|
Objection 1: It would seem that we should not distinguish so many
abodes. For after death, just as abodes are due to souls on account
of sin, so are they due on account of merit. Now there is only one
abode due on account of merit, namely paradise. Therefore neither
should there be more than one abode due on account of sin, namely
hell.
Objection 2: Further, abodes are appointed to souls after death on
account of merits or demerits. Now there is one place where they merit
or demerit. Therefore only one abode should be assigned to them after
death.
Objection 3: Further, the places of punishment should correspond to
the sins. Now there are only three kinds of sin, namely original,
venial, and mortal. Therefore there should only be three penal
abodes.
Objection 4: On the other hand, it would seem that there should be
many more than those assigned. For this darksome air is the prison
house of the demons (2 Pt. 2:17), and yet it is not reckoned
among the five abodes which are mentioned by certain authors.
Therefore there are more than five abodes.
Objection 5: Further, the earthly paradise is distinct from the
heavenly paradise. Now some were borne away to the earthly paradise
after this state of life, as is related of Enoch and Elias. Since
then the earthly paradise is not counted among the five abodes, it
would seem that there are more than five.
Objection 6: Further, some penal place should correspond to each
state of sinners. Now if we suppose a person to die in original sin
who has committed only venial sins, none of the assigned abodes will be
befitting to him. For it is clear that he would not be in heaven,
since he would be without grace, and for the same reason neither would
he be in the limbo of the Fathers; nor again, would he be in the
limbo of children, since there is no sensible punishment there, which
is due to such a person by reason of venial sin: nor would he be in
purgatory, where there is none but temporal punishment, whereas
everlasting punishment is due to him: nor would he be in the hell of
the damned, since he is not guilty of actual mortal sin. Therefore a
sixth abode should be assigned.
Objection 7: Further, rewards and punishments vary in quantity
according to the differences of sins and merits. Now the degrees of
merit and sin are infinite. Therefore we should distinguish an
infinite number of abodes, in which souls are punished or rewarded
after death.
Objection 8: Further, souls are sometimes punished in the places
where they sinned, as Gregory states (Dial. iv, 55). But they
sinned in the place which we inhabit. Therefore this place should be
reckoned among the abodes, especially since some are punished for their
sins in this world, as the Master said above (Sent. iv, D,
21).
Objection 9: Further, just as some die in a state of grace and have
some venial sins for which they deserve punishment, so some die in
mortal sin and have some good for which they would deserve a reward.
Now to those who die in grace with venial sins an abode is assigned
where they are punished ere they receive their reward, which abode is
purgatory. Therefore, on the other hand, there should be equally an
abode for those who die in mortal sin together with some good works.
Objection 1:: Further, just as the Fathers were delayed from
obtaining full glory of the soul before Christ's coming, so are they
now detained from receiving the glory of the body. Therefore as we
distinguish an abode of the saints before the coming of Christ from the
one where they are received now, so ought we to distinguish the one in
which they are received now from the one where they will be received
after the resurrection.
I answer that, The abodes of souls are distinguished according to the
souls' various states. Now the soul united to a mortal body is in the
state of meriting, while the soul separated from the body is in the
state of receiving good or evil for its merits; so that after death it
is either in the state of receiving its final reward, or in the state
of being hindered from receiving it. If it is in the state of
receiving its final retribution, this happens in two ways: either in
the respect of good, and then it is paradise; or in respect of evil,
and thus as regards actual sin it is hell, and as regards original sin
it is the limbo of children. On the other hand, if it be in the state
where it is hindered from receiving its final reward, this is either on
account of a defect of the person, and thus we have purgatory where
souls are detained from receiving their reward at once on account of the
sins they have committed, or else it is on account of a defect of
nature, and thus we have the limbo of the Fathers, where the Fathers
were detained from obtaining glory on account of the guilt of human
nature which could not yet be expiated.
Reply to Objection 1: Good happens in one way, but evil in many
ways, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) and the Philosopher
(Ethic. ii, 6): wherefore it is not unfitting if there be one
place of blissful reward and several places of punishment.
Reply to Objection 2: The state of meriting and demeriting is one
state, since the same person is able to merit and demerit: wherefore
it is fitting that one place should be assigned to all: whereas of
those who receive according to their merits there are various states,
and consequently the comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 3: One may be punished in two ways for original
sin, as stated above, either in reference to the person, or in
reference to nature only. Consequently there is a twofold limbo
corresponding to that sin.
Reply to Objection 4: This darksome air is assigned to the demons,
not as the place where they receive retribution for their merits, but
as a place befitting their office, in so far as they are appointed to
try us. Hence it is not reckoned among the abodes of which we are
treating now: since hell fire is assigned to them in the first place
(Mt. 25).
Reply to Objection 5: The earthly paradise belongs to the state of
the wayfarer rather than to the state of those who receive for their
merits; and consequently it is not reckoned among the abodes whereof we
are treating now.
Reply to Objection 6: This supposition is impossible [FS,
Question 89, Article 6]. If, however, it were possible, such
a one would be punished in hell eternally: for it is accidental to
venial sin that it be punished temporally in purgatory, through its
having grace annexed to it: wherefore if it be annexed to a mortal
sin, which is without grace, it will be punished eternally in hell.
And since this one who dies in original sin has a venial sin without
grace, it is not unfitting to suppose that he be punished eternally.
Reply to Objection 7: Diversity of degrees in punishments or
rewards does not diversify the state, and it is according to the
diversity of state that we distinguish various abodes. Hence the
argument does not prove.
Reply to Objection 8: Although separated souls are sometimes
punished in the place where we dwell, it does not follow that this is
their proper place of punishment: but this is done for our
instruction, that seeing their punishment we may be deterred from sin.
That souls while yet in the flesh are punished here for their sins has
nothing to do with the question, because a punishment of this kind does
not place a man outside the state of meriting or demeriting: whereas we
are treating now of the abodes to which souls are assigned after the
state of merit or demerit.
Reply to Objection 9: It is impossible for evil to be pure and
without the admixture of good, just as the supreme good is without any
admixture of evil. Consequently those who are to be conveyed to
beatitude which is a supreme good must be cleansed of all evil.
wherefore there must needs be a place where such persons are cleansed if
they go hence without being perfectly clean. But those who will be
thrust into hell will not be free from all good: and consequently the
comparison fails, since those who are in hell can receive the reward of
their goods, in so far as their past goods avail for the mitigation of
their punishment.
Reply to Objection 1:: The essential reward consists in the glory
of the soul, but the body's glory, since it overflows from the soul,
is entirely founded as it were on the soul: and consequently lack of
the soul's glory causes a difference of state, whereas lack of the
body's glory does not. For this reason, too, the same place,
namely the empyrean, is assigned to the holy souls separated from their
bodies and united to glorious bodies: whereas the same place was not
assigned to the souls of the Fathers both before and after the
glorification of souls.
|
|