> + <b>Reply to Objection 8:</b> Ignorance properly so called denotes a privation and thus it is a punishment: for in this way ignorance is nescience of things, + the knowledge of which is a duty or a necessity. Now the saints in heaven will not be ignorant of any of these things. Sometimes, + however, ignorance is taken in a broad sense of any kind of nescience: and thus the angels and saints in heaven will be ignorant + of certain things. Hence Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "the + angels will be cleansed from their ignorance." In this sense ignorance is not a penalty but a defect. Nor is it necessary + for all such defects to be done away by glory: for thus we might say that it was a defect in Pope Linus that he did not attain + to the glory of Peter. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p27"> + <b>Reply to Objection 9:</b> Our body will be conformed to the body of Christ in glory, in likeness but not in equality, for it will be endowed with clarity + even as Christ's body, but not equally. In like manner our soul will have glory in likeness to the soul of Christ, but not + in equality thereto: thus it will have knowledge even as Christ's soul, but not so great, so as to know all as Christ's soul + does. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p28"> + <b>Reply to Objection 10:</b> Although the Divine essence is the type of all things knowable it will not be united to each created intellect according + as it is the type of all. Hence the objection proves nothing. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p29"> + <b>Reply to Objection 11:</b> The active intellect is a form proportionate to the passive intellect; even as the passive power of matter is proportionate + to the power of the natural agent, so that whatsoever is in the passive power of matter or the passive intellect is in the + active power of the active intellect or of the natural agent. Consequently if the active intellect become the form of the + passive intellect, the latter must of necessity know all those things to which the + power of the active intellect extends. But the Divine essence is not a form proportionate to our intellect in this sense. + Hence the comparison fails. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p30"> + <b>Reply to Objection 12:</b> Nothing hinders us from saying that after the judgment day, when the glory of men and angels will be consummated once for + all, all the blessed will know all that God knows by the knowledge of vision, yet so that not all will see all in the Divine + essence. Christ's soul, however, will see clearly all things therein, even as it sees them now; while others will see therein + a greater or lesser number of things according to the degree of clearness + wherewith they will know God: and thus Christ's soul will enlighten all other souls concerning those things which it sees + in the Word better than others. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A3-p30.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.21.23" target="asv">Apoc. 21:23</a>): "The glory of God shall enlighten the city of Jerusalem [*Vulg.: 'hath enlightened it'], and the Lamb is the lamp thereof." + In like manner the higher souls will enlighten the lower (not indeed with a new enlightening, so as to increase the knowledge + of the lower), but with a kind of continued enlightenment; + thus we might understand the sun to enlighten the atmosphere while at a standstill. Wherefore it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q92_A3-p30.2" href="./asv.html#Dan.12.3" target="asv">Dan. 12:3</a>): "They that instruct many to justice" shall shine "as stars for all eternity." The statement that the superiority of the + orders will cease refers to their present ordinate ministry in our regard, as is clear from the same gloss. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p31"></p> + <p id="XP_Q92_A3-p32"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q92_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q93.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.XP_Q91_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q92_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q93" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q92_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q93_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="XP_Q93-p0.1">OF THE HAPPINESS OF THE SAINTS AND THEIR MANSIONS (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="XP_Q93-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q93-p2"> We must next consider the happiness of the saints and their mansions. Under this head there are three points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="XP_Q93-p3"> (1) Whether the happiness of the saints will increase after the judgment?</p> + <p id="XP_Q93-p4"> (2) Whether the degrees of happiness should be called mansions?</p> + <p id="XP_Q93-p5"> (3) Whether the various mansions differ according to various degrees of charity?</p> + <div id="XP_Q93_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q93.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q93_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q93_A1-p0.1">Whether the happiness of the saints will be greater after the judgment than before?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q93_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the happiness of the saints will not be greater after the judgment than before. For the nearer a thing + approaches to the Divine likeness, the more perfectly does it participate happiness. Now the soul is more like God when separated + from the body than when united to it. Therefore its happiness is greater before being reunited to the body than after. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, power is more effective when it is united than when divided. Now the soul is more united when separated from the + body than when it is joined to the body. Therefore it has then greater power for operation, and consequently has a more perfect + share of happiness, since this consists in action [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q93_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q3_A2.html">FS, Q[3], A[2]</a>]. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, beatitude consists in an act of the speculative intellect. Now the intellect, in its act, makes no use of a bodily + organ; and consequently by being reunited to the body the soul does not become capable of more perfect understanding. Therefore + the soul's happiness is not greater after than before the judgment. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, nothing can be greater than the infinite, and so the addition of the finite to the infinite does not result in something + greater than the infinite by itself. Now the beatified soul before its reunion with the body is rendered happy by rejoicing + in the infinite good, namely God; and after the resurrection of the body it will rejoice in nothing else except perhaps the + glory of the body, and this is a finite good. Therefore their joy after the resumption + of the body will not be greater than before. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A1-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> A gloss on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q93_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.6.9" target="asv"> Apoc. 6:9, </a> "I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain," says: "At present the souls of the saints are under the altar, + i.e. less exalted than they will be." Therefore their happiness will be greater after the resurrection than after their death. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A1-p7"> Further, just as happiness is bestowed on the good as a reward, so is unhappiness awarded to the wicked. But the unhappiness + of the wicked after reunion with their bodies will be greater than before, since they will be punished not only in the soul + but also in the body. Therefore the happiness of the saints will be greater after the resurrection of the body than before. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A1-p8"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It is manifest that the happiness of the saints will increase in extent after the resurrection, because their happiness will + then be not only in the soul but also in the body. Moreover, the soul's happiness also will increase in extent, seeing that + the soul will rejoice not only in its own good, but also in that of the body. We may also say that the soul's happiness will + increase in intensity [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q93_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q4_A5.html">FS, Q[4], A[5]</a> , ad 5, where St. + Thomas retracts this statement]. For man's body may be considered in two ways: first, as being dependent on the soul for its + completion; secondly, as containing something that hampers the soul in its operations, through the soul not perfectly completing + the body. As regards the first way of considering the body, its union with the soul adds a certain perfection to the soul, + since every part is imperfect, and is completed in its whole; wherefore the whole is to the part as form to matter. + Consequently the soul is more perfect in its natural being, when it is in the whole---namely, man who results from the union + of soul and body---than when it is a separate part. But as regards the second consideration the union of the body hampers + the perfection of the soul, wherefore it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q93_A1-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Wis.9.15" target="asv">Wis. 9:15</a>) that "the corruptible body is a load upon the soul." If, then, there be removed from the body all those things wherein it + hampers the soul's action, the soul will be + simply more perfect while existing in such a body than when separated therefrom. Now the more perfect a thing is in being, + the more perfectly is it able to operate: wherefore the operation of the soul united to such a body will be more perfect than + the operation of the separated soul. But the glorified body will be a body of this description, being altogether subject to + the spirit. Therefore, since beatitude consists in an operation [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q93_A1-p8.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q3_A2.html">FS, Q[3], A[2]</a>, seqq.], the + soul's happiness after its reunion with the body will be more perfect than before. For just as the soul separated from a corruptible + body is able to operate more perfectly than when united thereto, so after it has been united to a glorified body, its operation + will be more perfect than while it was separated. Now every imperfect thing desires its perfection. Hence the separated soul + naturally desires reunion with the body and on account of this desire which proceeds from the soul's imperfection + its operation whereby it is borne towards God is less intense. This agrees with the saying of Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xii, + 35) that "on account of the body's desire it is held back from tending with all its might to that sovereign good." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The soul united to a glorified body is more like to God than when separated therefrom, in so far as when united it has more + perfect being. For the more perfect a thing is the more it is like to God: even so the heart, the perfection of whose life + consists in movement, is more like to God while in movement than while at rest, although God is never moved. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A power which by its own nature is capable of being in matter is more effective when subjected in matter than when separated + from matter, although absolutely speaking a power separate from matter is more effective. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although in the act of understanding the soul does not make use of the body, the perfection of the body will somewhat conduce + to the perfection of the intellectual operation in so far as through being united to a glorified body, the soul will be more + perfect in its nature, and consequently more effective in its operation, and accordingly the good itself of the body will + conduce instrumentally, as it were, to the operation wherein happiness consists: + thus the Philosopher asserts (Ethic. i, 8,10) that external goods conduce instrumentally to the happiness of life. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A1-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Although finite added to infinite does not make a greater thing, it makes more things, since finite and infinite are two + things, while infinite taken by itself is one. Now the greater extent of joy regards not a greater thing but more things. + Wherefore joy is increased in extent, through referring to God and to the body's glory, in comparison with the joy which referred + to God. Moreover, the body's glory will conduce to the intensity of the joy that + refers to God, in so far as it will conduce to the more perfect operation whereby the soul tends to God: since the more perfect + is a becoming operation, the greater the delight [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q93_A1-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q32_A1.html">FS, Q[32], A[1]</a>], as stated in Ethic. x, 8. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A1-p13"></p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A1-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q93.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q93_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q93_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q93_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q93_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q93_A2-p0.1">Whether the degrees of beatitude should be called mansions?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q93_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the degrees of beatitude should not be called mansions. For beatitude implies the notion of a reward: + whereas mansion denotes nothing pertaining to a reward. Therefore the various degrees of beatitude should not be called mansions. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, mansion seemingly denotes a place. Now the place where the saint will be beatified is not corporeal but spiritual, + namely God Who is one. Therefore there is but one mansion: and consequently the various degrees of beatitude should not be + called mansions. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as in heaven there will be men of various merits, so are there now in purgatory, and were in the limbo of the fathers. + But various mansions are not distinguished in purgatory and limbo. Therefore in like manner neither should they be distinguished + in heaven. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q93_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.14.2" target="asv">Jn. 14:2</a>): "In My Father's house there are many mansions": and Augustine expounds this in reference to the different degrees of rewards + (Tract. lxvii in Joan.). + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A2-p6"> Further, in every well-ordered city there is a distinction of mansions. Now the heavenly kingdom is compared to a city ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q93_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.21.2" target="asv">Apoc. 21:2</a>). Therefore we should distinguish various mansions there according to the various degrees of beatitude. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A2-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Since local movement precedes all other movements, terms of movement, distance and the like are derived from local movement + to all other movements according to the Philosopher (Phys., liber viii, 7). Now the end of local movement is a place, and + when a thing has arrived at that place it remains there at rest and is maintained therein. Hence in every movement this very + rest at the end of the movement is called an establishment [collocatio] or mansion. + Wherefore since the term movement is transferred to the actions of the appetite and will, the attainment of the end of an + appetitive movement is called a mansion or establishment: so that the unity of a house corresponds to the unity of beatitude + which unity is on the part of the object, and the plurality of mansions corresponds to the differences of beatitude on the + part of the blessed: even so we observe in natural things that there is one same place above to which all light objects tend, + whereas each one reaches it more closely, according as it is lighter, so that they have various mansions corresponding to + their various lightness. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Mansion implies the notion of end and consequently of reward which is the end of merit. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Though there is one spiritual place, there are different degrees of approaching thereto: and the various mansions correspond + to these. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Those who were in limbo or are now in purgatory have not yet attained to their end. Wherefore various mansions are not distinguished + in purgatory or limbo, but only in heaven and hell, wherein is the end of the good and of the wicked. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A2-p11"></p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A2-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q93_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q93_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q93_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q93_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q94.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q93_A3-p0.1">Whether the various mansions are distinguished according to the various degrees of charity?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q93_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the various mansions are not distinguished according to the various degrees of charity. For it is written + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q93_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.25.15" target="asv">Mat. 25:15</a>): "He gave to every one according to his proper virtue [Douay: 'ability']." Now the proper ability of a thing is its natural + power. Therefore the gifts also of grace and glory are distributed according to the different degrees of natural power. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q93_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.61.12" target="asv">Ps. 61:12</a>): "Thou wilt render to every man according to his works." Now that which is rendered is the measure of beatitude. Therefore + the degrees of beatitude are distinguished according to the diversity of works and not according to the diversity of charity. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, reward is due to act and not to habit: hence "it is not the strongest who are crowned but those who engage in the + conflict" (Ethic. i, 8) and "he . . . shall not be [Vulg.: 'is not'] crowned except he strive lawfully." Now beatitude is + a reward. Therefore the various degrees of beatitude will be according to the various degrees of works and not according to + the various degrees of charity. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The more one will be united to God the happier will one be. Now the measure of charity is the measure of one's union with + God. Therefore the diversity of beatitude will be according to the difference of charity. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A3-p6"> Further, "if one thing simply follows from another thing simply, the increase of the former follows from the increase of + the latter." Now to have beatitude follows from having charity. Therefore to have greater beatitude follows from having greater + charity. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A3-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The distinctive principle of the mansions or degrees of beatitude is twofold, namely proximate and remote. The proximate + principle is the difference of disposition which will be in the blessed, whence will result the difference of perfection in + them in respect to the beatific operation: while the remote principle is the merit by which they have obtained that beatitude. + In the first way the mansions are distinguished according to the charity of heaven, which + the more perfect it will be in any one, the more will it render him capable of the Divine clarity, on the increase of which + will depend the increase in perfection of the Divine vision. In the second way the mansions are distinguished according to + the charity of the way. For our actions are meritorious, not by the very substance of the action, but only by the habit of + virtue with which they are informed. Now every virtue obtains its meritorious efficacy from charity [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q93_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q114_A4.html">FS, Q[114], A[4]</a>], which has the end itself for its object [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q93_A3-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q24_A3.html">SS, Q[24], A[3]</a>, ad 1]. Hence the diversity of merit is all traced to the diversity of charity, and thus the charity of the way will distinguish + the mansions by way of merit. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In this passage "virtue" denotes not the natural ability alone, but the natural ability together with the endeavour to obtain + grace [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q93_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q23_A8.html">SS, Q[23], A[8]</a>]. Consequently virtue in this sense will be a kind of material disposition to the measure of grace and glory that one will + receive. But charity is the formal complement of merit in relation to glory, and therefore the distinction of degrees in glory + depends on the degrees of + charity rather than on the degrees of the aforesaid virtue. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Works in themselves do not demand the payment of a reward, except as informed by charity: and therefore the various degrees + of glory will be according to the various degrees of charity. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although the habit of charity or of any virtue whatever is not a merit to which a reward is due, it is none the less the + principle and reason of merit in the act: and consequently according to its diversity is the diversity of rewards. This does + not prevent our observing a certain degree of merit in the act considered generically, not indeed in relation to the essential + reward which is joy in God, but in relation to some accidental reward, which is + joy in some created good. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A3-p11"></p> + <p id="XP_Q93_A3-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q93_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q94.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.XP_Q92_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q93_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q94" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q93_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q94_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="XP_Q94-p0.1">OF THE RELATIONS OF THE SAINTS TOWARDS THE DAMNED (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="XP_Q94-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q94-p2"> We must next consider the relations of the saints towards the damned. Under this head there are three points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="XP_Q94-p3"> (1) Whether the saints see the sufferings of the damned?</p> + <p id="XP_Q94-p4"> (2) Whether they pity them?</p> + <p id="XP_Q94-p5"> (3) Whether they rejoice in their sufferings?</p> + <div id="XP_Q94_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q94.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q94_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q94_A1-p0.1">Whether the blessed in heaven will see the sufferings of the damned?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q94_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the blessed in heaven will not see the sufferings of the damned. For the damned are more cut off from + the blessed than wayfarers. But the blessed do not see the deeds of wayfarers: wherefore a gloss on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q94_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.63.16" target="asv"> Is. 63:16, </a> "Abraham hath not known us," says: "The dead, even the saints, know not what the living, even their own children, are doing" + [*St. Augustine, De cura pro mortuis xiii, xv]. Much less therefore do they see the + sufferings of the damned. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, perfection of vision depends on the perfection of the visible object: wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, + 4) that "the most perfect operation of the sense of sight is when the sense is most disposed with reference to the most beautiful + of the objects which fall under the sight." Therefore, on the other hand, any deformity in the visible object redounds to + the imperfection of the sight. But there will be no imperfection in the blessed. Therefore + they will not see the sufferings of the damned wherein there is extreme deformity. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A1-p4"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q94_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.66.24" target="asv">Is. 66:24</a>): "They shall go out and see the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against Me"; and a gloss says: "The elect will + go out by understanding or seeing manifestly, so that they may be urged the more to praise God." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A1-p5"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Nothing should be denied the blessed that belongs to the perfection of their beatitude. Now everything is known the more + for being compared with its contrary, because when contraries are placed beside one another they become more conspicuous. + Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks + to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A1-p6"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This gloss speaks of what the departed saints are able to do by nature: for it is not necessary that they should know by + natural knowledge all that happens to the living. But the saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens both to wayfarers + and to the damned. Hence Gregory says (Moral. xii) that Job's words (14:21), "'Whether his children come to honour or dishonour, + he shall not understand,' do not apply to the souls of the saints, because + since they possess the glory of God within them, we cannot believe that external things are unknown to them." [*Concerning + this Reply, Cf. + <a id="XP_Q94_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q89_A8.html">FP, Q[89], A[8]</a>]. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although the beauty of the thing seen conduces to the perfection of vision, there may be deformity of the thing seen without + imperfection of vision: because the images of things whereby the soul knows contraries are not themselves contrary. Wherefore + also God Who has most perfect knowledge sees all things, beautiful and deformed. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A1-p8"></p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A1-p9"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q94.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q94_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q94_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q94_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q94_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q94_A2-p0.1">Whether the blessed pity the unhappiness of the damned?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q94_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the blessed pity the unhappiness of the damned. For pity proceeds from charity [*Cf. SS, Q[30]]; and charity + will be most perfect in the blessed. Therefore they will most especially pity the sufferings of the damned. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the blessed will never be so far from taking pity as God is. Yet in a sense God compassionates our afflictions, + wherefore He is said to be merciful. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A2-p4"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Whoever pities another shares somewhat in his unhappiness. But the blessed cannot share in any unhappiness. Therefore they + do not pity the afflictions of the damned. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A2-p5"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Mercy or compassion may be in a person in two ways: first by way of passion, secondly by way of choice. In the blessed there + will be no passion in the lower powers except as a result of the reason's choice. Hence compassion or mercy will not be in + them, except by the choice of reason. Now mercy or compassion comes of the reason's choice when a person wishes another's + evil to be dispelled: wherefore in those things which, in accordance with reason, we do not + wish to be dispelled, we have no such compassion. But so long as sinners are in this world they are in such a state that without + prejudice to the Divine justice they can be taken away from a state of unhappiness and sin to a state of happiness. Consequently + it is possible to have compassion on them both by the choice of the will---in which sense God, the angels and the blessed + are said to pity them by desiring their salvation---and by passion, in which way they are pitied by the good men who + are in the state of wayfarers. But in the future state it will be impossible for them to be taken away from their unhappiness: + and consequently it will not be possible to pity their sufferings according to right reason. Therefore the blessed in glory + will have no pity on the damned. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A2-p6"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Charity is the principle of pity when it is possible for us out of charity to wish the cessation of a person's unhappiness. + But the saints cannot desire this for the damned, since it would be contrary to Divine justice. Consequently the argument + does not prove. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> God is said to be merciful, in so far as He succors those whom it is befitting to be released from their afflictions in accordance + with the order of wisdom and justice: not as though He pitied the damned except perhaps in punishing them less than they deserve. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A2-p8"></p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A2-p9"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q94_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q94_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q94_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q94_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q94_A3-p0.1">Whether the blessed rejoice in the punishment of the wicked?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q94_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the blessed do not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. For rejoicing in another's evil pertains to + hatred. But there will be no hatred in the blessed. Therefore they will not rejoice in the unhappiness of the damned. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the blessed in heaven will be in the highest degree conformed to God. Now God does not rejoice in our afflictions. + Therefore neither will the blessed rejoice in the afflictions of the damned. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, that which is blameworthy in a wayfarer has no place whatever in a comprehensor. Now it is most reprehensible in + a wayfarer to take pleasure in the pains of others, and most praiseworthy to grieve for them. Therefore the blessed nowise + rejoice in the punishment of the damned. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q94_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.57.11" target="asv">Ps. 57:11</a>): "The just shall rejoice when he shall see the revenge." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A3-p6"> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q94_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.56.24" target="asv">Is. 56:24</a>): "They shall satiate [*Douay: 'They shall be a loathsome sight to all flesh.'] the sight of all flesh." Now satiety denotes + refreshment of the mind. Therefore the blessed will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A3-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints + will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in + this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their + own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the Divine justice and their + own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> To rejoice in another's evil as such belongs to hatred, but not to rejoice in another's evil by reason of something annexed + to it. Thus a person sometimes rejoices in his own evil as when we rejoice in our own afflictions, as helping us to merit + life: "My brethren, count it all joy when you shall fall into divers temptations" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q94_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.1.2" target="asv">James 1:2</a>). + </p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although God rejoices not in punishments as such, He rejoices in them as being ordered by His justice. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It is not praiseworthy in a wayfarer to rejoice in another's afflictions as such: yet it is praiseworthy if he rejoice in + them as having something annexed. However it is not the same with a wayfarer as with a comprehensor, because in a wayfarer + the passions often forestall the judgment of reason, and yet sometimes such passions are praiseworthy, as indicating the good + disposition of the mind, as in the case of shame pity and repentance for evil: + whereas in a comprehensor there can be no passion but such as follows the judgment of reason. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A3-p11"></p> + <p id="XP_Q94_A3-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q94_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.XP_Q93_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q94_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q95" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q94_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="XP_Q95-p0.1">OF THE GIFTS* OF THE BLESSED (FIVE ARTICLES) [*The Latin 'dos' signifies a dowry.]</h3> + <p id="XP_Q95-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q95-p2"> We must now consider the gifts of the blessed; under which head there are five points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="XP_Q95-p3"> (1) Whether any gifts should be assigned to the blessed?</p> + <p id="XP_Q95-p4"> (2) Whether a gift differs from beatitude?</p> + <p id="XP_Q95-p5"> (3) Whether it is fitting for Christ to have gifts?</p> + <p id="XP_Q95-p6"> (4) Whether this is competent to the angels?</p> + <p id="XP_Q95-p7"> (5) Whether three gifts of the soul are rightly assigned?</p> + <div id="XP_Q95_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q95_A1-p0.1">Whether any gifts should be assigned as dowry to the blessed?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q95_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that no gifts should be assigned as dowry to the blessed. For a dowry (Cod. v, 12, De jure dot. 20: Dig. xxiii, + 3, De jure dot.) is given to the bridegroom for the upkeep of the burdens of marriage. But the saints resemble not the bridegroom + but the bride, as being members of the Church. Therefore they receive no dowry. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the dowry is given not by the bridegroom's father, but by the father of the bride (Cod. v, 11, De dot. promiss., + 1: Dig. xxiii, 2, De rit. nup.). Now all the beatific gifts are bestowed on the blessed by the father of the bridegroom, i.e. + Christ: "Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above coming down from the Father of lights." Therefore these gifts + which are bestowed on the blessed should not be called a dowry. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in carnal marriage a dowry is given that the burdens of marriage may be the more easily borne. But in spiritual + marriage there are no burdens, especially in the state of the Church triumphant. Therefore no dowry should be assigned to + that state. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, a dowry is not given save on the occasion of marriage. But a spiritual marriage is contracted with Christ by faith + in the state of the Church militant. Therefore if a dowry is befitting the blessed, for the same reason it will be befitting + the saints who are wayfarers. But it is not befitting the latter: and therefore neither is it befitting the blessed. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A1-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, a dowry pertains to external goods, which are styled goods of fortune: whereas the reward of the blessed will consist + of internal goods. Therefore they should not be called a dowry. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A1-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q95_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.32" target="asv">Eph. 5:32</a>): "This is a great sacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the Church." Hence it follows that the spiritual marriage is signified + by the carnal marriage. But in a carnal marriage the dowered bride is brought to the dwelling of the bridegroom. Therefore + since the saints are brought to Christ's dwelling when they are beatified, it would seem that they are dowered with certain + gifts. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A1-p8"> Further, a dowry is appointed to carnal marriage for the ease of marriage. But the spiritual marriage is more blissful than + the carnal marriage. Therefore a dowry should be especially assigned thereto. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A1-p9"> Further, the adornment of the bride is part of the dowry. Now the saints are adorned when they are taken into glory, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q95_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.61.10" target="asv"> Is. 61:10, </a> "He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation . . . as a bride adorned with her jewels." Therefore the saints in heaven + have a dowry. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A1-p10"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Without doubt the blessed when they are brought into glory are dowered by God with certain gifts for their adornment, and + this adornment is called their dowry by the masters. Hence the dower of which we speak now is defined thus: "The dowry is + the everlasting adornment of soul and body adequate to life, lasting for ever in eternal bliss." This description is taken + from a likeness to the material dowry whereby the bride is adorned and the husband provided + with an adequate support for his wife and children, and yet the dowry remains inalienable from the bride, so that if the marriage + union be severed it reverts to her. As to the reason of the name there are various opinions. For some say that the name "dowry" + is taken not from a likeness to the corporeal marriage, but according to the manner of speaking whereby any perfection or + adornment of any person whatever is called an endowment; thus a man who is proficient in knowledge is said to be + endowed with knowledge, and in this sense ovid employed the word "endowment" (De Arte Amandi i, 538): "By whatever endowment + thou canst please, strive to please." But this does not seem quite fitting, for whenever a term is employed to signify a certain + thing principally, it is not usually transferred to another save by reason of some likeness. Wherefore since by its primary + signification a dowry refers to carnal marriage, it follows that in every other application of the term we must observe + some kind of likeness to its principal signification. Consequently others say that the likeness consists in the fact that + in carnal marriage a dowry is properly a gift bestowed by the bridegroom on the bride for her adornment when she is taken + to the bridegroom's dwelling: and that this is shown by the words of Sichem to Jacob and his sons ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q95_A1-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.34.12" target="asv">Gn. 34:12</a>): "Raise the dowry, and ask gifts," and from + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q95_A1-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.22.16" target="asv"> Ex. 22:16</a>: "If a man seduce a virgin . . . and lie with + her, he shall endow her, and have her to wife." Hence the adornment bestowed by Christ on the saints, when they are brought + into the abode of glory, is called a dowry. But this is clearly contrary to what jurists say, to whom it belongs to treat + of these matters. For they say that a dowry, properly speaking, is a donation on the part of the wife made to those who are + on the part of the husband, in view of the marriage burden which the husband has to bear; while that which the bridegroom + gives + the bride is called "a donation in view of marriage." In this sense dowry is taken ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q95_A1-p10.3" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">3 Kings 9:16</a>) where it is stated that "Pharoa, the king of Egypt, took Gezer . . . and gave it for a dowry to his daughter, Solomon's + wife." Nor do the authorities quoted prove anything to the contrary. For although it is customary for a dowry to be given + by the maiden's parents, it happens sometimes that the bridegroom or his father gives the dowry instead of the bride's father; + and this + happens in two ways: either by reason of his very great love for the bride as in the case of Sichem's father Hemor, who on + account of his son's great love for the maiden wished to give the dowry which he had a right to receive; or as a punishment + on the bridegroom, that he should out of his own possessions give a dowry to the virgin seduced by him, whereas he should + have received it from the girl's father. In this sense Moses speaks in the passage quoted above. Wherefore in the opinion + of + others we should hold that in carnal marriage a dowry, properly speaking, is that which is given by those on the wife's side + to those on the husband's side, for the bearing of the marriage burden, as stated above. Yet the difficulty remains how this + signification can be adapted to the case in point, since the heavenly adornments are given to the spiritual spouse by the + Father of the Bridegroom. This shall be made clear by replying to the objections. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although in carnal marriage the dowry is given to the bridegroom for his use, yet the ownership and control belong to the + bride: which is evident by the fact that if the marriage be dissolved, the dowry reverts to the bride according to law (Cap. + 1,2,3, De donat. inter virum et uxorem). Thus also in spiritual marriage, the very adornments bestowed on the spiritual bride, + namely the Church in her members, belong indeed to the Bridegroom, in so far as + they conduce to His glory and honor, yet to the bride as adorned thereby. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A1-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Father of the Bridegroom, that is of Christ, is the Person of the Father alone: while the Father of the bride is the + whole Trinity, since that which is effected in creatures belongs to the whole Trinity. Hence in spiritual marriage these endowments, + properly speaking, are given by the Father of the bride rather than by the Father of the Bridegroom. Nevertheless, although + this endowment is made by all the Persons, it may be in a manner appropriated + to each Person. To the Person of the Father, as endowing, since He possesses authority; and fatherhood in relation to creatures + is also appropriated to Him, so that He is Father of both Bridegroom and bride. To the Son it is appropriated, inasmuch as + it is made for His sake and through Him: and to the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as it is made in Him and according to Him, since + love is the reason of all giving [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q95_A1-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q38_A2.html">FP, Q[38], A[2]</a>]. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A1-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> That which is effected by the dowry belongs to the dowry by its nature, and that is the ease of marriage: while that which + the dowry removes, namely the marriage burden which is lightened thereby, belongs to it accidentally: thus it belongs to grace + by its nature to make a man righteous, but accidentally to make an ungodly man righteous. Accordingly, though there are no + burdens in the spiritual marriage, there is the greatest gladness; and that this + gladness may be perfected the bride is dowered with gifts, so that by their means she may be happily united with the bridegroom. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A1-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The dowry is usually settled on the bride not when she is espoused, but when she is taken to the bridegroom's dwelling, so + as to be in the presence of the bridegroom, since "while we are in the body we are absent from the Lord" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q95_A1-p14.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.5.6" target="asv">2 Cor. 5:6</a>). Hence the gifts bestowed on the saints in this life are not called a dowry, but those which are bestowed on them when they + are received into glory, where the Bridegroom delights them with His + presence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A1-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> In spiritual marriage inward comeliness is required, wherefore it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q95_A1-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.44.14" target="asv">Ps. 44:14</a>): "All the glory of the king's daughter is within," etc. But in carnal marriage outward comeliness is necessary. Hence there + is no need for a dowry of this kind to be appointed in spiritual marriage as in carnal marriage. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A1-p16"></p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A1-p17"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q95_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q95_A2-p0.1">Whether the dowry is the same as beatitude*? [*Cf. FP, Q[12], A[7], ad 1; FS, Q[4], A[3]]</h4> + <p id="XP_Q95_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the dowry is the same as beatitude. For as appears from the definition of dowry + <a id="XP_Q95_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q95_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, the dowry is "the everlasting adornment of body and soul in eternal happiness." Now the happiness of the soul is an adornment + thereof. Therefore beatitude is a dowry. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a dowry signifies something whereby the union of bride and bridegroom is rendered delightful. Now such is beatitude + in the spiritual marriage. Therefore beatitude is a dowry. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, according to Augustine (In + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q95_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.92" target="asv">Ps. 92</a>) vision is "the whole essence of beatitude." Now vision is accounted one of the dowries. Therefore beatitude is a dowry. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A2-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, fruition gives happiness. Now fruition is a dowry. Therefore a dowry gives happiness and thus beatitude is a dowry. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A2-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, according to Boethius (De Consol. iii), "beatitude is a state made perfect by the aggregate of all good things." + Now the state of the blessed is perfected by the dowries. Therefore the dowries are part of beatitude. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A2-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The dowries are given without merits: whereas beatitude is not given, but is awarded in return for merits. Therefore beatitude + is not a dowry. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A2-p8"> Further, beatitude is one only, whereas the dowries are several. Therefore beatitude is not a dowry.</p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A2-p9"> Further, beatitude is in man according to that which is principal in him (Ethic. x, 7): whereas a dowry is also appointed + to the body. Therefore dowry and beatitude are not the same. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A2-p10"> + <b>I answer that,</b> There are two opinions on this question. For some say that beatitude and dowry are the same in reality but differ in aspect: + because dowry regards the spiritual marriage between Christ and the soul, whereas beatitude does not. But seemingly this will + not stand, since beatitude consists in an operation, whereas a dowry is not an operation, but a quality or disposition. Wherefore + according to others it must be stated that beatitude and dowry differ even in + reality, beatitude being the perfect operation itself by which the soul is united to God, while the dowries are habits or + dispositions or any other qualities directed to this same perfect operation, so that they are directed to beatitude instead + of being in it as parts thereof. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A2-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Beatitude, properly speaking, is not an adornment of the soul, but something resulting from the soul's adornment; since it + is an operation, while its adornment is a certain comeliness of the blessed themselves. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A2-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Beatitude is not directed to the union but is the union itself of the soul with Christ. This union is by an operation, whereas + the dowries are gifts disposing to this same union. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A2-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Vision may be taken in two ways. First, actually, i.e. for the act itself of vision; and thus vision is not a dowry, but + beatitude itself. Secondly, it may be taken habitually, i.e. for the habit whereby this act is elicited, namely the clarity + of glory, by which the soul is enlightened from above to see God: and thus it is a dowry and the principle of beatitude, but + not beatitude itself. The same answer applies to OBJ 4. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A2-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Beatitude is the sum of all goods not as though they were essential parts of beatitude, but as being in a way directed to + beatitude, as stated above. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A2-p15"></p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A2-p16"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q95_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q95_A3-p0.1">Whether it is fitting that Christ should receive a dowry?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q95_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem fitting that Christ should receive a dowry. For the saints will be conformed to Christ through glory, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q95_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.3.21" target="asv">Phil. 3:21</a>, "Who will reform the body of our lowness made like to the body of His glory." Therefore Christ also will have a dowry. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in the spiritual marriage a dowry is given in likeness to a carnal marriage. Now there is a spiritual marriage in + Christ, which is peculiar to Him, namely of the two natures in one Person, in regard to which the human nature in Him is said + to have been espoused by the Word, as a gloss [*St. Augustine, De Consensu Evang. i, 40] has it on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q95_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.18.6" target="asv"> Ps. 18:6, </a> "He hath set His tabernacle in the sun," etc., and + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q95_A3-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Rev.21.3" target="asv"> Apoc. 21:3, + + </a>"Behold the tabernacle of God with men." Therefore it is fitting that Christ should have a dowry. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii) that Christ, according to the Rule [*Liber regularum] of Tyconius, on account + of the unity of the mystic body that exists between the head and its members, calls Himself also the Bride and not only the + Bridegroom, as may be gathered from + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q95_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.61.10" target="asv"> Is. 61:10, </a> "As a bridegroom decked with a crown, and as a bride adorned with her jewels." Since then a dowry is due to the bride, it + would seem that Christ + ought to receive a dowry. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A3-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, a dowry is due to all the members of the Church, since the Church is the spouse. But Christ is a member of the Church + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q95_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.12.27" target="asv">1 Cor. 12:27, </a> "You are the body of Christ, and members of member, i.e. of Christ," according to a gloss. Therefore the dowry is due to + Christ. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A3-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, Christ has perfect vision, fruition, and joy. Now these are the dowries. Therefore, etc. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A3-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> A distinction of persons is requisite between the bridegroom and the bride. But in Christ there is nothing personally distinct + from the Son of God Who is the Bridegroom, as stated in + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q95_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.29" target="asv">Jn. 3:29</a>, "He that hath the bride is the bridegroom." Therefore since the dowry is allotted to the bride or for the bride, it would + seem unfitting for Christ to have a dowry. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A3-p8"> Further, the same person does not both give and receive a dowry. But it is Christ Who gives spiritual dowries. Therefore + it is not fitting that Christ should have a dowry. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A3-p9"> + <b>I answer that,</b> There are two opinions on this point. For some say that there is a threefold union in Christ. One is the union of concord, + whereby He is united to God in the bond of love; another is the union of condescension, whereby the human nature is united + to the Divine; the third is the union whereby Christ is united to the Church. They say, then, that as regards the first two + unions it is fitting for Christ to have the dowries as such, but as regards the third, it is + fitting for Him to have the dowries in the most excellent degree, considered as to that in which they consist, but not considered + as dowries; because in this union Christ is the bridegroom and the Church the bride, and a dowry is given to the bride as + regards property and control, although it is given to the bridegroom as to use. But this does not seem congruous. For in the + union of Christ with the Father by the concord of love, even if we consider Him as God, there is not said to be a + marriage, since it implies no subjection such as is required in the bride towards the bridegroom. Nor again in the union of + the human nature with the Divine, whether we consider the Personal union or that which regards the conformity of will, can + there be a dowry, properly speaking, for three reasons. First, because in a marriage where a dowry is given there should be + likeness of nature between bridegroom and bride, and this is lacking in the union of the human nature with the Divine; secondly, + because there is required a distinction of persons, and the human nature is not personally distinct from the Word; thirdly, + because a dowry is given when the bride is first taken to the dwelling of the bridegroom and thus would seem to belong to + the bride, who from being not united becomes united; whereas the human nature, which was assumed into the unity of Person + by the Word, never was otherwise than perfectly united. Wherefore in the opinion of others we should say that the notion of + dowry + is either altogether unbecoming to Christ, or not so properly as to the saints; but that the things which we call dowries + befit Him in the highest degree. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This conformity must be understood to refer to the thing which is a dowry and not to the notion of a dowry being in Christ: + for it is not requisite that the thing in which we are conformed to Christ should be in the same way in Christ and in us. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A3-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Human nature is not properly said to be a bride in its union with the Word, since the distinction of persons, which is requisite + between bridegroom and bride, is not observed therein. That human nature is sometimes described as being espoused in reference + to its union with the Word is because it has a certain act of the bride, in that it is united to the Bridegroom inseparably, + and in this union is subject to the Word and ruled by the Word, as the + bride by the bridegroom. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A3-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If Christ is sometimes spoken of as the Bride, this is not because He is the Bride in very truth, but in so far as He personifies + His spouse, namely the Church, who is united to Him spiritually. Hence nothing hinders Him, in this way of speaking, from + being said to have the dowries, not that He Himself is dowered, but the Church. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A3-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The term Church is taken in two senses. For sometimes it denotes the body only, which is united to Christ as its Head. In + this way alone has the Church the character of spouse: and in this way Christ is not a member of the Church, but is the Head + from which all the members receive. In another sense the Church denotes the head and members united together; and thus Christ + is said to be a member of the Church, inasmuch as He fulfills an office distinct + from all others, by pouring forth life into the other members: although He is not very properly called a member, since a member + implies a certain restriction, whereas in Christ spiritual good is not restricted but is absolutely entire [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q95_A3-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q8_A1.html">TP, Q[8], A[1]</a>], so that He is the entire good of the Church, nor is He together with others anything greater than He is by Himself. Speaking + of the Church in this sense, the Church denotes not only the bride, but the bridegroom and + bride, in so far as one thing results from their spiritual union. Consequently although Christ be called a member of the Church + in a certain sense, He can by no means be called a member of the bride; and therefore the idea of a dowry is not becoming + to Him. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A3-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> There is here a fallacy of "accident"; for these things are not befitting to Christ if we consider them under the aspect + of dowry. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A3-p15"></p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A3-p16"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q95_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q95_A4-p0.1">Whether the angels receive the dowries?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q95_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the angels receive dowries. For a gloss on Canticle of + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q95_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Song.6.8" target="asv"> Canticles 6:8, </a> "One is my dove," says: "One is the Church among men and angels." But the Church is the bride, wherefore it is fitting for + the members of the Church to have the dowries. Therefore the angels have the dowries. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a gloss on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q95_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.12.36" target="asv"> Lk. 12:36, </a> "And you yourselves like to men who wait for their lord, when he shall return from the wedding," says: "Our Lord went to + the wedding when after His resurrection the new Man espoused to Himself the angelic host." Therefore the angelic hosts are + the spouse of Christ and consequently it is fitting that they should have the dowries. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the spiritual marriage consists in a spiritual union. Now the spiritual union between the angels and God is no less + than between beatified men and God. Since, then, the dowries of which we treat now are assigned by reason of a spiritual marriage, + it would seem that they are becoming to the angels. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A4-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, a spiritual marriage demands a spiritual bridegroom and a spiritual bride. Now the angels are by nature more conformed + than men to Christ as the supreme spirit. Therefore a spiritual marriage is more possible between the angels and Christ than + between men and Christ. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A4-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, a greater conformity is required between the head and members than between bridegroom and bride. Now the conformity + between Christ and the angels suffices for Christ to be called the Head of the angels. Therefore for the same reason it suffices + for Him to be called their bridegroom. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A4-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Origen at the beginning of the prologue to his commentary on the Canticles, distinguishes four persons, namely "the bridegroom + with the bride, the young maidens, and the companions of the bridegroom": and he says that "the angels are the companions + of the bridegroom." Since then the dowry is due only to the bride, it would seem that the dowries are not becoming to the + angels. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A4-p8"> Further, Christ espoused the Church by His Incarnation and Passion: wherefore this is foreshadowed in the words ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q95_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.4.25" target="asv">Ex. 4:25</a>), "A bloody spouse thou art to me." Now by His Incarnation and Passion Christ was not otherwise united to the angels than + before. Therefore the angels do not belong to the Church, if we consider the Church as spouse. Therefore the dowries are not + becoming to the angels. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A4-p9"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Without any doubt, whatever pertains to the endowments of the soul is befitting to the angels as it is to men. But considered + under the aspect of dowry they are not as becoming to the angels as to men, because the character of bride is not so properly + becoming to the angels as to men. For there is required a conformity of nature between bridegroom and bride, to wit that they + should be of the same species. Now men are in conformity with Christ in this way, + since He took human nature, and by so doing became conformed to all men in the specific nature of man. on the other hand, + He is not conformed to the angels in unity of species, neither as to His Divine nor as to His human nature. Consequently the + notion of dowry is not so properly becoming to angels as to men. Since, however, in metaphorical expressions, it is not necessary + to have a likeness in every respect, we must not argue that one thing is not to be said of another metaphorically on + account of some lack of likeness; and consequently the argument we have adduced does not prove that the dowries are simply + unbecoming to the angels, but only that they are not so properly befitting to angels as to men, on account of the aforesaid + lack of likeness. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the angels are included in the unity of the Church, they are not members of the Church according to conformity of + nature, if we consider the Church as bride: and thus it is not properly fitting for them to have the dowries. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A4-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Espousal is taken there in a broad sense, for union without conformity of specific nature: and in this sense nothing prevents + our saying that the angels have the dowries taking these in a broad sense. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A4-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In the spiritual marriage although there is no other than a spiritual union, those whose union answers to the idea of a perfect + marriage should agree in specific nature. Hence espousal does not properly befit the angels. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A4-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The conformity between the angels and Christ as God is not such as suffices for the notion of a perfect marriage, since so + far are they from agreeing in species that there is still an infinite distance between them. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A4-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Not even is Christ properly called the Head of the angels, if we consider the head as requiring conformity of nature with + the members. We must observe, however, that although the head and the other members are parts of an individual of one species, + if we consider each one by itself, it is not of the same species as another member, for a hand is another specific part from + the head. Hence, speaking of the members in themselves, the only conformity + required among them is one of proportion, so that one receive from another, and one serve another. Consequently the conformity + between God and the angels suffices for the notion of head rather than for that of bridegroom. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A4-p15"></p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A4-p16"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q95_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q95_A5-p0.1">Whether three dowries of the soul are suitably assigned?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q95_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem unfitting to assign to the soul three dowries, namely, "vision," "love" and "fruition." For the soul is united + to God according to the mind wherein is the image of the Trinity in respect of the memory, understanding, and will. Now love + regards the will, and vision the understanding. Therefore there should be something corresponding to the memory, since fruition + regards not the memory but the will. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the beatific dowries are said to correspond to the virtues of the way, which united us to God: and these are faith, + hope, and charity, whereby God Himself is the object. Now love corresponds to charity, and vision to faith. Therefore there + should be something corresponding to hope, since fruition corresponds rather to charity. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, we enjoy God by love and vision only, since "we are said to enjoy those things which we love for their own sake," + as Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 4). Therefore fruition should not be reckoned a distinct dowry from love. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A5-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, comprehension is required for the perfection of beatitude: "So run that you may comprehend" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q95_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.9.24" target="asv">1 Cor. 9:24</a>). Therefore we should reckon a fourth dowry + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A5-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, Anselm says (De Simil. xlviii) that the following pertain to the soul's beatitude: "wisdom, friendship, concord, + power, honor, security, joy": and consequently the aforesaid dowries are reckoned unsuitably. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A5-p7"> + <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii) that "in that beatitude God will be seen unendingly, loved without wearying, praised + untiringly." Therefore praise should be added to the aforesaid dowries. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A5-p8"> + <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, Boethius reckons five things pertaining to beatitude (De Consol. iii) and these are: Sufficiency which wealth offers, + joy which pleasure offers, celebrity which fame offers, security which power offers, reverence which dignity offers. Consequently + it seems that these should be reckoned as dowries rather than the aforesaid. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A5-p9"> + <b>I answer that,</b> All agree in reckoning three dowries of the soul, in different ways however. For some say that the three dowries of the soul + are vision, love, and fruition. others reckon them to be vision, comprehension, and fruition; others, vision, delight, and + comprehension. However, all these reckonings come to the same, and their number is assigned in the same way. For it has been + said + <a id="XP_Q95_A5-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q95_A2.html">(A[2])</a> that a dowry is something inherent to the soul, and + directing it to the operation in which beatitude consists. Now two things are requisite in this operation: its essence which + is vision, and its perfection which is delight: since beatitude must needs be a perfect operation. Again, a vision is delightful + in two ways: first, on the part of the object, by reason of the thing seen being delightful; secondly, on the part of the + vision, by reason of the seeing itself being delightful, even as we delight in knowing evil things, although the evil + things themselves delight us not. And since this operation wherein ultimate beatitude consists must needs be most perfect, + this vision must needs be delightful in both ways. Now in order that this vision be delightful on the part of the vision, + it needs to be made connatural to the seer by means of a habit; while for it to be delightful on the part of the visible object, + two things are necessary, namely that the visible object be suitable, and that it be united to the seer. Accordingly for the + vision to be delightful on its own part a habit is required to elicit the vision, and thus we have one dowry, which all call + vision. But on the part of the visible object two things are necessary. First, suitableness, which regards the affections---and + in this respect some reckon love as a dowry, others fruition (in so far as fruition regards the affective part) since what + we love most we deem most suitable. Secondly, union is required on the part of the visible object, and thus some reckon + comprehension, which is nothing else than to have God present and to hold Him within ourself [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q95_A5-p9.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q4_A3.html">FS, Q[4], A[3]</a>]; while others reckon fruition, not of hope, which is ours while on the way, but of possession [*Literally "of the reality: + non spei . . . sed rei"] which is in heaven. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A5-p10"> Thus the three dowries correspond to the three theological virtues, namely vision to faith, comprehension (or fruition in + one sense) to hope, and fruition (or delight according to another reckoning to charity). For perfect fruition such as will + be had in heaven includes delight and comprehension, for which reason some take it for the one, and some for the other. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A5-p11"> Others, however, ascribe these three dowries to the three powers of the soul, namely vision to the rational, delight to the + concupiscible, and fruition to the irascible, seeing that this fruition is acquired by a victory. But this is not said properly, + because the irascible and concupiscible powers are not in the intellective but in the sensitive part, whereas the dowries + of the soul are assigned to the mind. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A5-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Memory and understanding have but one act: either because understanding is itself an act of memory, or---if understanding + denote a power---because memory does not proceed to act save through the medium of the understanding, since it belongs to + the memory to retain knowledge. Consequently there is only one habit, namely knowledge, corresponding to memory and understanding: + wherefore only one dowry, namely vision, corresponds to both. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A5-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Fruition corresponds to hope, in so far as it includes comprehension which will take the place of hope: since we hope for + that which we have not yet; wherefore hope chafes somewhat on account of the distance of the beloved: for which reason it + will not remain in heaven [Cf. + <a id="XP_Q95_A5-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q18_A2.html">SS, Q[18], A[2]</a>] but will be succeeded by comprehension. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A5-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Fruition as including comprehension is distinct from vision and love, but otherwise than love from vision. For love and vision + denote different habits, the one belonging to the intellect, the other to the affective faculty. But comprehension, or fruition + as denoting comprehension, does not signify a habit distinct from those two, but the removal of the obstacles which made it + impossible for the mind to be united to God by actual vision. This is + brought about by the habit of glory freeing the soul from all defects; for instance by making it capable of knowledge without + phantasms, of complete control over the body, and so forth, thus removing the obstacles which result in our being pilgrims + from the Lord. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A5-p15"> Reply OBJ 4 is clear from what has been said.</p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A5-p16"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Properly speaking, the dowries are the immediate principles of the operation in which perfect beatitude consists and whereby + the soul is united to Christ. The things mentioned by Anselm do not answer to this description; but they are such as in any + way accompany or follow beatitude, not only in relation to the Bridegroom, to Whom "wisdom" alone of the things mentioned + by him refers, but also in relation to others. They may be either one's equals, to + whom "friendship" refers as regards the union of affections, and "concord" as regards consent in actions, or one's inferiors, + to whom "power" refers, so far as inferior things are ordered by superior, and "honor" as regards that which inferiors offer + to their superiors. Or again (they may accompany or follow beatitude) in relation to oneself: to this "security" refers as + regards the removal of evil, and "joy" as regards the attainment of good. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A5-p17"> + <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Praise, which Augustine mentions as the third of those things which will obtain in heaven, is not a disposition to beatitude + but rather a sequel to beatitude: because from the very fact of the soul's union with God, wherein beatitude consists, it + follows that the soul breaks forth into praise. Hence praise has not the necessary conditions of a dowry. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A5-p18"> + <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> The five things aforesaid mentioned by Boethius are certain conditions of beatitude, but not dispositions to beatitude or + to its act, because beatitude by reason of its perfection has of itself alone and undividedly all that men seek in various + things, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. i, 7; x, 7,8). Accordingly Boethius shows that these five things obtain in perfect + beatitude, because they are what men seek in temporal happiness. For they pertain + either, as "security," to immunity from evil, or to the attainment either of the suitable good, as "joy," or of the perfect + good, as "sufficiency," or to the manifestation of good, as "celebrity," inasmuch as the good of one is made known to others, + or as "reverence," as indicating that good or the knowledge thereof, for reverence is the showing of honor which bears witness + to virtue. Hence it is evident that these five should not be called dowries, but conditions of beatitude. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A5-p19"></p> + <p id="XP_Q95_A5-p20"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.XP_Q94_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q96" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="XP_Q96-p0.1">OF THE AUREOLES (THIRTEEN ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="XP_Q96-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96-p2"> In the next place we must consider the aureoles. Under this head there are thirteen points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="XP_Q96-p3"> (1) Whether the aureoles differ from the essential reward?</p> + <p id="XP_Q96-p4"> (2) Whether they differ from the fruit?</p> + <p id="XP_Q96-p5"> (3) Whether a fruit is due to the virtue of continence only?</p> + <p id="XP_Q96-p6"> (4) Whether three fruits are fittingly assigned to the three parts of continence?</p> + <p id="XP_Q96-p7"> (5) Whether an aureole is due to virgins?</p> + <p id="XP_Q96-p8"> (6) Whether it is due to martyrs?</p> + <p id="XP_Q96-p9"> (7) Whether it is due to doctors?</p> + <p id="XP_Q96-p10"> (8) Whether it is due to Christ?</p> + <p id="XP_Q96-p11"> (9) Whether to the angels?</p> + <p id="XP_Q96-p12"> (10) Whether it is due to the human body?</p> + <p id="XP_Q96-p13"> (11) Whether three aureoles are fittingly assigned?</p> + <p id="XP_Q96-p14"> (12) Whether the virgin's aureole is the greatest?</p> + <p id="XP_Q96-p15"> (13) Whether one has the same aureole in a higher degree than another?</p> + <div id="XP_Q96_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q96_A1-p0.1">Whether the aureole is the same as the essential reward which is called the aurea?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q96_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the aureole is not distinct from the essential reward which is called the "aurea." For the essential reward + is beatitude itself. Now according to Boethius (De Consol. iii), beatitude is "a state rendered perfect by the aggregate of + all goods." Therefore the essential reward includes every good possessed in heaven; so that the aureole is included in the + "aurea." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, "more" and "less" do not change a species. But those who keep the counsels and commandments receive a greater reward + than those who keep the commandments only, nor seemingly does their reward differ, except in one reward being greater than + another. Since then the aureole denotes the reward due to works of perfection it would seem that it does not signify something + distinct from the "aurea." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, reward corresponds to merit. Now charity is the root of all merit. Since then the "aurea" corresponds to charity, + it would seem that there will be no reward in heaven other than the "aurea." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, "All the blessed are taken into the angelic orders" as Gregory declares (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.). Now as regards the + angels, "though some of them receive certain gifts in a higher degree, nothing is possessed by any of them exclusively, for + all gifts are in all of them, though not equally, because some are endowed more highly than others with gifts which, however, + they all possess," as Gregory says (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.). Therefore as regards the + blessed, there will be no reward other than that which is common to all. Therefore the aureole is not a distinct reward from + the "aurea." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A1-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, a higher reward is due to higher merit. If, then, the "aurea" is due to works which are of obligation, and the aureole + to works of counsel, the aureole will be more perfect than the "aurea," and consequently should not be expressed by a diminutive + [*"Aureola," i.e. a little "aurea"]. Therefore it would seem that the aureole is not a distinct reward from the "aurea." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A1-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> A gloss [*Ven. Bede, De Tabernaculis i, 6] on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.25.24" target="asv">Ex. 25:24,25</a>, "Thou shalt make . . . another little golden crown [coronam aureolam]," says: "This crown denotes the new hymn which the + virgins alone sing in the presence of the Lamb." Wherefore apparently the aureole is a crown awarded, not to all, but especially + to some: whereas the aurea is awarded to all the blessed. Therefore the aureole is distinct from the "aurea." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A1-p8"> Further, a crown is due to the fight which is followed by victory: "He . . . is not crowned except he strive lawfully" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iiTim.2.5" target="asv">2 Tim. 2:5</a>). Hence where there is a special kind of conflict, there should be a special crown. Now in certain works there is a special + kind of conflict. Therefore they deserve a special kind of crown, which we call an aureole. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A1-p9"> Further, the Church militant comes down from the Church triumphant: "I saw the Holy City," etc. ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.21.2" target="asv">Apoc. 21:2</a>). Now in the Church militant special rewards are given to those who perform special deeds, for instance a crown to the conqueror, + a prize to the runner. Therefore the same should obtain in the Church triumphant. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A1-p10"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Man's essential reward, which is his beatitude, consists in the perfect union of the soul with God, inasmuch as it enjoys + God perfectly as seen and loved perfectly. Now this reward is called a "crown" or "aurea" metaphorically, both with reference + to merit which is gained by a kind of conflict---since "the life of man upon earth is a warfare" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A1-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Job.7.1" target="asv">Job 7:1</a>)---and with reference to the reward whereby in a way man is made a participator of the + Godhead, and consequently endowed with regal power: "Thou hast made us to our God a kingdom," etc. ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A1-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Rev.5.10" target="asv">Apoc. 5:10</a>); for a crown is the proper sign of regal power. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A1-p11"> In like manner the accidental reward which is added to the essential has the character of a crown. For a crown signifies + some kind of perfection, on account of its circular shape, so that for this very reason it is becoming to the perfection of + the blessed. Since, however, nothing can be added to the essential, but what is less than it, the additional reward is called + an "aureole." Now something may be added in two ways to this essential reward which we call the "aurea." First, + in consequence of a condition attaching to the nature of the one rewarded: thus the glory of the body is added to the beatitude + of the soul, wherefore this same glory of the body is sometimes called an "aureole." Thus a gloss of Bede on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A1-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.25.25" target="asv">Ex. 25:25</a>, "Thou . . . shalt make another little golden crown," says that "finally the aureole is added, when it is stated in the Scriptures + that a higher degree of glory is in store for us when our bodies are resumed." But it is not in this sense that we speak + of an aureole now. Secondly, in consequence of the nature of the meritorious act. Now this has the character of merit on two + counts, whence also it has the character of good. First, to wit, from its root which is charity, since it is referred to the + last end, and thus there is due to it the essential reward, namely the attainment of the end, and this is the "aurea." Secondly, + from the very genus of the act which derives a certain praiseworthiness from its due circumstances, from the habit + eliciting it and from its proximate end, and thus is due to it a kind of accidental reward which we call an "aureole": and + it is in this sense that we regard the aureole now. Accordingly it must be said that an "aureole" denotes something added + to the "aurea," a kind of joy, to wit, in the works one has done, in that they have the character of a signal victory: for + this joy is distinct from the joy in being united to God, which is called the "aurea." Some, however, affirm that the common + reward, which is the "aurea," receives the name of "aureole," according as it is given to virgins, martyrs, or doctors: even + as money receives the name of debt through being due to some one, though the money and the debt are altogether the same. And + that nevertheless this does not imply that the essential reward is any greater when it is called an "aureole"; but that it + corresponds to a more excellent act, more excellent not in intensity of merit but in the manner of meriting; so that although + two persons may have the Divine vision with equal clearness, it is called an "aureole" in one and not in the other in so far + as it corresponds to higher merit as regards the way of meriting. But this would seem contrary to the meaning of the gloss + quoted above. For if "aurea" and "aureole" were the same, the "aureole" would not be described as added to the "aurea." Moreover, + since reward corresponds to merit, a more excellent reward must needs correspond to this more excellent way of meriting: + and it is this excellence that we call an "aureole." Hence it follows that an "aureole" differs from the "aurea." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A1-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Beatitude includes all the goods necessary for man's perfect life consisting in his perfect operation. Yet some things can + be added, not as being necessary for that perfect operation as though it were impossible without them, but as adding to the + glory of beatitude. Hence they regard the well-being of beatitude and a certain fitness thereto. Even so civic happiness is + embellished by nobility and bodily beauty and so forth, and yet it is possible + without them as stated in Ethic. i, 8: and thus is the aureole in comparison with the happiness of heaven. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A1-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> He who keeps the counsels and the commandments always merits more than he who keeps the commandments only, if we gather the + notion of merit in works from the very genus of those works; but not always if we gauge the merit from its root, charity: + since sometimes a man keeps the commandments alone out of greater charity than one who keeps both commandments and counsels. + For the most part, however, the contrary happens, because the "proof of love is in + the performance of deeds," as Gregory says (Hom. xxx in Evang.). Wherefore it is not the more excellent essential reward that + is called an aureole, but that which is added to the essential reward without reference to the essential reward of the possessor + of an aureole being greater, or less than, or equal to the essential reward of one who has no aureole. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A1-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Charity is the first principle of merit: but our actions are the instruments, so to speak, whereby we merit. Now in order + to obtain an effect there is requisite not only a due disposition in the first mover, but also a right disposition in the + instrument. Hence something principal results in the effect with reference to the first mover, and something secondary with + reference to the instrument. Wherefore in the reward also there is something on the + part of charity, namely the "aurea," and something on the part of the kind of work, namely the "aureole." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A1-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> All the angels merited their beatitude by the same kind of act namely by turning to God: and consequently no particular reward + is found in anyone which another has not in some way. But men merit beatitude by different kinds of acts: and so the comparison + fails. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A1-p16"> Nevertheless among men what one seems to have specially, all have in common in some way, in so far as each one, by charity, + deems another's good his own. Yet this joy whereby one shares another's joy cannot be called an aureole, because it is not + given him as a reward for his victory, but regards more the victory of another: whereas a crown is awarded the victors themselves + and not to those who rejoice with them in the victory. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A1-p17"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The merit arising from charity is more excellent than that which arises from the kind of action: just as the end to which + charity directs us is more excellent than the things directed to that end, and with which our actions are concerned. Wherefore + the reward corresponding to merit by reason of charity, however little it may be, is greater than any reward corresponding + to an action by reason of its genus. Hence "aureole" is used as a diminutive in + comparison with "aurea." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A1-p18"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A1-p19"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q96_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q96_A2-p0.1">Whether the aureole differs from the fruit?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q96_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the aureole does not differ from the fruit. For different rewards are not due to the same merit. Now the + aureole and the hundredfold fruit correspond to the same merit, according to a gloss on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.13.8" target="asv"> Mat. 13:8, </a> "Some a hundredfold." Therefore the aureole is the same as the fruit. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Virgin xlv) that the "hundredfold fruit is due to the martyrs, and also to virgins." Therefore + the fruit is a reward common to virgins and martyrs. But the aureole also is due to them. Therefore the aureole is the same + as the fruit. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, there are only two rewards in beatitude, namely the essential, and the accidental which is added to the essential. + Now that which is added to the essential reward is called an aureole, as evidenced by the statement ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.25.25" target="asv">Ex. 25:25</a>) that the little crown [aureola] is added to the crown. But the fruit is not the essential reward, for in that case it would + be due to all the blessed. Therefore it is the same as the aureole. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Things which are not divided in the same way are not of the same nature. Now fruit and aureole are not divided in the same + way, since aureole is divided into the aureole of virgins, of martyrs, and of doctors: whereas fruit is divided into the fruit + of the married, of widows, and of virgins. Therefore fruit and aureole are not the same. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A2-p6"> Further, if fruit and aureole were the same, the aureole would be due to whomsoever the fruit is due. But this is manifestly + untrue, since a fruit is due to widowhood, while an aureole is not. Therefore, etc. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A2-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Metaphorical expressions can be taken in various ways, according as we find resemblances to the various properties of the + thing from which the comparison is taken. Now since fruit, properly speaking, is applied to material things born of the earth, + we employ it variously in a spiritual sense, with reference to the various conditions that obtain in material fruits. For + the material fruit has sweetness whereby it refreshes so far as it is used by man: again it + is the last thing to which the operation of nature attains: moreover it is that to which husbandry looks forward as the result + of sowing or any other process. Accordingly fruit is taken in a spiritual sense sometimes for that which refreshes as being + the last end: and according to this signification we are said to enjoy [frui] God perfectly in heaven, and imperfectly on + the way. From this signification we have fruition which is a dowry: but we are not speaking of fruit in this sense now. + Sometimes fruit signifies spiritually that which refreshes only, though it is not the last end; and thus the virtues are called + fruits, inasmuch as "they refresh the mind with genuine sweetness," as Ambrose says [*De Parad. xiii]. In this sense fruit + is taken ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.6.22" target="asv">Gal. 6:22</a>): "The fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy," etc. Nor again is this the sense in which we speak of fruit now; for we have + treated of this already [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q96_A2-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q70_A1.html">FS, Q[70], A[1]</a>, ad 2]. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A2-p8"> We may, however, take spiritual fruit in another sense, in likeness to material fruit, inasmuch as material fruit is a profit + expected from the labor of husbandry: so that we call fruit that reward which man acquires from his labor in this life: and + thus every reward which by our labors we shall acquire for the future life is called a "fruit." In this sense fruit is taken + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.22" target="asv">Rom. 6:22</a>): "You have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life everlasting." + Yet neither in this sense do we speak of fruit now, but we are treating of fruit as being the product of seed: for it is in + this sense that our Lord speaks of fruit ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A2-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.13.23" target="asv">Mat. 13:23</a>), where He divides fruit into thirtyfold, sixtyfold, and hundredfold. Now fruit is the product of seed in so far as the seed + power is capable of transforming the humors of the soil into its own nature; and the more efficient this power, and the better + prepared the soil, the more plentiful fruit will + result. Now the spiritual seed which is sown in us is the Word of God: wherefore the more a person is transformed into a spiritual + nature by withdrawing from carnal things, the greater is the fruit of the Word in him. Accordingly the fruit of the Word of + God differs from the aurea and the aureole, in that the "aurea" consists in the joy one has in God, and the "aureole" in the + joy one has in the perfection of one's works, whereas the "fruit" consists in the joy that the worker has in his own + disposition as to his degree of spirituality to which he has attained through the seed of God's Word. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A2-p9"> Some, however, distinguish between aureole and fruit, by saying that the aureole is due to the fighter, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iiTim.2.5" target="asv">2 Tim. 2:5, </a> "He . . . shall not be crowned, except he strive lawfully"; whereas the fruit is due to the laborer, according to the saying + of + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A2-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Wis.3.15" target="asv"> Wis. 3:15, </a> "The fruit of good labors is glorious." Others again say that the "aurea" regards conversion to God, while the "aureole" + and the "fruit" regard things directed to the end; + yet so that the fruit regards the will rather, and the aureole the body. Since, however, labor and strife are in the same + subject and about the same matter, and since the body's reward depends on the soul's, these explanations of the difference + between fruit, aurea and aureole would only imply a logical difference: and this cannot be, since fruit is assigned to some + to whom no aureole is assigned. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> There is nothing incongruous if various rewards correspond to the same merit according to the various things contained therein. + Wherefore to virginity corresponds the aurea in so far as virginity is kept for God's sake at the command of charity; the + aureole, in so far as virginity is a work of perfection having the character of a signal victory; and the fruit, in so far + as by virginity a person acquires a certain spirituality by withdrawing from + carnal things. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A2-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Fruit, according to the proper acceptation as we are speaking of it now, does not denote the reward common to martyrdom and + virginity, by that which corresponds to the three degrees of continency. This gloss which states that the hundredfold fruit + corresponds to martyrs takes fruit in a broad sense, according as any reward is called a fruit, the hundredfold fruit thus + denoting the reward due to any perfect works whatever. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A2-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although the aureole is an accidental reward added to the essential reward, nevertheless not every accidental reward is an + aureole, but only that which is assigned to works of perfection, whereby man is most conformed to Christ in the achievement + of a perfect victory. Hence it is not unfitting that another accidental reward, which is called the fruit, be due sometimes + to the withdrawal from a carnal life. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A2-p13"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A2-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q96_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q96_A3-p0.1">Whether a fruit is due to the virtue of continence alone?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q96_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a fruit is not due to the virtue of continence alone. For a gloss on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.41" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:41, </a> "One is the glory of the sun," says that "the worth of those who have the hundredfold fruit is compared to the glory of the + sun; to the glory of the moon those who have the sixtyfold fruit; and to the stars those who have the thirtyfold fruit." Now + this difference of glory, in the meaning of the Apostle, regards any difference whatever of + beatitude. Therefore the various fruits should correspond to none but the virtue of continence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, fruits are so called from fruition. But fruition belongs to the essential reward which corresponds to all the virtues. + Therefore, etc. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, fruit is due to labor: "The fruit of good labors is glorious" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.3.15" target="asv">Wis. 3:15</a>). Now there is greater labor in fortitude than in temperance or continence. Therefore fruit does not correspond to continence + alone. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A3-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it is more difficult not to exceed the measure in food which is necessary for life, than in sexual matters without + which life can be sustained: and thus the labor of frugality is greater than that of continence. Therefore fruit corresponds + to frugality rather than to continence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A3-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, fruit implies delight, and delight regards especially the end. Since then the theological virtues have the end for + their object, namely God Himself, it would seem that to them especially the fruit should correspond. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A3-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> is the statement of the gloss on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.13.23" target="asv"> Mat. 13:23, </a> "The one a hundredfold," which assigns the fruits to virginity, widowhood, and conjugal continence, which are parts of continence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A3-p8"> + <b>I answer that,</b> A fruit is a reward due to a person in that he passes from the carnal to the spiritual life. Consequently a fruit corresponds + especially to that virtue which more than any other frees man from subjection to the flesh. Now this is the effect of continence, + since it is by sexual pleasures that the soul is especially subject to the flesh; so much so that in the carnal act, according + to Jerome (Ep. ad Ageruch.), "not even the spirit of prophecy touches the heart + of the prophet," nor "is it possible to understand anything in the midst of that pleasure," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. + vii, 11). Therefore fruit corresponds to continence rather than to another virtue. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This gloss takes fruit in a broad sense, according as any reward is called a fruit. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Fruition does not take its name from fruit by reason of any comparison with fruit in the sense in which we speak of it now, + as evidenced by what has been said. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A3-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Fruit, as we speak of it now, corresponds to labor not as resulting in fatigue, but as resulting in the production of fruit. + Hence a man calls his crops his labor, inasmuch as he labored for them, or produced them by his labor. Now the comparison + to fruit, as produced from seed, is more adapted to continence than to fortitude, because man is not subjected to the flesh + by the passions of fortitude, as he is by the passions with which continence is + concerned. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A3-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Although the pleasures of the table are more necessary than the pleasures of sex, they are not so strong: wherefore the soul + is not so much subjected to the flesh thereby. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A3-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Fruit is not taken here in the sense in which fruition applies to delight in the end; but in another sense as stated above + (A[2] ). Hence the argument proves nothing. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A3-p14"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A3-p15"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q96_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q96_A4-p0.1">Whether three fruits are fittingly assigned to the three parts of continence?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q96_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that three fruits are unfittingly assigned to the three parts of continence: because twelve fruits of the Spirit + are assigned, "charity, joy, peace," etc. ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.5.22" target="asv">Gal. 5:22</a>). Therefore seemingly we should reckon only three. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, fruit denotes a special reward. Now the reward assigned to virgins, widows, and married persons is not a special + reward, because all who are to be saved are comprised under one of these three, since no one is saved who lacks continence, + and continence is adequately divided by these three. Therefore three fruits are unfittingly assigned to the three aforesaid. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as widowhood surpasses conjugal continence, so does virginity surpass widowhood. But the excess of sixtyfold + over thirtyfold is not as the excess of a hundredfold over sixtyfold; neither in arithmetical proportion, since sixty exceeds + thirty by thirty, and a hundred exceeds sixty by forty; nor in geometrical proportion, since sixty is twice thirty and a hundred + surpasses sixty as containing the whole and two-thirds thereof. Therefore the fruits + are unfittingly adapted to the degrees of continence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A4-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the statements contained in Holy Writ stand for all time: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall + not pass away" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.21.33" target="asv">Lk. 21:33</a>): whereas human institutions are liable to change every day. Therefore human institutions are not to be taken as a criterion + of the statements of Holy Writ: and it would seem in consequence that the explanation of these fruits given by Bede is unfitting. + For he says (Expos. in Luc. iii, 8) that + "the thirtyfold fruit is assigned to married persons, because in the signs drawn on the 'abacus' the number 30 is denoted + by the thumb and index finger touching one another at the tips as though kissing one another: so that the number 30 denotes + the embraces of married persons. The number 60 is denoted by the contact of the index finger above the middle joint of the + thumb, so that the index finger by lying over the thumb and weighing on it, signifies the burden which widows have to bear + in this + world. When, however, in the course of enumeration we come to the number 100 we pass from the left to the right hand, so that + the number 100 denotes virginity, which has a share in the angelic excellence; for the angels are on the right hand, i.e. + in glory, while we are on the left on account of the imperfection of the present life." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> By continence, to which the fruit corresponds, man is brought to a kind of spiritual nature, by withdrawing from carnal things. + Consequently various fruits are distinguished according to the various manners of the spirituality resulting from continence. + Now there is a certain spirituality which is necessary, and one which is superabundant. The spirituality that is necessary + consists in the rectitude of the spirit not being disturbed by the pleasures of the + flesh: and this obtains when one makes use of carnal pleasures according to the order of right reason. This is the spirituality + of married persons. Spirituality is superabundant when a man withdraws himself entirely from those carnal pleasures which + stifle the spirit. This may be done in two ways: either in respect of all time past, present, and future, and this is the + spirituality of virgins; or in respect of a particular time, and this is the spirituality of widows. Accordingly to those + who + keep conjugal continence, the thirtyfold fruit is awarded; to those who keep the continence of widows, the sixtyfold fruit; + and to those who keep virginal continence, the hundredfold fruit: and this for the reason given by Bede quoted above, although + another motive may be found in the very nature of the numbers. For 30 is the product of 3 multiplied by 10. Now 3 is the number + of everything, as stated in De Coelo et Mundo i, and contains a certain perfection common to all, namely of beginning, + middle, and end. Wherefore the number 30 is fittingly assigned to married persons, in whom no other perfection is added to + the observance of the Decalogue, signified by the number 10, than the common perfection without which there is no salvation. + The number six the multiplication of which by 10 amounts to 60 has perfection from its parts, being the aggregate of all its + parts taken together; wherefore it corresponds fittingly to widowhood, wherein we find perfect withdrawal from carnal + pleasures as to all its circumstances (which are the parts so to speak of a virtuous act), since widowhood uses no carnal + pleasures in connection with any person, place, or any other circumstance; which was not the case with conjugal continence. + The number 100 corresponds fittingly to virginity; because the number 10 of which 100 is a multiple is the limit of numbers: + and in like manner virginity occupies the limit of spirituality, since no further spirituality can be added to it. The number + 100 also being a square number has perfection from its figure: for a square figure is prefect through being equal on all sides, + since all its sides are equal: wherefore it is adapted to virginity wherein incorruption is found equally as to all times. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Fruit is not taken there in the sense in which we are taking it now. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Nothing obliges us to hold that fruit is a reward that is not common to all who will be saved. For not only the essential + reward is common to all, but also a certain accidental reward, such as joy in those works without which one cannot be saved. + Yet it may be said that the fruits are not becoming to all who will be saved, as is evidently the case with those who repent + in the end after leading an incontinent life, for to such no fruit is due but only + the essential reward. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The distinction of the fruits is to be taken according to the species and figures of the numbers rather than according to + their quantity. Nevertheless even if we regard the excess in point of quantity, we may find an explanation. For the married + man abstains only from one that is not his, the widow from both hers and not hers, so that in the latter case we find the + notion of double, just as 60 is the double of 30. Again 100 is 60 X 40, which latter + number is the product of 4 X 10, and the number 4 is the first solid and square number. Thus the addition of this number is + fitting to virginity, which adds perpetual incorruption to the perfection of widowhood. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Although these numerical signs are a human institution, they are founded somewhat on the nature of things, in so far as the + numbers are denoted in gradation, according to the order of the aforesaid joints and contacts. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A4-p11"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A4-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q96_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q96_A5-p0.1">Whether an aureole is due on account of virginity?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q96_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that an aureole is not due on account of virginity. For where there is greater difficulty in the work, a greater + reward is due. Now widows have greater difficulty than virgins in abstaining from the works of the flesh. For Jerome says + (Ep. ad Ageruch.) that the greater difficulty certain persons experience in abstaining from the allurements of pleasure, the + greater their reward, and he is speaking in praise of widows. Moreover, the Philosopher + says (De Anim. Hist. vii) that "young women who have been deflowered desire sexual intercourse the more for the recollection + of the pleasure." Therefore the aureole which is the greatest reward is due to widows more than to virgins. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if an aureole were due to virginity, it would be especially found where there is the most perfect virginity. Now + the most prefect virginity is in the Blessed Virgin, wherefore she is called the Virgin of virgins: and yet no aureole is + due to her because she experienced no conflict in being continent, for she was not infected with the corruption of the fomes + [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q96_A5-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q27_A3.html">TP, Q[27], A[3]</a>]. Therefore an aureole is not due to + virginity. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a special reward is not due to that which has not been at all times praiseworthy. Now it would not have been praiseworthy + to observe virginity in the state of innocence, since then was it commanded: "Increase and multiply and fill the earth" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.1.28" target="asv">Gn. 1:28</a>): nor again during the time of the Law, since the barren were accursed. Therefore an aureole is not due to virginity. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A5-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the same reward is not due to virginity observed, and virginity lost. Yet an aureole is sometimes due to lost virginity; + for instance if a maiden be violated unwillingly at the order of a tyrant for confessing Christ. Therefore an aureole is not + due to virginity. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A5-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, a special reward is not due to that which is in us by nature. But virginity is inborn in every man both good and + wicked. Therefore an aureole is not due to virginity. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A5-p7"> + <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, as widowhood is to the sixtyfold fruit, so is virginity to the hundredfold fruit, and to the aureole. Now the sixtyfold + fruit is not due to every widow, but only, as some say, to one who vows to remain a widow. Therefore it would seem that neither + is the aureole due to any kind of virginity, but only to that which is observed by vow. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A5-p8"> + <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, reward is not given to that which is done of necessity, since all merit depends on the will. But some are virgins + of necessity, such as those who are naturally cold-blooded, and eunuchs. Therefore an aureole is not always due to virginity. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A5-p9"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> A gloss on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A5-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.25.25" target="asv"> Ex. 25:25</a>: "Thou shalt also make a little golden crown [coronam aureolam]" says: "This crown denotes the new hymn which the virgins + sing in the presence of the Lamb, those, to wit, who follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth." Therefore the reward due to + virginity is called an aureole. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A5-p10"> Further, It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A5-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.56.4" target="asv">Is. 56:4</a>): "Thus saith the Lord to the eunuchs": and the text continues ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A5-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.56.5" target="asv">Is. 56: 5</a>): "I will give to them . . . a name better than sons and daughters": and a gloss [*St. Augustine, De Virginit. xxv] says: + "This refers to their peculiar and transcendent glory." Now the eunuchs "who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom + of heaven" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A5-p10.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.12" target="asv">Mat. 19:12</a>) denote virgins. Therefore it would seem that + some special reward is due to virginity, and this is called the aureole. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A5-p11"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Where there is a notable kind of victory, a special crown is due. Wherefore since by virginity a person wins a signal victory + over the flesh, against which a continuous battle is waged: "The flesh lusteth against the spirit," etc. ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A5-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.5.17" target="asv">Gal. 5:17</a>), a special crown called the aureole is due to virginity. This indeed is the common opinion of all; but all are not agreed + as to the kind of virginity to which it is due. For some say that the + aureole is due to the act. So that she who actually remains a virgin will have the aureole provided she be of the number of + the saved. But this would seem unreasonable, because in this case those who have the will to marry and nevertheless die before + marrying would have the aureole. Hence others hold that the aureole is due to the state and not to the act: so that those + virgins alone merit the aureole who by vow have placed themselves in the state of observing perpetual virginity. But this + also + seems unreasonable, because it is possible to have the same intention of observing virginity without a vow as with a vow. + Hence it may be said otherwise that merit is due to every virtuous act commanded by charity. Now virginity comes under the + genus of virtue in so far as perpetual incorruption of mind and body is an object of choice, as appears from what has been + said above (Sent. iv, D, 33, Q[3], AA[1],2) [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q96_A5-p11.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q152_A1.html">TP, Q[152], AA[1]</a>,3]. Consequently the aureole is due + to those virgins alone, who had the purpose of observing perpetual virginity, whether or no they have confirmed this purpose + by vow---and this I say with reference to the aureole in its proper signification of a reward due to merit---although this + purpose may at some time have been interrupted, integrity of the flesh remaining withal, provided it be found at the end of + life, because virginity of the mind may be restored, although virginity of the flesh cannot. If, however, we take the aureole + in its broad sense for any joy added to the essential joy of heaven, the aureole will be applicable even to those who are + incorrupt in flesh, although they had not the purpose of observing perpetual virginity. For without doubt they will rejoice + in the incorruption of their body, even as the innocent will rejoice in having been free from sin, although they had no opportunity + of sinning, as in the case of baptized children. But this is not the proper meaning of an aureole, although it is very + commonly taken in this sense. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A5-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In some respects virgins experience a greater conflict in remaining continent; and in other respects, widows, other things + being equal. For virgins are inflamed by concupiscence, and by the desire of experience, which arises from a certain curiosity + as it were, which makes man more willing to see what he has never seen. Sometimes, moreover, this concupiscence is increased + by their esteeming the pleasure to be greater than it is in reality, and by + their failing to consider the grievances attaching to this pleasure. In these respects widows experience the lesser conflict, + yet theirs is the greater conflict by reason of their recollection of the pleasure. Moreover, in different subjects one motive + is stronger than another, according to the various conditions and dispositions of the subject, because some are more susceptible + to one, and others to another. However, whatever we may say of the degree of conflict, this is certain---that the + virgin's victory is more perfect than the widow's, for the most perfect and most brilliant kind of victory is never to have + yielded to the foe: and the crown is due, not to the battle but to the victory gained by the battle. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A5-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> There are two opinions about this. For some say that the Blessed Virgin has not an aureole in reward of her virginity, if + we take aureole in the proper sense as referring to a conflict, but that she has something more than an aureole, on account + of her most perfect purpose of observing virginity. Others say that she has an aureole even in its proper signification, and + that a most transcendent one: for though she experienced no conflict, she had a + certain conflict of the flesh, but owing to the exceeding strength of her virtue, her flesh was so subdued that she did not + feel this conflict. This, however, would seem to be said without reason, for since we believe the Blessed Virgin to have been + altogether immune from the inclination of the fomes on account of the perfection of her sanctification, it is wicked to suppose + that there was in her any conflict with the flesh, since such like conflict is only from the inclination of the fomes, + nor can temptation from the flesh be without sin, as declared by a gloss [*St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei xix, 4] on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A5-p13.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.12.7" target="asv">2 Cor. 12:7, </a> "There was given me a sting of my flesh." Hence we must say that she has an aureole properly speaking, so as to be conformed + in this to those other members of the Church in whom virginity is found: and although she had no conflict by reason of the + temptation which is of the flesh, she had the temptation which is of the enemy, who feared not even + Christ ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A5-p13.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.4" target="asv">Mat. 4</a>). + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A5-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The aureole is not due to virginity except as adding some excellence to the other degrees of continence. If Adam had not + sinned, virginity would have had no perfection over conjugal continence, since in that case marriage would have been honorable, + and the marriage-bed unsullied, for it would not have been dishonored by lust: hence virginity would not then have been observed, + nor would an aureole have been due to it. But the condition of human nature + being changed, virginity has a special beauty of its own, and consequently a special reward is assigned to it. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A5-p15"> During the time of the Mosaic law, when the worship of God was to be continued by means of the carnal act, it was not altogether + praiseworthy to abstain from carnal intercourse: wherefore no special reward would be given for such a purpose unless it came + from a Divine inspiration, as is believed to have been the case with Jeremias and Elias, of whose marriage we do not read. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A5-p16"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> If a virgin is violated, she does not forfeit the aureole, provided she retain unfailingly the purpose of observing perpetual + virginity, and nowise consent to the act. Nor does she forfeit virginity thereby; and be this said, whether she be violated + for the faith, or for any other cause whatever. But if she suffer this for the faith, this will count to her for merit, and + will be a kind of martyrdom: wherefore Lucy said: "If thou causest me to be + violated against my will, my chastity will receive a double crown" [*Office of S. Lucy; lect. vi of Dominican Breviary, December + 13th]; not that she has two aureoles of virginity, but that she will receive a double reward, one for observing virginity, + the other for the outrage she has suffered. Even supposing that one thus violated should conceive, she would not for that + reason forfeit her virginity: nor would she be equal to Christ's mother, in whom there was integrity of the flesh together + with integrity of the mind [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q96_A5-p16.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q64_A3.html">SS, Q[64], A[3]</a>, ad 3; + <a id="XP_Q96_A5-p16.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q124_A4.html">SS, Q[124], A[4]</a>, ad 2; + <a id="XP_Q96_A5-p16.3" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q152_A1.html">SS, Q[152], A[1]</a>]. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A5-p17"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Virginity is inborn in us as to that which is material in virginity: but the purpose of observing perpetual incorruption, + whence virginity derives its merit, is not inborn, but comes from the gift of grace. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A5-p18"> + <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> The sixtyfold fruit is due, not to every widow, but only to those who retain the purpose of remaining widows, even though + they do not make it the matter of a vow, even as we have said in regard to virginity. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A5-p19"> + <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> If cold-blooded persons and eunuchs have the will to observe perpetual incorruption even though they were capable of sexual + intercourse, they must be called virgins and merit the aureole: for they make a virtue of necessity. If, on the other hand, + they have the will to marry if they could, they do not merit the aureole. Hence Augustine says (De Sancta Virgin. xxiv): "For + those like eunuchs whose bodies are so formed that they are unable to beget, it + suffices when they become Christians and keep the commandments of God, that they have a mind to have a wife if they could, + in order to rank with the faithful who are married." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A5-p20"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A5-p21"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q96_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A7.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q96_A6-p0.1">Whether an aureole is due to martyrs?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that an aureole is not due to martyrs. For an aureole is a reward given for works of supererogation, wherefore + Bede commenting on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.25.25" target="asv"> Ex. 25:25, </a> "Thou shalt also make another . . . crown," says: "This may be rightly referred to the reward of those who by freely choosing + a more perfect life go beyond the general commandments." But to die for confessing the faith is sometimes an obligation, and + not a work of supererogation as + appears from the words of + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A6-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.10.10" target="asv"> Rom. 10:10, </a> "With the heart, we believe unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Therefore an aureole is + not always due to martyrdom. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, according to Gregory (Moral. ix [*Cf. St. Augustine, De Adult. Conjug. i, 14]) "the freer the service, the more + acceptable it is." Now martyrdom has a minimum of freedom, since it is a punishment inflicted by another person with force. + Therefore an aureole is not due to martyrdom, since it is accorded to surpassing merit. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, martyrdom consists not only in suffering death externally, but also in the interior act of the will: wherefore Bernard + in a sermon on the Holy Innocents distinguishes three kinds of martyr---in will and not in death, as John; in both will and + death, as Stephen; in death and not in will, as the Innocents. Accordingly if an aureole were due to martyrdom, it would be + due to voluntary rather than external martyrdom, since merit proceeds from will. Yet + such is not the case. Therefore an aureole is not due to martyrdom. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, bodily suffering is less than mental, which consists of internal sorrow and affliction of soul. But internal suffering + is also a kind of martyrdom: wherefore Jerome says in a sermon on the Assumption [*Ep. ad Paul. et Eustoch.]: "I should say + rightly that the Mother of God was both virgin and martyr, although she ended her days in peace, wherefore: Thine own soul + a sword hath pierced---namely for her Son's death." Since then no aureole corresponds to + interior sorrow, neither should one correspond to outward suffering. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, penance itself is a kind of martyrdom, wherefore Gregory says (Hom. iii in Evang.): "Although persecution has ceased + to offer the opportunity, yet the peace we enjoy is not without its martyrdom; since even if we no longer yield the life of + the body to the sword, yet do we slay fleshly desires in the soul with the sword of the spirit." But no aureole is due to + penance which consists in external works. Neither therefore is an aureole due to every + external martyrdom. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p7"> + <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, an aureole is not due to an unlawful work. Now it is unlawful to lay hands on oneself, as Augustine declares (De + Civ. Dei i), and yet the Church celebrates the martyrdom of some who laid hands upon themselves in order to escape the fury + of tyrants, as in the case of certain women at Antioch (Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. viii, 24). Therefore an aureole is not always + due to martyrdom. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p8"> + <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, it happens at times that a person is wounded for the faith, and survives for some time. Now it is clear that such + a one is a martyr, and yet seemingly an aureole is not due to him, since his conflict did not last until death. Therefore + an aureole is not always due to martyrdom. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p9"> + <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, some suffer more from the loss of temporal goods than from the affliction even of their own body and this is shown + by their bearing many afflictions for the sake of gain. Therefore if they be despoiled of their temporal goods for Christ's + sake they would seem to be martyrs, and yet an aureole is not apparently due to them. Therefore the same conclusion follows + as before. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p10"> + <b>Objection 9:</b> Further, a martyr would seem to be no other than one who dies for the faith, wherefore Isidore says (Etym. vii): "They are + called martyrs in Greek, witnesses in Latin: because they suffered in order to bear witness to Christ, and strove unto death + for the truth." Now there are virtues more excellent than faith, such as justice, charity, and so forth, since these cannot + be without grace, and yet no aureole is due to them. Therefore seemingly neither is an + aureole due to martyrdom. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p11"> + <b>Objection 10:</b> Further, even as the truth of faith is from God, so is all other truth, as Ambrose [*Spurious work on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A6-p11.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.12.3" target="asv">1 Cor. 12:3</a>: "No man can say," etc.] declares, since "every truth by whomsoever uttered is from the Holy Ghost." Therefore if an aureole + is due to one who suffers death for the truth of faith, in like manner it is also due to those who suffer death for any other + virtue: and yet apparently this is not the case. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p12"> + <b>Objection 11:</b> Further, the common good is greater than the good of the individual. Now if a man die in a just war in order to save his + country, an aureole is not due to him. Therefore even though he be put to death in order to keep the faith that is in himself, + no aureole is due to him: and consequently the same conclusion follows as above. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p13"> + <b>Objection 12:</b> Further, all merit proceeds from the free will. Yet the Church celebrates the martyrdom of some who had not the use of the + free will. Therefore they did not merit an aureole: and consequently an aureole is not due to all martyrs. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p14"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Sancta Virgin. xlvi): "No one, methinks, would dare prefer virginity to martyrdom." Now an aureole is + due to virginity, and consequently also to martyrdom. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p15"> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p16"> + <b>I answer that,</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p17"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p18"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p19"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p20"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p21"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p22"> + <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> 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. + <a id="XP_Q96_A6-p22.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q64_A5.html">SS, Q[64], A[5]</a>]. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p23"> + <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p24"> + <b>Reply to Objection 8:</b> 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. + <a id="XP_Q96_A6-p24.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q124_A5.html">SS, Q[124], A[5]</a>]. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p25"> + <b>Reply to Objection 9:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p26"> + <b>Reply to Objection 10:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p27"> + <b>Reply to Objection 11:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p28"> + <b>Reply to Objection 12:</b> 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 + <a id="XP_Q96_A6-p28.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q96_A5.html">(A[5])</a> in reference to baptized children, that they will have a certain joy in their innocence and carnal integrity [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q96_A6-p28.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q124_A1.html">SS, + Q[124], A[1] + </a>, ad 1, where St. Thomas declares that the Holy Innocents were truly martyrs.] + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p29"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A6-p30"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A7.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q96_A7" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A8.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q96_A7-p0.1">Whether an aureole is due to doctors?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q96_A7-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A7-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A7-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A7-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, exaltation in the life to come corresponds to humiliation in the present life, because "he that humbleth himself + shall be exalted" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A7-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.23.12" target="asv">Mat. 23:12</a>). But there is no humiliation in teaching and preaching, in fact they are occasions of pride; for a gloss on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A7-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.4.5" target="asv"> Mat. 4:5, </a> "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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A7-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> A gloss on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A7-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.1.18" target="asv"> Eph. 1:18,19, </a> "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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A7-p6"> Further, a gloss on Canticle of + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A7-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Song.8.12" target="asv"> Canticles 8:12, </a> "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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A7-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> 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 + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A7-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iiTim.2.5" target="asv">2 Tim. 2:5, </a> "He . . . shall not be [Vulg.: 'is not'] crowned, except he strive lawfully." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A7-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Preaching and teaching are acts of a virtue, namely mercy, wherefore they are reckoned among the spiritual alms deeds [*Cf. + + <a id="XP_Q96_A7-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q32_A2.html">SS, Q[32], A[2]</a>]. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A7-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A7-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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 ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A7-p10.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.10.4" target="asv">2 Cor. 10:4</a>): "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but spiritual" [Vulg.: 'but mighty to God']. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A7-p11"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A7-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A8.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q96_A8" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A9.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q96_A8-p0.1">Whether an aureole is due to Christ?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q96_A8-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A8-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A8-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A8-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A8-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A8-p6"> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A8-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> 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 + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A8-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.16.33" target="asv"> Jn. 16:33, </a> "Have confidence, I have overcome the world," and + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A8-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Rev.5.5" target="asv"> Apoc. 5:5, </a> "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 ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A8-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Rev.3.21" target="asv">Apoc. 3:21</a>): "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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A8-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A8-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A8-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A8-p11"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A8-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A9.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q96_A9" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A10.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q96_A9-p0.1">Whether an aureole is due to the angels?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q96_A9-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A9-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> 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 + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A9-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.26" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:26, </a> "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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A9-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A9-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, an aureole is due to teaching. Now angels teach us by cleansing, enlightening, and perfecting [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q96_A9-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q111_A1.html">FP, Q[111], A[1]</a>] us, as Dionysius says (Hier. Eccles. vi). Therefore at least the aureole of doctors is due to them. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A9-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A9-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iiTim.2.5" target="asv">2 Tim. 2:5</a>): "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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A9-p6"> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A9-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A9-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A9-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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. + <a id="XP_Q96_A9-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q64_A2.html">FP, Q[64], A[2]</a>]. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A9-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The acts whereby the angels teach us belong to their glory and their common state: wherefore they do not merit an aureole + thereby. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A9-p11"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A9-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A10.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q96_A10" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A9.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A11.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q96_A10-p0.1">Whether an aureole is also due to the body?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q96_A10-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A10-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A10-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A10-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A10-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A10-p6"> Further, all merit is from the soul. Therefore the whole reward should be in the soul.</p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A10-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A10-p8"> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A10-p9"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A10-p10"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A9.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A11.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q96_A11" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A10.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A12.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q96_A11-p0.1">Whether three aureoles are fittingly assigned, those of virgins, of martyrs, and of doctors?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q96_A11-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A11-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A11-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a gloss on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A11-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.25.25" target="asv"> Ex. 25:25</a>: "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' ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A11-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.17" target="asv">Mat. 19:17</a>). 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'" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A11-p3.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.21" target="asv">Mat. 19:21</a>). + Therefore an aureole is due to poverty. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A11-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A11-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A11-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A11-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A11-p8"> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A11-p9"> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A11-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A11-p11"> We may also reply, with others, that justice embraces all the virtues, wherefore a special aureole is not due to it.</p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A11-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A11-p13"> We reply in the same way to the Third and Fourth Objections.</p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A11-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A11-p15"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A11-p16"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A10.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A12.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q96_A12" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A11.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A13.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q96_A12-p0.1">Whether the virgin's aureole is the greatest of all?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q96_A12-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A12-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the virgin's aureole is the greatest of all. For it is said of virgins ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A12-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.14.4" target="asv">Apoc. 14:4</a>) that they "follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth," and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A12-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Rev.14.3" target="asv">Apoc. 14:3</a>) that "no" other "man could say the canticle" which the virgins sang. Therefore virgins have the most excellent aureole. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A12-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A12-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Again, it would seem that the martyr's aureole is the greatest. For Aymo, commenting on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A12-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.14.3" target="asv"> Apoc. 14:3, </a> "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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A12-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> 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 ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A12-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.5.17" target="asv">1 Tim. 5:17</a>): "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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A12-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> 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 + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q96_A12-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.10" target="asv"> Mat. 5:10, </a> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A12-p7"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A12-p8"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A11.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A13.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q96_A13" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A12.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q96_A13-p0.1">Whether one person has an aureole more excellently than another person?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q96_A13-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A13-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A13-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A13-p4"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The aureole is added to the aurea. But the aurea is more intense in one than in another. Therefore the aureole is also. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A13-p5"> + <b>I answer that,</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A13-p6"> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A13-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A13-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A13-p9"></p> + <p id="XP_Q96_A13-p10"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A12.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.XP_Q95_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q97" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A13.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="XP_Q97-p0.1">OF THE PUNISHMENT OF THE DAMNED (SEVEN ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="XP_Q97-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q97-p2"> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97-p3"> Under the first head there are seven points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="XP_Q97-p4"> (1) Whether in hell the damned are tormented with the sole punishment of fire?</p> + <p id="XP_Q97-p5"> (2) Whether the worm by which they are tormented is corporeal?</p> + <p id="XP_Q97-p6"> (3) Whether their weeping is corporeal?</p> + <p id="XP_Q97-p7"> (4) Whether their darkness is material?</p> + <p id="XP_Q97-p8"> (5) Whether the fire whereby they are tormented is corporeal?</p> + <p id="XP_Q97-p9"> (6) Whether it is of the same species as our fire?</p> + <p id="XP_Q97-p10"> (7) Whether this fire is beneath the earth?</p> + <div id="XP_Q97_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q97_A1-p0.1">Whether in hell the damned are tormented by the sole punishment of fire?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q97_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in hell the damned are tormented by the sole punishment of fire; because + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.25.41" target="asv"> Mat. 25:41, </a> where their condemnation is declared, mention is made of fire only, in the words: "Depart from Me, you cursed, into everlasting + fire." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> 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 + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.3.13" target="asv">1 Cor. 3:13</a>: "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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.10.7" target="asv">Ps. 10:7</a>): "Fire and brimstone and storms of winds shall be the portion of their cup." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A1-p6"> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Job.24.19" target="asv">Job 24:19</a>): "Let him pass from the snow waters to excessive heat." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A1-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> According to Basil (Homilia vi in Hexaemeron and Hom. i in + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.38" target="asv">Ps. 38</a>), 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 + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A1-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Wis.5.21" target="asv"> Wis. 5:21, </a> "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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A1-p11"></p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A1-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q97_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q97_A2-p0.1">Whether the worm of the damned is corporeal?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q97_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> 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" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Jdt.16.21" target="asv">Judith 16:21</a>), and: "The vengeance on the flesh of the ungodly is fire and worms" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A2-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Sir.7.19" target="asv">Ecclus. 7:19</a>). Therefore that worm will be corporeal. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 9): . . . "Both, namely fire and worm, will be the punishment of the body." Therefore, + etc. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A2-p4"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> 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." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A2-p5"> + <b>I answer that,</b> 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. + <a id="XP_Q97_A2-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q91_A5.html"> Q[91], A[5]</a>], 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A2-p6"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A2-p8"></p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A2-p9"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q97_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q97_A3-p0.1">Whether the weeping of the damned will be corporeal?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q97_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the weeping of the damned will be corporeal. For a gloss on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.13.28" target="asv"> Lk. 13:28, </a> "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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the pain of the punishment corresponds to the pleasure of the sin, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.18.7" target="asv"> Apoc. 18:7</a>: "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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A3-p4"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A3-p5"> + <b>I answer that,</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A3-p6"> This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.</p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A3-p7"></p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A3-p8"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q97_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q97_A4-p0.1">Whether the damned are in material darkness?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q97_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the damned are not in material darkness. For commenting on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Job.10.22" target="asv"> Job 10:22, </a> "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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.22.13" target="asv">Mat. 22:13</a>): "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." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A4-p6"> Further, Basil says (Hom. i in + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.28.7" target="asv"> Ps. 28:7, </a> "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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A4-p7"> Other points relating to the punishment of the damned have been decided above ( + <a id="XP_Q97_A4-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q86.html">Q[86])</a>. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A4-p8"> + <b>I answer that,</b> 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." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A4-p9"> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A4-p10"> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A4-p11"> This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.</p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A4-p12"></p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A4-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q97_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q97_A5-p0.1">Whether the fire of hell will be corporeal?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q97_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iiThess.2.3" target="asv">2 Thess. 2:3</a>: "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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> He says (Dial. iv, 29): "I doubt not that the fire of hell is corporeal, since it is certain that bodies are tortured there." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A5-p6"> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.5.21" target="asv">Wis. 5:21</a>): "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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A5-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> 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 ( + <a id="XP_Q97_A5-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q70_A3.html">Q[70], A[3]</a>) how the souls of the damned are punished by this corporeal fire. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A5-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A5-p11"></p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A5-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q97_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A7.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q97_A6-p0.1">Whether the fire of hell is of the same species as ours?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q97_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Gregory commenting on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Job.10.26" target="asv"> Job 10:26, </a> "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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> 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" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.25.41" target="asv">Mat. 25:41</a>). Therefore they are not of the same nature. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A6-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> 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 + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Job.18.5" target="asv"> Job 18:5</a>: "Shall not the light of the wicked be extinguished?" Therefore . . . as above. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A6-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A6-p7"> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.11.17" target="asv">Wis. 11:17</a>): "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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A6-p8"> + <b>I answer that,</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Augustine is speaking of that fire with regard to its matter, and not with regard to its nature. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A6-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A6-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A6-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A6-p13"></p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A6-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A7.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q97_A7" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q97_A7-p0.1">Whether the fire of hell is beneath the earth?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q97_A7-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A7-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this fire is not beneath the earth. For it is said of the damned ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A7-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Job.18.18" target="asv">Job 18:18</a>), "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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A7-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A7-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> 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" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A7-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Eccl.1.15" target="asv">Eccles. 1:15</a>), 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A7-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, "By what things a man sinneth, by the same also he is tormented" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A7-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.11.17" target="asv">Wis. 11:17</a>). But the wicked have sinned on the earth. Therefore the fire that punishes them should not be under the earth. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A7-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A7-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.14.9" target="asv">Is. 14:9</a>): "Hell below was in an uproar to meet Thee at Thy coming." Therefore the fire of hell is beneath us. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A7-p7"> Further, Gregory says (Dial. iv): "I see not what hinders us from believing that hell is beneath the earth."</p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A7-p8"> Further, a gloss on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A7-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Jonah.2.4" target="asv"> Jonah 2:4, </a> "Thou hast cast me forth . . . into the heart of the sea," says, "i.e. into hell," and in the Gospel ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A7-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.12.40" target="asv">Mat. 12:40</a>) 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. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A7-p9"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xv, 16), "I am of opinion that no one knows in what part of the world hell is situated, unless + the Spirit of God has revealed this to some one." Wherefore Gregory (Dial. iv) having been questioned on this point answers: + "About this matter I dare not give a rash decision. For some have deemed hell to be in some part of the earth's surface; others + think it to be beneath the earth." He shows the latter opinion to be the more + probable for two reasons. First from the very meaning of the word. These are his words: "If we call it the nether regions + (infernus [*The Latin for 'hell']), for the reason that it is beneath us [inferius], what earth is in relation to heaven, + such should be hell in relation to earth." Secondly, from the words of + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A7-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.5.3" target="asv"> Apoc. 5:3</a>: "No man was able, neither in heaven, nor on earth, nor under the earth, to open the book": where the words "in heaven" refer + to the angels, "on earth" + to men living in the body, and "under the earth" to souls in hell. Augustine too (Gen. ad lit. xii, 34) seems to indicate + two reasons for the congruity of hell being under the earth. One is that "whereas the souls of the departed sinned through + love of the flesh, they should be treated as the dead flesh is wont to be treated, by being buried beneath the earth." The + other is that heaviness is to the body what sorrow is to the spirit, and joy (of spirit) is as lightness (of body). Wherefore + "just + as in reference to the body, all the heavier things are beneath the others, if they be placed in order of gravity, so in reference + to the spirit, the lower place is occupied by whatever is more sorrowful"; and thus even as the empyrean is a fitting place + for the joy of the elect, so the lowest part of the earth is a fitting place for the sorrow of the damned. Nor does it signify + that Augustine (De Civ. Dei xv, 16) says that "hell is stated or believed to be under the earth," because he + withdraws this (Retract. ii, 29) where he says: "Methinks I should have said that hell is beneath the earth, rather than have + given the reason why it is stated or believed to be under the earth." However, some philosophers have maintained that hell + is situated beneath the terrestrial orb, but above the surface of the earth, on that part which is opposite to us. This seems + to have been the meaning of Isidore when he asserted that "the sun and the moon will stop in the place wherein they were + created, lest the wicked should enjoy this light in the midst of their torments." But this is no argument, if we assert that + hell is under the earth. We have already stated how these words may be explained ( + <a id="XP_Q97_A7-p9.2" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q91_A2.html">Q[91] , A[2]</a>). + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A7-p10"> Pythagoras held the place of punishment to be in a fiery sphere situated, according to him, in the middle of the whole world: + and he called it the prison-house of Jupiter as Aristotle relates (De Coelo et Mundo ii). It is, however, more in keeping + with Scripture to say that it is beneath the earth. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A7-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The words of Job, "God shall remove him out of the globe," refer to the surface of the earth [*"De orbe terrarum," which + might be rendered "from the land of the living."], i.e. from this world. This is how Gregory expounds it (Moral. xiv) where + he says: "He is removed from the globe when, at the coming of the heavenly judge, he is taken away from this world wherein + he now prides himself in his wickedness." Nor does globe here signify the universe, as + though the place of punishment were outside the whole universe. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A7-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Fire continues in that place for all eternity by the ordering of Divine justice although according to its nature an element + cannot last for ever outside its own place, especially if things were to remain in this state of generation and corruption. + The fire there will be of the very greatest heat, because its heat will be all gathered together from all parts, through being + surrounded on all sides by the cold of the earth. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A7-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Hell will never lack sufficient room to admit the bodies of the damned: since hell is accounted one of the three things that + "never are satisfied" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q97_A7-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.30.15" target="asv">Prov. 30:15,16</a>). Nor is it unreasonable that God's power should maintain within the bowels of the earth a hollow great enough to contain + all the bodies of the damned. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A7-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> It does not follow of necessity that "by what things a man sinneth, by the same also he is tormented," except as regards + the principal instruments of sin: for as much as man having sinned in soul and body will be punished in both. But it does + not follow that a man will be punished in the very place where he sinned, because the place due to the damned is other from + that due to wayfarers. We may also reply that these words refer to the punishments + inflicted on man on the way: according as each sin has its corresponding punishment, since "inordinate love is its own punishment," + as Augustine states (Confess. i, 12). + </p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A7-p15"></p> + <p id="XP_Q97_A7-p16"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.XP_Q96_A13.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q98" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="XP_Q98-p0.1">OF THE WILL AND INTELLECT OF THE DAMNED (NINE ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="XP_Q98-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q98-p2"> We must next consider matters pertaining to the will and intellect of the damned. Under this head there are nine points of + inquiry: + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98-p3"> (1) Whether every act of will in the damned is evil?</p> + <p id="XP_Q98-p4"> (2) Whether they ever repent of the evil they have done?</p> + <p id="XP_Q98-p5"> (3) Whether they would rather not be than be?</p> + <p id="XP_Q98-p6"> (4) Whether they would wish others to be damned?</p> + <p id="XP_Q98-p7"> (5) Whether the wicked hate God?</p> + <p id="XP_Q98-p8"> (6) Whether they can demerit?</p> + <p id="XP_Q98-p9"> (7) Whether they can make use of the knowledge acquired in this life?</p> + <p id="XP_Q98-p10"> (8) Whether they ever think of God?</p> + <p id="XP_Q98-p11"> (9) Whether they see the glory of the blessed?</p> + <div id="XP_Q98_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q98_A1-p0.1">Whether every act of will in the damned is evil?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q98_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that not every act of will in the damned is evil. For according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv), "the demons desire + the good and the best, namely to be, to live, to understand." Since, then, men who are damned are not worse off than the demons, + it would seem that they also can have a good will. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv), "evil is altogether involuntary." Therefore if the damned will anything, they + will it as something good or apparently good. Now a will that is directly ordered to good is itself good. Therefore the damned + can have a good will. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, some will be damned who, while in this world, acquired certain habits of virtue, for instance heathens who had civic + virtues. Now a will elicits praiseworthy acts by reason of virtuous habits. Therefore there may be praiseworthy acts of the + will in some of the damned. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> An obstinate will can never be inclined except to evil. Now men who are damned will be obstinate even as the demons [*Cf. + + <a id="XP_Q98_A1-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q64_A2.html">FP, Q[64], A[2]</a>]. Further, as the will of the damned is in relation to evil, so is the will of the blessed in regard to good. But the blessed + never have an evil will. Neither therefore have the damned any good will. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> A twofold will may be considered in the damned, namely the deliberate will and the natural will. Their natural will is theirs + not of themselves but of the Author of nature, Who gave nature this inclination which we call the natural will. Wherefore + since nature remains in them, it follows that the natural will in them can be good. But their deliberate will is theirs of + themselves, inasmuch as it is in their power to be inclined by their affections to this or + that. This will is in them always evil: and this because they are completely turned away from the last end of a right will, + nor can a will be good except it be directed to that same end. Hence even though they will some good, they do not will it + well so that one be able to call their will good on that account. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The words of Dionysius must be understood of the natural will, which is nature's inclination to some particular good. And + yet this natural inclination is corrupted by their wickedness, in so far as this good which they desire naturally is desired + by them under certain evil circumstances [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q98_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q64_A2.html">FP, Q[64], A[2]</a>, ad 5]. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Evil, as evil, does not move the will, but in so far as it is thought to be good. Yet it comes of their wickedness that they + esteem that which is evil as though it were good. Hence their will is evil. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The habits of civic virtue do not remain in the separated soul, because those virtues perfect us only in the civic life which + will not remain after this life. Even though they remained, they would never come into action, being enchained, as it were, + by the obstinacy of the mind. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q98_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q98_A2-p0.1">Whether the damned repent of the evil they have done?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q98_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the damned never repent of the evil they have done. For Bernard says on the Canticle [*Cf. De Consideratione + v, 12; De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio ix] that "the damned ever consent to the evil they have done." Therefore they never repent + of the sins they have committed. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, to wish one had not sinned is a good will. But the damned will never have a good will. Therefore the damned will + never wish they had not sinned: and thus the same conclusion follows as above. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii), "death is to man what their fall was to the angels." But the angel's + will is irrevocable after his fall, so that he cannot withdraw from the choice whereby he previously sinned [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q98_A2-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q64_A2.html">FP, Q[64], A[2]</a>]. Therefore the damned also cannot repent of the sins committed by them. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A2-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the wickedness of the damned in hell will be greater than that of sinners in the world. Now in this world some sinners + repent not of the sins they have committed, either through blindness of mind, as heretics, or through obstinacy, as those + "who are glad when they have done evil, and rejoice in most wicked things" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q98_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.2.14" target="asv">Prov. 2:14</a>). Therefore, etc. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A2-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said of the damned ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q98_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.5.3" target="asv">Wis. 5:3</a>): "Repenting within themselves [Vulg.: 'Saying within themselves, repenting']." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A2-p7"> Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 4) that "the wicked are full of repentance; for afterwards they are sorry for that + in which previously they took pleasure." Therefore the damned, being most wicked, repent all the more. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A2-p8"> + <b>I answer that,</b> A person may repent of sin in two ways: in one way directly, in another way indirectly. He repents of a sin directly who + hates sin as such: and he repents indirectly who hates it on account of something connected with it, for instance punishment + or something of that kind. Accordingly the wicked will not repent of their sins directly, because consent in the malice of + sin will remain in them; but they will repent indirectly, inasmuch as they will suffer from + the punishment inflicted on them for sin. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The damned will wickedness, but shun punishment: and thus indirectly they repent of wickedness committed. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> To wish one had not sinned on account of the shamefulness of vice is a good will: but this will not be in the wicked. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A2-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It will be possible for the damned to repent of their sins without turning their will away from sin, because in their sins + they will shun, not what they heretofore desired, but something else, namely the punishment. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A2-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> However obstinate men may be in this world, they repent of the sins indirectly, if they be punished for them. Thus Augustine + says (QQ[83], qu. 36): "We see the most savage beasts are deterred from the greatest pleasures by fear of pain." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A2-p13"></p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A2-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q98_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q98_A3-p0.1">Whether the damned by right and deliberate reason would wish not to be?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q98_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem impossible for the damned, by right and deliberate reason, to wish not to be. For Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. + iii, 7): "Consider how great a good it is to be; since both the happy and the unhappy will it; for to be and yet to be unhappy + is a greater thing than not to be at all." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine argues thus (De Lib. Arb. iii, 8): "Preference supposes election." But "not to be" is not eligible; since + it has not the appearance of good, for it is nothing. Therefore not to be cannot be more desirable to the damned than "to + be." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the greater evil is the more to be shunned. Now "not to be" is the greatest evil, since it removes good altogether, + so as to leave nothing. Therefore "not to be" is more to be shunned than to be unhappy: and thus the same conclusion follows + as above. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q98_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.9.6" target="asv">Apoc. 9:6</a>): "In those days men . . . shall desire to die, and death shall fly from them." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A3-p6"> Further, the unhappiness of the damned surpasses all unhappiness of this world. Now in order to escape the unhappiness of + this world, it is desirable to some to die, wherefore it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q98_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.41.3" target="asv">Ecclus. 41:3,4</a>): "O death, thy sentence is welcome to the man that is in need and to him whose strength faileth; who is in a decrepit age, + and that is in care about all things, and to the distrustful that loseth wisdom [Vulg.: 'patience']." Much more, therefore, + is "not + to be" desirable to the damned according to their deliberate reason. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A3-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Not to be may be considered in two ways. First, in itself, and thus it can nowise be desirable, since it has no aspect of + good, but is pure privation of good. Secondly, it may be considered as a relief from a painful life or from some unhappiness: + and thus "not to be" takes on the aspect of good, since "to lack an evil is a kind of good" as the Philosopher says (Ethic. + v, 1). In this way it is better for the damned not to be than to be unhappy. Hence it is + said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q98_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.24" target="asv">Mat. 26:24</a>): "It were better for him, if that man had not been born," and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q98_A3-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Jer.20.14" target="asv">Jer. 20:14</a>): "Cursed be the day wherein I was born," where a gloss of Jerome observes: "It is better not to be than to be evilly." In + this sense the damned can prefer "not to be" according to their deliberate reason [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q98_A3-p7.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q5_A2.html">FP, Q[5], A[2]</a>, ad 3]. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The saying of Augustine is to be understood in the sense that "not to be" is eligible, not in itself but accidentally, as + putting an end to unhappiness. For when it is stated that "to be" and "to live" are desired by all naturally, we are not to + take this as referable to an evil and corrupt life, and a life of unhappiness, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 4), but + absolutely. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Non-existence is eligible, not in itself, but only accidentally, as stated already. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although "not to be" is very evil, in so far as it removes being, it is very good, in so far as it removes unhappiness, which + is the greatest of evils, and thus it is preferred "not to be." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A3-p11"></p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A3-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q98_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q98_A4-p0.1">Whether in hell the damned would wish others were damned who are not damned?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q98_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in hell the damned would not wish others were damned who are not damned. For it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q98_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.16.27" target="asv">Lk. 16:27, 28</a>) of the rich man that he prayed for his brethren, lest they should come "into the place of torments." Therefore in like manner + the other damned would not wish, at least their friends in the flesh to be damned in hell. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the damned are not deprived of their inordinate affections. Now some of the damned loved inordinately some who are + not damned. Therefore they would not desire their evil, i.e. that they should be damned. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the damned do not desire the increase of their punishment. Now if more were damned, their punishment would be greater, + even as the joy of the blessed is increased by an increase in their number. Therefore the damned desire not the damnation + of those who are saved. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> A gloss on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q98_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.14.9" target="asv"> Is. 14:9, </a> "are risen up from their thrones," says: "The wicked are comforted by having many companions in their punishment." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A4-p6"> Further, envy reigns supreme in the damned. Therefore they grieve for the happiness of the blessed, and desire their damnation.</p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A4-p7"> I answer that Even as in the blessed in heaven there will be most perfect charity, so in the damned there will be the most + perfect hate. Wherefore as the saints will rejoice in all goods, so will the damned grieve for all goods. Consequently the + sight of the happiness of the saints will give them very great pain; hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q98_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.26.11" target="asv">Is. 26:11</a>): "Let the envious people see and be confounded, and let fire devour Thy enemies." Therefore they will wish all the + good were damned. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> So great will be the envy of the damned that they will envy the glory even of their kindred, since they themselves are supremely + unhappy, for this happens even in this life, when envy increases. Nevertheless they will envy their kindred less than others, + and their punishment would be greater if all their kindred were damned, and others saved, than if some of their kindred were + saved. For this reason the rich man prayed that his brethren might be + warded from damnation: for he knew that some are guarded therefrom. Yet he would rather that his brethren were damned as well + as all the rest. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Love that is not based on virtue is easily voided, especially in evil men as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 4). Hence the + damned will not preserve their friendship for those whom they loved inordinately. Yet the will of them will remain perverse, + because they will continue to love the cause of their inordinate loving. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although an increase in the number of the damned results in an increase of each one's punishment, so much the more will their + hatred and envy increase that they will prefer to be more tormented with many rather than less tormented alone. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A4-p11"></p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A4-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q98_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q98_A5-p0.1">Whether the damned hate God?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q98_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the damned do not hate God. For, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv), "the beautiful and good that is + the cause of all goodness and beauty is beloved of all." But this is God. Therefore God cannot be the object of anyone's hate. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no one can hate goodness itself, as neither can one will badness itself since "evil is altogether involuntary," + as Dionysius asserts (Div. Nom. iv). Now God is goodness itself. Therefore no one can hate Him. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A5-p4"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q98_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.73.23" target="asv">Ps. 73:23</a>): "The pride of them that hate Thee ascendeth continually." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A5-p5"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The appetite is moved by good or evil apprehended. Now God is apprehended in two ways, namely in Himself, as by the blessed, + who see Him in His essence; and in His effects, as by us and by the damned. Since, then, He is goodness by His essence, He + cannot in Himself be displeasing to any will; wherefore whoever sees Him in His essence cannot hate Him. On the other hand, + some of His effects are displeasing to the will in so far as they are opposed to any one: + and accordingly a person may hate God not in Himself, but by reason of His effects. Therefore the damned, perceiving God in + His punishment, which is the effect of His justice, hate Him, even as they hate the punishment inflicted on them [*Cf. Q[90], + A[3], ad 2; + <a id="XP_Q98_A5-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q34_A1.html">SS, Q[34], A[1]</a>]. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A5-p6"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The saying of Dionysius refers to the natural appetite. and even this is rendered perverse in the damned, by that which is + added thereto by their deliberate will, as stated above + <a id="XP_Q98_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q98_A1.html">(A[1])</a> [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q98_A5-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q34_A1.html">SS, Q[34], A[1]</a>, ad 1 where St. Thomas gives another answer]. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A5-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This argument would prove if the damned saw God in Himself, as being in His essence. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A5-p8"></p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A5-p9"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q98_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A7.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q98_A6-p0.1">Whether the damned demerit?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q98_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the damned demerit. For the damned have an evil will, as stated in the last Distinction of Sentent. iv. + But they demerited by the evil will that they had here. Therefore if they demerit not there, their damnation is to their advantage. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the damned are on the same footing as the demons. Now the demons demerit after their fall, wherefore God inflicted + a punishment on the serpent, who induced man to sin ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q98_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.3.14" target="asv">Gn. 3:14,15</a>). Therefore the damned also demerit. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, an inordinate act that proceeds from a deliberate will is not excused from demerit, even though there be necessity + of which one is oneself the cause: for the "drunken man deserves a double punishment" if he commit a crime through being drunk + (Ethic. iii). Now the damned were themselves the cause of their own obstinacy, owing to which they are under a kind of necessity + of sinning. Therefore since their act proceeds from their free will, they are not + excused from demerit. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Punishment is contradistinguished from fault [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q98_A6-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q48_A5.html">FP, Q[48], A[5]</a>]. Now the perverse will of the damned proceeds from their obstinacy which is their punishment. Therefore the perverse will + of the damned is not a fault whereby they may demerit. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A6-p6"> Further, after reaching the last term there is no further movement, or advancement in good or evil. Now the damned, especially + after the judgment day, will have reached the last term of their damnation, since then there "will cease to be two cities," + according to Augustine (Enchiridion cxi). Therefore after the judgment day the damned will not demerit by their perverse will, + for if they did their damnation would be augmented. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A6-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> We must draw a distinction between the damned before the judgment day and after. For all are agreed that after the judgment + day there will be neither merit nor demerit. The reason for this is because merit or demerit is directed to the attainment + of some further good or evil: and after the day of judgment good and evil will have reached their ultimate consummation, so + that there will be no further addition to good or evil. Consequently, good will in the + blessed will not be a merit but a reward, and evil will in the damned will be not a demerit but a punishment only. For works + of virtue belong especially to the state of happiness and their contraries to the state of unhappiness (Ethic. i, 9,10). + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A6-p8"> On the other hand, some say that, before the judgment day, both the good merit and the damned demerit. But this cannot apply + to the essential reward or to the principal punishment, since in this respect both have reached the term. Possibly, however, + this may apply to the accidental reward, or secondary punishment, which are subject to increase until the day of judgment. + Especially may this apply to the demons, or to the good angels, by whose activities some are drawn to + salvation, whereby the joy of the blessed angels is increased, and some to damnation, whereby the punishment of the demons + is augmented [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q98_A6-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q62_A9.html">FP, Q[62], A[9]</a>, ad 3; + <a id="XP_Q98_A6-p8.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q13_A4.html">SS, Q[13], A[4]</a>, ad 2; where St. Thomas tacitly retracts the opinion expressed here as to merit or demerit.]. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It is in the highest degree unprofitable to have reached the highest degree of evil, the result being that the damned are + incapable of demerit. Hence it is clear that they gain no advantage from their sin. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A6-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Men who are damned are not occupied in drawing others to damnation, as the demons are, for which reason the latter demerit + as regards their secondary punishment [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q98_A6-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q62_A9.html">FP, Q[62], A[9]</a>, ad 3; + <a id="XP_Q98_A6-p10.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q13_A4.html">SS, Q[13] , A[4]</a>, ad 2; where St. Thomas tacitly retracts the opinion expressed here as to merit or demerit]. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A6-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The reason why they are not excused from demerit is not because they are under the necessity of sinning, but because they + have reached the highest of evils. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A6-p12"> However, the necessity of sinning whereof we are ourselves the cause, in so far as it is a necessity, excuses from sin, because + every sin needs to be voluntary: but it does not excuse, in so far as it proceeds from a previous act of the will: and consequently + the whole demerit of the subsequent sin would seem to belong to the previous sin. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A6-p13"></p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A6-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A7.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q98_A7" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A8.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q98_A7-p0.1">Whether the damned can make use of the knowledge they had in this world? [*Cf. FP, Q[89]]</h4> + <p id="XP_Q98_A7-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A7-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the damned are unable to make use of the knowledge they had in this world. For there is very great pleasure + in the consideration of knowledge. But we must not admit that they have any pleasure. Therefore they cannot make use of the + knowledge they had heretofore, by applying their consideration thereto. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A7-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the damned suffer greater pains than any pains of this world. Now in this world, when one is in very great pain, + it is impossible to consider any intelligible conclusions, through being distracted by the pains that one suffers. Much less + therefore can one do so in hell. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A7-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the damned are subject to time. But "length of time is the cause of forgetfulness" (Phys. lib. iv, 13). Therefore + the damned will forget what they knew here. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A7-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said to the rich man who was damned ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q98_A7-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.16.25" target="asv">Lk. 16:25</a>): "Remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime," etc. Therefore they will consider about the things they + knew here. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A7-p6"> Further, the intelligible species remain in the separated soul, as stated above (Q[70], A[2], ad 3; + <a id="XP_Q98_A7-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q89_A5.html">FP, Q[89], AA[5]</a>,6). Therefore, if they could not use them, these would remain in them to no purpose. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A7-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Even as in the saints on account of the perfection of their glory, there will be nothing but what is a matter of joy so there + will be nothing in the damned but what is a matter and cause of sorrow; nor will anything that can pertain to sorrow be lacking, + so that their unhappiness is consummate. Now the consideration of certain things known brings us joy, in some respect, either + on the part of the things known, because we love them, or on the part of the + knowledge, because it is fitting and perfect. There may also be a reason for sorrow both on the part of the things known, + because they are of a grievous nature, and on the part of the knowledge, if we consider its imperfection; for instance a person + may consider his defective knowledge about a certain thing, which he would desire to know perfectly. Accordingly, in the damned + there will be actual consideration of the things they knew heretofore as matters of sorrow, but not as a cause of + pleasure. For they will consider both the evil they have done, and for which they were damned, and the delightful goods they + have lost, and on both counts they will suffer torments. Likewise they will be tormented with the thought that the knowledge + they had of speculative matters was imperfect, and that they missed its highest degree of perfection which they might have + acquired. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A7-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the consideration of knowledge is delightful in itself, it may accidentally be the cause of sorrow, as explained + above. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A7-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In this world the soul is united to a corruptible body, wherefore the soul's consideration is hindered by the suffering of + the body. On the other hand, in the future life the soul will not be so drawn by the body, but however much the body may suffer, + the soul will have a most clear view of those things that can be a cause of anguish to it. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A7-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Time causes forgetfulness accidentally, in so far as the movement whereof it is the measure is the cause of change. But after + the judgment day there will be no movement of the heavens; wherefore neither will it be possible for forgetfulness to result + from any lapse of time however long. Before the judgment day, however, the separated soul is not changed from its disposition + by the heavenly movement. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A7-p11"></p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A7-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A8.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q98_A8" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A9.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q98_A8-p0.1">Whether the damned will ever think of God?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q98_A8-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A8-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the damned will sometimes think of God. For one cannot hate a thing actually, except one think about it. + Now the damned will hate God, as stated in the text of Sentent. iv, in the last Distinction. Therefore they will think of + God sometimes. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A8-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the damned will have remorse of conscience. But the conscience suffers remorse for deeds done against God. Therefore + they will sometimes think of God. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A8-p4"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Man's most perfect thoughts are those which are about God: whereas the damned will be in a state of the greatest imperfection. + Therefore they will not think of God. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A8-p5"> + <b>I answer that,</b> one may think of God in two ways. First, in Himself and according to that which is proper to Him, namely that He is the fount + of all goodness: and thus it is altogether impossible to think of Him without delight, so that the damned will by no means + think of Him in this way. Secondly, according to something accidental as it were to Him in His effects, such as His punishments, + and so forth, and in this respect the thought of God can bring sorrow, so that in + this way the damned will think of God. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A8-p6"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The damned do not hate God except because He punishes and forbids what is agreeable to their evil will: and consequently + they will think of Him only as punishing and forbidding. This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection, since conscience + will not have remorse for sin except as forbidden by the Divine commandment. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A8-p7"></p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A8-p8"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A9.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q98_A9" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q99.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q98_A9-p0.1">Whether the damned see the glory of the blessed?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q98_A9-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A9-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the damned do not see the glory of the blessed. For they are more distant from the glory of the blessed + than from the happenings of this world. But they do not see what happens in regard to us: hence Gregory commenting on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q98_A9-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Job.14.21" target="asv"> Job 14:21, </a> "Whether his children come to honor," etc. says (Moral. xii): "Even as those who still live know not in what place are the + souls of the dead; so the dead who have lived in the body know not + the things which regard the life of those who are in the flesh." Much less, therefore, can they see the glory of the blessed. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A9-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that which is granted as a great favor to the saints in this life is never granted to the damned. Now it was granted + as a great favor to Paul to see the life in which the saints live for ever with God ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q98_A9-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.12" target="asv">2 Cor. 12</a>). Therefore the damned will not see the glory of the saints. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A9-p4"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is stated ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q98_A9-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.16.23" target="asv">Lk. 16:23</a>) that the rich man in the midst of his torments "saw Abraham . . . and Lazarus in his bosom." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A9-p5"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The damned, before the judgment day, will see the blessed in glory, in such a way as to know, not what that glory is like, + but only that they are in a state of glory that surpasses all thought. This will trouble them, both because they will, through + envy, grieve for their happiness, and because they have forfeited that glory. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q98_A9-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.5.2" target="asv">Wis. 5:2</a>) concerning the wicked: "Seeing it" they "shall be troubled with terrible fear." + After the judgment day, however, they will be altogether deprived of seeing the blessed: nor will this lessen their punishment, + but will increase it; because they will bear in remembrance the glory of the blessed which they saw at or before the judgment: + and this will torment them. Moreover they will be tormented by finding themselves deemed unworthy even to see the glory which + the saints merit to have. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A9-p6"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The happenings of this life would not, if seen, torment the damned in hell as the sight of the glory of the saints; wherefore + the things which happen here are not shown to the damned in the same way as the saints' glory; although also of the things + that happen here those are shown to them which are capable of causing them sorrow. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A9-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Paul looked upon that life wherein the saints live with God [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q98_A9-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q185_A3.html">SS, Q[185], A[3]</a>, ad 2], by actual experience thereof and by hoping to have it more perfectly in the life to come. Not so the damned; wherefore + the comparison fails. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A9-p8"></p> + <p id="XP_Q98_A9-p9"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q99.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.XP_Q97_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q99" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A9.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q99_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="XP_Q99-p0.1">OF GOD'S MERCY AND JUSTICE TOWARDS THE DAMNED (FIVE ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="XP_Q99-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q99-p2"> We must next consider God's justice and mercy towards the damned: under which head there are five points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="XP_Q99-p3"> (1) Whether by Divine justice an eternal punishment is inflicted on sinners?</p> + <p id="XP_Q99-p4"> (2) Whether by God's mercy all punishment both of men and of demons comes to an end?</p> + <p id="XP_Q99-p5"> (3) Whether at least the punishment of men comes to an end?</p> + <p id="XP_Q99-p6"> (4) Whether at least the punishment of Christians has an end?</p> + <p id="XP_Q99-p7"> (5) Whether there is an end to the punishment of those who have performed works of mercy?</p> + <div id="XP_Q99_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q99.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q99_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q99_A1-p0.1">Whether by Divine justice an eternal punishment is inflicted on sinners? [*Cf. FS, Q[87], AA[3],4]</h4> + <p id="XP_Q99_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that an eternal punishment is not inflicted on sinners by Divine justice. For the punishment should not exceed + the fault: "According to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.25.2" target="asv">Dt. 25:2</a>). Now fault is temporal. Therefore the punishment should not be eternal. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, of two mortal sins one is greater than the other. and therefore one should receive a greater punishment than the + other. But no punishment is greater than eternal punishment, since it is infinite. Therefore eternal punishment is not due + to every sin; and if it is not due to one, it is due to none, since they are not infinitely distant from one another. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a just judge does not punish except in order to correct, wherefore it is stated (Ethic. ii, 3) that "punishments + are a kind of medicine." Now, to punish the wicked eternally does not lead to their correction, nor to that of others, since + then there will be no one in future who can be corrected thereby. Therefore eternal punishment is not inflicted for sins according + to Divine justice. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, no one wishes that which is not desirable for its own sake, except on account of some advantage. Now God does not + wish punishment for its own sake, for He delights not in punishments [*The allusion is to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.1.13" target="asv"> Wis. 1:13</a>: "Neither hath He pleasure in the destruction of the living," as may be gathered from + <a id="XP_Q99_A1-p5.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q87_A3.html">FS, Q[87], A[3]</a>, OBJ[3]]. Since then no advantage can result from the perpetuity of punishment, it would seem + that He ought not to inflict such a punishment for sin. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A1-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, "nothing accidental lasts for ever" (De Coelo et Mundo i). But punishment is one of those things that happen accidentally, + since it is contrary to nature. Therefore it cannot be everlasting. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A1-p7"> + <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, the justice of God would seem to require that sinners should be brought to naught: because on account of ingratitude + a person deserves to lose all benefits. and among other benefits of God there is "being" itself. Therefore it would seem just + that the sinner who has been ungrateful to God should lose his being. But if sinners be brought to naught, their punishment + cannot be everlasting. Therefore it would seem out of keeping with Divine justice that + sinners should be punished for ever. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A1-p8"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.25.46" target="asv">Mat. 25:46</a>): "These," namely the wicked, "shall go into everlasting punishment." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A1-p9"> Further, as reward is to merit, so is punishment to guilt. Now, according to Divine justice, an eternal reward is due to + temporal merit: "Every one who seeth the Son and believeth in Him hath [Vulg.: 'that everyone . . . may have'] life everlasting." + Therefore according to Divine justice an everlasting punishment is due to temporal guilt. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A1-p10"> Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 5), punishment is meted according to the dignity of the person sinned against, + so that a person who strikes one in authority receives a greater punishment than one who strikes anyone else. Now whoever + sins mortally sins against God, Whose commandments he breaks, and Whose honor he gives another, by placing his end in some + one other than God. But God's majesty is infinite. Therefore whoever sins mortally deserves infinite + punishment; and consequently it seems just that for a mortal sin a man should be punished for ever. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A1-p11"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Since punishment is measured in two ways, namely according to the degree of its severity, and according to its length of + time, the measure of punishment corresponds to the measure of fault, as regards the degree of severity, so that the more grievously + a person sins the more grievously is he punished: "As much as she hath glorified herself and lived in delicacies, so much + torment and sorrow give ye to her" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A1-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.18.7" target="asv">Apoc. 18:7</a>). The duration of + the punishment does not, however, correspond with the duration of the fault, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 11), for + adultery which is committed in a short space of time is not punished with a momentary penalty even according to human laws + [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q99_A1-p11.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q87_A3.html">FS, Q[87], A[3]</a>, ad 1]. But the duration of punishment regards the disposition of the sinner: for sometimes a person who commits an offense + in a city is rendered by his very offense worthy of being cut off entirely from the + fellowship of the citizens, either by perpetual exile or even by death: whereas sometimes he is not rendered worthy of being + cut off entirely from the fellowship of the citizens. wherefore in order that he may become a fitting member of the State, + his punishment is prolonged or curtailed, according as is expedient for his amendment, so that he may live in the city in + a becoming and peaceful manner. So too, according to Divine justice, sin renders a person worthy to be altogether cut off + from + the fellowship of God's city, and this is the effect of every sin committed against charity, which is the bond uniting this + same city together. Consequently, for mortal sin which is contrary to charity a person is expelled for ever from the fellowship + of the saints and condemned to everlasting punishment, because as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 11), "as men are cut off + from this perishable city by the penalty of the first death, so are they excluded from that imperishable city by the + punishment of the second death." That the punishment inflicted by the earthly state is not deemed everlasting is accidental, + either because man endures not for ever, or because the state itself comes to an end. Wherefore if man lived for ever, the + punishment of exile or slavery, which is pronounced by human law, would remain in him for ever. On the other hand, as regards + those who sin in such a way as not to deserve to be entirely cut off from the fellowship of the saints, such as those who + sin + venially, their punishment will be so much the shorter or longer according as they are more or less fit to be cleansed, through + sin clinging to them more or less: this is observed in the punishments of this world and of purgatory according to Divine + justice. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A1-p12"> We find also other reasons given by the saints why some are justly condemned to everlasting punishment for a temporal sin. + One is because they sinned against an eternal good by despising eternal life. This is mentioned by Augustine (De Civ. Dei. + xii, 12): "He is become worthy of eternal evil, who destroyed in himself a good which could be eternal." Another reason is + because man sinned in his own eternity [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q99_A1-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q87_A3.html">FS, Q[87], A[3]</a>, ad 1]; wherefore Gregory + says (Dial. iv), it belongs to the great justice of the judge that those should never cease to be punished, who in this life + never ceased to desire sin. And if it be objected that some who sin mortally propose to amend their life at some time, and + that these accordingly are seemingly not deserving of eternal punishment, it must be replied according to some that Gregory + speaks of the will that is made manifest by the deed. For he who falls into mortal sin of his own will puts himself in a state + whence he cannot be rescued, except God help him: wherefore from the very fact that he is willing to sin, he is willing to + remain in sin for ever. For man is "a wind that goeth," namely to sin, "and returneth not by his own power" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A1-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.77.39" target="asv">Ps. 77:39</a>). Thus if a man were to throw himself into a pit whence he could not get out without help, one might say that he wished to + remain there for ever, whatever else he may have thought himself. Another and a better answer is that from the + very fact that he commits a mortal sin, he places his end in a creature; and since the whole of life is directed to its end, + it follows that for this very reason he directs the whole of his life to that sin, and is willing to remain in sin forever, + if he could do so with impunity. This is what Gregory says on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A1-p12.3" href="./asv.html#Job.41.23" target="asv"> Job 41:23, </a> "He shall esteem the deep as growing old" (Moral. xxxiv): "The wicked only put an end to sinning because their life came + to an end: they would indeed have + wished to live for ever, that they might continue in sin for ever for they desire rather to sin than to live." Still another + reason may be given why the punishment of mortal sin is eternal: because thereby one offends God Who is infinite. Wherefore + since punishment cannot be infinite in intensity, because the creature is incapable of an infinite quality, it must needs + be infinite at least in duration. And again there is a fourth reason for the same: because guilt remains for ever, since it + cannot be remitted without grace, and men cannot receive grace after death; nor should punishment cease so long as guilt remains. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A1-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Punishment has not to be equal to fault as to the amount of duration as is seen to be the case also with human laws. We may + also reply with Gregory (Dial. xliv) that although sin is temporal in act, it is eternal in will. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A1-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The degree of intensity in the punishment corresponds to the degree of gravity in the sin; wherefore mortal sins unequal + in gravity will receive a punishment unequal in intensity but equal in duration. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A1-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The punishments inflicted on those who are not altogether expelled from the society of their fellow-citizens are intended + for their correction: whereas those punishments, whereby certain persons are wholly banished from the society of their fellow-citizens, + are not intended for their correction; although they may be intended for the correction and tranquillity of the others who + remain in the state. Accordingly the damnation of the wicked is for the + correction of those who are now in the Church; for punishments are intended for correction, not only when they are being inflicted, + but also when they are decreed. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A1-p16"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The everlasting punishment of the wicked will not be altogether useless. For they are useful for two purposes. First, because + thereby the Divine justice is safeguarded which is acceptable to God for its own sake. Hence Gregory says (Dial. iv): "Almighty + God on account of His loving kindness delights not in the torments of the unhappy, but on account of His justice. He is for + ever unappeased by the punishment of the wicked." Secondly, they are useful, + because the elect rejoice therein, when they see God's justice in them, and realize that they have escaped them. Hence it + is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A1-p16.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.57.12" target="asv">Ps. 57:12</a>): "The just shall rejoice when he shall see the revenge," etc., and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A1-p16.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.66.24" target="asv">Is. 66:24</a>): "They," namely the wicked, "shall be a loathsome sight* to all flesh," namely to the saints, as a gloss says. [*"Ad satietatem + visionis," which St. Thomas takes to signify being satiated with joy; Cf. + <a id="XP_Q99_A1-p16.3" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q94_A3.html"> Q[94], + A[3] + </a>]. Gregory expresses himself in the same sense (Dial. iv): "The wicked are all condemned to eternal punishment, and are punished + for their own wickedness. Yet they will burn to some purpose, namely that the just may all both see in God the joys they receive, + and perceive in them the torments they have escaped: for which reason they will acknowledge themselves for ever the debtors + of Divine grace the more that they will see how the evils which they overcame by its assistance are punished + eternally." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A1-p17"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Although the punishment relates to the soul accidentally, it relates essentially to the soul infected with guilt. And since + guilt will remain in the soul for ever, its punishment also will be everlasting. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A1-p18"> + <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Punishment corresponds to fault, properly speaking, in respect of the inordinateness in the fault, and not of the dignity + in the person offended: for if the latter were the case, a punishment of infinite intensity would correspond to every sin. + Accordingly, although a man deserves to lose his being from the fact that he has sinned against God the author of his being, + yet, in view of the inordinateness of the act itself, loss of being is not due to + him, since being is presupposed to merit and demerit, nor is being lost or corrupted by the inordinateness of sin [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q99_A1-p18.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q85_A1.html">FS, Q[85], A[1]</a>]: and consequently privation of being cannot be the punishment due to any sin. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A1-p19"></p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A1-p20"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q99.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q99_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q99_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q99_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q99_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q99_A2-p0.1">Whether by God's mercy all punishment of the damned, both men and demons, comes to an end?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q99_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that by God's mercy all punishment of the damned, both men and demons, comes to an end. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.11.24" target="asv">Wis. 11:24</a>): "Thou hast mercy upon all, O Lord, because Thou canst do all things." But among all things the demons also are included, + since they are God's creatures. Therefore also their punishment will come to an end. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, "God hath concluded all in sin [Vulg.: 'unbelief'], that He may have mercy on all" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.11.32" target="asv">Rom. 11:32</a>). Now God has concluded the demons under sin, that is to say, He permitted them to be concluded. Therefore it would seem + that in time He has mercy even on the demons. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as Anselm says (Cur Deus Homo ii), "it is not just that God should permit the utter loss of a creature which He + made for happiness." Therefore, since every rational creature was created for happiness, it would seem unjust for it to be + allowed to perish altogether. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.25.41" target="asv">Mat. 25:41</a>): "Depart from Me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels." Therefore they will + be punished eternally. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A2-p6"> Further, just as the good angels were made happy through turning to God, so the bad angels were made unhappy through turning + away from God. Therefore if the unhappiness of the wicked angels comes at length to an end, the happiness of the good will + also come to an end, which is inadmissible. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A2-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi) Origen [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q99_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q64_A2.html">FP, Q[64], A[2]</a>] "erred in maintaining that the demons will at length, through God's mercy, be delivered from their punishment." But this + error has been condemned by the Church for two reasons. First because it is clearly contrary to the authority of Holy Writ + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Rev.20.9" target="asv">Apoc. 20:9,10</a>): "The devil who seduced them was cast into the pool of fire and brimstone, where both the + beasts and the false prophets [*Vulg.: 'the beast and false prophet,' etc.] shall be tormented day and night for ever and + ever," which is the Scriptural expression for eternity. Secondly, because this opinion exaggerated God's mercy in one direction + and depreciated it in another. For it would seem equally reasonable for the good angels to remain in eternal happiness, and + for the wicked angels to be eternally punished. Wherefore just as he maintained that the demons and the souls of the damned + are to be delivered at length from their sufferings, so he maintained that the angels and the souls of the blessed will at + length pass from their happy state to the unhappiness of this life. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> God, for His own part, has mercy on all. Since, however, His mercy is ruled by the order of His wisdom, the result is that + it does not reach to certain people who render themselves unworthy of that mercy, as do the demons and the damned who are + obstinate in wickedness. And yet we may say that even in them His mercy finds a place, in so far as they are punished less + than they deserve condignly, but not that they are entirely delivered from + punishment. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In the words quoted the distribution (of the predicate) regards the genera and not the individuals: so that the statement + applies to men in the state of wayfarer, inasmuch as He had mercy both on Jews and on Gentiles, but not on every Gentile or + every Jew. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Anselm means that it is not just in the sense of becoming God's goodness, and is speaking of the creature generically. For + it becomes not the Divine goodness that a whole genus of creature fail of the end for which it was made: wherefore it is unbecoming + for all men or all angels to be damned. But there is no reason why some men or some angels should perish for ever, because + the intention of the Divine will is fulfilled in the others who are + saved. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A2-p11"></p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A2-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q99_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q99_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q99_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q99_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q99_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q99_A3-p0.1">Whether God's mercy suffers at least men to be punished eternally?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q99_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that God's mercy does not suffer at least men to be punished eternally. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.6.3" target="asv">Gn. 6:3</a>): "My spirit shall not remain in man for ever because he is flesh"; where "spirit" denotes indignation, as a gloss observes. + Therefore, since God's indignation is not distinct from His punishment, man will not be punished eternally. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the charity of the saints in this life makes them pray for their enemies. Now they will have more perfect charity + in that life. Therefore they will pray then for their enemies who are damned. But the prayers of the saints cannot be in vain, + since they are most acceptable to God. Therefore at the saints' prayers the Divine mercy will in time deliver the damned from + their punishment. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, God's foretelling of the punishment of the damned belongs to the prophecy of commination. Now the prophecy of commination + is not always fulfilled: as appears from what was said of the destruction of Nineve (Jonas 3); and yet it was not destroyed + as foretold by the prophet, who also was troubled for that very reason ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Jonah.4.1" target="asv">Jonah 4:1</a>). Therefore it would seem that much more will the threat of eternal punishment be commuted by God's mercy + for a more lenient punishment, when this will be able to give sorrow to none but joy to all. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A3-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the words of + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.76.8" target="asv"> Ps. 76:8 </a>are to the point, where it is said: "Will God then be angry for ever? [*Vulg.: 'Will God then cast off for ever?']" But God's + anger is His punishment. Therefore, etc. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A3-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, a gloss on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.14.19" target="asv"> Is. 14:19, </a> "But thou art cast out," etc. says: "Even though all souls shall have rest at last, thou never shalt": and it refers to the + devil. Therefore it would seem that all human souls shall at length have rest from their pains. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A3-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.25.46" target="asv">Mat. 25:46</a>) of the elect conjointly with the damned: "These shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting." + But it is inadmissible that the life of the just will ever have an end. Therefore it is inadmissible that the punishment of + the damned will ever come to an end. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A3-p8"> Further, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii) "death is to men what their fall was to the angels." Now after their fall the + angels could not be restored [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q99_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q64_A2.html">FP, Q[64], A[2]</a>]. Therefore neither can man after death: and thus the punishment of the damned will have no end. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A3-p9"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 17,18), some evaded the error of Origen by asserting that the demons are punished everlastingly, + while holding that all men, even unbelievers, are at length set free from punishment. But this statement is altogether unreasonable. + For just as the demons are obstinate in wickedness and therefore have to be punished for ever, so too are the souls of men + who die without charity, since "death is to men what their fall was to + the angels," as Damascene says. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This saying refers to man generically, because God's indignation was at length removed from the human race by the coming + of Christ. But those who were unwilling to be included or to remain in this reconciliation effected by Christ, perpetuated + the Divine anger in themselves, since no other way of reconciliation is given to us save that which is through Christ. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A3-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine (De Civ. Dei xxi, 24) and Gregory (Moral. xxxiv) say, the saints in this life pray for their enemies, that they + may be converted to God, while it is yet possible for them to be converted. For if we knew that they were foreknown to death, + we should no more pray for them than for the demons. And since for those who depart this life without grace there will be + no further time for conversion, no prayer will be offered for them, neither by the + Church militant, nor by the Church triumphant. For that which we have to pray for them is, as the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#iiTim.2.25" target="asv">2 Tim. 2:25,26</a>), that "God may give them repentance to know the truth, and they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A3-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A punishment threatened prophetically is only then commuted when there is a change in the merits of the person threatened. + Hence: "I will suddenly speak against a nation and against a kingdom, to root out and to pull down and to destroy it. If that + nation . . . shall repent of their evil, I also will repent of the evil that I have thought to do to them" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A3-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Jer.18.7" target="asv">Jer. 18:7</a>). Therefore, since the merits of the damned cannot be changed, the + threatened punishment will ever be fulfilled in them. Nevertheless the prophecy of commination is always fulfilled in a certain + sense, because as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei. xxi, 24): "Nineve has been overthrown, that was evil, and a good Nineve is + built up, that was not: for while the walls and the houses remained standing, the city was overthrown in its wicked ways." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A3-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> These words of the Psalm refer to the vessels of mercy, which have not made themselves unworthy of mercy, because in this + life (which may be called God's anger on account of its unhappiness) He changes vessels of mercy into something better. Hence + the Psalm continues ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A3-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.76.11" target="asv">Ps. 76:11</a>): "This is the change of the right hand of the most High." We may also reply that they refer to mercy as granting a relaxation + but not setting free + altogether if it be referred also to the damned. Hence the Psalm does not say: "Will He from His anger shut up His mercies?" + but "in His anger," because the punishment will not be done away entirely; but His mercy will have effect by diminishing the + punishment while it continues. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A3-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> This gloss is speaking not absolutely but on an impossible supposition in order to throw into relief the greatness of the + devil's sin, or of Nabuchodonosor's. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A3-p15"></p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A3-p16"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q99_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q99_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q99_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q99_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q99_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q99_A4-p0.1">Whether the punishment of Christians is brought to an end by the mercy of God?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q99_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that at least the punishment of Christians is brought to an end by the mercy of God. "For he that believeth + and is baptized shall be saved" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.16.16" target="asv">Mk. 16:16</a>). Now this applies to every Christian. Therefore all Christians will at length be saved. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.55" target="asv">Jn. 6:55</a>): "He that eateth My body and drinketh My blood hath eternal life." Now this is the meat and drink whereof Christians partake + in common. Therefore all Christians will be saved at length. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, "If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.3.15" target="asv">1 Cor. 3:15</a>), where it is a question of those who have the foundation of the Christian faith. Therefore all such persons will be saved + in the end. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.6.9" target="asv">1 Cor. 6:9</a>): "The unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God." Now some Christians are unjust. Therefore Christians will not all come + to the kingdom of God, and consequently they will be punished for ever. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A4-p6"> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iiPet.2.21" target="asv">2 Pet. 2:21</a>): "It had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it, to turn back from that + holy commandment which was delivered to them." Now those who know not the way of truth will be punished for ever. Therefore + Christians who have turned back after knowing it will also be punished for ever. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A4-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> According to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xxi, 20,21), there have been some who predicted a delivery from eternal punishment not + for all men, but only for Christians. although they stated the matter in different ways. For some said that whoever received + the sacraments of faith would be immune from eternal punishment. But this is contrary to the truth, since some receive the + sacraments of faith, and yet have not faith, without which "it is impossible to please God" + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.11.6" target="asv">Heb. 11:6</a>). Wherefore others said that those alone will be exempt from eternal punishment who have received the sacraments of faith, + and professed the Catholic faith. But against this it would seem to be that at one time some people profess the Catholic faith, + and afterwards abandon it, and these are deserving not of a lesser but of a greater punishment, since according to + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A4-p7.2" href="./asv.html#iiPet.2.21" target="asv">2 Pet. 2:21, </a> "it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice + than, after they have known it, to turn back." Moreover it is clear that heresiarchs who renounce the Catholic faith and invent + new heresies sin more grievously than those who have conformed to some heresy from the first. And therefore some have maintained + that those alone are exempt from eternal punishment, who persevere to the end in the Catholic faith, however guilty they may + have been of other crimes. But this is clearly contrary to Holy Writ, for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A4-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Jas.2.20" target="asv">James + 2:20 + </a>): "Faith without works is dead," and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A4-p7.4" href="./asv.html#Matt.7.21" target="asv">Mat. 7:21</a>) "Not every one that saith to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of My Father + Who is in heaven": and in many other passages Holy Scripture threatens sinners with eternal punishment. Consequently those + who persevere in the faith unto the end will not all be exempt from eternal punishment, unless in the end they prove to be + free from other crimes. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Our Lord speaks there of formed faith [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q99_A4-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q4_A3.html">SS, Q[4], A[3]</a>] "that worketh by love [Vulg.: 'charity'; + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A4-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Gal.5.6" target="asv"> Gal. 5:6</a>]": wherein whosoever dieth shall be saved. But to this faith not only is the error of unbelief opposed, but also any mortal + sin whatsoever. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The saying of our Lord refers not to those who partake only sacramentally, and who sometimes by receiving unworthily "eat + and drink judgment" to themselves ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.29" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:29</a>), but to those who eat spiritually and are incorporated with Him by charity, which incorporation is the effect of the sacramental + eating, in those who approach worthily [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q99_A4-p9.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q80_A1.html">TP, Q[80], AA[1]</a>,2,3]. Wherefore, so far as the power of the + sacrament is concerned, it brings us to eternal life, although sin may deprive us of that fruit, even after we have received + worthily. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In this passage of the Apostle the foundation denotes formed faith, upon which whosoever shall build venial sins [*Cf. + <a id="XP_Q99_A4-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q89_A2.html">FS, Q[89], A[2]</a>] "shall suffer loss," because he will be punished for them by God; yet "he himself shall be saved" in the end "by fire," + either of temporal tribulation, or of the punishment of purgatory which will be after death. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A4-p11"></p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A4-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q99_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q99_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="XP_Q99_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.XP_Q99_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.vii.html"></a> + <h4 id="XP_Q99_A5-p0.1">Whether all those who perform works of mercy will be punished eternally?</h4> + <p id="XP_Q99_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that all who perform works of mercy will not be punished eternally, but only those who neglect those works. + For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.2.13" target="asv">James 2:13</a>): "Judgment without mercy to him that hath not done mercy"; and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A5-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.7" target="asv">Mat. 5:7</a>): "Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy." + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.25.35" target="asv">Mat. 25:35-46</a>) we find a description of our Lord's discussion with the damned and the elect. But this discussion is only about works of + mercy. Therefore eternal punishment will be awarded only to such as have omitted to practice works of mercy: and consequently + the same conclusion follows as before. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.6.12" target="asv">Mat. 6:12</a>): "Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors," and further on ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A5-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.6.14" target="asv">Mat. 6:14</a>): "For if you will forgive men their offenses, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offenses." Therefore it would + seem that the merciful, who forgive others their offenses, will themselves obtain the forgiveness of their sins, and consequently + will not be punished eternally. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A5-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, a gloss of Ambrose on + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.4.8" target="asv">1 Tim. 4:8, </a> "Godliness is profitable to all things," says: "The sum total of a Christian's rule of life consists in mercy and godliness. + Let a man follow this, and though he should suffer from the inconstancy of the flesh, without doubt he will be scourged, but + he will not perish: whereas he who can boast of no other exercise but that of the body will suffer everlasting punishment." + Therefore those who + persevere in works of mercy, though they be shackled with fleshly sins, will not be punished eternally: and thus the same + conclusion follows as before. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A5-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.6.9" target="asv">1 Cor. 6:9,10</a>): "Neither fornicators . . . nor adulterers," etc. "shall possess the kingdom of God." Yet many are such who practice works + of mercy. Therefore the merciful will not all come to the eternal kingdom: and consequently some of them will be punished + eternally. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A5-p7"> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.2.10" target="asv">James 2:10</a>): "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all." Therefore whoever keeps the law + as regards the works of mercy and omits other works, is guilty of transgressing the law, and consequently will be punished + eternally. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A5-p8"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As Augustine says in the book quoted above (De Civ. Dei xxi, 22), some have maintained that not all who have professed the + Catholic faith will be freed from eternal punishment, but only those who persevere in works of mercy, although they be guilty + of other crimes. But this cannot stand, because without charity nothing can be acceptable to God, nor does anything profit + unto eternal life in the absence of charity. Now it happens that certain persons persevere + in works of mercy without having charity. Wherefore nothing profits them to the meriting of eternal life, or to exemption + from eternal punishment, as may be gathered from + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.13.3" target="asv">1 Cor. 13:3.</a> Most evident is this in the case of those who lay hands on other people's property, for after seizing on many things, they + nevertheless spend something in works of mercy. We must therefore conclude that all whosoever die in mortal sin, neither faith + nor works of mercy will free them from + eternal punishment, not even after any length of time whatever. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Those will obtain mercy who show mercy in an ordinate manner. But those who while merciful to others are neglectful of themselves + do not show mercy ordinately, rather do they strike at themselves by their evil actions. Wherefore such persons will not obtain + the mercy that sets free altogether, even if they obtain that mercy which rebates somewhat their due punishment. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A5-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The reason why the discussion refers only to the works of mercy is not because eternal punishment will be inflicted on none + but those who omit those works, but because eternal punishment will be remitted to those who after sinning have obtained forgiveness + by their works of mercy, making unto themselves "friends of the mammon of iniquity" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="XP_Q99_A5-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.16.9" target="asv">Lk. 16:9</a>). + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A5-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Our Lord said this to those who ask that their debt be forgiven, but not to those who persist in sin. Wherefore the repentant + alone will obtain by their works of mercy the forgiveness that sets them free altogether. + </p> + <p id="XP_Q99_A5-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The gloss of Ambrose speaks of the inconstancy that consists in venial sin, from which a man will be freed through the works + of mercy after the punishment of purgatory, which he calls a scourging. Or, if he speaks of the inconstancy of mortal sin, + the sense is that those who while yet in this life fall into sins of the flesh through frailty are disposed to repentance + by works of mercy. Wherefore such a one will not perish, that is to say, he will be + disposed by those works not to perish, through grace bestowed on him by our Lord, Who is blessed for evermore. Amen. + </p> + <a href="summa.XP_Q99_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.vii.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.XP_Q98_A9.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q99_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.XP_Q86_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.XP_Q87.html"></a> + ` + </div> \ No newline at end of file