Article 3 Articulus 3 Whether the blessed rejoice in the punishment of the wicked? Utrum beati laetentur de poenis impiorum Objection 1: 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. Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod beati non laetentur de poenis impiorum; Laetari enim de malo alterius ad odium pertinet. Sed in beatis nullum erit odium. Ergo non laetabuntur de miseriis damnatorum. Obj. 2: 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. Praeterea, beati in patria erunt summe Deo conformes. Sed Deus non delectatur in poenis nostris. Ergo nec beati delectabuntur in poenis damnatorum. Obj. 3: 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 in no way rejoice in the punishment of the damned. Praeterea, illud quod est vituperabile in viatore, nullo modo cadit in comprehensorem. Sed in homine viatore est maxime vituperabile quod reficiatur aliorum poenis; et maxime commendabile ut de poenis doleat. Ergo beati nullo modo laetantur de poenis damnatorum. On the contrary, It is written: the just shall rejoice when he shall see the revenge (Ps 57:11). Sed contra: Est quod in Psalmo [57, 11] dicitur: laetabitur iustus cum viderit vindictam. Further, It is written: they shall satiate the sight of all flesh (Isa 56:24). Now satiety denotes refreshment of the mind. Therefore, the blessed will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. Praeterea, Isaiae 66, [24]: erunt usque ad satietatem visionis omni carni. Satietas autem refectionem mentis designat. Ergo beati gaudebunt de poenis impiorum. I answer that, 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. Second, indirectly, by reason 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. Respondeo dicendum quod aliquid potest esse materia gaudii dupliciter. Uno modo, per se: quando scilicet de aliquo gaudetur inquantum huiusmodi. Et sic sancti non laetabuntur de poenis impiorum. Alio modo, per accidens, idest ratione alicuius adiuncti. Et hoc modo sancti de poenis impiorum gaudebunt, considerando in eis ordinem divinae iustitiae et suam liberationem, de qua gaudebunt. Et sic divina iustitia et sua liberatio erunt per se causa gaudii beatorum, sed poenae damnatorum per accidens. Reply Obj. 1: 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, such 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 diverse temptations (Jas 1:2). Ad primum ergo dicendum quod laetari de malo alterius inquantum huiusmodi, pertinet ad odium: non autem laetari de malo alterius ratione alicuius adiuncti. Sic autem aliquis de malo proprio quandoque laetatur: sicut cum quis gaudet de propriis afflictionibus secundum quod prosunt ei ad meritum vitae; Iac. 1, [2], omne gaudium existimate, fratres mei, cum in tentationes varias incideritis. Reply Obj. 2: Although God rejoices not in punishments as such, he rejoices in them as being ordered by his justice. Ad secundum dicendum quod, quamvis Deus non delectetur in poenis inquantum huiusmodi delectatur tamen eis inquantum sunt per suam iustitiam ordinatae. Reply Obj. 3: 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, like 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod in viatore non est laudabile quod delectetur de aliorum poenis secundum se: est tamen laudabile si delectetur de eis inquantum habent aliquid annexum. Tamen alia ratio est de viatore et comprehensore. Quia in viatore passiones frequenter insurgunt sine iudicio rationis. Et tamen tales passiones interdum sunt laudabiles, secundum quod bonam dispositionem mentis indicant: sicut patet de verecundia et misericordia et poenitentia de malo. Sed in comprehensoribus non potest esse passio nisi consequens iudicium rationis. Question 95 Quaestio 95 The Gifts of the Blessed De dotibus beatorum We must now consider the gifts of the blessed. Deinde considerandum est de dotibus beatorum. Under which head there are five points of inquiry: Circa quod quaeruntur quinque. (1) Whether any gifts should be assigned to the blessed? Primo: utrum beatis sint assignandae aliquae dotes. (2) Whether a gift differs from beatitude? Secundo: utrum dos a beatitudine differat. (3) Whether it is fitting for Christ to have gifts? Tertio: utrum Christo insint dotes. (4) Whether this is competent to the angels? Quarto: utrum angelis. (5) Whether three gifts of the soul are rightly assigned? Quinto: utrum convenienter assignentur dotes. Article 1 Articulus 1 Whether any gifts should be assigned as dowry to the blessed? Utrum ponendae sint aliquae dotes in hominibus beatis Objection 1: It would seem that no gifts should be assigned as dowry to the blessed. For a dowry is given to the bridegroom for the upkeep of the burdens of marriage, according to law (Decretals). But the saints resemble not the bridegroom but the bride, as being members of the Church. Therefore, they receive no dowry. Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sint ponendae aliquae dotes in hominibus beatis. Dos enim, secundum iura, datur sponso ad sustinenda onera matrimonii. Sed sancti non gerunt figuram sponsi, sed magis figuram sponsae, inquantum sunt Ecclesiae membra. Ergo eis dotes non dantur. Obj. 2: Further, the dowry is given not by the bridegroom’s father, but by the father of the bride, according to law (Decretals). Now all the beatific gifts are bestowed on the blessed by the father of the bridegroom, who is Christ: every best gift and every perfect gift is from above coming down from the Father of lights (Jas 1:17). Therefore, these gifts which are bestowed on the blessed should not be called a dowry. Praeterea, dotes non dantur, secundum iura, a patre sponsi, sed a patre sponsae. Omnia autem dona beatitudinis dantur beatis a Patre Sponsi, scilicet Christi: Iac. 1, [17], omne datum optimum et omne donum perfectum, etc. Ergo huiusmodi dona quae beatis dantur, non sunt dotes appellandae. Obj. 3: 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. Praeterea, in matrimonio dantur dotes ad facilius toleranda onera matrimonii. Sed in matrimonio spirituali non sunt aliqua onera: maxime secundum statum Ecclesiae triumphantis. Ergo non sunt ibi aliquae dotes assignandae. Obj. 4: 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; therefore, neither the blessed. Praeterea, dotes non dantur nisi, causa matrimonii. Sed matrimonium spirituale contrahitur cum Christo per fidem secundum statum Ecclesiae militantis. Ergo, eadem ratione, si beatis aliquae dotes conveniunt, convenient, etiam sanctis existentibus in via. Sed istis non conveniunt. Ergo nec beatis. Obj. 5: Further, a dowry pertains to external goods, which are called ‘goods of fortune’: whereas the reward of the blessed will consist of internal goods. Therefore, they should not be called a dowry. Praeterea, dotes ad bona exteriora pertinent, quae dicuntur bona fortunae. Sed praemia beatorum erunt de interioribus bonis. Ergo non debent dotes nominari. On the contrary, It is written: this is a great sacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the Church (Eph 5:32). 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. Sed contra: Ephes. 5, [32] dicitur: Sacramentum hoc magnum est: dico autem in Christo et Ecclesia: ex quo habetur quod spirituale matrimonium per carnale significatur. Sed in carnali matrimonio sponsa dotata traducitur in domum sponsi. Ergo, cum sancti in domum Christi traducantur cum beatificantur, videtur quod aliquibus dotibus dotentur. 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. Praeterea, dotes in matrimonio corporali assignantur ad matrimonii solatium. Sed matrimonium spirituale est delectabilius quam corporale. Ergo ei sunt dotes maxime assignandae. Further, The adornment of the bride is part of the dowry. Now the saints are adorned when they are taken into glory, according to Isaiah 61:10, he has clothed me with the garments of salvation as a bride adorned with her jewels. Therefore, the saints in heaven have a dowry. Praeterea, ornamenta sponsarum ad dotem pertinent. Sed sancti ornati in gloriam introducuntur: ut dicitur Isai. 61 [10]: induit me vestimentis salutis, et quasi sponsam ornatam monilibus suis. Ergo sancti in patria dotes habent. I answer that, 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 dowry of which we speak now is defined thus: the dowry is the everlasting adornment of soul and body adequate to life, lasting forever 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. Respondeo dicendum quod absque dubio beatis, quando in gloriam transferuntur, aliqua dona divinitus dantur ad eorum ornatum: et hi ornatus a magistris dotes sunt nominati. Unde datur quaedam definitio de dote de qua nunc loquimur, talis: dos est perpetuus ornatus animae et corporis, vitae sufficiens, in aeterna beatitudine iugiter perseverans. Et sumitur haec descriptio ad similitudinem dotis corporalis, per quam sponsa ornatur et providetur viro unde possit sufficienter sponsam et liberos nutrire, et tamen inamissibiliter dos sponsae conservatur, ut ad eam separato matrimonio revertatur. 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: by whatever endowment you can please, strive to please (The Art of Love 1.538). Sed de ratione nominis diversi diversimode opinantur. Quidam enim dicunt quod dos non accipitur ex aliqua similitudine ad matrimonium corporale; sed secundum modum loquendi quo omnem perfectionem seu ornatum cuiuscumque hominis dotem nominamus; sicut aliquis dicitur esse dotatus scientia qui scientia pollet. Et sic Ovidius usus est nomine dotis, dicens: et qua cumque potes dote placere, place. 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. Sed istud non videtur usquequaque conveniens. Quia quandocumque aliquod nomen est impositum ad aliquid principaliter significandum, non consuevit ad alia transferri nisi secundum aliquam similitudinem. Unde, cum secundum primam institutionem nominis dos ad matrimonium carnale pertineat, oportet quod in qualibet alia acceptione attendatur aliqua similitudo ad principale significatum. 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: raise the dowry, and ask gifts (Gen 34:12), and from Exodus 22:16: 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. Et ideo alii dicunt quod secundum hoc similitudo attenditur, quod dos proprie dicitur donum quod in matrimonio corporali datur sponsae ex parte sponsi, quando traducitur in domum sponsi, ad ornatum sponsae pertinens: quod patet ex hoc quod dixit Sichem Iacob et filiis eius, Genes. 34, [12]: augete dotem et munera postulate; et Exod. 22, [16]: si seduxerit quis virginem dormieritque cum ea, dotabit eam et accipiet eam in uxorem. Unde et ornatus qui a Christo sanctis exhibetur quando traducuntur in domum gloriae, dos nominatur. 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, when 1 Kings 9:16 says that Pharoah, 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. Sed hoc manifeste est contra id quod iuristae dicunt, ad quos pertinet de his tractare. Dicunt enim, quod dos proprie est quaedam datio ex parte mulieris his qui sunt ex parte viri facta pro onere matrimonii quod sustinet vir. Sed illud quod sponsus dat sponsae, vocatur donatio propter nuptias. Et secundum hunc modum accipitur dos III Reg. 9, [16], ubi dicitur quod Pharao, Rex Aegypti, cepit Gazer, et dedit in dotem filiae suae uxori Salomonis. Nec contra hoc faciunt auctoritates inductae. Quamvis enim dotes a parente puellae consueverunt assignari, tamen quandoque contingit quod sponsus, vel pater sponsi, assignet dotes vice patris puellae. Quod contingit dupliciter. Vel pro nimio affectu ad sponsam: sicut fuit de Hemor, qui voluit assignare dotem, quam debebat accipere, propter vehementem amorem filii sui ad puellam. Vel hoc fit in poenam sponsi, ut virgini a se corruptae dotem de suo assignet, quam pater puellae debuerat assignare. Et in hoc casu loquitur Moyses in auctoritate inducta. 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. Et ideo, secundum alios, dicendum est quod dos in matrimonio corporali proprie dicitur quando datur ab his qui sunt ex parte mulieris his qui sunt ex parte viri, ad sustentanda onera matrimonii, ut dictum est.