Ulterius. Videtur quod doctoribus aureola non debeatur. Omne enim praemium quod in futuro habebitur, alicui actui virtutis respondet. Sed praedicare vel docere non est actus alicujus virtutis. Ergo doctrinae vel praedicationi non debetur aureola. Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that an aureole is not due to teachers. For every reward that will be had in the future corresponds to an act of virtue. But to preach or to teach is not an act of any virtue. Therefore, an aureole is not due to teaching or preaching. Praeterea, docere et praedicare, ex doctrina et studio proveniunt. Sed ea quae praemiantur in futuro, non sunt acquisita per humanum studium; quia naturalibus acquisitis non meremur. Ergo pro doctrina et praedicatione nullus in futuro meretur aureolam. Obj. 2: Teaching and preaching come from learning and study. But things that are rewarded in the future are not acquired by human study, since we do not merit by what we have naturally acquired. Therefore, for teaching and preaching no one merits an aureole in the future. Praeterea, exaltatio in futuro respondet humiliationi in praesenti; quia qui se humiliat exaltabitur, Luc. 14, 11. Sed in docendo et praedicando non est humiliatio, immo magis superbiae occasio; unde Glossa dicit, Matth. 4, quod diabolus multos decepit honore magisterii inflatos. Ergo videtur quod praedicationi et doctrinae aureola non debeatur. Obj. 3: Exaltation in the future corresponds to humiliation in the present because he who humbles himself will be exalted (Lk 14:11). But there is no humiliation in teaching and preaching; in fact there is rather an occasion for pride. Hence a Gloss on Matthew 4 says that the devil has deceived many who are puffed up with the honor of teaching authority. Therefore, it seems that an aureole is not due to preaching and teaching. Sed contra est, Ephes. 1 super illud: ut sciatis quae sit eminens etc., dicit Glossa: quoddam crementum habebunt sancti doctores ultra id quod alii communiter habebunt. Ergo, etc. On the contrary, commenting on Ephesians 1:19: that you may know . . . the immeasurable greatness of his power, a Gloss says: the holy teachers will have a sort of increase beyond what others will commonly have. Therefore, etc. Praeterea, Cant. 8 super illud: vinea mea est coram me, dicit Glossa: ostendit quid singularis praemii doctoribus ejus disponit. Ergo doctores habebunt singulare praemium; et hoc vocamus aureolam. Furthermore, commenting on Song of Songs 8:12: my vineyard, my very own, is for myself, a Gloss says: he shows something of the unique reward that he prepares for his teachers. Therefore, teachers will have a unique reward. And this we call an aureole. Quaestiuncula 1 Response to Quaestiuncula 1 Respondeo dicendum, ad primam quaestionem, quod ubi est praecellens ratio victoriae, ibi debetur aliqua specialis corona; unde cum per virginitatem aliquis singularem quamdam victoriam obtineat de carne, contra quam continue bellum geritur, ut patet Gal. 5, 17: spiritus concupiscit adversus carnem; virginitati specialis corona debetur, quae aureola nominatur. Et hoc quidem communiter ab omnibus tenetur; sed cui virginitati debeatur aureola, non omnes dicunt. I answer that, where there is a preeminent kind of victory a special crown is due. Hence since by virginity one gains a kind of unique victory in relation to the flesh, against which we continuously wage war, as is clear: the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh (Gal 5:17), a special crown is due to virginity, which is given the name ‘aureole.’ Everyone commonly holds this, but not everyone agrees on which virginity should have an aureole. Quidam enim dicunt, aureolam actui deberi; unde illa quae actu virginitatem servat, aureolam habebit, si sit de numero salvandorum. Sed hoc non videtur esse conveniens; quia secundum hoc, illae quae habent voluntatem nubendi, et tamen antequam nupserint decedunt, habebunt aureolam. For some say that an aureole is due to an act. Thus the woman who actually preserves virginity will possess an aureole, if she belongs to the number of those who will be saved. But this does not seem to be fitting, since according to this position women who have the intention of marrying and yet die before they marry will have an aureole. Unde alii dicunt, quod aureola debeatur statui, et non actui; ut illae tantum virgines aureolam mereantur, quae in statu virginitatis perpetuae servandae per votum se posuerunt. Sed hoc etiam non videtur conveniens; quia aliquis ex pari voluntate potest servare virginitatem non vovens, sicut alius vovens. And so others say that an aureole is due to the state, not the act, so that only those virgins merit an aureole who have placed themselves in a state of preserving perpetual virginity by a vow. But this, too, does not seem fitting, since by an equal will one person can preserve virginity without vowing it as another does by vowing it. Et ideo aliter potest dici, quod meritum omne actui virtutis debetur a caritate imperato. Virginitas autem secundum hoc ad genus virtutis pertinet secundum quod perpetua incorruptio mentis et corporis sub electione cadit, ut patet ex his quae dicta sunt, 33 dist., et ideo illis tantum virginibus aureola proprie debetur quae propositum habuerunt virginitatem perpetuo conservandi, sive hoc propositum voto firmaverint sive non; et hoc dico secundum quod aureola proprie accipitur ut praemium quoddam merito redditum; quamvis hoc propositum aliquando fuerit interruptum, integritate tamen carnis manente, dummodo in fine vitae inveniatur: quia virginitas mentis reparari potest, quamvis non virginitas carnis, ut supra, dist. 33, dictum est. Si autem aureolam large accipiamus pro quocumque gaudio quod in patria habebunt super gaudium essentiale; sic etiam incorruptis carne aureola respondebit, etiamsi propositum non habuerint perpetuo virginitatem servandi; non enim est dubium quod de incorruptione corporis gaudebunt, sicut et innocentes de hoc quod immunes a peccato fuerunt, quamvis etiam peccandi opportunitatem non habuerint, ut patet in pueris baptizatis. Sed haec non est propria acceptio aureolae, sed valde communis. And thus we may say rather that all merit is due to an act of virtue under the command of charity. Now virginity pertains to the genus of virtue insofar as perpetual incorruption of mind and body falls under choice, as is clear from what has been said (Distinction 33). And thus an aureole is properly due only to those virgins who had the resolution of preserving virginity perpetually, whether they confirmed this resolution with a vow or not. And I say this to the extent that an aureole is taken in its proper sense as a reward rendered for a certain kind of merit, even if this resolution should at one time be broken, without losing the integrity of the flesh, as long as it is found at the end of life. For virginity of the mind can be recovered, although virginity of the flesh cannot be, as said above in Distinction 33. But if we take ‘aureole’ in a broad sense as meaning whatever joy they will have in heaven above the essential joy, then an aureole will also correspond to those incorrupt in the flesh, even if they did not have the resolution of preserving virginity perpetually. For there is no doubt that they will rejoice at the incorruption of the body just as the innocent rejoice at the fact that they were immune from sin, even if they did not have the opportunity to sin, as is clear in the case of baptized children. This is not, however, the proper sense of ‘aureole,’ but is taking it in a much broader sense. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod in continendo secundum aliquid majorem pugnam sustinent virgines, et secundum aliquid viduae, ceteris paribus. Virginibus enim concupiscentiam inflammat et experiendi desiderium, quod ex quadam quasi curiositate procedit, qua etiam fit ut homo libentius videat quae nunquam vidit; et etiam quandoque eis concupiscentiam auget aestimatio majoris delectationis quam sit secundum veritatem, et inconsideratio eorum incommodorum quae delectationi hujusmodi adjunguntur; et quantum ad hoc viduae minorem sustinent pugnam, majorem autem propter delectationis memoriam; et in diversis unum alteri praejudicabit secundum diversas hominis dispositiones; quia quidam magis moventur hoc, quidam illo. Quidquid autem sit de quantitate pugnae, tamen hoc certum est, quod perfectior est victoria virginum quam viduarum. Perfectissimum enim genus victoriae est, et pulcherrimum, hosti nunquam cessisse. Corona autem non debetur pugnae, sed victoriae de pugna. Reply Obj. 1: Other things being equal, in one respect virgins have a greater struggle in remaining continent, and in another respect widows do. For in virgins the desire for experience also inflames concupiscence, a desire that proceeds from a sort of curiosity by which it happens that a person is more eager to see what he or she has never seen before. And their concupiscence is sometimes increased, too, by thinking that there is greater pleasure than there truly is and by not considering the disadvantages that are connected with this kind of pleasure. And in this regard widows have less struggle, though they have a greater struggle on account of the memory of past pleasure. And in different people, one of these will predominate over the other, according to the different dispositions that people have. For some are moved more in the former respect and others in the latter. But whatever be the amount of the struggle, this much is certain, that the victory of virgins is more perfect than that of widows. For the most perfect kind of victory, and the most beautiful, is never to have surrendered to the enemy. And a crown is due not to the struggle but to victory in the struggle. Ad secundum dicendum, quod duplex est circa hoc opinio. Quidam enim dicunt, quod Beata Virgo pro virginitatis praemio non habet aureolam, si aureola proprie accipiatur secundum quod respicit pugnam; tamen habet aliquid majus aureola, propter perfectissimum propositum virginitatis servandae. Alii vero dicunt, quod aureolam, etiam sub propria ratione aureolae, habet excellentissimam: quamvis enim pugnam non senserit, pugnam tamen aliquam carnis habuit; sed ex vehementia virtutis adeo habuit carnem subditam, quod hujusmodi pugna ei insensibilis erat. Sed istud non videtur convenienter dici; quia cum Beata Virgo credatur omnino fuisse immunis a fomitis inclinatione propter ejus sanctificationem perfectam, non est pium ponere aliquam pugnam a carne fuisse in ea; cum talis pugna non sit nisi ex fomitis inclinatione, nec tentatio quae est a carne, sine peccato esse possit, ut patet per Glossam 2 Corinth. 12, super illud: datus est mihi stimulus carnis meae. Unde dicendum est, quod aureolam proprie habet, ut in hoc membris aliis Ecclesiae conformetur in quibus virginitas invenitur; et quamvis non habuerit pugnam per tentationem quae est a carne, habuit tamen pugnam per tentationem ab hoste, qui nec etiam ipsum Christum reveritus est, ut patet Matth. 4. Reply Obj. 2: Concerning this there are two opinions. Some say that the Blessed Virgin does not have an aureole as a reward for virginity, if an aureole is properly taken as regarding the struggle, though she does have something greater than an aureole on account of her most perfect resolution to preserve virginity. Others, however, say that she does have an aureole, even an aureole under its proper notion, and a most excellent one at that. For even though she did not feel the struggle, she did indeed have a struggle with the flesh, but from the strength of virtue held the flesh in check to the point that this sort of struggle could not be felt by her. But this does not seem fittingly said. For since the Blessed Virgin is believed to have been altogether immune from the inclination of the fomes on account of her perfect sanctification, it is not pious to hold that there was any struggle from the flesh in her, because such struggle is only from the inclination of the fomes. Nor can temptation from the flesh be without sin, as is clear from a Gloss on the passage: a thorn was given me in the flesh (2 Cor 12:7). So we should say that she does properly have an aureole, so that she in this regard she may be like the other members of the Church in whom virginity is found. And even though she had no struggle through temptation from the flesh, she did have a struggle through temptation from the enemy, who had no reverence even for Christ himself, as is clear in Matthew 4. Ad tertium dicendum, quod virginitati non debetur aureola, nisi inquantum addit quamdam excellentiam super alios continentiae gradus. Si autem Adam non peccasset, virginitas nullam perfectionem addidisset supra continentiam conjugalem; quia fuissent tunc nuptiae honorabiles, et torus immaculatus, nulla concupiscentiae foeditate existente; unde virginitas tunc servata non fuisset, nec ei tunc aureola deberetur. Sed mutata humanae naturae conditione, virginitas specialem decorem habet; et ideo speciale praemium ei redditur. Etiam tempore legis Moysi, quando cultus Dei etiam per carnalem actum propagandus erat, non erat omnino laudabile a commixtione carnis abstinere; unde nec tali proposito speciale praemium redderetur, nisi ex divino processisset instinctu, ut creditur de Hieremia et de Elia, quorum conjugia non leguntur. Reply Obj. 3: Virginity is only due an aureole inasmuch as it adds a certain excellence above other grades of continence. But if Adam had not sinned, virginity would have added no perfection above spousal continence. For in that case there would have been honorable marriages and an immaculate marriage bed with none of the filth of concupiscence. Hence virginity would not have then been preserved and no aureole would be due to it. But after the change in the condition of human nature, virginity possesses a special comeliness and thus a special reward is rendered it. In the time of the law of Moses, too, when the worship of God was to be propagated also through the carnal act, it was not altogether praiseworthy to abstain from the commingling of the flesh. Hence a special reward would not be rendered to such a resolution unless it proceeded from a divine inspiration, as is believed of Jeremiah and Elijah, of whom we read nothing about being married. Ad quartum dicendum, quod si aliqua per violentiam oppressa fuerit, non amittit propter hoc aureolam, dummodo propositum perpetuo virginitatem servandi inviolabiliter servet, si illi actui nullo modo est consentiens. Non tamen per hoc virginitatem perdit, ut supra, dist. 33, dictum est; et hoc dico, sive pro fide, sive pro quacumque alia causa violenter corrumpatur. Sed si hoc pro fide sustineat, hoc erit ei meritorium, et ad genus martyrii pertinebit; unde Lucia dixit; si me invitam violari feceris, mihi castitas duplicabitur ad coronam; non quod habeat duas virginitatis aureolas; sed quia duplex praemium reportabit, unum pro virginitate custodita, aliud pro injuria quam passa est. Dico etiam, quod si talis violenter oppressa concipiat, nec ex hoc meritum virginitatis perdit; nec tamen matri Christi aequabitur, in qua fuit cum integritate mentis integritas carnis. Reply Obj. 4: If a woman has been overcome by violence, she does not for this reason lose the aureole, as long as she keeps the resolution of perpetually preserving virginity and in no way consents to the act. Nor does she lose her virginity through such an act, as was said above in Distinction 33. And this I say, whether she is violently corrupted because of her faith, or any other cause. But if she undergoes this for the faith, it will be meritorious for her and will pertain to a kind of martyrdom. This is why St. Lucy said: if you cause me to be violated unwillingly, my chastity will receive a double crown, not that she has two aureoles of virginity but rather because there will be a double reward, one for the virginity she kept and the other for the injury she suffered. I say, too, that if such a woman who is overcome by violence conceives, she does not lose the merit of virginity by this fact; however, she will not be made equal to the mother of Christ, in whom there was integrity of the flesh with the integrity of mind. Ad quintum dicendum, quod virginitas nobis a natura innascitur quantum ad id quod in virginitate materiale est; sed propositum perpetuae incorruptionis servandae, ex quo virginitas meritum habet, non est innatum, sed ex munere gratiae proveniens. Reply Obj. 5: Virginity is innate in us by nature as regards what is material in virginity. But the resolution of preserving perpetual incorruption, from which virginity has merit, is not innate but rather comes from the gift of grace. Ad sextum dicendum, quod non cuilibet viduae fructus sexagenarius debetur, sed ei solum quae propositum viduitatis servandae retinet, quamvis etiam votum non emittat, sicut et de virginitate dictum est. Reply Obj. 6: Sixtyfold fruit is not due to every widow but only to one who keeps the resolution of preserving widowhood, even if she does not make a vow, as was also said of virginity. Ad septimum dicendum, quod si frigidi et eunuchi voluntatem habeant incorruptionem perpetuam servare, etiam si facultas adesset coeundi, virgines sunt dicendi et aureolam merentur; faciunt enim de necessitate virtutem. Si vero voluntatem habeant ducendi conjugem, si possent, aureolam non merentur. Unde dicit Augustinus in Lib. de Sancta virginitate: quibus ipsum virile membrum debilitatur, ut generare non possint, ut sunt eunuchi, sufficit, cum Christiani fiunt, et Dei praecepta custodiunt, eo tamen proposito sunt, ut conjuges, si possent, haberent, conjugatis fidelibus adaequari. Reply Obj. 7: If the impotent and eunuchs have the intention of preserving perpetual incorruption, even if the capability of coition were present, they should be called virgins and merit an aureole. For they make a virtue of necessity. If, on the other hand, they have the intention of marrying if they could, they do not merit an aureole. Hence Augustine says in On Holy Virginity: For those for whom the male member itself is weakened so that they are not capable of generation, such as eunuchs, when they become Christians and keep the commandments of God though with the resolution that they would have spouses if they could, it is enough for them to be counted equal to the members of the faithful who are married. Quaestiuncula 2 Response to Quaestiuncula 2 Ad secundam quaestionem dicendum, quod sicut inest quaedam pugna spiritui contra interiores concupiscentias, ita etiam inest homini quaedam pugna contra passiones exterius illatas; unde sicut perfectissimae victoriae qua de concupiscentiis carnis triumphatur, scilicet virginitati, debetur specialis corona, quae aureola dicitur; ita etiam perfectissimae victoriae quae habetur de impugnatione exteriori, debetur aureola. Perfectissima autem victoria de exterioribus passionibus consideratur ex duobus. Primo ex magnitudine passionis. Inter omnes autem passiones illatas exterius praecipue locum mors tenet, sicut et in passionibus interioribus praecipue sunt venereorum concupiscentiae; et ideo quando aliquis obtinet victoriam de morte, et ordinatis ad mortem, perfectissime vincit. Secundo perfectio victoriae consideratur ex causa pugnae; quando scilicet pro honestissima causa pugnatur, quae scilicet est ipse Christus. Et haec duo in martyrio considerantur, quod est mors suscepta propter Christum. Martyrem enim non facit poena, sed causa. Et ideo martyrio aureola debetur, sicut et virginitati. To the second question, it should be said that just as there is a kind of struggle in the spirit against the lower desires, so also there is in a human being a kind of struggle against sufferings inflicted externally. This is why just as there is a special crown, which is called an aureole, due to the most perfect victory in which we triumph over the desires of the flesh, namely to virginity, so also an aureole is due to the most perfect victory one can have over an external assault. But the most perfect victory in the case of external sufferings can be considered in two ways. First, from the magnitude of the suffering. Now among all sufferings inflicted externally, death holds the chief place, just as in internal passions the desires for sensual pleasures hold the chief place. And thus when someone gains victory in death and the things ordered to death, he conquers most perfectly. Second, the perfection of victory can be considered from the cause of the struggle, namely, when one is attacked for the most noble cause, which is, of course, Christ himself. And these are the two things which we find in martyrdom, which is death undergone for the sake of Christ. For it is not the punishment but the cause that makes a martyr. And thus martyrdom is due an aureole just as virginity is. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod sustinere mortem propter Christum, quantum est de se, est opus supererogationis: non enim quilibet tenetur fidem suam coram persecutore profiteri: sed in casu est de necessitate salutis, quando scilicet aliquis a persecutore deprehensus de fide sua requiritur, quam confiteri tenetur. Nec tamen sequitur quod aureolam non mereatur. Aureola enim non debetur operi supererogationis inquantum est supererogatio, sed inquantum perfectionem quamdam habet; unde tali perfectione manente, etiam si non sit supererogatio, aliquis aureolam meretur. Reply Obj. 1: To endure death for the sake of Christ, in itself, is a work of supererogation. For not everyone is bound to profess his faith before a persecutor. But it is necessary for salvation in a particular case, namely, when someone is apprehended by a persecutor and questioned about his faith, which he is then bound to confess. Nor does it follow that he does not merit an aureole. For the aureole is not due to the work of supererogation as supererogatatory but rather inasmuch as it has a kind of perfection. For this reason, when a perfection like this remains, even if it is not supererogatory, the person merits an aureole. Ad secundum dicendum, quod martyrio non debetur aliquod praemium secundum hoc quod ab exteriori infligitur, sed secundum hoc quod voluntarie sustinetur: quia non meremur nisi per ea quae sunt in nobis: et quanto id quod quis sustinet voluntarie, est difficilius, et magis natum voluntati repugnare, tanto voluntas quae propter Christum illud sustinet, ostenditur firmius fixa in Christo; et ideo excellentius ei praemium debetur. Reply Obj. 2: Martyrdom is not due a reward insofar as it is inflicted from without but rather insofar as it is borne voluntarily. For we only merit through what is in us. And the more difficult what someone bears voluntarily is and the more naturally repugnant to the will, the more firmly fixed in Christ the will is shown to be that bears it for Christ’s sake. And thus a more excellent reward is due to it. Ad tertium dicendum, quod quidam actus sunt qui in ipso actu habent quamdam vehementiam delectationis vel difficultatis; et in talibus actus semper addit ad rationem meriti vel demeriti secundum quod in actu oportet voluntatem variari ex vehementia actus a statu in quo prius erat: et ideo, ceteris paribus, actu luxuriam exercens plus peccat quam qui solum in actum consentit; quia in ipso actu voluntas augetur. Similiter cum actus martyrii maximam difficultatem habeat, voluntas martyrii non pertingit ad illud meritum quod actui martyrum debetur ratione difficultatis; quamvis possit etiam pervenire ad ulterius praemium, considerata radice merendi: quia aliquis ex majori caritate potest velle sustinere martyrium, quam alius sustineat. Unde voluntarie martyr potest mereri sua voluntate praemium essentiale aequale vel majus eo quod martyri debetur. Sed aureola debetur difficultati quae est ipsa pugna martyrii; unde aureola voluntarie tantum martyribus non debetur. Reply Obj. 3: There are some acts that contain a certain extreme pleasure or difficulty in the act itself. And in such cases the act always adds to the character of merit or demerit to the extent that in the act the will must be changed by the vehemence of the act from the state in which it previously was. And thus, other things being equal, one who actually carries out an act of lust sins more than one who only consents to the act because the will is increased in the act itself. Likewise, since the act of martyrdom contains the greatest difficulty, the will for martyrdom does not attain to that merit which is due to the act of the martyrs by reason of difficulty, though it can also arrive at a further reward, considering the root of merit. For one can will to undergo martyrdom out of a greater charity than another who actually undergoes it. For this reason a martyr in will can merit by his will an essential reward equal to or greater than what is due a martyr. But an aureole is due to the difficulty that is the struggle of martyrdom itself. Hence an aureole is not due to martyrs in will alone. Ad quartum dicendum, quod sicut delectationes tactus, circa quas est temperantia, praecipuum locum tenent inter omnes delectationes interiores et exteriores; ita dolores tactus omnibus aliis doloribus praeeminent; et ideo difficultati illi quae accidit in sustinendo dolores tactus, puta qui sunt in verberibus et hujusmodi, debetur aureola magis quam difficultati sustinendi interiores dolores; pro quibus tamen aliquis non proprie dicitur martyr, nisi secundum quamdam similitudinem; et hoc modo Hieronymus loquitur. Reply Obj. 4: Just as the pleasures of touch, which temperance concerns, hold a special place among all internal and external delights, so also pains of touch take precedence over all other pains. And thus an aureole is due to the difficulty that occurs in enduring pains of touch, for example, those consisting in blows and so forth, rather than to the difficulty of bearing internal pains. For these latter, however, one is not properly called a martyr, except by a kind of likeness. And this is the manner in which Jerome is speaking. Ad quintum dicendum, quod afflictio poenitentiae non est, proprie loquendo, martyrium, quia non consistit in his quae ad mortem inferendam ordinantur, cum ordinetur solum ad carnem domandam; quam mensuram si excesserit, erit afflictio culpanda. Dicitur ergo propter similitudinem afflictionis martyrium: quae quidem afflictio excedit martyrii afflictionem diuturnitate, sed exceditur intensione. Reply Obj. 5: The affliction of penitence is not, properly speaking, martyrdom because it does not consist in things ordered to the infliction of death, since it is ordered only to taming the flesh, and if it exceeds this measure it will be a blameworthy affliction. It is called martyrdom, then, because of a similarity in the affliction. This affliction exceeds the affliction of martyrdom in how long it lasts while martyrdom exceeds it in intensity. Ad sextum dicendum, quod secundum Augustinum in 1 de Civ. Dei, nulli licitum est sibi manus injicere quacumque ex causa, nisi forte divino instinctu fiat ad exemplum fortitudinis extendendum, ut mors contemnatur. Illi autem de quibus est objectum, divino instinctu mortem sibi intulisse creduntur; et propter hoc eorum martyria Ecclesia celebrat. Reply Obj. 6: According to Augustine in City of God 1, it is not licit for anyone to lay hands on himself for any cause whatsoever, unless, perhaps, this occurs by divine inspiration in order to give an example of fortitude so that death may not be feared. Now those whose cases the objection brings forward are believed to have brought death on themselves by divine inspiration, and for this reason the Church celebrates their martyrdoms. Ad septimum dicendum, quod si aliquis propter fidem vulnus mortale accipiat, et supervivat, non est dubium quod aureolam meretur; sicut de beata Caecilia patet, quae triduo supervixit, et de multis martyribus qui in carcere sunt defuncti. Sed etiam si vulnus non mortale accipiat, et tamen exinde mortem incurrat, creditur aureolam promereri; quamvis quidam dicant, quod aureolam non meretur, si ex incuria vel negligentia propria mortem incurrat: non enim ista negligentia eum ad mortem perduxisset, nisi praesupposito vulnere quod pro fide acceptum est; et ita vulnus propter Christum susceptum est ei plena occasio mortis. Unde propter hoc aureolam non videtur amittere, nisi sit talis negligentia quae culpam mortalem inducat, quae ei et auream aufert et aureolam. Si vero ex vulnere mortali suscepto non moriatur aliquo casu contingente, vel etiam vulnera non mortalia susceperit, et adhuc carcerem sustinens moriatur; adhuc aureolam meretur; unde et quorumdam sanctorum martyria in Ecclesia celebrantur qui in carcere mortui sunt aliquibus verberibus longe ante susceptis, sicut patet de Marcello Papa. Qualitercumque igitur afflictio propter Christum illata usque ad mortem continuetur (sive mors inde sequatur, sive non), aliquis martyr efficitur, et aureolam meretur. Si vero non continuetur usque ad mortem; non propter hoc aliquis dicetur martyr; sicut patet de Sylvestro, de quo non solemnizat Ecclesia sicut de martyre, quia in pace vitam finivit, quamvis prius aliquas passiones sustinuerit. Reply Obj. 7: If someone receives a fatal wound for the faith and lives on for awhile, there is no doubt that he merits an aureole, as is clear in the case of the blessed Cecilia who lived on for three days, and in the case of the many martyrs who have died in prison. But even if he receives a wound that is not fatal and yet incurs death from it, he is believed fully to merit an aureole, even though some say that he does not merit an aureole if he incurs death from his own lack of care or negligence. For this negligence would not have led to his death if the wound he received for the faith had not been presupposed. And thus the wound received for the sake of Christ is for him the full occasion of his death. Hence he does not for this reason seem to lose the aureole, unless there is such negligence as would mean he is guilty of mortal sin, which in that case takes away both his aureole and his golden crown. If, however, from the fatal wound received he does not die because of some chance contingency, or even if he has received wounds that are not fatal and then dies while still imprisoned, he still merits an aureole. Hence the martyrdoms of some saints who died in prison from blows received long before are celebrated in the Church, as in the case of Pope Marcellus. Therefore no matter how affliction inflicted for Christ’s sake is drawn out unto death (whether death follows from it or not), a person does become a martyr by it and merits an aureole. If, however, it is not drawn out unto death, then one should not for this reason be called a martyr, as is clear in the case of Sylvester, whom the Church does not celebrate with solemnity as she does a martyr, because he finished out his life in peace, even though he bore certain sufferings before then. Ad octavum dicendum, quod sicut temperantia non est circa delectationes in pecuniis vel in honoribus et hujusmodi, sed solum in delectationibus tactus quasi praecipuis; ita etiam fortitudo est circa pericula mortis sicut circa praecipua, ut dicitur in 3 Ethic.; et ideo soli injuriae quae irrogatur circa corpus proprium, ex qua nata est mors sequi, debetur aureola. Sive igitur aliquis propter Christum res temporales, sive famam, vel quidquid hujusmodi amittat, non efficitur propter hoc proprie martyr, nec meretur aureolam; nec plus aliquis potest ordinate res exteriores diligere quam proprium corpus: amor autem inordinatus non coadjuvat ad meritum aureolae: nec etiam potest dolor de amissione rerum coaequari dolori de corporis occisione, et aliis hujusmodi. Reply Obj. 8: Just as temperance does not concern delights in money or honors or other such things, but is only in the pleasures of touch as though particular to it, so also fortitude concerns dangers of death as especially in its purview, as it says in Ethics 3. And thus it is only to an injury inflicted on one’s own body from which death naturally follows that an aureole is due. Thus, whether one loses temporal goods or fame or anything of this sort for the sake of Christ, he does not for this reason properly become a martyr and does not merit an aureole. Nor can someone love external things more than his own body ordinately. But inordinate love does not assist in meriting an aureole. Nor, too, can the pain of losing things be equated with the pain of the slaying of the body and other such things. Ad nonum dicendum, quod causa sufficiens ad martyrium non solum est confessio fidei, sed quaecumque alia virtus, non politica, sed infusa, quae finem habeat Christum. Quolibet enim actu virtutis aliquis testis Christi efficitur, inquantum opera quae in nobis Christus perficit, testimonium bonitatis ejus sunt; unde aliquae virgines sunt occisae pro virginitate quam servare volebant, sicut beata Agnes, et quaedam aliae, quarum martyria in Ecclesia celebrantur. Reply Obj. 9: The sufficient cause for martyrdom is not only the confession of faith but also any other virtue, not political but infused, which has Christ as its end. For one becomes a witness to Christ by any act of virtue inasmuch as the works that Christ perfects in us are a testimony to his goodness. This is why certain virgins were killed for the virginity they wished to preserve, as blessed Agnes and some others, and their martyrdoms are celebrated in the Church. Ad decimum dicendum, quod veritas fidei habet Christum pro fine vel pro objecto; et ideo confessio ipsius aureolam meretur, si poena addatur, non solum ex parte finis, sed ex parte materiae. Sed confessio cujuscumque alterius veritatis non est causa sufficiens ad martyrium ratione materiae, sed solum ratione finis; utpote si aliquis prius vellet occidi quam quodcumque mendacium dicendo, contra ipsum peccare. Reply Obj. 10: The truth of the faith has Christ as its end or object. And thus the confession of the faith merits an aureole if a punishment is added, not only on the part of the end but also on the part of the matter. The confession of any other truth, however, is not a sufficient cause for martyrdom by reason of the matter but only by reason of the end, as, for example, if one wished to be killed rather than sin against Christ by telling a lie of any sort. Ad undecimum dicendum, quod etiam bonum increatum excedit omne bonum creatum; unde quicumque finis creatus, sive sit bonum commune, sive bonum privatum, non potest actui tantam bonitatem praestare quantam finis increatus; cum scilicet aliquid propter Deum agitur: et ideo cum quis propter bonum commune non relatum ad Christum mortem sustinet, aureolam non meretur; sed si hoc referatur ad Christum, aureolam merebitur, et martyr erit; utpote si rempublicam defendat ab hostium impugnatione qui fidem Christi corrumpere moliuntur, et in tali defensione mortem sustineat. Reply Obj. 11: The uncreated good also exceeds every created good. Thus no created end, whether the common good or a private good, can bestow on an act goodness as great as the uncreated end, that is, when an act is performed for the sake of God. And thus when someone undergoes death for the common good not referred to Christ, he does not merit an aureole. But if this is referred to Christ, he will merit an aureole and will be a martyr, as, for example, if someone defends the republic from the assault of enemies who are bent on corrupting faith in Christ and undergoes death in such defense. Ad duodecimum dicendum, quod quidam dicunt, quod in innocentibus occisis pro Christo virtute divina acceleratus est usus rationis, sicut et in Joanne Baptista, dum adhuc esset in materno utero; et secundum hoc vere martyres fuerunt et voluntate et actu, et aureolam habent. Sed alii dicunt, quod fuerunt martyres actu tantum, et non voluntate: quod videtur sentire Bernardus, distinguens tria genera martyrum, ut dictum est; et secundum hoc innocentes sicut non pertingunt ad perfectam rationem martyrii, sed aliquid martyrii habent ex hoc quod passi sunt pro Christo; ita etiam aureolam habent, non quidem secundum perfectam rationem; sed secundum aliquam participationem, inquantum scilicet gaudent se in obsequium Christi occisos esse, ut dictum est de pueris baptizatis, quod habebunt aliquod gaudium de innocentia, et carnis integritate. Reply Obj. 12: Some say that in the Holy Innocents slain for Christ the use of reason was quickened by divine power, as also in John the Baptist when he was still in his mother’s womb. And in this regard they were truly martyrs both in will and in act, and they possess an aureole. But others say that they were martyrs in act alone, not in will. Bernard seems to be of this opinion, distinguishing the three kinds of martyrdom, as has been said. And in this regard, just as the Holy Innocents do not attain to the perfect notion of martyrdom but do possess something of martyrdom from the fact that they suffered for Christ, so also they possess an aureole, not according to the perfect notion but according to a certain participation, namely, inasmuch as they rejoice that they were killed in service to Christ, as it was said of baptized children that they will have a certain joy at their innocence and integrity of flesh. Quaestiuncula 3 Response to Quaestiuncula 3 Ad tertiam quaestionem dicendum, quod sicut per martyrium et virginitatem aliquis perfectissimam victoriam obtinet de carne et mundo; ita et perfectissima victoria contra diabolum obtinetur, quando aliquis non solum diabolo impugnanti non cedit, sed etiam eum expellit, et non solum a se, sed etiam ab aliis. Hoc autem fit per praedicationem et doctrinam. Et ideo praedicationi et doctrinae aureola debetur, sicut et virginitati et martyrio. Nec est dicendum, ut quidam dicunt, quod tantum debeatur praelatis, quibus competit ex officio praedicare et docere; sed quibuscumque qui licite hunc actum exercent. Praelatis autem non debetur, quamvis habeant officium praedicandi, nisi actu praedicent: quia corona non debetur habitui, sed actuali pugnae, secundum illud 2 Timoth. 2, 5: non coronabitur nisi qui legitime certaverit. To the third question, it should be said that just as through martyrdom and virginity one gains a most perfect victory over the flesh and the world, so also a most perfect victory against the devil is gained when someone not only does not yield to the devil’s assault but even drives him out, and this not only from himself but also from others. Now this happens through preaching and teaching. And thus an aureole is due to preaching and teaching as to virginity and martyrdom. Nor should we say, as some say, that it is due to prelates alone, to whom it belongs to preach and teach ex officio, but rather we should say that it belongs to whoever licitly carries out this act. To prelates, however, even though they have the office of preaching, it is only due if they actually preach. For a crown is not due to a habitual condition but to an actual struggle, according to 2 Timothy 2:5: he is not crowned, unless he competes according to the rules. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod praedicare et docere sunt actus alicujus virtutis, scilicet misericordiae; unde et inter spirituales eleemosynas computantur, ut patet supra, dist. 25, quaest. 2, art. 3. Reply Obj. 1: Preaching and teaching are acts of a virtue, namely mercy. Hence they are counted among the spiritual alms, as is clear above from Distinction 25, Question 2, Article 3. Ad secundum dicendum, quod quamvis facultas praedicandi et docendi quandoque ex studio proveniat, tamen usus doctrinae ex voluntate procedit, quae per caritatem informatur a Deo infusam; et sic actus ejus meritorius esse potest. Reply Obj. 2: Even though the capability of preaching and teaching sometimes comes from study, the practice of teaching and preaching proceeds from the will, which is informed by charity infused by God. And so its act can be meritorious. Ad tertium dicendum, quod exaltatio in hac vita non diminuit alterius vitae praemium, nisi ei qui in tali exaltatione propriam gloriam quaerit; qui autem talem exaltationem in utilitatem aliorum convertit, ex ea sibi mercedem acquirit. Cum enim dicitur quod doctrinae debetur aureola, intelligendum est doctrinae quae est de pertinentibus ad salutem, per quam diabolus a cordibus hominum expugnatur, sicut quibusdam spiritualibus armis, de quibus dicitur 2 Corinth. 10, 4: arma militiae nostrae non sunt carnalia, sed spiritualia. Reply Obj. 3: Exaltation in this life does not lessen the reward of the next life, except for one who seeks his own glory in such exaltation. But one who turns this exaltation to the benefit of others acquires a recompense for himself from it. For when it is said that an aureole is due to teaching, this must be understood as to that teaching that concerns what pertains to salvation, through which the devil is driven from the hearts of men as by spiritual arms, of which it is said: the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but spiritual (2 Cor 10:4).