Quaestiuncula 2 Quaestiuncula 2 Ulterius. Videtur quod ignis ille non sit ejusdem speciei cum igne isto corporeo quem videmus. Augustinus enim dicit, et habetur in littera: ignis aeternus cujusmodi sit, arbitror scire neminem, nisi forte cui spiritus divinus ostendit. Sed naturam istius ignis omnes, vel fere omnes, sciunt. Ergo ille ignis non est ejusdem naturae vel speciei cum isto. Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that that fire will not be of the same species as the physical fire that we see. For Augustine says, and it is quoted in the text: of what kind is the eternal fire, and where it will be in the world or in creation, I adjudge that no man knows, except perhaps for him to whom the divine Spirit reveals it. But all people, or nearly all, know the nature of our fire. Therefore, that fire is not of the same nature or species as ours. Praeterea, Gregorius dicit 15 Lib. Moral., exponens illud Job 20: devorabit eum ignis, qui non succenditur: ignis corporeus ut esse valeat, corporeis indiget fomentis; nec valet, nisi succensus esset, et nisi refotus, subsistere. At contra Gehennae ignis, cum sit corporeus, et in se missos reprobos corporaliter exurat, nec studio humano succenditur, nec lignis nutritur, sed creatus semel durat inextinguibilis; et successione non indiget, et ardore non caret. Ergo non est ejusdem naturae cum corporeo igne quem videmus. Obj. 2: Furthermore, explaining Job 20:26: a fire not blown upon will devour him, Gregory says in Book 15 of his Morals: a physical fire, to be strong enough to exist, needs physical tinderwood; nor will it be strong enough to continue unless it is kindled, and unless it is fed. But conversely, the fire of Gehenna, although it is physical, and bodily burns up the reprobate cast into it, is not kindled by human skill, nor nourished with wood, but once created it will endure unquenchable; and it needs no renewing, and lacks no heat. Therefore, it is not of the same nature as the physical fire that we see. Praeterea, aeternum et corruptibile non sunt unius rationis, cum nec etiam in genere conveniant, secundum Philosophum in 10 Metaph. Sed ignis iste est corruptibilis, ille autem aeternus; Matth. 25, 41: ite, maledicti, in ignem aeternum. Ergo non sunt ejusdem speciei. Obj. 3: Furthermore, what is eternal and what is corruptible do not have the same account, since they do not even share in a genus, according to the Philosopher in the Metaphysics 10. But our fire is corruptible, while that one will be eternal: depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire (Matt 25:41). Therefore, they are not of the same species. Praeterea, de natura hujus ignis qui apud nos est, est ut luceat. Sed ignis inferni non lucet; unde dicitur Job 18, 5: nonne lux impii extinguetur? Ergo non est ejusdem naturae cum isto igne. Obj. 4: Furthermore, it is the nature of the fire that we have, that it shines. But the fire of hell does not shine, which is why it says: is not the light of the wicked put out? (Job 18:5). Therefore, it is not of the same nature as our fire. Sed contra, secundum Philosophum in 1 Topic., omnis aqua omni aquae est idem specie. Ergo eadem ratione omnis ignis omni igni idem est in specie. On the contrary (1), according to the Philosopher in the Topics 1, all water is the same species as all other water. Therefore, by the same reasoning, all fire is the same in species as all other fire. Praeterea, Sap. 11, 17, dicitur: per quae peccat quis, per haec et torquetur. Sed omnes homines peccant per res sensibiles hujus mundi. Ergo justum est ut per easdem puniantur. Furthermore (2), it says: one is punished by the very things by which he sins (Wis 11:16). But all men sin by the sensible things of this world. Therefore it is just that they be punished by the same things. Quaestiuncula 3 Quaestiuncula 3 Ulterius. Videtur quod ignis ille non sit sub terra. Quia Job 18, 18, de homine damnato dicitur: et de orbe transferet eum Deus. Ergo ille ignis quo damnati punientur, non est sub terra, sed extra orbem. Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that that fire is not below the earth. For it is said about a damned person: he is driven out of the world (Job 18:18). Therefore, that fire in which the damned are punished is not beneath the earth, but outside the world. Praeterea, nullum violentum et per accidens potest esse sempiternum. Sed ignis ille erit in inferno in sempiternum. Ergo non erit ibi per violentiam, sed naturaliter. Sed sub terra non potest esse ignis nisi per violentiam. Ergo ignis inferni non est sub terra. Obj. 2: Furthermore, no violent or incidental thing can be everlasting. But that fire will exist in hell everlastingly. Therefore, it will not be there by violence, but naturally. But there cannot be any fire under the earth except by violence. Therefore, the fire of hell is not under the earth. Praeterea, in igne inferni omnia corpora damnatorum post diem judicii cruciabuntur. Sed corpora illa locum replebunt. Ergo cum futura sit maxima multitudo damnatorum, quia stultorum infinitus est numerus, Eccle. 1, 15, oportet maximum esse spatium in quo ignis ille continetur. Sed inconveniens videtur infra terram esse tantam concavitatem, cum partes terrae naturaliter ferantur ad medium. Ergo ignis ille non erit sub terra. Obj. 3: Furthermore, in the fire of hell all the bodies of the damned will be tormented after the day of judgment. But those bodies will fill that place. Therefore, since there will be the greatest multitude of the damned, for the number of fools is infinite (Eccl 1:15), there will need to be the greatest amount of space to contain that fire. But it seems unfitting for there to be so much empty space below the earth, since the parts of the earth are naturally drawn to the middle. Therefore, that fire will not be under the earth. Praeterea, Sap. 11, 17, dicitur: per quae peccat quis, per haec et torquetur. Sed mali super terram peccaverunt. Ergo ignis eos puniens non oportet esse sub terra. Obj. 4: Furthermore, it says: one is punished by the very things by which he sins (Wis 11:16). But the wicked sinned upon the earth. Therefore, the fire punishing them must not be below the earth. Sed contra est quod dicitur Isai. 14, 9: infernus subtus conturbatus est in occursum tui. Ergo ignis inferni sub nobis est. On the contrary (1), it says: Sheol beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come (Isa 14:9). Therefore, the fire of hell is below us. Praeterea, Gregorius dicit in 4 Dialog.: quid obstet non video, ut infernus sub terra esse credatur. Furthermore (2), Gregory says in his Dialogues 4: I do not see anything that prevents hell from being believed to be below the earth. Praeterea, Jonae 2, super illud: projecisti me in corde maris; Glossa interlinealis: idest, in inferno; pro quo dicitur in Evangelio Matth. 12, 40: in corde terrae; quia sicut cor est in medio animalis, ita infernus esse in medio terrae perhibetur. Furthermore (3), commenting on Jonah 2:3: thou didst cast me into the deep, into the heart of the seas, the interlinear Gloss says: that is, into hell; for which it says in the Gospel, in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40), for as the heart is in the center of an animal, so is hell held to be at the center of the earth. Quaestiuncula 1 Response to Quaestiuncula 1 Respondeo dicendum ad primam quaestionem, quod de igne inferni fuit multiplex positio. I answer that, there are many positions on the fire of hell. Quidam enim philosophi, ut Avicenna, resurrectionem non credentes, solius animae post mortem poenam esse crediderunt; et quia eis inconveniens videbatur ut anima, cum sit incorporea, igne corporeo puniretur, negaverunt ignem corporeum esse quo mali punirentur; volentes quod quidquid dicitur de poena animarum post mortem futura per aliqua corporalia, metaphorice dicatur. Sicut enim bonarum animarum delectatio et jucunditas non erit in aliqua re corporali, sed spirituali tantum, quod erit in consecutione finis sui; ita afflictio malorum erit spiritualis tantum, in hoc scilicet quod tristabuntur de hoc quod separantur a fine, cujus inest eis desiderium naturale. Unde sicut omnia quae de delectatione animarum post mortem dicuntur, quae videntur ad delectationem corporalem pertinere, sicut quod reficiantur, quod rideant, et hujusmodi; ita etiam quidquid de harum afflictione dicitur quod in corporalem punitionem sonare videtur, per similitudinem debet intelligi; sicut quod igne ardeant, vel foetoribus affligantur, et cetera hujusmodi. Spiritualis enim delectatio et tristitia, cum sit ignota multitudini, oportet quod per delectationem et tristitias corporales figuraliter manifestetur, ut homines moveantur magis ad desiderium vel timorem. Sed quia in poena damnatorum non solum erit poena damni, quae respondet aversioni quae fuit in culpa, sed etiam poena sensus, quae respondet conversioni; ideo non sufficit praedictum modum punitionis ponere; et ideo etiam ipse Avicenna, alterum modum superaddit, dicens, quod animae malorum post mortem non per corpora, sed per corporum similitudines punientur, sicut in somnis propter similitudines praedictas in imaginatione existentes videtur homini quod torqueatur poenis diversis; et hunc etiam modum punitionis videtur ponere Augustinus in 12 super Gen. ad Lit., sicut ibidem manifeste patet. For some philosophers, like Avicenna, not believing in the resurrection, believed there was punishment after death for the soul alone; and because it seemed unfitting to them that the soul, since it is incorporeal, should be punished by a corporeal fire, they denied that there was a physical fire in which the wicked would be punished, desiring that whatever is said about the future punishment of souls through corporeal things after death be said metaphorically. For just as the enjoyment and pleasure of good souls will not exist in any physical thing, but only a spiritual delight in the obtainment of their end, so too the affliction of the wicked would be only spiritual; namely, in the fact that they would grieve that they are separated from the end, which they naturally desire. Therefore, just as all the things that are said about the pleasure of souls after death that seem to pertain to physical pleasure, like that they will be refreshed, that they will laugh, and so forth, so too any of those things said about affliction that seems to sound like physical punishment should be understood as a similitude, like that they will burn in the fire, or be afflicted by the stench, and other things like this. For spiritual pleasure and sorrow, since they are unknown to the multitude, must be made known figuratively through physical pleasures and sorrows, so that people will be moved more to desire or fear. But since in the punishment of the damned there will not only be the pain of loss, which corresponds to the turning away that happened in their sin, but there will also be the pain of the senses, which corresponds to what they turned toward, therefore, the manner of punishment described above is not enough. And so even Avicenna himself added another manner of punishment, saying that the souls of the wicked after death will be punished not through their bodies, but through the likenesses of their bodies, as in dreams, because of these likenesses existing in the imagination, it seems to a person that he is tortured by different pains. And Augustine also seems to posit this manner of punishment in his Commentary on Genesis 12, as is apparent in the same place. Sed hoc videtur inconvenienter dictum esse. Imaginatio enim potentia quaedam est utens organo corporali; unde non potest esse quod visiones imaginativae fiant in anima separata a corpore, sicut in anima somniantis; unde etiam Avicenna, ut hoc inconveniens evaderet, dixit, quod animae separatae a corpore utebantur, quasi pro organo, aliqua parte caelestis corporis, cui corpus humanum oportet esse conforme ad hoc quod perficiatur anima rationali, quae est similis motoribus caelestis corporis: in hoc secutus quodammodo opinionem antiquorum philosophorum, qui posuerunt animas redire ad compares stellas. Sed hoc est omnino absurdum secundum doctrinam philosophi; quia anima utitur determinato organo corporali, sicut ars determinatis instrumentis; unde non potest transire de corpore in corpus, quod Pythagoras posuit, ut dicitur in 1 de Anima. But this seems to be said inappropriately. For the imagination is a certain power that uses a physical organ; therefore, it cannot be that imaginative visions happen in a soul separated from a body, as they do in the soul of someone sleeping. Hence even Avicenna, to avoid this inappropriateness, said that souls separated from bodies used as their organ a certain part of a heavenly body, which the human body must be like for the perfection of the rational soul, which is like the movers of a heavenly body; in this following in some way the opinion of the ancient philosophers, who held that souls returned to similar stars. But this is completely absurd according to the teaching of the Philosopher, for the soul uses a particular physical organ as an art uses particular tools. Therefore, it cannot pass from one body into another body, which Pythagoras held, as it says in On the Soul 1. Qualiter autem ad dictum Augustini sit respondendum, infra dicetur. Quidquid autem dicatur de igne qui animas separatas cruciat, de igne tamen quo cruciabuntur corpora damnatorum post resurrectionem, oportet dicere quod sit corporeus; quia corpori non potest convenienter poena aptari nisi corporea. Unde Gregorius in 4 Dial., ex hoc ipso probat inferni ignem esse corporeum, quod reprobi post resurrectionem in eum detrudentur. Augustinus etiam, ut in littera, manifeste confitetur ignem illum quo corpora cruciabuntur, corporeum esse; et de hoc ad praesens est quaestio. Qualiter autem animae damnatorum ab igne isto corporeo puniantur, infra, dist. 50, qu. 2, art. 3, dicetur. Now the way that Augustine’s statement should be answered will be said below. But whatever may be said about the fire that torments separated souls, nevertheless, concerning the fire in which the bodies of the damned will be tormented after the resurrection, one must say that it is corporeal; for only corporeal things can be appropriately adapted for punishing for the body. Therefore, Gregory in the Dialogues 4 proves that the fire of hell is physical from the fact that the reprobate will be driven into it after the resurrection. Augustine, too, in the text, clearly confesses that fire in which bodies will be tormented to be bodily; and this is what the present question is about. But how the souls of the damned will be punished by that physical fire will be said below in Distinction 50, Question 2, Article 3. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Damascenus non negat simpliciter ignem illum materialem esse, sed quod non est materialis talis qualis apud nos est, eo quod quibusdam proprietatibus ad hoc igne distinguitur. Vel dicendum, quod quia ignis ille non materialiter alterat corpora, sed quadam spirituali actione agit in ea ad punitionem, ut ex dictis patet, ideo non dicitur materialis, non quantum ad substantiam, sed quantum ad punitionis effectum in corporibus, et multo amplius in animabus. Reply Obj. 1: Damascene does not simply deny that that fire is material, but that it is not material in the way that ours is, by the fact that it is distinguished from our fire by certain properties. Or it could be said that because that fire does not materially alter bodies, but acts by a certain spiritual action in them for punishment, as is clear from what was said, therefore it is called non-material, not as to its substance, but as to the effect of its punishment in the bodies, and much more in the souls. Ad secundum dicendum, quod dictum Augustini potest hoc modo accipi, ut pro tanto dicatur locus ille ad quem animae deferentur post mortem, non esse corporeus, quia anima in eo corporaliter non existit, per modum scilicet quo corpora existunt in loco, sed alio modo spirituali, sicut angeli in loco sunt. Vel dicendum, quod Augustinus loquitur opinando, et non determinando, sicut frequenter facit in libro illo. Reply Obj. 2: Augustine’s statement can be taken as meaning that the place into which souls are cast after death is non-physical to this extent, that a soul does not exist in it corporeally, namely, in way in which bodies exist in a place, but in another spiritual way, as angels exist in a place. Or it could be said that Augustine is offering an opinion, not settling a question, as he frequently does in that book. Ad tertium dicendum, quod ignis ille erit instrumentum divinae justitiae punientis. Instrumentum autem non solum agit in virtute propria, et per proprium modum, sed etiam in virtute principalis agentis, et secundum quod est regulatum ab eo; unde quamvis ignis secundum propriam virtutem non habeat quod aliquos cruciet magis vel minus secundum modum peccati; habet tamen hoc secundum quod ejus actio modificatur ex ordine divinae justitiae; sicut etiam ignis fornacis modificatur ex industria fabri in sua actione secundum quod competit ad effectum artis. Reply Obj. 3: That fire will be the instrument of divine justice as it punishes. But an instrument does not only act in its own virtue, and by its own mode, but also in virtue of its principal agent, and according as it is regulated by it. Therefore, although fire according to its own virtue is not able to torment people more or less according to the measure of their sin, nevertheless it has this according as its action is modified by the order of divine justice; just as the fire of an oven is modified by the skill of the craftsman in his action as befits the effect of his art. Quaestiuncula 2 Response to Quaestiuncula 2 Ad secundam quaestionem dicendum, quod ignis propter hoc quod est maximae virtutis in agendo inter reliqua elementa, alia corpora pro materia habet, ut dicitur in 2 Meteor.; unde et ignis dupliciter invenitur; scilicet in propria materia, prout est in sphaera sua; vel in materia aliena, sive terrestri, ut patet in carbone; sive aerea, sicut patet in flamma. Quocumque autem modo ignis inveniatur, semper idem est in specie quantum ad naturam ignis pertinet. Potest autem esse diversitas in specie quantum ad corpora quae sunt materia ignis; unde flamma et carbo differunt specie, et similiter lignum ignitum et ferrum ignitum. Nec differt quantum ad hoc sive ignita sint per violentiam, ut in ferro apparet, sive ex principio intrinseco naturali, ut accidit in sulphure. Quod ergo ignis inferni quantum ad hoc quod habet de natura ignis, sit ejusdem speciei cum igne qui apud nos est, manifestum est; utrum autem ille ignis sit in propria materia existens, aut in aliena, et si in aliena, in qua materia sit, nobis ignotum est; et secundum hoc potest ab igne qui apud nos est, specie differre materialiter consideratus. Quasdam tamen proprietates differentes habet ab igne isto, sicut quod succensione non indiget, nec lignis nutritur. Sed istae differentiae non ostendunt diversitatem in specie quantum ad id quod pertinet ad naturam ignis. To the second question, it should be said that because fire has the greatest power in acting among all the elements, it has other bodies for its matter, as it says in Meteorology 2. Therefore, fire is also found in two ways: namely, in its proper matter, as it exists in its own sphere; or in foreign matter, whether that be earthly, as in the case of charcoal, or airy, as is seen in flames. Now whichever way fire is found, it is always the same in species as regards the nature of fire. However, there can be diversity in species as to the bodies that are the matter of fire; for example, flames and glowing coals differ in species, and likewise a wood fire and smelted iron. Nor does it make a difference in this regard whether they were lit by violence, as appears in the case of iron, or from a natural intrinsic principle, as happens with sulfur. Therefore, as to what it possesses of the nature of fire, it is manifest that the fire of hell is of the same species with the fire that we have. But whether that fire exists in its own matter, or in some foreign matter, and if in foreign matter, what material that might be, is unknown to us; and accordingly it can be a different species from the fire that we have, considered materially. Nevertheless, it does have certain different properties from our fire, like the fact that it does not need to be kindled, nor is it fed with wood. But those differences do not show a difference in species as regards what pertains to the nature of fire. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Augustinus loquitur quantum ad id quod est materiale in illo igne, non autem quantum ad ignis naturam. Reply Obj. 1: Augustine speaks about what is material in that fire, not about the nature of fire. Ad secundum dicendum, quod ignis iste qui apud nos est, lignis nutritur, et ab homine succenditur, quia est artificialiter et per violentiam in alienam materiam introductus; sed ignis ille lignis non indiget quibus foveatur, quia vel est in propria materia existens, vel est in materia aliena non per violentiam, sed per naturam a principio intrinseco; unde non est ab homine accensus, sed a Deo, qui naturam illam instituit; et hoc est quod dicitur Isai. 30, 33: flatus Domini sicut torrens sulphuris succendens eam. Reply Obj. 2: The fire that we have is fed with wood and ignited by man, for it introduced into a foreign material artificially and by violence. But that fire does not need wood to be kindled, for either it subsists in its proper matter, or it exists in a foreign material not by violence but by nature from an intrinsic principle, which is why it was not lit by man, but by God, who established its nature. And this is what it says in Isaiah 30:33: the breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone, kindles it. Ad tertium dicendum, quod sicut corpora damnatorum erunt ejusdem speciei cujus et modo sunt, quamvis nunc sint corruptibilia, tunc autem incorruptibilia ex ordine divinae justitiae, et propter quietem motus caeli; ita est etiam de igne inferni, quo corpora illa punientur. Reply Obj. 3: Just as the bodies of the damned will be of the same species that they now are, although now they are corruptible, but then they will be incorruptible by the order of divine justice, and because of the stilling of the movement of the heavens; so is it also with the fire of hell, where those bodies will be punished. Ad quartum dicendum, quod lucere non convenit igni secundum quemlibet modum existendi, quia in propria materia existens non lucet; unde non lucet in propria sphaera, ut philosophi dicunt. Similiter etiam in aliqua materia aliena ignis existens non lucet, sicut cum est in materia opaca terrestri, ut in sulphure. Similiter est etiam quando ex aliquo grosso fumo ejus claritas obscuratur. Unde quod ignis inferni non lucet, non est sufficiens argumentum ad hoc quod non sit ejusdem speciei. Reply Obj. 4: Light does not parallel fire in every mode of existing, for it does not shine when it exists in its own proper material; hence it does not shine in its own sphere, as the philosophers say. Similarly, fire existing in some foreign matter does not shine either, as when it is in some dark earthly matter, like sulfur. And it is similar when its brightness is darkened by thick smoke. Therefore, the fact that the fire of hell does not shine is not a sufficient argument that it is not of the same species. Quaestiuncula 3 Response to Quaestiuncula 3 Ad tertiam quaestionem dicendum, quod sicut Augustinus dicit, et habetur in littera, in qua parte mundi infernus sit, scire neminem arbitror, nisi cui divinus spiritus revelavit; unde et Gregorius in 4 Dialog., super hac quaestione interrogatus respondet: hac de re temere definire non audeo. Nonnulli namque in quadam terrarum parte infernum esse putaverunt; alii vero hunc sub terra esse existimant. Et hanc opinionem probabiliorem esse ostendit dupliciter. Primo ex ipsa nominis ratione, sic dicens: si idcirco infernum dicimus, quin inferius jacet; quod terra ad caelum est, hoc esse infernus debet ad terram. Secundo autem ex hoc quod dicitur Apoc. 5, 3: nemo poterat neque in caelo neque in terra neque subtus terram aperire librum: ut hoc quod dicitur in caelo, referatur ad angelos; hoc quod dicitur in terra, referatur ad homines viventes in corpore; hoc quod dicitur subtus terram referatur ad animas existentes in inferno. Augustinus etiam in 12 super Genes. ad litteram, duas rationes tangere videtur, quare congruum sit quod infernus sit sub terra. Una est, ut quoniam defunctorum animae amore carnis peccaverunt, hoc eis exhibeatur quod ipsi carni mortuae solet exhiberi, ut scilicet sub terra recondantur. Alia est quod sicut est gravitas in corporibus, ita tristitia in spiritibus; et laetitia sicut levitas: unde sicut secundum corpus, si ponderis sui ordinem teneant, inferiora sunt omnia graviora; ita secundum spiritum inferiora sunt omnia tristiora: et sic sicut conveniens locus gaudio electorum est caelum empyreum; ita conveniens locus tristitiae damnatorum est infimum terrae. Nec debet movere quod Augustinus ibidem dicit, quod Inferi sub terris esse dicuntur vel creduntur: quia in Lib. Retractationum, hoc retractans dicit: mihi videor dicere debuisse magis quod sub terris sunt Inferi, quam rationem reddere cur sub terris esse dicantur sive credantur. To the third question, it should be said that as Augustine says, and as is found in the text, in what part of the world hell exists, I judge that no one knows, unless someone to whom the divine Spirit has revealed it. Therefore too Gregory answers this question in the Dialogues 4, I do not dare to rashly define this thing. For in fact many have believed that hell was in some part of the lands, while others deemed it to be under the earth. And he shows that the second opinion is more probable in two ways. First, by reason of the name itself, as he says: if we call it the “Inferno,” the lower place, on this account, that it lies inferiorly, then what earth is to the sky, hell should be to the earth. Second, however, from what is said in Revelation 5:3: And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll, so by the fact that it says in heaven, it refers to the angels; by saying, on earth, it refers to men living in the body; by saying, under the earth, it refers to souls dwelling in hell. Augustine, too, in his On the Literal Meaning of Genesis 12, seems to give two reasons why it would be fitting for hell to be under the earth. One is that because the souls of the deceased sinned by love of the flesh, there is applied to them what is customarily applied to dead flesh itself, namely, that it be hidden away under the earth. The other is that just as there is heaviness in bodies, so there is sadness in spirits; and merriment is like lightness; therefore, just as according to the body, if they held the order of their weight, all the heavier ones would be lower, so too according to the spirit, all the sadder ones are lower: and so just as the appropriate place for the joy of the elect is the empyreal heaven, so the fitting place for the sadness of the damned is the lowest part of the earth. Nor should it disturb us that Augustine says in the same place that hell is said to be or believed to be under the earth, for in his book of Retractions, he retracts this, saying: it seems that I should have said that hell is under the earth, rather than give reasons why it is said to be or believed to be under the earth. Quidam tamen philosophi posuerunt quod locus inferni erit sub orbe terrestri, tamen supra terrae superficiem, ex parte opposita nobis; et hoc videtur Isidorus sensisse, cum dixit, quod sol et luna in ordine quo creati sunt, stabunt, ne impii in tormentis positi fruantur luce eorum: quae ratio nulla esset, si infernus infra terram esse dicatur. Qualiter tamen haec verba possint exponi, patebit infra, dist. 48. Pythagoras vero posuit locum poenarum in sphaera ignis, quam in medio totius orbis esse dicit, ut patet per Philosophum in 2 Cael. et Mund. Sed tamen convenientius his quae in Scriptura dicuntur, est ut sub terra esse dicatur. However, some philosophers held that the place of hell will be under the terrestrial orb, yet above the surface of the earth, on a part opposite from us. And Isidore seemed to have thought so when he said that the sun and moon will stay in the order in which they were created, so that the wicked, sunk in their torments, may not profit from their light; which would be no reason, if hell were said to be within the earth. Nevertheless, how these words could be explained will be made clear below at Distinction 48. But Pythagoras located the place of punishments in the sphere of fire, which he says is in the middle of the whole world, as is clear from the Philosopher in On the Heavens 2. But it fits more with those things that are said in Scripture that it be said to be under the earth. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod verbum illud Job, de orbe transferet eum Deus, intelligendum est de orbe terrarum, idest de hoc mundo; et hoc modo exponit Gregorius dicens: de orbe quippe transfertur, cum superno apparente judice de hoc mundo tollitur, in quo perverse gloriatur. Nec est intelligendum quod orbis hic accipiatur pro universo, quasi extra totum universum sit locus poenarum. Reply Obj. 1: Those words of Job, God has driven him from the world, are to be understood of the circle of lands, that is, this world; and this is how Gregory explains it, saying: he is obviously driven from the world, when at the appearance of the highest judge he is removed from this world, in which he glories perversely. Nor should one understand ‘world’ here as meaning ‘universe’, as if the place of punishment were outside the whole universe. Ad secundum dicendum, quod in loco illo conservatur ignis in aeternum ex ordine divinae justitiae, quamvis secundum naturam suam non possit extra locum suum aliquod elementum durare in aeternum, praecipue statu generationis et corruptionis manente in rebus. Ignis autem ibi erit fortissimae caliditatis: quia calor ejus erit undique congregatus propter frigus terrae undique ipsum circumstans. Reply Obj. 2: In that place a fire is kept eternally by the order of divine justice, although according to its own nature no element could endure forever outside its own place, particularly while the state of generation and corruption remained in things. However, there that fire will be of the most blistering heat, for its heat will be pressed in from every side because of the earth’s coldness encompassing it in every direction. Ad tertium dicendum, quod infernus nunquam deficiet in amplitudine, quin sufficiat ad damnatorum corpora capienda: infernus enim Prov. 30, inter tria insatiabilia ponitur. Nec est inconveniens quod intra viscera terrae tanta concavitas conservetur divina virtute, quae damnatorum omnium corpora possit capere. Reply Obj. 3: Hell will never lack room, so that it would not suffice for holding the bodies of the damned, for in Proverbs 30:16, hell is listed among the three insatiable things. Nor is it unfitting that by divine power so great an empty space should be kept in the bowels that it could hold all the bodies of the damned. Ad quartum dicendum, quod hoc quod dicitur: per quae peccat quis, per haec et torquetur, non est necessarium nisi in principalibus instrumentis peccandi. Quia enim homo in anima peccat et corpore, in utroque punitur; non autem oportet quod in quo loco quis peccat, in eodem puniatur, cum alius sit locus qui viatoribus et damnatis debetur. Vel dicendum, quod hoc intelligitur de poenis quibus homo punitur in via, secundum quod quaelibet culpa suam poenam habet annexam, prout quisque inordinatus animus sibi ipsi est poena, ut dicit Augustinus. Reply Obj. 4: The saying one is punished by the very things by which he sins (Wis 11:16) need not be taken to apply to anything but the chief instruments of sinning. For since a person sins in body and soul, he is punished in both, but it is not necessary that he be punished in the very same place where he sinned, since a different place is due to wayfarers and to the damned. Or it could be said that this is understood as applying to the penalties by which a man is punished in life, according as some of his guilt has punishment joined to it, as any disordered mind is a punishment to itself, as Augustine says.