Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hoc etiam quod aliqui puniuntur a Deo, dum permittit eos in aliqua peccata profluere, ad bonum virtutis ordinatur. Quandoque quidem etiam ipsorum qui peccant, cum scilicet post peccatum humiliores et cautiores resurgunt. Semper autem est ad emendationem aliorum, qui videntes aliquos ruere de peccato in peccatum, magis reformidant peccare. In aliis autem duobus modis, manifestum est quod poena ordinatur ad emendationem quia hoc ipsum quod homo laborem et detrimentum patitur in peccando, natum est retrahere homines a peccato. Reply Obj. 1: Even when God punishes men by permitting them to fall into sin, this is directed to the good of virtue. Sometimes indeed it is for the good of those who are punished, when, to wit, men arise from sin, more humble and more cautious. But it is always for the amendment of others, who seeing some men fall from sin to sin, are the more fearful of sinning. With regard to the other two ways, it is evident that the punishment is intended for the sinner’s amendment, since the very fact that man endures toil and loss in sinning, is of a nature to withdraw man from sin. Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de peccato secundum se. Reply Obj. 2: This objection considers sin essentially as such. Et similiter dicendum est ad tertium. And the same answer applies to the Third Objection. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum aliquod peccatum inducat reatum aeternae poenae Whether any sin incurs a debt of eternal punishment? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod nullum peccatum inducat reatum aeternae poenae. Poena enim iusta adaequatur culpae, iustitia enim aequalitas est. Unde dicitur Isaiae XXVII, in mensura contra mensuram, cum abiecta fuerit, iudicabit eam. Sed peccatum est temporale. Ergo non inducit reatum poenae aeternae. Objection 1: It would seem that no sin incurs a debt of eternal punishment. For a just punishment is equal to the fault, since justice is equality: wherefore it is written (Isa 27:8): In measure against measure, when it shall be cast off, thou shalt judge it. Now sin is temporal. Therefore it does not incur a debt of eternal punishment. Praeterea, poenae medicinae quaedam sunt, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Sed nulla medicina debet esse infinita, quia ordinatur ad finem; quod autem ordinatur ad finem, non est infinitum, ut philosophus dicit, in I Polit. Ergo nulla poena debet esse infinita. Obj. 2: Further, punishments are a kind of medicine (Ethic. ii, 3). But no medicine should be infinite, because it is directed to an end, and what is directed to an end, is not infinite, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 6). Therefore no punishment should be infinite. Praeterea, nullus semper facit aliquid, nisi propter se in ipso delectetur. Sed Deus non delectatur in perditione hominum, ut dicitur Sap. I. Ergo non puniet homines poena sempiterna. Obj. 3: Further, no one does a thing always unless he delights in it for its own sake. But God hath not pleasure in the destruction of men. Therefore He will not inflict eternal punishment on man. Praeterea, nihil quod est per accidens, est infinitum. Sed poena est per accidens, non est enim secundum naturam eius qui punitur. Ergo non potest in infinitum durare. Obj. 4: Further, nothing accidental is infinite. But punishment is accidental, for it is not natural to the one who is punished. Therefore it cannot be of infinite duration. Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. XXV, ibunt hi in supplicium aeternum. Et Marc. III dicitur, qui autem blasphemaverit in spiritum sanctum, non habebit remissionem in aeternum, sed erit reus aeterni delicti. On the contrary, It is written (Matt 25:46): These shall go into everlasting punishment; and (Mark 3:29): He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, peccatum ex hoc inducit reatum poenae, quod pervertit aliquem ordinem. Manente autem causa, manet effectus. Unde quandiu perversitas ordinis remanet, necesse est quod remaneat reatus poenae. Pervertit autem aliquis ordinem quandoque quidem reparabiliter, quandoque autem irreparabiliter. Semper enim defectus quo subtrahitur principium, irreparabilis est, si autem salvetur principium, eius virtute defectus reparari possunt. Sicut si corrumpatur principium visivum, non potest fieri visionis reparatio, nisi sola virtute divina, si vero, salvo principio visivo, aliqua impedimenta adveniant visioni, reparari possunt per naturam vel per artem. Cuiuslibet autem ordinis est aliquod principium, per quod aliquis fit particeps illius ordinis. Et ideo si per peccatum corrumpatur principium ordinis quo voluntas hominis subditur Deo, erit inordinatio, quantum est de se, irreparabilis, etsi reparari possit virtute divina. Principium autem huius ordinis est ultimus finis, cui homo inhaeret per caritatem. Et ideo quaecumque peccata avertunt a Deo, caritatem auferentia, quantum est de se, inducunt reatum aeternae poenae. I answer that, As stated above (A1), sin incurs a debt of punishment through disturbing an order. But the effect remains so long as the cause remains. Wherefore so long as the disturbance of the order remains the debt of punishment must needs remain also. Now disturbance of an order is sometimes reparable, sometimes irreparable: because a defect which destroys the principle is irreparable, whereas if the principle be saved, defects can be repaired by virtue of that principle. For instance, if the principle of sight be destroyed, sight cannot be restored except by Divine power; whereas, if the principle of sight be preserved, while there arise certain impediments to the use of sight, these can be remedied by nature or by art. Now in every order there is a principle whereby one takes part in that order. Consequently if a sin destroys the principle of the order whereby man’s will is subject to God, the disorder will be such as to be considered in itself, irreparable, although it is possible to repair it by the power of God. Now the principle of this order is the last end, to which man adheres by charity. Therefore whatever sins turn man away from God, so as to destroy charity, considered in themselves, incur a debt of eternal punishment. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod poena peccato proportionatur secundum acerbitatem, tam in iudicio divino quam in humano, sicut Augustinus dicit, XXI de Civ. Dei, in nullo iudicio requiritur ut poena adaequetur culpae secundum durationem. Non enim quia adulterium vel homicidium in momento committitur, propter hoc momentanea poena punitur, sed quandoque quidem perpetuo carcere vel exilio, quandoque etiam morte. In qua non consideratur occisionis mora, sed potius quod in perpetuum auferatur a societate viventium, et sic repraesentat suo modo aeternitatem poenae inflictae divinitus. Iustum autem est, secundum Gregorium, quod qui in suo aeterno peccavit contra Deum, in aeterno Dei puniatur. Dicitur autem aliquis in suo aeterno peccasse, non solum secundum continuationem actus in tota hominis vita durantis, sed quia ex hoc ipso quod finem in peccato constituit, voluntatem habet in aeternum peccandi. Unde dicit Gregorius, XXXIV Moral., quod iniqui voluissent sine fine vivere, ut sine fine potuissent in iniquitatibus permanere. Reply Obj. 1: Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments. In no judgment, however, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 11) is it requisite for punishment to equal fault in point of duration. For the fact that adultery or murder is committed in a moment does not call for a momentary punishment: in fact they are punished sometimes by imprisonment or banishment for life—sometimes even by death; wherein account is not taken of the time occupied in killing, but rather of the expediency of removing the murderer from the fellowship of the living, so that this punishment, in its own way, represents the eternity of punishment inflicted by God. Now according to Gregory (Dial. iv, 44) it is just that he who has sinned against God in his own eternity should be punished in God’s eternity. A man is said to have sinned in his own eternity, not only as regards continual sinning throughout his whole life, but also because, from the very fact that he fixes his end in sin, he has the will to sin, everlastingly. Wherefore Gregory says (Dial. iv, 44) that the wicked would wish to live without end, that they might abide in their sins for ever. Ad secundum dicendum quod poena etiam quae secundum leges humanas infligitur, non semper est medicinalis ei qui punitur, sed solum aliis, sicut cum latro suspenditur, non ut ipse emendetur, sed propter alios, ut saltem metu poenae peccare desistant; secundum illud Prov. XIX, pestilente flagellato, stultus sapientior erit. Sic igitur et aeternae poenae reproborum a Deo inflictae, sunt medicinales his qui consideratione poenarum abstinent a peccatis; secundum illud Psalmi LIX, dedisti metuentibus te significationem, ut fugiant a facie arcus, ut liberentur dilecti tui. Reply Obj. 2: Even the punishment that is inflicted according to human laws, is not always intended as a medicine for the one who is punished, but sometimes only for others: thus when a thief is hanged, this is not for his own amendment, but for the sake of others, that at least they may be deterred from crime through fear of the punishment, according to Prov. 19:25: The wicked man being scourged, the fool shall be wiser. Accordingly the eternal punishments inflicted by God on the reprobate, are medicinal punishments for those who refrain from sin through the thought of those punishments, according to Ps. 59:6: Thou hast given a warning to them that fear Thee, that they may flee from before the bow, that Thy beloved may be delivered. Ad tertium dicendum quod Deus non delectatur in poenis propter ipsas; sed delectatur in ordine suae iustitiae, quae haec requirit. Reply Obj. 3: God does not delight in punishments for their own sake; but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them. Ad quartum dicendum quod poena, etsi per accidens ordinetur ad naturam, per se tamen ordinatur ad privationem ordinis et ad Dei iustitiam. Et ideo, durante inordinatione, semper durat poena. Reply Obj. 4: Although punishment is related indirectly to nature, nevertheless it is essentially related to the disturbance of the order, and to God’s justice. Wherefore, so long as the disturbance lasts, the punishment endures. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum peccato debeatur poena infinita secundum quantitatem Whether sin incurs a debt of punishment infinite in quantity? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccato debeatur poena infinita secundum quantitatem. Dicitur enim Ierem. X, corripe me, domine, veruntamen in iudicio, et non in furore tuo, ne forte ad nihilum redigas me. Ira autem vel furor Dei metaphorice significat vindictam divinae iustitiae, redigi autem in nihilum est poena infinita, sicut et ex nihilo aliquid facere est virtutis infinitae. Ergo secundum vindictam divinam, peccatum punitur poena infinita secundum quantitatem. Objection 1: It would seem that sin incurs a debt of punishment infinite in quantity. For it is written (Jer 10:24): Correct me, O Lord, but yet with judgment: and not in Thy fury, lest Thou bring me to nothing. Now God’s anger or fury signifies metaphorically the vengeance of Divine justice: and to be brought to nothing is an infinite punishment, even as to make a thing out of nothing denotes infinite power. Therefore according to God’s vengeance, sin is awarded a punishment infinite in quantity. Praeterea, quantitati culpae respondet quantitas poenae; secundum illud Deuteron. XXV, pro mensura peccati erit et plagarum modus. Sed peccatum quod contra Deum committitur, est infinitum, tanto enim gravius est peccatum, quanto maior est persona contra quam peccatur, sicut gravius peccatum est percutere principem quam percutere hominem privatum; Dei autem magnitudo est infinita. Ergo poena infinita debetur pro peccato quod contra Deum committitur. Obj. 2: Further, quantity of punishment corresponds to quantity of fault, according to Dt. 25:2: According to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be. Now a sin which is committed against God, is infinite: because the gravity of a sin increases according to the greatness of the person sinned against (thus it is a more grievous sin to strike the sovereign than a private individual), and God’s greatness is infinite. Therefore an infinite punishment is due for a sin committed against God. Praeterea, dupliciter est aliquid infinitum, duratione scilicet, et quantitate. Sed duratione est poena infinita. Ergo et quantitate. Obj. 3: Further, a thing may be infinite in two ways, in duration, and in quantity. Now the punishment is infinite in duration. Therefore it is infinite in quantity also. Sed contra est quia secundum hoc omnium mortalium peccatorum poenae essent aequales, non enim est infinitum infinito maius. On the contrary, If this were the case, the punishments of all mortal sins would be equal; because one infinite is not greater than another. Respondeo dicendum quod poena proportionatur peccato. In peccato autem duo sunt. Quorum unum est aversio ab incommutabili bono, quod est infinitum, unde ex hac parte peccatum est infinitum. Aliud quod est in peccato, est inordinata conversio ad commutabile bonum. Et ex hac parte peccatum est finitum, tum quia ipsum bonum commutabile est finitum; tum quia ipsa conversio est finita, non enim possunt esse actus creaturae infiniti. Ex parte igitur aversionis, respondet peccato poena damni, quae etiam est infinita, est enim amissio infiniti boni, scilicet Dei. Ex parte autem inordinatae conversionis, respondet ei poena sensus, quae etiam est finita. I answer that, Punishment is proportionate to sin. Now sin comprises two things. First, there is the turning away from the immutable good, which is infinite, wherefore, in this respect, sin is infinite. Second, there is the inordinate turning to mutable good. In this respect sin is finite, both because the mutable good itself is finite, and because the movement of turning towards it is finite, since the acts of a creature cannot be infinite. Accordingly, insofar as sin consists in turning away from something, its corresponding punishment is the pain of loss, which also is infinite, because it is the loss of the infinite good, i.e., God. But insofar as sin turns inordinately to something, its corresponding punishment is the pain of sense, which is also finite. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod omnino redigi in nihilum eum qui peccat, non convenit divinae iustitiae, quia repugnat perpetuitati poenae, quae est secundum divinam iustitiam, ut dictum est. Sed in nihilum redigi dicitur qui spiritualibus bonis privatur; secundum illud I Cor. XIII, si non habuero caritatem, nihil sum. Reply Obj. 1: It would be inconsistent with Divine justice for the sinner to be brought to nothing absolutely, because this would be incompatible with the perpetuity of punishment that Divine justice requires, as stated above (A3). The expression to be brought to nothing is applied to one who is deprived of spiritual goods, according to 1 Cor. 13:2: If I . . . have not charity, I am nothing. Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de peccato ex parte aversionis, sic enim homo contra Deum peccat. Reply Obj. 2: This argument considers sin as turning away from something, for it is thus that man sins against God. Ad tertium dicendum quod duratio poenae respondet durationi culpae, non quidem ex parte actus, sed ex parte maculae, qua durante manet reatus poenae. Sed acerbitas poenae respondet gravitati culpae. Culpa autem quae est irreparabilis, de se habet quod perpetuo duret, et ideo debetur ei poena aeterna. Non autem ex parte conversionis habet infinitatem, et ideo non debetur ei ex hac parte poena infinita secundum quantitatem. Reply Obj. 3: Duration of punishment corresponds to duration of fault, not indeed as regards the act, but on the part of the stain, for as long as this remains, the debt of punishment remains. But punishment corresponds to fault in the point of severity. And a fault which is irreparable, is such that, of itself, it lasts for ever; wherefore it incurs an everlasting punishment. But it is not infinite as regards the thing it turns to; wherefore, in this respect, it does not incur punishment of infinite quantity. Articulus 5 Article 5 Utrum omne peccatum inducat reatum poenae aeternae Whether every sin incurs a debt of eternal punishment? Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod omne peccatum inducat reatum poenae aeternae. Poena enim, ut dictum est, proportionatur culpae. Sed poena aeterna differt a temporali in infinitum. Nullum autem peccatum differre videtur ab altero in infinitum, cum omne peccatum sit humanus actus, qui infinitus esse non potest. Cum ergo alicui peccato debeatur poena aeterna, sicut dictum est, videtur quod nulli peccato debeatur poena temporalis tantum. Objection 1: It would seem that every sin incurs a debt of eternal punishment. Because punishment, as stated above (A4), is proportionate to the fault. Now eternal punishment differs infinitely from temporal punishment: whereas no sin, apparently, differs infinitely from another, since every sin is a human act, which cannot be infinite. Since therefore some sins incur a debt of everlasting punishment, as stated above (A4), it seems that no sin incurs a debt of mere temporal punishment. Praeterea, peccatum originale est minimum peccatorum, unde et Augustinus dicit, in Enchirid., quod mitissima poena est eorum qui pro solo peccato originali puniuntur. Sed peccato originali debetur poena perpetua, nunquam enim videbunt regnum Dei pueri qui sine Baptismo decesserunt cum originali peccato; ut patet per id quod dominus dicit, Ioan. III, nisi quis renatus fuerit denuo, non potest videre regnum Dei. Ergo multo magis omnium aliorum peccatorum poena erit aeterna. Obj. 2: Further, original sin is the least of all sins, wherefore Augustine says (Enchiridion xciii) that the lightest punishment is incurred by those who are punished for original sin alone. But original sin incurs everlasting punishment, since children who have died in original sin through not being baptized, will never see the kingdom of God, as shown by our Lord’s words (John 3:3): Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Much more, therefore, will the punishments of all other sins be everlasting. Praeterea, peccato non debetur maior poena ex hoc quod alteri peccato adiungitur, cum utrumque peccatum suam habeat poenam taxatam secundum divinam iustitiam. Sed peccato veniali debetur poena aeterna, si cum mortali peccato inveniatur in aliquo damnato, quia in Inferno nulla potest esse remissio. Ergo peccato veniali simpliciter debetur poena aeterna. Nulli ergo peccato debetur poena temporalis. Obj. 3: Further, a sin does not deserve greater punishment through being united to another sin; for Divine justice has allotted its punishment to each sin. Now a venial sin deserves eternal punishment if it be united to a mortal sin in a lost soul, because in hell there is no remission of sins. Therefore venial sin by itself deserves eternal punishment. Therefore temporal punishment is not due for any sin. Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, in IV Dialog., quod quaedam leviores culpae post hanc vitam remittuntur. Non ergo omnia peccata aeterna poena puniuntur. On the contrary, Gregory says (Dial. iv, 39), that certain slighter sins are remitted after this life. Therefore all sins are not punished eternally. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, peccatum causat reatum poenae aeternae, inquantum irreparabiliter repugnat ordini divinae iustitiae, per hoc scilicet quod contrariatur ipsi principio ordinis, quod est ultimus finis. Manifestum est autem quod in quibusdam peccatis est quidem aliqua inordinatio, non tamen per contrarietatem ad ultimum finem, sed solum circa ea quae sunt ad finem, inquantum plus vel minus debite eis intenditur, salvato tamen ordine ad ultimum finem, puta cum homo, etsi nimis ad aliquam rem temporalem afficiatur, non tamen pro ea vellet Deum offendere, aliquid contra praeceptum eius faciendo. Unde huiusmodi peccatis non debetur aeterna poena, sed temporalis. I answer that, As stated above (A3), a sin incurs a debt of eternal punishment, insofar as it causes an irreparable disorder in the order of Divine justice, through being contrary to the very principle of that order, viz., the last end. Now it is evident that in some sins there is disorder indeed, but such as not to involve contrariety in respect of the last end, but only in respect of things referable to the end, insofar as one is too much or too little intent on them without prejudicing the order to the last end: as, for instance, when a man is too fond of some temporal thing, yet would not offend God for its sake, by breaking one of His commandments. Consequently such sins do not incur everlasting, but only temporal punishment. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod peccata non differunt in infinitum ex parte conversionis ad bonum commutabile, in qua consistit substantia actus, differunt autem in infinitum ex parte aversionis. Nam quaedam peccata committuntur per aversionem ab ultimo fine, quaedam vero per inordinationem circa ea quae sunt ad finem. Finis autem ultimus ab his quae sunt ad finem, in infinitum differt. Reply Obj. 1: Sins do not differ infinitely from one another in respect of their turning towards mutable good, which constitutes the substance of the sinful act; but they do differ infinitely in respect of their turning away from something. Because some sins consist in turning away from the last end, and some in a disorder affecting things referable to the end: and the last end differs infinitely from the things that are referred to it. Ad secundum dicendum quod peccato originali non debetur poena aeterna ratione suae gravitatis, sed ratione conditionis subiecti, scilicet hominis qui sine gratia invenitur, per quam solam fit remissio poenae. Reply Obj. 2: Original sin incurs everlasting punishment, not on account of its gravity, but by reason of the condition of the subject, viz., a human being deprived of grace, without which there is no remission of sin. Et similiter dicendum est ad tertium, de veniali peccato. Aeternitas enim poenae non respondet quantitati culpae, sed irremissibilitati ipsius, ut dictum est. The same answer applies to the Third Objection about venial sin. Because eternity of punishment does not correspond to the quantity of the sin, but to its irremissibility, as stated above (A3). Articulus 6 Article 6