Ad duodecimum dicendum quod quidam dicunt quod Innocentibus occisis pro Christo virtute divina acceleratus est usus rationis: sicut et in Ioanne Baptista dum adhuc esset in materno utero. Et secundum hoc vere martyres fuerunt et actu et voluntate, et aureolam habent. Reply Obj. 12: 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. 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, 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. 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, also have the aureole not in all its perfection, but by a kind of participation, insofar as they rejoice in having. been slain in Christ’s service. Thus it was stated above (A. 5) in reference to baptized children, that they will have a certain joy in their innocence and carnal integrity. Articulus 7 Article 7 Utrum doctoribus aureola debeatur Whether an aureole is due to doctors? Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod doctoribus aureola; non debeatur. Omne enim praemium quod in futuro habebitur, alicui actui virtutis respondet. Sed praedicare vel docere non est actus alicuius virtutis. Ergo doctrinae vel praedicationi non debetur aureola. Objection 1: 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. 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 aureolam promeretur. Obj. 2: 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. Praeterea, exaltatio in futuro respondet humilitati in praesenti: quia qui se humiliat exaltabitur. Sed in docendo et in praedicando non est humiliatio: immo magis superbiae occasio; unde Glossa dicit, Matth. 4, [5], quod diabolus multos decepit honore magisterii inflatos. Ergo videtur quod praedicationi et doctrinae aureola non debeatur. Obj. 3: Further, exaltation in the life to come corresponds to humiliation in the present life, because he that humbles himself shall be exalted (Matt 23:12). But there is no humiliation in teaching and preaching; in fact, they are occasions of pride, for a Gloss on Matthew 4:5: 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. Sed contra: Ephes. 1, super illud [v. 18–19], ut sciatis quae sit supereminens etc., dicit Glossa: quoddam incrementum habebunt sancti doctores ultra id quod alii communiter habebunt. Ergo, etc. On the contrary, A Gloss on Ephesians 1:18–19: that you may know what is the exceeding greatness, says, the holy doctors will have an increase of glory above that which all have in common. Therefore, etc. Praeterea, Cant. 8, super illud [v, 12], vinea mea coram me est, dicit Glossa: ostendit quid singularis praemii doctoribus eius disponit. Ergo doctores habebunt singulare praemium. Et hoc vocamus aureolam. Further, A Gloss on Song of Songs 8:12: 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. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut per martyrium et virginitatem aliquis perfectissimam victoriam obtinet de carae et mundo, ita etiam 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. I answer that, 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. Nec est dicendum, ut quidam dicunt, quod debeatur tantum 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 pugnae actuali; secundum illud II Tim. 2, [5]: non coronabitur nisi qui legitime certaverit. 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 2 Timothy 2:5: he shall not be crowned, except he strive lawfully. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod praedicare et docere sunt actus alicuius virtutis, scilicet misericordiae. Unde et inter spirituales eleemosynas computantur. Reply Obj. 1: Preaching and teaching are acts of a virtue, namely mercy, wherefore they are reckoned among the spiritual almsgiving. 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 eius meritorius esse potest. Reply Obj. 2: 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod exaltatio in hac vita non deminuit alterius vitae praemium nisi ei qui in tali vita propriam gloriam quaerit. Qui autem talem exaltationem in utilitatem aliorum convertit, ex ea sibi mercedem acquirit. Cum autem 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, II Cor. 10, [4]: arma militiae nostrae non sunt carnalia, sed spiritualia. Reply Obj. 3: 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: the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but spiritual (2 Cor 10:4). Articulus 8 Article 8 Utrum Christo aureola debeatur Whether an aureole is due to Christ? Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christo aureola debeatur. Debetur enim aureola virginitati et martyrio et doctrinae. Sed in Christo haec tria praecipue fuerunt. Ergo ipsi praecipue aureola competit. Objection 1: It would seem that an aureole is due to Christ. For an aureole is due to virginity, martyrdom, and teaching. Now these three were preeminently in Christ. Therefore, an aureole is especially due to him. Praeterea, omne quod est perfectissimum in rebus humanis, praecipue Christo est attribuendum. Sed praemium aureolae debetur excellentissimis meritis. Ergo et Christo debetur. Obj. 2: Further, whatever is most perfect in human things must be especially ascribed to Christ. Now an aureole is due as the reward of most excellent merits. Therefore, it is also due to Christ. Praeterea, Cyprianus dicit quod imaginem Dei virginitas portat. Virginitatis igitur exemplar in Deo est. Et sic videtur quod Christo, etiam inquantum est Deus, aureola competat. Obj. 3: Further, Cyprian says (Of the Clothing of Virgins) 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. Sed contra: Est quod aureola est gaudium de conformitate ad Christum, ut dicitur. Sed nullus conformatur vel similatur sibi ipsi: ut patet per Philosophum. Ergo Christo aureola non debetur. On the contrary, An aureole is described as joy in being conformed to Christ. Now no one is conformed or likened to himself, as the Philosopher says (Metaphysics 9.3). Therefore, an aureole is not due to Christ. Praeterea, Christi praemium nunquam est augmentatum. Sed Christus ab instanti suae conceptionis non habuit aureolam: quia tunc nunquam pugnaverat. Ergo nunquam postea aureolam habuit. 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. Respondeo dicendum quod circa hoc est duplex opinio. Quidam dicunt quod in Christo est aureola secundum propriam aureolae rationem: cum in eo pugna inveniatur et victoria, et per consequens corona secundum propriam rationem. I answer that, 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. Sed, diligenter considerando, quamvis Christo competat ratio aureae vel coronae, non tamen ei competit ratio aureolae. Aureola enim, ex hoc ipso quod deminutive dicitur, importat aliquid quod participative et non secundum sui plenitudinem possidetur. Unde illis competit aureolam habere in quibus est aliqua perfectionis victoriae participatio, secundum imitationem eius in quo perfectae victoriae plena ratio consistit. Et ideo, cum in Christo inveniatur huiusmodi principalis et plena victoriae ratio, per cuius victoriam omnes alii victores constituuntur, ut patet Ioan. 16, [33], confidite, ego vici mundum, et Apoc. 5, [5], ecce, vicit Leo de tribu Iuda; Christo non competit aureolam habere, sed aliquid unde omnes aureolae originantur. Unde dicitur Apoc. 3, [21]: qui vicerit, faciam eum sedere in throno meo, sicut ego vici, et sedeo in throno Patris mei. Unde, secundum alios, dicendum est quod, quamvis id quod est in Christo non habeat rationem aureolae, tamen est excellentius omni aureola. 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 fullness. Wherefore an aureole is becoming to those who participate in the perfect victory by imitating him in whom the fullness 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 John 16:33: have confidence, I have overcome the world, and Revelation 5:5: behold, the lion of the tribe of Judah has 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: 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 (Rev 3:21). 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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus fuit verissime virgo, martyr et doctor. Sed tamen praemium accidentale his respondens in Christo non habet aliquam notabilem quantitatem in comparatione ad magnitudinem essentialis praemii. Unde non habet aureolam sub ratione aureolae. Reply Obj. 1: 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. Ad secundum dicendum quod aureola, quamvis debeatur operi perfectissimo quoad nos, tamen aureola, inquantum deminutive dicitur, significat quandam participationem perfectionis ab aliquo in quo plenarie invenitur. Et secundum hoc ad quandam minorationem pertinet. Et sic in Christo non invenitur, in quo omnis perfectio plenissime invenitur. Reply Obj. 2: Although the aureole is due to a most perfect work, yet with regard to us, so far as it is a diminutive term, it denotes the participation of a perfection derived from one in whom that perfection is found in its fullness. Accordingly, it implies a certain inferiority, and thus it is not found in Christ, in whom is the fullness of every perfection. Ad tertium dicendum quod, quamvis virginitas habeat aliquo modo exemplar in Deo, non tamen habet exemplar unius rationis. Incorruptio enim Dei, quam virginitas imitatur, non eadem ratione est in Deo et in aliquo virgine. Reply Obj. 3: Although in some way virginity has its exemplar in God, that exemplar is not homogeneous. For the incorruption of God which virginity imitates is not in God in the same way as in a virgin. Articulus 9 Article 9 Utrum angelis aureola debeatur Whether an aureole is due to the angels? Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod angelis aureola debeatur. Quia, ut dicit Hieronymus, de virginitate loquens: in carne praeter carnem vivere potius est vita angelica quam humana. Et I Cor. 7, [26] dicit Glossa quod virginitas est portio angelica. Cum igitur virginitati respondeat aureola, videtur quod angelis debeatur. Objection 1: It would seem that an aureole is due to the angels. For Jerome, 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 (Epistle to Paula and Eustochium): and a Gloss on 1 Corinthians 7:26: for the present necessity, says that virginity is the portion of the angels. Since, then, an aureole corresponds to virginity, it would seem due to the angels. Praeterea, nobilior est incorruptio spiritus quam in corruptio carnis. Sed in angelis invenitur incorruptio spiritus: quia nunquam peccaverunt: Ergo eis magis debetur aureola quam hominibus incorruptis carne qui alias aliquando peccaverunt. Obj. 2: Further, incorruption of the spirit is more excellent than incorruption of the flesh. Now there is incorruption of spirit in the angels, since they never sinned. Therefore, an aureole is due to them rather than to men incorrupt in the flesh who have sinned at some time. Praeterea, doctrinae debetur aureola. Sed angeli nos docent purgando, illuminando et perficiendo, ut Dionysius dicit. Ergo eis debetur aureola saltem doctorum. Obj. 3: Further, an aureole is due to teaching. Now angels teach us by cleansing, enlightening, and perfecting us, as Dionysius says (Hier. Eccles. vi). Therefore, at least the aureole of doctors is due to them. Sed contra: II Tim: 2 [5]: non coronabitur nisi qui legitime certaverit. Sed in angelis non est pugna. Ergo eis aureola non debetur. On the contrary, It is written: he shall not be crowned, except he strive lawfully (2 Tim 2:5). But there is no conflict in the angels. Therefore, an aureole is not due to them. Praeterea, aureola non debetur actui qui per corpus non exercetur: unde amantibus virginitatem, martyrium et doctrinam, si exterius eis haec non insunt, aureola non debetur. Sed angeli sunt incorporei. Ergo aureolam non habent. 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. Respondeo dicendum quod angelis aureola non debetur. Cuius ratio est quia aureola respondet cuidam perfectioni in excellenti merito. Ea vero quae in hominibus ad perfectionem meriti pertinent, angelis sunt connaturalia; vel etiam spectant ad communem eorum statum; aut etiam ad ipsum praemium. Et ideo, ratione eadem qua hominibus aureola debetur, angeli non habent aureolas. I answer that, An aureole is not due to the angels. The reason of this is that an aureole, properly speaking, corresponds to some perfection of surpassing merit. Now those things which make for perfect merit in man are connatural to angels, or belong to their state in general, or to their essential reward. Wherefore the angels have not an aureole in the same sense as an aureole is due to men. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod virginitas dicitur esse vita angelica, inquantum per gratiam virgines imitantur id quod angeli habeant per naturam. Non enim virtutis est in angelis quod omnino a delectationibus carnis abstinent; cum huiusmodi delectationes in eis esse non possint. Reply Obj. 1: Virginity is said to be an angelic life insofar 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. Ad secundum dicendum quod perpetua incorruptio spiritus in angelis praemium essentiale meretur. Est enim de necessitate salutis: cum in eis non possit subsequi reparatio post ruinam. Reply Obj. 2: Perpetual incorruption of the spirit in the angels merits their essential reward: because it is necessary for their salvation, since in them recovery is impossible after they have fallen.