|
Objection 1: It would seem that one person has not the aureole
either of virginity, or of martyrdom, or of doctrine more perfectly
than another person. For things which have reached their term are not
subject to intension or remission. Now the aureole is due to works
which have reached their term of perfection. Therefore an aureole is
not subject to intension or remission.
Objection 2: Further, virginity is not subject to being more or
less, since it denotes a kind of privation; and privations are not
subject to intension or remission. Therefore neither does the reward
of virginity, the virgin's aureole to wit, receive intension or
remission.
On the contrary, The aureole is added to the aurea. But the aurea
is more intense in one than in another. Therefore the aureole is
also.
I answer that, Since merit is somewhat the cause of reward, rewards
must needs be diversified, according as merits are diversified: for
the intension or remission of a thing follows from the intension or
remission of its cause. Now the merit of the aureole may be greater or
lesser: wherefore the aureole may also be greater or lesser.
We must observe, however, that the merit of an aureole may be
intensified in two ways: first, on the part of its cause, secondly on
the part of the work. For there may happen to be two persons, one of
whom, out of lesser charity, suffers greater torments of martyrdom,
or is more constant in preaching, or again withdraws himself more from
carnal pleasures. Accordingly, intension not of the aureole but of
the aurea corresponds to the intension of merit derived from its root;
while intension of the aureole corresponds to intension of merit derived
from the kind of act. Consequently it is possible for one who merits
less in martyrdom as to his essential reward, to receive a greater
aureole for his martyrdom.
Reply to Objection 1: The merits to which an aureole is due do not
reach the term of their perfection simply, but according to their
species: even as fire is specifically the most subtle of bodies.
Hence nothing hinders one aureole being more excellent than another,
even as one fire is more subtle than another.
Reply to Objection 2: The virginity of one may be greater than the
virginity of another, by reason of a greater withdrawal from that which
is contrary to virginity: so that virginity is stated to be greater in
one who avoids more the occasions of corruption. For in this way
privations may increase, as when a man is said to be more blind, if he
be removed further from the possession of sight.
|
|