LatineEnglish
653. Quaedam sunt in hac quaestione, quae vix ullam prae se ferunt difficultatem: eadem paucis indicabimus - attingemus deinde quaestionem de natura ignis inferni.
§ I.
Quaedam exponuntur.
§ I.
Quaedam exponuntur.
653. There are certain things in this question which present scarcely any difficulty. We shall indicate these briefly, and then we shall touch upon the question concerning the nature of the fire of hell.
§ I.
Certain things are explained.
§ I.
Certain things are explained.
654. Nomine inferni communiter hic intelligitur locus ille et status, in quo daemones, et homines in peccato lethali mortui atrocibus suppliciis in aeternum punientur. Consuevit etiam infernus appellari gehenna, quo nomine Christus Dominus in Evangelio non semel usus est. - En hujus nominis origo. Nominabatur gehenna quaedam prope Jerusalem vallis, in qua locus excelsus erat aedificatus, cui nomen Topheth. In eo Judaei in idololatriam prolapsi immolabant filios et filias idolo Moloch, eos comburendo. Pius rex Josias (2. Reg. 23. 11.) ut locum pollueret, projecit illuc cadavera, fimum, stercora; quod et deinde continuatum est, ita ut non amplius locus ille fuerit idololatriae consecratus. Imo continuus ibi ignis fuit ad comburendum cadavera. Unde ex horrore loci, cruciatibus, igne semper accenso locus tormentorum pro damnatis gehenna vocari coepit; quod nomen commune erat tempore D. N. J. Christi, ut ex antiquissimis Judaeorum libris patet.
654. By the name hell there is commonly understood here that place and state in which demons and men who have died in lethal sin will be punished forever with atrocious torments. Hell is also customarily called gehenna, a name which Christ the Lord used more than once in the Gospel. Behold the origin of this name. There was called gehenna a certain valley near Jerusalem, in which a high place had been built, whose name was Topheth. There the Jews, having fallen into idolatry, sacrificed sons and daughters to the idol Moloch by burning them. The pious king Josiah, in order to pollute the place, threw corpses, dung, and filth there; and this was continued afterward, so that that place was no longer consecrated to idolatry. Indeed, a continual fire was there for burning corpses. Hence, from the horror of the place, from the tortures, and from the fire always burning, the place of torments for the damned began to be called gehenna; and this name was common at the time of our Lord Jesus Christ, as is clear from the most ancient books of the Jews.
655. Quod infernus sit locus quidam realis, est communis Catholicorum doctrina, contra Calvinum et alios, qui putabant infernum esse nomen solum confusionis et perditionis. Si autem quaeratur, ubi sit infernus; non una fuit apud omnes opinio. Attamen jam communis videtur quam D. Thomas in 4. sent. dist. 44. q. 3. a. 2., docuit sententia, quod infernus est in loco quodam inferiori, in visceribus terrae. Hoc nomen ipsum inferni (in inferiores partes terrae) indicat - hoc conforme est modo loquendi Ecclesiae, quae saepe dixit perversos homines in infernum descendere. Vid. Const. Benedicti XII. Benedictus Deus; et Conc. Flor. in Decr. unionis.
655. That hell is a certain real place is the common doctrine of Catholics, against Calvin and others, who thought that hell is only the name of confusion and perdition. But if it is asked where hell is, there has not been one opinion among all. Nevertheless that opinion which St. Thomas taught in 4 Sentences, distinction 44, question 3, article 2, now seems common: that hell is in a certain lower place, in the bowels of the earth. The very name hell indicates this, namely, into the lower parts of the earth; and this is conformable to the manner of speaking of the Church, which has often said that perverse men descend into hell. See the Constitution Benedictus Deus of Benedict XII, and the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union.
656. Multiplices esse inferni poenas patet ex iis, quae sive in Scripturis sive apud Patres leguntur. Status enim damnatorum vocatur "perditio, supplicium aeternum, ignis aeternus, gehenna ignis, caminus ignis, locus ubi vermis eorum non moritur, et ignis non extinguitur, locus tormentorum, flamma ignis dantis vindictam, stagnum ignis, stagnum ardens igne et sulphure, quod est mors secunda, tenebrae exteriores, ubi erit fletus, et stridor dentium."
656. That the punishments of hell are multiple is clear from those things which are read either in the Scriptures or among the Fathers. For the state of the damned is called "perdition, eternal punishment, eternal fire, gehenna of fire, furnace of fire, the place where their worm does not die and the fire is not extinguished, place of torments, flame of fire giving vengeance, lake of fire, lake burning with fire and sulfur, which is the second death, exterior darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
657. Duplex tamen poenae genus communiter distinguitur, ad quod poenae omnes inferni reducuntur: poena damni, et poena sensus. - Poena damni, correspondens ut superius audivimus a D. Thoma, aversioni a Deo, quae in lethali peccato continetur, consistit in privatione aeternae beatitudinis, nempe visionis beatificae et omnium bonorum, quae illam consequuntur, quaeque Deus electis suis praeparavit. De hac poena intelligitur illud Luc. 13. 27.: "Nescio vos unde sitis: discedite a me omnes operarii iniquitatis." - Matth. 25. 10.: "Amen dico vobis: nescio vos." - 1. Cor. 6. 9-10.: "An nescitis quia iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt? Nolite errare: neque fornicarii, neque idolis servientes, neque adulteri, neque molles, neque masculorum concubitores, neque fures, neque avari, neque ebriosi, neque maledici, neque rapaces, regnum Dei possidebunt." - Apoc. 22. 15.: "Foris canes, et venefici, et impudici, et homicidae, et idolis servientes, et omnis qui amat et facit mendacium," etc. Ex privatione autem aeternae beatitudinis, summa afflictio sequitur in damnatis.
657. Nevertheless a twofold genus of punishment is commonly distinguished, to which all the punishments of hell are reduced: pain of loss and pain of sense. The pain of loss, corresponding, as we heard above from St. Thomas, to aversion from God, which is contained in lethal sin, consists in the privation of eternal beatitude, namely of the beatific vision and of all goods which follow it and which God has prepared for his elect. Concerning this punishment is understood that saying of Luke 13:27: "I do not know whence you are; depart from me, all workers of iniquity." Matthew 25:10: "Amen I say to you: I do not know you." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Do you not know that the unjust will not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idol-servers, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor men who lie with males, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor the rapacious will possess the kingdom of God." Apocalypse 22:15: "Outside are dogs, and sorcerers, and the impure, and murderers, and idol-servers, and everyone who loves and makes a lie," etc. From the privation of eternal beatitude, however, the greatest affliction follows in the damned.
658. Poena vero sensus, correspondens conversioni ad creaturas, dicitur illa, quae directe malum physicum, molestiam, dolorem infligit damnatis. Has quidem gravissimas esse tradunt Scriptura et Patres. S. Jo. Chrys., ex. gr., (Hom. 9. in Ep. 2. Cor. n. 4.) ait: "Pone, si ita lubet, ignem et ferrum et belluas, ac si quid his acerbius est: haec tamen pro tormentis illis (infernalibus) ne umbrae quidem sunt ... Annon hos lictores conspicis, qui praefectis administram operam navant, quomodo trahant, quomodo vinciant, quomodo flagris afficiant, quomodo latera perfodiant, quomodo faces in tormentis admoveant, quomodo secent? Atqui haec cuncta mere ludus, ac risus sunt, si cum illis suppliciis comparentur."
658. But the pain of sense, corresponding to conversion toward creatures, is called that which directly inflicts physical evil, distress, and pain on the damned. Scripture and the Fathers teach that these are indeed most grave. St. John Chrysostom, for example, in homily 9 on 2 Corinthians, no. 4, says: "Set forth, if you please, fire and iron and beasts, and if there is anything more bitter than these; nevertheless these are not even shadows in comparison with those infernal torments ... Do you not see those lictors who render service to the prefects, how they drag, how they bind, how they strike with whips, how they pierce the sides, how they apply torches in tortures, how they cut? Yet all these things are mere play and laughter if they are compared with those punishments."
659. Longe tamen gravior est poena damni. Unde idem S. Doctor (Hom. 23. in Matth. n. 9.), ait: "Intolerabilis quidem res est gehenna, quis nesciat? et supplicium illud horribile. Tamen si quis mille ponat gehennas, nihil tale dicturus est quale est, ex beata illa gloria excidere, Christo exosum esse, et audire ab illo: 'Non novi vos.'" - Et (Hom. 23. in Ep. ad Hebr.): "Si ejus, qui est e patria ejectus, omnes miserentur, et qui amisit haereditatem, videtur omnibus miserabilis; qui a coelo excidit et a bonis, quae illic sunt reposita, quam multis plorari debet lacrymis? imo vero nec plorari. Ploratur enim quispiam, quando aliquid ei acciderit, cujus ipse non est causa; quando autem libero suo arbitrio seipsum vitio dediderit, non lacrymis, sed lamentationibus, atque luctu tunc erit dignus ... Innumerabilibus revera ejulatibus, innumerabilibus lamentationibus digni sumus. Si universus orbis terrae, et lapides, et ligni, et arbores, et ferae, et aves, et, ut semel dicam, totius orbis terrae voce accepta nos defleat, quia bonis illis excidimus, nihil ut par est, deflebit, vel lamentabitur." Vid. etiam D. Th. opusc. 2. c. 174.
659. Yet the pain of loss is much graver. Hence the same holy Doctor, homily 23 on Matthew, no. 9, says: "Gehenna is indeed an intolerable thing - who does not know it? - and that punishment is horrible. Yet if someone were to posit a thousand gehennas, he would say nothing such as what it is to fall away from that blessed glory, to be hated by Christ, and to hear from him: 'I do not know you.'" And in homily 23 on the Epistle to the Hebrews: "If all pity the one who is cast out from his homeland, and he who has lost an inheritance seems miserable to all, with how many tears ought he to be wept for who has fallen away from heaven and from the goods which are stored up there? Indeed, truly, he should not even be wept for. For someone is wept for when something happens to him of which he himself is not the cause; but when by his free choice he has given himself over to vice, then he will be worthy not of tears, but of lamentations and mourning ... We are truly worthy of innumerable cries, of innumerable lamentations. If the whole world, and stones, and wood, and trees, and wild beasts, and birds, and, to say it once, if the whole world received a voice and wept for us because we have fallen away from those goods, it would not weep or lament as is fitting." See also St. Thomas, opusculum 2, chapter 174.
660. Praecipua inter poenas sensus, et quam saepius commemorat Scriptura, est poena ignis. De hac specialis controversia instituenda est. Quaeritur ergo utrum ignis inferni sit realis et corporeus; vel solum metaphoricus: utrum per realem actionem, quam ut Dei vindicis instrumentum exercet; vel solum per apprehensionem cruciet.
Ratio dubitandi est quod ignis ille non modo cruciabit corpora hominum damnatorum, sed et eorum animas, quemadmodum et daemones: ignis autem corporeus non videtur posse in spiritus agere. Vide Suarez (de Angelis l. 8. c. 12. n. 8.)
Ratio dubitandi est quod ignis ille non modo cruciabit corpora hominum damnatorum, sed et eorum animas, quemadmodum et daemones: ignis autem corporeus non videtur posse in spiritus agere. Vide Suarez (de Angelis l. 8. c. 12. n. 8.)
660. Chief among the pains of sense, and the one which Scripture mentions most often, is the pain of fire. A special controversy must be instituted concerning this. Therefore it is asked whether the fire of hell is real and corporeal, or only metaphorical; whether it torments through a real action which it exercises as the instrument of God the avenger, or only through apprehension.
The reason for doubting is that that fire will torment not only the bodies of damned men, but also their souls, just as it will torment demons; but corporeal fire does not seem able to act upon spirits. See Suarez (On Angels, book 8, chapter 12, no. 8).
The reason for doubting is that that fire will torment not only the bodies of damned men, but also their souls, just as it will torment demons; but corporeal fire does not seem able to act upon spirits. See Suarez (On Angels, book 8, chapter 12, no. 8).
661. Tropice Calvinus cum aliis ignem illum intelligendum esse censuit, nec defuerunt pauci quidam inter Catholicos qui vel idem docuerint, vel saltem de natura illius dubitaverint. Quamvis nulla sit Ecclesiae definitio de hac re; attamen universae Ecclesiae consensus satis ostendit quid unicuique tenendum sit. Sententia Catharini, qui negabat ignem inferni esse realem et corporeum, statim ab omnibus Theologis rejecta est; et "alii," inquit Patuzzi, "haereticam, alii haeresi proximam, universim autem saltem erroneam, ac admodum temerariam appellant." Et Suarez (l. c. n. 9.), inquit: "Certa et Catholica sententia est, ignem inferni, qui paratus est diabolo et angelis ejus, ut in illo crucientur, verum ac proprium ignem corporeum esse. Hic est communis consensus scholasticorum omnium, ut in discursu sequentium capitum videbimus, imo est communis sensus Ecclesiae et catholicorum, ut experientia notum est."
661. Calvin, with others, judged that that fire must be understood tropically, nor were there lacking a few among Catholics who either taught the same or at least doubted concerning its nature. Although there is no definition of the Church concerning this matter, nevertheless the consensus of the universal Church sufficiently shows what must be held by each person. The opinion of Catharinus, who denied that the fire of hell is real and corporeal, was immediately rejected by all Theologians; and, says Patuzzi, "some call it heretical, others proximate to heresy, but universally at least erroneous and exceedingly rash." And Suarez, same place, no. 9, says: "The certain and Catholic opinion is that the fire of hell, which has been prepared for the devil and his angels, so that they may be tormented in it, is true and proper corporeal fire. This is the common consensus of all the scholastics, as we shall see in the course of the following chapters; indeed, it is the common sense of the Church and of Catholics, as is known by experience."
662. Antequam vero hanc catholicam doctrinam tueamur, pauca, claritatis gratia, praenotamus. Atque 1. Quamvis ignis inferni similis sit igni, quo in praesenti vita utimur, non uno tamen modo ab eodem differt. Etenim "principalis efficiens causa ignis praesentis vitae Deus est naturae auctor, et gubernator: at ignis inferni, Deus est peccatorum judex et ultor. - Chimicis operationibus et succenditur et fovetur praesens ignis: at ignis infernus flatu Domini cietur, et conservatur. Praesens ignis nonnisi mediis corporibus in animas agit: at ignis infernus illas immediate torquet et cruciat. Praesens ignis tandem extinguitur: at infernus ignis perpetuum durabit. - Ille lucet, hic tenebras parit exteriores: ille inflammando dissolvit et consumit, hic angit et urit, neque tamen destruit: ille et imminui et extingui humana arte potest, hic conatus omnes eludit, et Dei virtute sustentatur."
2. Distinguendum est inter ignem ipsum, et dolorem vel cruciatum quem daemones vel animae damnatorum (de corporibus enim nulla potest esse quaestio) ex igne experiuntur. Ignis ab omnibus adstruitur materialis et corporeus; cruciatus vero, prout in spiritu recipitur, spiritualis dici potest. "Quia omne quod recipitur," inquit Suarez (de Angelis l. 8. c. 14. n. 43.), "ad modum recipientis recipitur; ideo dolor receptus in spiritu spiritualis est." Et ita facile explicantur quaedam SS. Patrum dicta, quae prima fronte difficultatem facere videntur.
3. Distinguendus est insuper ignis ipse a modo, quo ab eo tamquam Dei instrumento (concedunt enim omnes non posse spiritum naturaliter a corpore pati) spiritus torquentur. Omnes conveniunt in eo quod ignis est realis et materialis, atque realiter spiritus cruciat; plures autem sunt Theologorum sententiae quoad modum illum explicandum.
D. Thomas in 4. sent. dist. 44. q. 3. a. 3., aliorum opinionibus relatis, concludit "quod hoc superadditur igni corporeo in quantum est instrumentum divinae justitiae vindicantis, quod sic detinet Spiritum; et ita efficitur ei poenalis, retardans eum ab executione propriae voluntatis, ne scilicet possit operari ubi vult, et secundum quod vult." - Et c. g. l. 4. c. 90. ait: "Si poena afflictiva peccato debetur, quam dicimus poenam sensus, ut in tertio lib. (cap. 145.) ostensum est, oportet quod ex illo haec poena proveniat quod potest afflictionem inferre. Nihil autem afflictionem infert, nisi in quantum est contrarium voluntati ... Est autem contrarium naturali voluntati spiritualis substantiae ut corpori subdatur, a quo secundum ordinem suae naturae libera esse debet. Conveniens igitur est ut substantia spiritualis per corporalia puniatur."
Suarez vero (l. mox cit. n. 41.), ait: "Superest ergo quarta opinio dicens, terminum productum a gehennali igne in daemone, seu spiritu separato, esse qualitatem quamdam spiritualem, in suo ordine doloriferam, dolore utique pure spirituali, ac proinde tanto majore, quando spiritualia superant materialia." Deinde, difficultati, quam sibi proponit: "instrumentum non agit aliquid virtute agentis superioris, nisi praevia sua actione naturali, per quam possit prius attingere subjectum, in quod acturum est instrumentaliter;" inter caetera respondet (n. 43.): si actio praevia dicatur, ipsamet productio talis qualitatis spectata secundum communem rationem productionis qualitatis, abstrahendo a tali specifico termino et subjecto: sic etiam ignis ille dicetur habere actionem praeviam, quatenus vim naturalem habet ad qualitatem aliquam efficiendam; sicut etiam dici potest, habere praevium contactum, non quantitatis, sed intimae praesentiae, in quantum intra se potest spiritum continere, et instrumentalem virtutem habere dici potest, non additam intrinsece, sed juvantem, nec omnino naturalem, sed obedientialem, et consequenter non completam, sed inchoatam, quae per solam excellentiorem, et naturae non debitam cooperationem divinam, ad agendum completur: ergo ex hoc capite nulla probatur repugnantia."
4. At quamvis ratio non possit assignare modum positivum, quo spiritus ab igne materiali torquentur (nobis quidem satius videtur repetere cum S. Augustino "ignis cruciat spiritus veris licet miris modis") - nequit tamen ostendere illud repugnare: "demus," inquit idem S. Doctor, "Deum aliquid posse, quod nos fatemur investigare non posse."
Sunt quidem plures modi, quibus facile conceditur non posse spiritus ab igne pati. Ita a) D. Thomas c. g. l. 4. c. 90., ait: "Non igitur sic aestimandum est quod substantiae incorporeae ab igne corporeo pati possint, quod earum natura corrumpatur per ignem, vel alteretur, aut qualitercumque aliter transmutetur, sicut nunc nostra corpora corruptibilia patiuntur ab igne."
b) "Neque etiam potest dici, quod patiantur ab igne corporeo afflictionem alicujus contrarietatis, sicut corpora post resurrectionem patientur; quia substantiae incorporeae organa sensuum non habeant, neque potentiis sensitivis utuntur."
c) Suarez (l. mox cit. nn. 26-33.) concedit ignem non torquere daemones calorem corporeum inducendo - nec causare posse in daemone tristitiam, qualem causat in animam, cum corpus ei unitum uritur - nec animae separatae dolorem ab igne esse ejusdem rationis cum dolore conjunctae etc.
Sed ex eo, quod his aut aliis modis repugnat spiritum ab igne corporeo pati, non sequitur nullum esse modum possibilem, quo divina omnipotentia fieri illud possit.
5. Imo ratio potest hujusmodi possibilitatem aliquo pacto suadere. Nam licet mala, quae a corporum actione nobis inferuntur, proprie sentiat et patiatur totum compositum ex anima et corpore; certum est tamen, quod anima ipsa, quae hujus compositi est pars et sensum corpori communicat, aliquo modo et ipsa patitur. Hoc quidem non explicat positive modum, quo spiritus ab igne patitur, siquidem igni non unitur uti forma; sed saltem ostendit non repugnare naturae spiritus, ut sit aliquis modus, quo a corpore patiatur. Unde S. Augustinus (de civ. Dei l. 14. c. 15.) ait: "Dolores, qui dicuntur carnis, animae sunt in carne, et ex carne, nam dolor carnis offensio est animae ex carne, et quaedam ab ejus passione dissensio: sicut animae dolor, qui tristitia nuncupatur, dissensio est ab his rebus, quae nobis nolentibus accidunt," et lib. 12. cap. 3. inquit: "Si consideremus diligentius dolorem, qui dicitur corporis, magis ad animam pertinet."
2. Distinguendum est inter ignem ipsum, et dolorem vel cruciatum quem daemones vel animae damnatorum (de corporibus enim nulla potest esse quaestio) ex igne experiuntur. Ignis ab omnibus adstruitur materialis et corporeus; cruciatus vero, prout in spiritu recipitur, spiritualis dici potest. "Quia omne quod recipitur," inquit Suarez (de Angelis l. 8. c. 14. n. 43.), "ad modum recipientis recipitur; ideo dolor receptus in spiritu spiritualis est." Et ita facile explicantur quaedam SS. Patrum dicta, quae prima fronte difficultatem facere videntur.
3. Distinguendus est insuper ignis ipse a modo, quo ab eo tamquam Dei instrumento (concedunt enim omnes non posse spiritum naturaliter a corpore pati) spiritus torquentur. Omnes conveniunt in eo quod ignis est realis et materialis, atque realiter spiritus cruciat; plures autem sunt Theologorum sententiae quoad modum illum explicandum.
D. Thomas in 4. sent. dist. 44. q. 3. a. 3., aliorum opinionibus relatis, concludit "quod hoc superadditur igni corporeo in quantum est instrumentum divinae justitiae vindicantis, quod sic detinet Spiritum; et ita efficitur ei poenalis, retardans eum ab executione propriae voluntatis, ne scilicet possit operari ubi vult, et secundum quod vult." - Et c. g. l. 4. c. 90. ait: "Si poena afflictiva peccato debetur, quam dicimus poenam sensus, ut in tertio lib. (cap. 145.) ostensum est, oportet quod ex illo haec poena proveniat quod potest afflictionem inferre. Nihil autem afflictionem infert, nisi in quantum est contrarium voluntati ... Est autem contrarium naturali voluntati spiritualis substantiae ut corpori subdatur, a quo secundum ordinem suae naturae libera esse debet. Conveniens igitur est ut substantia spiritualis per corporalia puniatur."
Suarez vero (l. mox cit. n. 41.), ait: "Superest ergo quarta opinio dicens, terminum productum a gehennali igne in daemone, seu spiritu separato, esse qualitatem quamdam spiritualem, in suo ordine doloriferam, dolore utique pure spirituali, ac proinde tanto majore, quando spiritualia superant materialia." Deinde, difficultati, quam sibi proponit: "instrumentum non agit aliquid virtute agentis superioris, nisi praevia sua actione naturali, per quam possit prius attingere subjectum, in quod acturum est instrumentaliter;" inter caetera respondet (n. 43.): si actio praevia dicatur, ipsamet productio talis qualitatis spectata secundum communem rationem productionis qualitatis, abstrahendo a tali specifico termino et subjecto: sic etiam ignis ille dicetur habere actionem praeviam, quatenus vim naturalem habet ad qualitatem aliquam efficiendam; sicut etiam dici potest, habere praevium contactum, non quantitatis, sed intimae praesentiae, in quantum intra se potest spiritum continere, et instrumentalem virtutem habere dici potest, non additam intrinsece, sed juvantem, nec omnino naturalem, sed obedientialem, et consequenter non completam, sed inchoatam, quae per solam excellentiorem, et naturae non debitam cooperationem divinam, ad agendum completur: ergo ex hoc capite nulla probatur repugnantia."
4. At quamvis ratio non possit assignare modum positivum, quo spiritus ab igne materiali torquentur (nobis quidem satius videtur repetere cum S. Augustino "ignis cruciat spiritus veris licet miris modis") - nequit tamen ostendere illud repugnare: "demus," inquit idem S. Doctor, "Deum aliquid posse, quod nos fatemur investigare non posse."
Sunt quidem plures modi, quibus facile conceditur non posse spiritus ab igne pati. Ita a) D. Thomas c. g. l. 4. c. 90., ait: "Non igitur sic aestimandum est quod substantiae incorporeae ab igne corporeo pati possint, quod earum natura corrumpatur per ignem, vel alteretur, aut qualitercumque aliter transmutetur, sicut nunc nostra corpora corruptibilia patiuntur ab igne."
b) "Neque etiam potest dici, quod patiantur ab igne corporeo afflictionem alicujus contrarietatis, sicut corpora post resurrectionem patientur; quia substantiae incorporeae organa sensuum non habeant, neque potentiis sensitivis utuntur."
c) Suarez (l. mox cit. nn. 26-33.) concedit ignem non torquere daemones calorem corporeum inducendo - nec causare posse in daemone tristitiam, qualem causat in animam, cum corpus ei unitum uritur - nec animae separatae dolorem ab igne esse ejusdem rationis cum dolore conjunctae etc.
Sed ex eo, quod his aut aliis modis repugnat spiritum ab igne corporeo pati, non sequitur nullum esse modum possibilem, quo divina omnipotentia fieri illud possit.
5. Imo ratio potest hujusmodi possibilitatem aliquo pacto suadere. Nam licet mala, quae a corporum actione nobis inferuntur, proprie sentiat et patiatur totum compositum ex anima et corpore; certum est tamen, quod anima ipsa, quae hujus compositi est pars et sensum corpori communicat, aliquo modo et ipsa patitur. Hoc quidem non explicat positive modum, quo spiritus ab igne patitur, siquidem igni non unitur uti forma; sed saltem ostendit non repugnare naturae spiritus, ut sit aliquis modus, quo a corpore patiatur. Unde S. Augustinus (de civ. Dei l. 14. c. 15.) ait: "Dolores, qui dicuntur carnis, animae sunt in carne, et ex carne, nam dolor carnis offensio est animae ex carne, et quaedam ab ejus passione dissensio: sicut animae dolor, qui tristitia nuncupatur, dissensio est ab his rebus, quae nobis nolentibus accidunt," et lib. 12. cap. 3. inquit: "Si consideremus diligentius dolorem, qui dicitur corporis, magis ad animam pertinet."
662. But before we defend this Catholic doctrine, we note a few things beforehand for the sake of clarity. And 1. Although the fire of hell is similar to the fire which we use in the present life, nevertheless it differs from it in more than one way. For "the principal efficient cause of the fire of the present life is God as author and governor of nature; but of the fire of hell, God is the judge and avenger of sinners. The present fire is both kindled and fostered by chemical operations; but the fire of hell is stirred and preserved by the breath of the Lord. The present fire acts upon souls only through the mediation of bodies; but the fire of hell immediately torments and tortures them. The present fire is finally extinguished; but the infernal fire will endure perpetually. The former gives light; the latter produces exterior darkness. The former, by inflaming, dissolves and consumes; the latter constricts and burns, and yet does not destroy. The former can be lessened and extinguished by human art; the latter eludes every attempt and is sustained by the power of God."
2. One must distinguish between the fire itself and the pain or torment which demons or the souls of the damned experience from the fire, for concerning bodies there can be no question. The fire is asserted by all to be material and corporeal; but the torment, insofar as it is received in a spirit, can be called spiritual. "Because everything that is received," says Suarez (On Angels, book 8, chapter 14, no. 43), "is received according to the mode of the receiver; therefore pain received in a spirit is spiritual." And thus certain sayings of the holy Fathers, which at first sight seem to make difficulty, are easily explained.
3. Further, the fire itself must be distinguished from the mode by which spirits are tormented by it as by an instrument of God, for all concede that a spirit cannot naturally suffer from a body. All agree in this: that the fire is real and material and really tortures spirits. But there are several opinions of Theologians concerning the explanation of that mode.
St. Thomas, in 4 Sentences, distinction 44, question 3, article 3, after relating the opinions of others, concludes "that this is superadded to corporeal fire insofar as it is an instrument of divine justice avenging: that it thus detains the spirit; and thus it is made penal for it, restraining it from the execution of its own will, namely so that it cannot operate where it wills and according as it wills." And in Contra Gentiles, book 4, chapter 90, he says: "If an afflictive punishment is owed to sin, which we call the pain of sense, as was shown in the third book, chapter 145, it must be that this punishment comes from that which can bring affliction. But nothing brings affliction except insofar as it is contrary to the will ... But it is contrary to the natural will of a spiritual substance to be subjected to a body, from which according to the order of its nature it ought to be free. Therefore it is fitting that a spiritual substance be punished through corporeal things."
But Suarez, in the place just cited, no. 41, says: "Therefore there remains the fourth opinion, saying that the terminus produced by gehenna fire in a demon, or separated spirit, is a certain spiritual quality, pain-bearing in its own order, by a purely spiritual pain, and therefore so much greater as spiritual things surpass material things." Then, to the difficulty which he proposes to himself, "an instrument does not act anything by the power of a superior agent unless by its own prior natural action, through which it can first attain the subject upon which it is going to act instrumentally," among other things he answers, no. 43: if the prior action is said to be the very production of such a quality, considered according to the common ratio of production of a quality, abstracting from such a specific terminus and subject, then that fire also will be said to have a prior action insofar as it has the natural power for producing some quality. Likewise it can be said to have a prior contact, not of quantity, but of intimate presence, insofar as it can contain a spirit within itself; and it can be said to have instrumental power, not added intrinsically, but assisting, and not altogether natural, but obediential, and consequently not complete, but begun, which is completed for acting only through a more excellent and, to nature, not owed divine cooperation. Therefore from this head no repugnance is proved.
4. But although reason cannot assign the positive mode by which spirits are tormented by material fire - indeed it seems safer to us to repeat with St. Augustine, "fire torments spirits in true though wondrous ways" - nevertheless it cannot show that this is repugnant. "Let us grant," says the same holy Doctor, "that God can do something which we confess that we cannot investigate."
There are indeed several modes in which it is easily granted that spirits cannot suffer from fire. Thus a) St. Thomas, Contra Gentiles, book 4, chapter 90, says: "Therefore it must not be judged that incorporeal substances can suffer from corporeal fire in such a way that their nature is corrupted by fire, or altered, or in any other way transmuted, as now our corruptible bodies suffer from fire."
b) "Nor can it be said that they suffer from corporeal fire the affliction of some contrariety, as bodies will suffer after the resurrection, because incorporeal substances do not have organs of the senses, nor do they use sensitive powers."
c) Suarez, in the place just cited, nos. 26-33, grants that fire does not torment demons by inducing corporeal heat, nor can it cause in a demon sadness of the sort which it causes in the soul when the body united to it is burned, nor is the pain of a separated soul from fire of the same ratio as the pain of a soul joined to a body, etc.
But from the fact that it is repugnant for a spirit to suffer from corporeal fire in these or other modes, it does not follow that there is no possible mode by which divine omnipotence can bring this about.
5. Indeed reason can commend the possibility of this in some way. For although the evils which are inflicted upon us by the action of bodies are properly felt and suffered by the whole composite of soul and body, nevertheless it is certain that the soul itself, which is part of this composite and communicates sensation to the body, also in some way itself suffers. This indeed does not positively explain the mode by which a spirit suffers from fire, since it is not united to fire as form; but it at least shows that it is not repugnant to the nature of a spirit that there be some mode by which it suffers from a body. Hence St. Augustine (City of God, book 14, chapter 15) says: "The pains which are called pains of the flesh belong to the soul in the flesh and from the flesh; for pain of the flesh is an offense of the soul from the flesh, and a certain dissent from its passion, just as pain of the soul, which is called sadness, is dissent from those things which happen to us unwillingly." And book 12, chapter 3, he says: "If we consider more carefully the pain which is called bodily, it pertains more to the soul."
2. One must distinguish between the fire itself and the pain or torment which demons or the souls of the damned experience from the fire, for concerning bodies there can be no question. The fire is asserted by all to be material and corporeal; but the torment, insofar as it is received in a spirit, can be called spiritual. "Because everything that is received," says Suarez (On Angels, book 8, chapter 14, no. 43), "is received according to the mode of the receiver; therefore pain received in a spirit is spiritual." And thus certain sayings of the holy Fathers, which at first sight seem to make difficulty, are easily explained.
3. Further, the fire itself must be distinguished from the mode by which spirits are tormented by it as by an instrument of God, for all concede that a spirit cannot naturally suffer from a body. All agree in this: that the fire is real and material and really tortures spirits. But there are several opinions of Theologians concerning the explanation of that mode.
St. Thomas, in 4 Sentences, distinction 44, question 3, article 3, after relating the opinions of others, concludes "that this is superadded to corporeal fire insofar as it is an instrument of divine justice avenging: that it thus detains the spirit; and thus it is made penal for it, restraining it from the execution of its own will, namely so that it cannot operate where it wills and according as it wills." And in Contra Gentiles, book 4, chapter 90, he says: "If an afflictive punishment is owed to sin, which we call the pain of sense, as was shown in the third book, chapter 145, it must be that this punishment comes from that which can bring affliction. But nothing brings affliction except insofar as it is contrary to the will ... But it is contrary to the natural will of a spiritual substance to be subjected to a body, from which according to the order of its nature it ought to be free. Therefore it is fitting that a spiritual substance be punished through corporeal things."
But Suarez, in the place just cited, no. 41, says: "Therefore there remains the fourth opinion, saying that the terminus produced by gehenna fire in a demon, or separated spirit, is a certain spiritual quality, pain-bearing in its own order, by a purely spiritual pain, and therefore so much greater as spiritual things surpass material things." Then, to the difficulty which he proposes to himself, "an instrument does not act anything by the power of a superior agent unless by its own prior natural action, through which it can first attain the subject upon which it is going to act instrumentally," among other things he answers, no. 43: if the prior action is said to be the very production of such a quality, considered according to the common ratio of production of a quality, abstracting from such a specific terminus and subject, then that fire also will be said to have a prior action insofar as it has the natural power for producing some quality. Likewise it can be said to have a prior contact, not of quantity, but of intimate presence, insofar as it can contain a spirit within itself; and it can be said to have instrumental power, not added intrinsically, but assisting, and not altogether natural, but obediential, and consequently not complete, but begun, which is completed for acting only through a more excellent and, to nature, not owed divine cooperation. Therefore from this head no repugnance is proved.
4. But although reason cannot assign the positive mode by which spirits are tormented by material fire - indeed it seems safer to us to repeat with St. Augustine, "fire torments spirits in true though wondrous ways" - nevertheless it cannot show that this is repugnant. "Let us grant," says the same holy Doctor, "that God can do something which we confess that we cannot investigate."
There are indeed several modes in which it is easily granted that spirits cannot suffer from fire. Thus a) St. Thomas, Contra Gentiles, book 4, chapter 90, says: "Therefore it must not be judged that incorporeal substances can suffer from corporeal fire in such a way that their nature is corrupted by fire, or altered, or in any other way transmuted, as now our corruptible bodies suffer from fire."
b) "Nor can it be said that they suffer from corporeal fire the affliction of some contrariety, as bodies will suffer after the resurrection, because incorporeal substances do not have organs of the senses, nor do they use sensitive powers."
c) Suarez, in the place just cited, nos. 26-33, grants that fire does not torment demons by inducing corporeal heat, nor can it cause in a demon sadness of the sort which it causes in the soul when the body united to it is burned, nor is the pain of a separated soul from fire of the same ratio as the pain of a soul joined to a body, etc.
But from the fact that it is repugnant for a spirit to suffer from corporeal fire in these or other modes, it does not follow that there is no possible mode by which divine omnipotence can bring this about.
5. Indeed reason can commend the possibility of this in some way. For although the evils which are inflicted upon us by the action of bodies are properly felt and suffered by the whole composite of soul and body, nevertheless it is certain that the soul itself, which is part of this composite and communicates sensation to the body, also in some way itself suffers. This indeed does not positively explain the mode by which a spirit suffers from fire, since it is not united to fire as form; but it at least shows that it is not repugnant to the nature of a spirit that there be some mode by which it suffers from a body. Hence St. Augustine (City of God, book 14, chapter 15) says: "The pains which are called pains of the flesh belong to the soul in the flesh and from the flesh; for pain of the flesh is an offense of the soul from the flesh, and a certain dissent from its passion, just as pain of the soul, which is called sadness, is dissent from those things which happen to us unwillingly." And book 12, chapter 3, he says: "If we consider more carefully the pain which is called bodily, it pertains more to the soul."
Corrected Latin
663. His praestitutis,
§ II.
Statuitur catholica sententia de natura ignis inferni.
PROP. XLIX. Ex revelationis fontibus apertissime constat ignem infernum corporeum et realem esse, non metaphoricum.
Prob. I. Ex Scriptura. Saepissime in Scriptura tum V. tum N. T. fit mentio de igne inferni. - Ex V. T. Ps. 10. 7.: "Pluet super peccatores laqueos: ignis et sulphur, et spiritus procellarum, pars calicis eorum." Ps. 20. 10.: "Pones eos ut clibanum ignis ... Dominus in ira sua conturbabit eos, et devorabit eos ignis." Job. 20. 26.: "Omnes tenebrae absconditae sunt in oculis ejus: devorabit eum ignis, qui non succenditur." - Isa. 66. 15. 16.: "Ecce Dominus in igne veniet, et quasi turbo quadrigae ejus: reddere in indignatione furorem suum, et increpationem suam in flamma ignis: quia in igne Dominus dijudicabit, et in gladio suo ad omnem carnem." - Ibid. 24.: "Vermis eorum non morietur, et ignis eorum non extinguetur." - Malach. 4. 1.: "Ecce enim dies veniet succensa quasi caminus: et erunt omnes superbi, et omnes facientes impietatem, stipula, et inflammabit eos dies veniens." - Ps. 139. 11.: "Cadent super eos carbones, in ignem dejicies eos, in miseriis non subsistent." - Jerem. 15. 14.: "Ignis succensus est in furore meo, super vos ardebit." - Eccl. 7. 19.: "Vindicta carnis impii, ignis et vermis," etc.
Ex N. T. Matth. 13. 42.: "in caminum ignis" - Apoc. 19. 20.: "in stagnum ignis ardentis sulphure." - Apoc. 20. 10.: "in stagnum ignis et sulphuris." - Matth. 25. 41.: "in ignem aeternum." - II. Thess. 1. 8.: "flammam ignis dantis vindictam iis, qui Deum non noverunt," etc.
Unde: ignis inferni, de quo saepe loquitur Scriptura, sumendus est sensu proprio et non metaphorico. Ergo.
Prob. antec. Ponendus certe est aliquis modus interpretationibus metaphoricis, ut ipse communis sensus ostendit: secus nihil supererit in bibliis certum. - Modus ponendus praecipue hic est, ut interpretationes metaphoricae non debeant praesumi, sed perspicuis argumentis probari: humana enim consuetudo non patitur, ut semper metaphorice loquamur; imo communis oratio propria, metaphorica rarior, et quae detegi facile possit, esse debet. Atqui nullum est argumentum probans ignem infernum, de quo loquitur Scriptura, intelligendum esse metaphorice; omnia e contra in id conspirant, ut sensu proprio illum sumendum demonstrent. Ergo.
Prob. min. a) Si quae est occasio, in qua a metaphoricis locutionibus abstinendum est, ea potissimum est quum leges feruntur, sanctio statuitur, sententia dicitur. Atqui quum de his agitur, ut patet ex cit. testimoniis, Scriptura commemorat ignem inferni. Ergo.
b) Utrum ignis infernus, de quo agit Scriptura, sit sumendus sensu metaphorico vel proprio, nequit melius colligi, quam ex proprietatibus et effectibus, quos Scriptura ipsa igni illi tribuit. Atqui hujusmodi proprietates et effectus tales sunt, ut conveniant igni reali, et non metaphorico. Revera Scriptura agens, ut vidimus, de igne inferni, commemorat caminum, fumum, stagnum, flammam, adustionem; commemorat ignem qui adurit, qui in flammam excrescit, qui devorat, qui non extinguitur, et quo reprobi instar stipulae succenduntur. Quae omnia nonnisi igni reali convenire possunt.
c) Nec dici potest hos effectus et proprietates sumendos esse metaphorice sicut ipsa vox ignis. Etenim 1. juxta usum S. Scripturae, si aliquod doctrinae caput interdum metaphorice traditur, frequentius vel saltem aliquando propriis terminis effertur: nihil autem hujusmodi accidit in casu. - 2. Scriptura in re gravissima, saepissime commemorat ignem, eidem tribuens effectus et proprietates ignis realis; nullibi aut diserte et explicite, aut subobscure et implicite innuit sensum metaphoricum: exinde communissima, ut vidimus, in Ecclesia sententia de igne reali et corporeo, et non metaphorico. Si ignis ille esset metaphoricus, nonne communissimus error videretur ipsi Deo tribuendus? Siquidem nullus alius erat modus clarius naturam ignis describendi.
d) Confirmatur ex analogia Scripturarum. Non semel enim hominum peccata a Deo fuerunt igne punita. Gen. 19. 24.: "Igitur Dominus pluit super Sodomam et Gomorrham sulphur et ignem a Domino de coelo." - Lev. 10. 2.: "Egressusque ignis a Domino, devoravit eos, et mortui sunt coram Domino." - Reg. 1. 14.: "Ecce descendit ignis de coelo, et devoravit duos principes quinquagenarios ... et quinquagenos, qui cum eis erant." - Petrus vero contestatur II. Pet. 3. 10., quod "adveniet dies Domini, ut fur, in quo caeli magno impetu transient, elementa vero calore solventur, terra autem et quae in ipsa sunt opera, exurentur." In his omnibus locis, quibus Deus praefertur igne tamquam instrumento uti ad puniendos peccatores, certum est agi de igne reali et corporeo: cur ergo sumeretur sensu metaphorico ignis, quo Deus puniet reprobos in inferno, illos detrudens in caminum ignis?
e) Nec potest dici in casu obstare substratam materiam, quominus ignis sumatur sensu proprio; agitur enim de spiritibus cruciandis. Etenim 1. Tunc obstaret propriae interpretationi substrata materia, si ratio evidenter ostenderet repugnantiam in eo, ut spiritus igne corporeo ullo modo torqueantur; atqui illud, ut vidimus, ratio non demonstrat, imo contrarium suadet. - 2. Non obstat substrata materia, quominus ignis, ad quem Christus Judex in ultimo judicio damnabit homines reprobos, sit ignis realis et corporeus; siquidem saltem eorum corpora poterunt ab igne illo cruciari. Atqui idem est ignis, quo torquentur daemones; nam dicitur paratus diabolo et Angelis ejus. Ergo.
Prob. II. Ex Patribus. Ex Conc. Trid. Sacra Scriptura interpretanda est juxta unanimem SS. Patrum consensum: ergo si quod dubium superesse posset utrum ignis inferni sit materialis et realis prout in Scripturis exhibetur; illud ex constanti Patrum traditione evanesceret. Etenim a) Constanter Patres eodem modo loquuntur de igne inferno, ac ipsa Scriptura, eosdemque illi tribuunt effectus et proprietates; ergo iisdem argumentis, quibus probatum est Scripturam loqui de igne reali, et non metaphorico probatur etiam eumdem esse sensum Patrum.
b) Imo explicite et diserte Patres asserunt ignem inferni esse corporeum et realem. Ita S. Augustinus (de civ. Dei l. 20. c. 22.) exponens locum: "Vermis eorum non moritur, et ignis non extinguitur," ait: credibilius esse, ignem proprie ad corpus, vermen vero tropice ad animam referri. Lib. 21. c. 10 inquit: "Cur non dicamus, quamvis miris, tamen veris modis etiam spiritus incorporeos posse poena corporalis ignis affligi, si spiritus hominum, etiam ipsi profecto incorporei et nunc potuerunt includi in corporalibus membris, et tunc poterunt corporum suorum vinculis insolubiliter alligari? Adhaerebunt ergo, si eis nulla sunt corpora, spiritus daemonum, imo spiritus daemones, licet incorporei, corporeis ignibus cruciandi." S. Gregorius (l. 4. Dialog. c. 28.): "Sicut electos beatitudo laetificat, ita credi necesse est, quod a die exitus sui, ignis reprobos exurat." Petrus vero interrogat: "Et qua ratione credendum est, quod rem incorpoream tenere ignis corporeus possit," quod cap. 29. prosequitur. Et tandem diserte interrogat: "An ignis inferni corporeus sit," et respondet: "Corporeum esse non ambigo." - S. Hieronymus (Ep. 59. ad Avitum), inter errores cavendos in libris Origenis, hunc ponit: "Quod ignis inferni non punit in suppliciis, sed in conscientia peccatorum." Et in id ad Ephes. 5.: "Nemo vos seducat," vel ut ipse legit, "decipiat inanibus verbis," inter haec verba inania ponit eorum opinionem: "Qui dicunt non futura pro peccatis esse supplicia, nec extrinsecus adhibenda tormenta, sed ipsum peccatum, et conscientiam delicti esse pro poena, dum vermis in corde non moritur, et ignis in animo accenditur." - Hugo Eterianus (de Regressu anim. c. 12.): "Nec est in dubitationis parte locandum, ignem illius modi esse corporeum, in quo certum est spiritus cruciari." - Hugo de S. Victore (l. 2. de Sacr. p. 16. c. 3.): "Verissime auctoritate sacri eloquii, et catholicae veritatis probatur testimonio, corporali, et materiali igne, animas etiam nunc ante susceptionem corporum cruciari."
c) Patres comparant ignem inferni, cum igne, quo hic utimur, et quo Deus in hac vita aliquando punivit peccata. Ita S. Gregorius Nyss. (in orat. magna catech. c. 40.): "Sed etsi aliquod ex iis, quae illic sunt, tormentis, nominatum fuerit nominibus, quae hic sunt cognita, non est tamen parvum discrimen. Nam cum ignem audis, didicisti aliquem ab illo diversum intelligere ex eo, quod igni illi aliquid sit additum, quod non est in hoc; nam ille quidem non extinguitur, hunc autem multa inventa sunt, quae extinguant: magna est autem differentia inter eum qui extinguitur, et eum qui nullam admittit extinctionem." - S. Joan. Chrysost. (Hom. 4. in Ep. ad Rom. n. 3.): "Si gehennam audiens rides, et incredulus es, recordare ignis illius Sodomorum. Vidimus enim, vidimus et in praesenti vita gehennae imaginem." - S. Augustinus (serm. 80. de temp.): "Ignis hic, qui in praesenti est vita, absumit cuncta, quae recipit; ille vero, quos suscepit, semper cruciat, et poenae suae integros servat ... Potentiam autem illius ignis nulla vox exponere, nullus poterit sermo explanare."
d) Nulla facta distinctione, loquuntur Patres de igne cruciante corpora damnatorum post resurrectionem, et de igne cruciante daemones et animas. Ita Lactantius (Inst. l. 7. c. 21.): "Docent nos SS. Litterae, quemadmodum poenas impii sint laturi. Nam quia peccata in corporibus contraxerunt, rursus carne induentur, ut in corporibus piaculum solvant ... cruciatibus et igne sempiterno, cujus natura diversa est ab hoc nostro, quo ad vitae necessaria utimur, qui nisi alicujus materiae fomite alatur, extinguitur. At ille divinus per se ipsum semper vivit, ac viget sine ullis alimentis, nec admixtum habet fumum, sed est purus, ac liquidus, et in aquae modum fluidus." - S. Isidorus Hispal. (de sum. bono l. 1. c. 3.): "Duplex damnatorum poena est in gehenna: quorum et mentem urit tristia, et corpus flamma justa vicissitudine, ut qui mente tractaverant quod perficerent corpore, simul et animo puniantur et corpore." - S. Bernardus (de dom. intern. c. 38.): "Tormenta erunt sine intervallo, et sine temperamento. Timor conturbabit te, cum terra aperietur coram te, et tu rues et cades in stagnum sulphuris ardentis et foetentis. Ignis exterius carnem tuam consumet, vermis interius conscientiam corrodet."
e) Ut defenderent ignem infernum, quem pagani deridebant, non dixerunt illum metaphoricum, sed ad eorum traditiones appellantes, illum realem et corporeum adstruere. Ita Minutius Felix (in Octav. n. 35.): "Admonentur homines doctissimorum libris, et carminibus Poetarum illius ignei fluminis, et de stygia palude saepius ambientis ardoris, quae cruciatibus aeternis praeparata, et daemonum indiciis et oraculis Prophetarum cognita tradiderunt. Nec tormentis modus ullus, aut terminus. Illic sapiens ignis membra urit et reficit, carpit et nutrit. Sicut ignes fulminum corpora tangunt, nec absumunt; sicut ignes Aetnae, et Vesuvii, et ardentium ubique terrarum flagrant, nec erogantur; ita poenale illud incendium non damnis ardentium pascitur, sed in exesa corporum laceratione nutritur." - Arnobius (l. 2.): "Audetis ridere nos, cum gehennas dicimus, et inextinguibiles quosdam ignes, in quos animas dejici ... cognovimus, quid? Plato idem vester in eo volumine, quod de animae immortalitate composuit, non Acherontem, non Stygem ... nominat, in quibus animas, asseverat volvi, mergi, exuri? ... Quamvis vir lenis et benevolae voluntatis inhumanum esse crediderit capitali animas sententia condemnare, non est tamen absone suspicatus, jaci eas in flumina torrentia flammarum globis?" Cf. Petavium (de Angelis l. 3. c. 5.) - Suarez (de Angelis l. 8. c. 12. nn. 11-15) - Pro objectionibus vero cf. eumdem Suarez (l. c. nn. 20-40).
§ II.
Statuitur catholica sententia de natura ignis inferni.
PROP. XLIX. Ex revelationis fontibus apertissime constat ignem infernum corporeum et realem esse, non metaphoricum.
Prob. I. Ex Scriptura. Saepissime in Scriptura tum V. tum N. T. fit mentio de igne inferni. - Ex V. T. Ps. 10. 7.: "Pluet super peccatores laqueos: ignis et sulphur, et spiritus procellarum, pars calicis eorum." Ps. 20. 10.: "Pones eos ut clibanum ignis ... Dominus in ira sua conturbabit eos, et devorabit eos ignis." Job. 20. 26.: "Omnes tenebrae absconditae sunt in oculis ejus: devorabit eum ignis, qui non succenditur." - Isa. 66. 15. 16.: "Ecce Dominus in igne veniet, et quasi turbo quadrigae ejus: reddere in indignatione furorem suum, et increpationem suam in flamma ignis: quia in igne Dominus dijudicabit, et in gladio suo ad omnem carnem." - Ibid. 24.: "Vermis eorum non morietur, et ignis eorum non extinguetur." - Malach. 4. 1.: "Ecce enim dies veniet succensa quasi caminus: et erunt omnes superbi, et omnes facientes impietatem, stipula, et inflammabit eos dies veniens." - Ps. 139. 11.: "Cadent super eos carbones, in ignem dejicies eos, in miseriis non subsistent." - Jerem. 15. 14.: "Ignis succensus est in furore meo, super vos ardebit." - Eccl. 7. 19.: "Vindicta carnis impii, ignis et vermis," etc.
Ex N. T. Matth. 13. 42.: "in caminum ignis" - Apoc. 19. 20.: "in stagnum ignis ardentis sulphure." - Apoc. 20. 10.: "in stagnum ignis et sulphuris." - Matth. 25. 41.: "in ignem aeternum." - II. Thess. 1. 8.: "flammam ignis dantis vindictam iis, qui Deum non noverunt," etc.
Unde: ignis inferni, de quo saepe loquitur Scriptura, sumendus est sensu proprio et non metaphorico. Ergo.
Prob. antec. Ponendus certe est aliquis modus interpretationibus metaphoricis, ut ipse communis sensus ostendit: secus nihil supererit in bibliis certum. - Modus ponendus praecipue hic est, ut interpretationes metaphoricae non debeant praesumi, sed perspicuis argumentis probari: humana enim consuetudo non patitur, ut semper metaphorice loquamur; imo communis oratio propria, metaphorica rarior, et quae detegi facile possit, esse debet. Atqui nullum est argumentum probans ignem infernum, de quo loquitur Scriptura, intelligendum esse metaphorice; omnia e contra in id conspirant, ut sensu proprio illum sumendum demonstrent. Ergo.
Prob. min. a) Si quae est occasio, in qua a metaphoricis locutionibus abstinendum est, ea potissimum est quum leges feruntur, sanctio statuitur, sententia dicitur. Atqui quum de his agitur, ut patet ex cit. testimoniis, Scriptura commemorat ignem inferni. Ergo.
b) Utrum ignis infernus, de quo agit Scriptura, sit sumendus sensu metaphorico vel proprio, nequit melius colligi, quam ex proprietatibus et effectibus, quos Scriptura ipsa igni illi tribuit. Atqui hujusmodi proprietates et effectus tales sunt, ut conveniant igni reali, et non metaphorico. Revera Scriptura agens, ut vidimus, de igne inferni, commemorat caminum, fumum, stagnum, flammam, adustionem; commemorat ignem qui adurit, qui in flammam excrescit, qui devorat, qui non extinguitur, et quo reprobi instar stipulae succenduntur. Quae omnia nonnisi igni reali convenire possunt.
c) Nec dici potest hos effectus et proprietates sumendos esse metaphorice sicut ipsa vox ignis. Etenim 1. juxta usum S. Scripturae, si aliquod doctrinae caput interdum metaphorice traditur, frequentius vel saltem aliquando propriis terminis effertur: nihil autem hujusmodi accidit in casu. - 2. Scriptura in re gravissima, saepissime commemorat ignem, eidem tribuens effectus et proprietates ignis realis; nullibi aut diserte et explicite, aut subobscure et implicite innuit sensum metaphoricum: exinde communissima, ut vidimus, in Ecclesia sententia de igne reali et corporeo, et non metaphorico. Si ignis ille esset metaphoricus, nonne communissimus error videretur ipsi Deo tribuendus? Siquidem nullus alius erat modus clarius naturam ignis describendi.
d) Confirmatur ex analogia Scripturarum. Non semel enim hominum peccata a Deo fuerunt igne punita. Gen. 19. 24.: "Igitur Dominus pluit super Sodomam et Gomorrham sulphur et ignem a Domino de coelo." - Lev. 10. 2.: "Egressusque ignis a Domino, devoravit eos, et mortui sunt coram Domino." - Reg. 1. 14.: "Ecce descendit ignis de coelo, et devoravit duos principes quinquagenarios ... et quinquagenos, qui cum eis erant." - Petrus vero contestatur II. Pet. 3. 10., quod "adveniet dies Domini, ut fur, in quo caeli magno impetu transient, elementa vero calore solventur, terra autem et quae in ipsa sunt opera, exurentur." In his omnibus locis, quibus Deus praefertur igne tamquam instrumento uti ad puniendos peccatores, certum est agi de igne reali et corporeo: cur ergo sumeretur sensu metaphorico ignis, quo Deus puniet reprobos in inferno, illos detrudens in caminum ignis?
e) Nec potest dici in casu obstare substratam materiam, quominus ignis sumatur sensu proprio; agitur enim de spiritibus cruciandis. Etenim 1. Tunc obstaret propriae interpretationi substrata materia, si ratio evidenter ostenderet repugnantiam in eo, ut spiritus igne corporeo ullo modo torqueantur; atqui illud, ut vidimus, ratio non demonstrat, imo contrarium suadet. - 2. Non obstat substrata materia, quominus ignis, ad quem Christus Judex in ultimo judicio damnabit homines reprobos, sit ignis realis et corporeus; siquidem saltem eorum corpora poterunt ab igne illo cruciari. Atqui idem est ignis, quo torquentur daemones; nam dicitur paratus diabolo et Angelis ejus. Ergo.
Prob. II. Ex Patribus. Ex Conc. Trid. Sacra Scriptura interpretanda est juxta unanimem SS. Patrum consensum: ergo si quod dubium superesse posset utrum ignis inferni sit materialis et realis prout in Scripturis exhibetur; illud ex constanti Patrum traditione evanesceret. Etenim a) Constanter Patres eodem modo loquuntur de igne inferno, ac ipsa Scriptura, eosdemque illi tribuunt effectus et proprietates; ergo iisdem argumentis, quibus probatum est Scripturam loqui de igne reali, et non metaphorico probatur etiam eumdem esse sensum Patrum.
b) Imo explicite et diserte Patres asserunt ignem inferni esse corporeum et realem. Ita S. Augustinus (de civ. Dei l. 20. c. 22.) exponens locum: "Vermis eorum non moritur, et ignis non extinguitur," ait: credibilius esse, ignem proprie ad corpus, vermen vero tropice ad animam referri. Lib. 21. c. 10 inquit: "Cur non dicamus, quamvis miris, tamen veris modis etiam spiritus incorporeos posse poena corporalis ignis affligi, si spiritus hominum, etiam ipsi profecto incorporei et nunc potuerunt includi in corporalibus membris, et tunc poterunt corporum suorum vinculis insolubiliter alligari? Adhaerebunt ergo, si eis nulla sunt corpora, spiritus daemonum, imo spiritus daemones, licet incorporei, corporeis ignibus cruciandi." S. Gregorius (l. 4. Dialog. c. 28.): "Sicut electos beatitudo laetificat, ita credi necesse est, quod a die exitus sui, ignis reprobos exurat." Petrus vero interrogat: "Et qua ratione credendum est, quod rem incorpoream tenere ignis corporeus possit," quod cap. 29. prosequitur. Et tandem diserte interrogat: "An ignis inferni corporeus sit," et respondet: "Corporeum esse non ambigo." - S. Hieronymus (Ep. 59. ad Avitum), inter errores cavendos in libris Origenis, hunc ponit: "Quod ignis inferni non punit in suppliciis, sed in conscientia peccatorum." Et in id ad Ephes. 5.: "Nemo vos seducat," vel ut ipse legit, "decipiat inanibus verbis," inter haec verba inania ponit eorum opinionem: "Qui dicunt non futura pro peccatis esse supplicia, nec extrinsecus adhibenda tormenta, sed ipsum peccatum, et conscientiam delicti esse pro poena, dum vermis in corde non moritur, et ignis in animo accenditur." - Hugo Eterianus (de Regressu anim. c. 12.): "Nec est in dubitationis parte locandum, ignem illius modi esse corporeum, in quo certum est spiritus cruciari." - Hugo de S. Victore (l. 2. de Sacr. p. 16. c. 3.): "Verissime auctoritate sacri eloquii, et catholicae veritatis probatur testimonio, corporali, et materiali igne, animas etiam nunc ante susceptionem corporum cruciari."
c) Patres comparant ignem inferni, cum igne, quo hic utimur, et quo Deus in hac vita aliquando punivit peccata. Ita S. Gregorius Nyss. (in orat. magna catech. c. 40.): "Sed etsi aliquod ex iis, quae illic sunt, tormentis, nominatum fuerit nominibus, quae hic sunt cognita, non est tamen parvum discrimen. Nam cum ignem audis, didicisti aliquem ab illo diversum intelligere ex eo, quod igni illi aliquid sit additum, quod non est in hoc; nam ille quidem non extinguitur, hunc autem multa inventa sunt, quae extinguant: magna est autem differentia inter eum qui extinguitur, et eum qui nullam admittit extinctionem." - S. Joan. Chrysost. (Hom. 4. in Ep. ad Rom. n. 3.): "Si gehennam audiens rides, et incredulus es, recordare ignis illius Sodomorum. Vidimus enim, vidimus et in praesenti vita gehennae imaginem." - S. Augustinus (serm. 80. de temp.): "Ignis hic, qui in praesenti est vita, absumit cuncta, quae recipit; ille vero, quos suscepit, semper cruciat, et poenae suae integros servat ... Potentiam autem illius ignis nulla vox exponere, nullus poterit sermo explanare."
d) Nulla facta distinctione, loquuntur Patres de igne cruciante corpora damnatorum post resurrectionem, et de igne cruciante daemones et animas. Ita Lactantius (Inst. l. 7. c. 21.): "Docent nos SS. Litterae, quemadmodum poenas impii sint laturi. Nam quia peccata in corporibus contraxerunt, rursus carne induentur, ut in corporibus piaculum solvant ... cruciatibus et igne sempiterno, cujus natura diversa est ab hoc nostro, quo ad vitae necessaria utimur, qui nisi alicujus materiae fomite alatur, extinguitur. At ille divinus per se ipsum semper vivit, ac viget sine ullis alimentis, nec admixtum habet fumum, sed est purus, ac liquidus, et in aquae modum fluidus." - S. Isidorus Hispal. (de sum. bono l. 1. c. 3.): "Duplex damnatorum poena est in gehenna: quorum et mentem urit tristia, et corpus flamma justa vicissitudine, ut qui mente tractaverant quod perficerent corpore, simul et animo puniantur et corpore." - S. Bernardus (de dom. intern. c. 38.): "Tormenta erunt sine intervallo, et sine temperamento. Timor conturbabit te, cum terra aperietur coram te, et tu rues et cades in stagnum sulphuris ardentis et foetentis. Ignis exterius carnem tuam consumet, vermis interius conscientiam corrodet."
e) Ut defenderent ignem infernum, quem pagani deridebant, non dixerunt illum metaphoricum, sed ad eorum traditiones appellantes, illum realem et corporeum adstruere. Ita Minutius Felix (in Octav. n. 35.): "Admonentur homines doctissimorum libris, et carminibus Poetarum illius ignei fluminis, et de stygia palude saepius ambientis ardoris, quae cruciatibus aeternis praeparata, et daemonum indiciis et oraculis Prophetarum cognita tradiderunt. Nec tormentis modus ullus, aut terminus. Illic sapiens ignis membra urit et reficit, carpit et nutrit. Sicut ignes fulminum corpora tangunt, nec absumunt; sicut ignes Aetnae, et Vesuvii, et ardentium ubique terrarum flagrant, nec erogantur; ita poenale illud incendium non damnis ardentium pascitur, sed in exesa corporum laceratione nutritur." - Arnobius (l. 2.): "Audetis ridere nos, cum gehennas dicimus, et inextinguibiles quosdam ignes, in quos animas dejici ... cognovimus, quid? Plato idem vester in eo volumine, quod de animae immortalitate composuit, non Acherontem, non Stygem ... nominat, in quibus animas, asseverat volvi, mergi, exuri? ... Quamvis vir lenis et benevolae voluntatis inhumanum esse crediderit capitali animas sententia condemnare, non est tamen absone suspicatus, jaci eas in flumina torrentia flammarum globis?" Cf. Petavium (de Angelis l. 3. c. 5.) - Suarez (de Angelis l. 8. c. 12. nn. 11-15) - Pro objectionibus vero cf. eumdem Suarez (l. c. nn. 20-40).
663. These things having been set down beforehand,
§ II.
The Catholic teaching concerning the nature of the fire of hell is established.
PROPOSITION XLIX. From the sources of revelation it is most openly evident that the infernal fire is corporeal and real, not metaphorical.
Proof I. From Scripture. Very often in Scripture, both in the Old and in the New Testament, mention is made of the fire of hell. - From the Old Testament. Psalm 10:7: "He shall rain snares upon sinners: fire and sulfur, and the spirit of storms, the portion of their cup." Psalm 20:10: "You shall make them like a furnace of fire ... The Lord in his wrath shall trouble them, and fire shall devour them." Job 20:26: "All darkness is hidden in his eyes: a fire which is not kindled shall devour him." - Isaiah 66:15-16: "Behold the Lord shall come in fire, and his chariots like a whirlwind: to render his fury in indignation, and his rebuke in a flame of fire: because the Lord shall judge by fire, and by his sword unto all flesh." - Ibid. 24: "Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be extinguished." - Malachi 4:1: "For behold, the day shall come kindled as a furnace: and all the proud, and all who do impiety, shall be stubble, and the day that comes shall inflame them." - Psalm 139:11: "Coals shall fall upon them; you shall cast them down into fire; in miseries they shall not subsist." - Jeremiah 15:14: "A fire has been kindled in my fury; it shall burn over you." - Ecclesiasticus 7:19: "The vengeance of the flesh of the impious is fire and worms," etc.
From the New Testament. Matthew 13:42: "into the furnace of fire" - Apocalypse 19:20: "into the lake of fire burning with sulfur." - Apocalypse 20:10: "into the lake of fire and sulfur." - Matthew 25:41: "into eternal fire." - 2 Thessalonians 1:8: "the flame of fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God," etc.
Hence: the fire of hell, of which Scripture often speaks, must be taken in the proper and not in the metaphorical sense. Therefore.
Proof of the antecedent. Certainly some limit must be set to metaphorical interpretations, as common sense itself shows; otherwise nothing certain will remain in the Bible. - The limit to be set especially here is this: metaphorical interpretations ought not to be presumed, but must be proved by clear arguments. For human custom does not allow that we always speak metaphorically; rather common speech ought to be proper, metaphorical speech rarer, and such as can easily be detected. But there is no argument proving that the infernal fire of which Scripture speaks must be understood metaphorically; on the contrary, all things concur to show that it must be taken in the proper sense. Therefore.
Proof of the minor. a) If there is any occasion on which metaphorical expressions must be abstained from, it is especially that in which laws are issued, a sanction is established, and sentence is pronounced. But when these things are in question, as is evident from the cited testimonies, Scripture commemorates the fire of hell. Therefore.
b) Whether the infernal fire of which Scripture treats must be taken in a metaphorical or proper sense cannot be gathered better than from the properties and effects which Scripture itself attributes to that fire. But properties and effects of this sort are such that they agree with real fire and not with metaphorical fire. In fact Scripture, treating, as we have seen, of the fire of hell, commemorates furnace, smoke, lake, flame, burning; it commemorates fire which burns, which grows into flame, which devours, which is not extinguished, and by which the reprobate are kindled like stubble. All these can agree only with real fire.
c) Nor can it be said that these effects and properties must be taken metaphorically just as the word fire itself is. For 1. according to the use of Sacred Scripture, if some head of doctrine is at times handed down metaphorically, more frequently, or at least sometimes, it is expressed in proper terms; but nothing of this kind occurs in the present case. - 2. Scripture, in a matter of the utmost seriousness, very often commemorates fire, attributing to it the effects and properties of real fire; nowhere, either expressly and explicitly, or obscurely and implicitly, does it hint at a metaphorical sense. Hence, as we have seen, there is the most common opinion in the Church concerning a real and corporeal fire, and not a metaphorical one. If that fire were metaphorical, would not a most common error seem to have to be attributed to God himself? For there was no other way of describing more clearly the nature of the fire.
d) It is confirmed from the analogy of the Scriptures. For not once only have the sins of men been punished by God with fire. Genesis 19:24: "Therefore the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven." - Leviticus 10:2: "And fire went forth from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before the Lord." - Kings 1:14: "Behold fire came down from heaven and devoured the two captains of fifty ... and the fifties who were with them." - But Peter testifies in 2 Peter 3:10 that "the day of the Lord shall come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away with great violence, but the elements shall be dissolved with heat, and the earth and the works which are in it shall be burned up." In all these places, in which God is represented as using fire as an instrument for punishing sinners, it is certain that real and corporeal fire is in question. Why then would the fire by which God will punish the reprobate in hell, thrusting them into the furnace of fire, be taken in a metaphorical sense?
e) Nor can it be said in the present case that the underlying matter prevents fire from being taken in the proper sense; for it is a question of spirits to be tormented. For 1. the underlying matter would then prevent the proper interpretation if reason clearly showed repugnance in this, that spirits should in any way be tormented by corporeal fire; but reason, as we have seen, does not demonstrate that, indeed it suggests the contrary. - 2. The underlying matter does not prevent the fire to which Christ the Judge at the last judgment will condemn reprobate men from being real and corporeal fire; since at least their bodies will be able to be tortured by that fire. But it is the same fire by which demons are tormented; for it is said to have been prepared for the devil and his angels. Therefore.
Proof II. From the Fathers. According to the Council of Trent, Sacred Scripture must be interpreted according to the unanimous consensus of the holy Fathers. Therefore, if any doubt could remain as to whether the fire of hell is material and real as it is presented in the Scriptures, that doubt would vanish from the constant tradition of the Fathers. For a) the Fathers constantly speak in the same way concerning the infernal fire as Scripture itself does, and attribute to it the same effects and properties; therefore by the same arguments by which it has been proved that Scripture speaks of real and not metaphorical fire, it is also proved that this is the same sense of the Fathers.
b) Indeed, explicitly and expressly the Fathers assert that the fire of hell is corporeal and real. Thus St. Augustine, in The City of God, book 20, chapter 22, explaining the place, "Their worm does not die, and the fire is not extinguished," says that it is more credible that the fire is properly referred to the body, but the worm tropically to the soul. In book 21, chapter 10, he says: "Why should we not say that, although in wondrous, yet true ways, even incorporeal spirits can be afflicted by the punishment of corporeal fire, if the spirits of men, certainly themselves incorporeal, both now could be enclosed in bodily members, and then will be able to be bound inseparably by the bonds of their bodies? Therefore, if they have no bodies, the spirits of demons, or rather spirit-demons, although incorporeal, will adhere to corporeal fires in order to be tormented." St. Gregory, in Dialogues, book 4, chapter 28: "As beatitude gladdens the elect, so it is necessary to believe that, from the day of their departure, fire burns the reprobate." Peter then asks: "And by what reason must it be believed that corporeal fire can hold an incorporeal thing?" which he pursues in chapter 29. And at last he expressly asks: "Whether the fire of hell is corporeal," and answers: "I do not doubt that it is corporeal." - St. Jerome, Letter 59 to Avitus, among the errors to be avoided in the books of Origen, puts this one: "That the fire of hell does not punish in torments, but in the conscience of sinners." And on Ephesians 5, "Let no one seduce you," or, as he himself reads, "deceive you with empty words," among these empty words he places the opinion of those "who say that there will be no punishments for sins, nor torments applied from without, but that sin itself and the conscience of fault are instead of punishment, while the worm does not die in the heart and fire is kindled in the mind." - Hugh Etherianus, On the Return of the Soul, chapter 12: "Nor must it be placed among doubtful matters that the fire of that kind is corporeal, in which it is certain that spirits are tormented." - Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments, book 2, part 16, chapter 3: "It is most truly proved by the authority of sacred speech and by the testimony of Catholic truth that souls, even now before the reception of bodies, are tormented by bodily and material fire."
c) The Fathers compare the fire of hell with the fire which we use here and by which God in this life has sometimes punished sins. Thus St. Gregory of Nyssa, in the Great Catechetical Oration, chapter 40: "But even if some one of the things which are there among the torments has been named by names which are known here, nevertheless the difference is not slight. For when you hear fire, you have learned to understand one different from this one from the fact that something has been added to that fire which is not in this one; for that one is not extinguished, whereas many things have been discovered which extinguish this one: but the difference is great between that which is extinguished and that which admits no extinction." - St. John Chrysostom, homily 4 on the Epistle to the Romans, no. 3: "If on hearing gehenna you laugh and are unbelieving, recall that fire of Sodom. For we have seen, we have seen even in the present life an image of gehenna." - St. Augustine, sermon 80 on time: "This fire, which is in the present life, consumes all things which it receives; but that one always torments those whom it has received, and preserves them whole for its punishment ... No voice can set forth the power of that fire; no discourse will be able to explain it."
d) Without making any distinction, the Fathers speak of the fire tormenting the bodies of the damned after the resurrection and of the fire tormenting demons and souls. Thus Lactantius, Institutes, book 7, chapter 21: "The sacred writings teach us in what manner the impious are to suffer punishments. For because they contracted sins in bodies, they will again be clothed with flesh, so that they may pay the penalty in bodies ... by torments and everlasting fire, whose nature is different from this fire of ours, which we use for the necessities of life, and which, unless it is fed by the fuel of some matter, is extinguished. But that divine fire lives and flourishes always by itself, without any nourishment, nor does it have smoke mixed in, but it is pure and liquid, and fluid after the manner of water." - St. Isidore of Seville, On the Highest Good, book 1, chapter 3: "The punishment of the damned in gehenna is twofold: sadness burns their mind, and flame their body by a just return, so that those who had treated in the mind what they would accomplish by the body may be punished at once in soul and in body." - St. Bernard, On the Interior House, chapter 38: "The torments will be without interval and without moderation. Fear will trouble you when the earth is opened before you, and you will rush and fall into the lake of burning and fetid sulfur. Fire from without will consume your flesh; the worm from within will gnaw your conscience."
e) In order to defend the infernal fire, which the pagans mocked, the Fathers did not say that it was metaphorical, but, appealing to the pagans' own traditions, asserted that it was real and corporeal. Thus Minucius Felix, in Octavius, no. 35: "Men are reminded by the books and songs of the most learned poets of that fiery river and of the stygian marsh, often surrounding with heat, which things, prepared for eternal torments and known by the indications of demons and the oracles of the Prophets, they have handed down. Nor is there any measure or end to the torments. There a wise fire burns and repairs the members, consumes and nourishes them. As the fires of thunderbolts touch bodies and do not consume them; as the fires of Etna and Vesuvius and of burning lands everywhere blaze and are not spent; so that penal conflagration is not fed by the losses of those who burn, but is nourished in the gnawed laceration of bodies." - Arnobius, book 2: "Do you dare to laugh at us, when we say gehennae and certain inextinguishable fires, into which we have learned that souls are cast ... what then? Does not that Plato of yours, in the volume which he composed on the immortality of the soul, name Acheron, Styx ... in which he asserts that souls are rolled, plunged, burned? ... Although, as a gentle man and of benevolent will, he believed it inhuman to condemn souls by a capital sentence, nevertheless he did not absurdly suspect that they are cast into rivers rushing with globes of flames." Compare Petavius, On Angels, book 3, chapter 5; Suarez, On Angels, book 8, chapter 12, nos. 11-15. For the objections, however, compare the same Suarez, same place, nos. 20-40.
§ II.
The Catholic teaching concerning the nature of the fire of hell is established.
PROPOSITION XLIX. From the sources of revelation it is most openly evident that the infernal fire is corporeal and real, not metaphorical.
Proof I. From Scripture. Very often in Scripture, both in the Old and in the New Testament, mention is made of the fire of hell. - From the Old Testament. Psalm 10:7: "He shall rain snares upon sinners: fire and sulfur, and the spirit of storms, the portion of their cup." Psalm 20:10: "You shall make them like a furnace of fire ... The Lord in his wrath shall trouble them, and fire shall devour them." Job 20:26: "All darkness is hidden in his eyes: a fire which is not kindled shall devour him." - Isaiah 66:15-16: "Behold the Lord shall come in fire, and his chariots like a whirlwind: to render his fury in indignation, and his rebuke in a flame of fire: because the Lord shall judge by fire, and by his sword unto all flesh." - Ibid. 24: "Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be extinguished." - Malachi 4:1: "For behold, the day shall come kindled as a furnace: and all the proud, and all who do impiety, shall be stubble, and the day that comes shall inflame them." - Psalm 139:11: "Coals shall fall upon them; you shall cast them down into fire; in miseries they shall not subsist." - Jeremiah 15:14: "A fire has been kindled in my fury; it shall burn over you." - Ecclesiasticus 7:19: "The vengeance of the flesh of the impious is fire and worms," etc.
From the New Testament. Matthew 13:42: "into the furnace of fire" - Apocalypse 19:20: "into the lake of fire burning with sulfur." - Apocalypse 20:10: "into the lake of fire and sulfur." - Matthew 25:41: "into eternal fire." - 2 Thessalonians 1:8: "the flame of fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God," etc.
Hence: the fire of hell, of which Scripture often speaks, must be taken in the proper and not in the metaphorical sense. Therefore.
Proof of the antecedent. Certainly some limit must be set to metaphorical interpretations, as common sense itself shows; otherwise nothing certain will remain in the Bible. - The limit to be set especially here is this: metaphorical interpretations ought not to be presumed, but must be proved by clear arguments. For human custom does not allow that we always speak metaphorically; rather common speech ought to be proper, metaphorical speech rarer, and such as can easily be detected. But there is no argument proving that the infernal fire of which Scripture speaks must be understood metaphorically; on the contrary, all things concur to show that it must be taken in the proper sense. Therefore.
Proof of the minor. a) If there is any occasion on which metaphorical expressions must be abstained from, it is especially that in which laws are issued, a sanction is established, and sentence is pronounced. But when these things are in question, as is evident from the cited testimonies, Scripture commemorates the fire of hell. Therefore.
b) Whether the infernal fire of which Scripture treats must be taken in a metaphorical or proper sense cannot be gathered better than from the properties and effects which Scripture itself attributes to that fire. But properties and effects of this sort are such that they agree with real fire and not with metaphorical fire. In fact Scripture, treating, as we have seen, of the fire of hell, commemorates furnace, smoke, lake, flame, burning; it commemorates fire which burns, which grows into flame, which devours, which is not extinguished, and by which the reprobate are kindled like stubble. All these can agree only with real fire.
c) Nor can it be said that these effects and properties must be taken metaphorically just as the word fire itself is. For 1. according to the use of Sacred Scripture, if some head of doctrine is at times handed down metaphorically, more frequently, or at least sometimes, it is expressed in proper terms; but nothing of this kind occurs in the present case. - 2. Scripture, in a matter of the utmost seriousness, very often commemorates fire, attributing to it the effects and properties of real fire; nowhere, either expressly and explicitly, or obscurely and implicitly, does it hint at a metaphorical sense. Hence, as we have seen, there is the most common opinion in the Church concerning a real and corporeal fire, and not a metaphorical one. If that fire were metaphorical, would not a most common error seem to have to be attributed to God himself? For there was no other way of describing more clearly the nature of the fire.
d) It is confirmed from the analogy of the Scriptures. For not once only have the sins of men been punished by God with fire. Genesis 19:24: "Therefore the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven." - Leviticus 10:2: "And fire went forth from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before the Lord." - Kings 1:14: "Behold fire came down from heaven and devoured the two captains of fifty ... and the fifties who were with them." - But Peter testifies in 2 Peter 3:10 that "the day of the Lord shall come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away with great violence, but the elements shall be dissolved with heat, and the earth and the works which are in it shall be burned up." In all these places, in which God is represented as using fire as an instrument for punishing sinners, it is certain that real and corporeal fire is in question. Why then would the fire by which God will punish the reprobate in hell, thrusting them into the furnace of fire, be taken in a metaphorical sense?
e) Nor can it be said in the present case that the underlying matter prevents fire from being taken in the proper sense; for it is a question of spirits to be tormented. For 1. the underlying matter would then prevent the proper interpretation if reason clearly showed repugnance in this, that spirits should in any way be tormented by corporeal fire; but reason, as we have seen, does not demonstrate that, indeed it suggests the contrary. - 2. The underlying matter does not prevent the fire to which Christ the Judge at the last judgment will condemn reprobate men from being real and corporeal fire; since at least their bodies will be able to be tortured by that fire. But it is the same fire by which demons are tormented; for it is said to have been prepared for the devil and his angels. Therefore.
Proof II. From the Fathers. According to the Council of Trent, Sacred Scripture must be interpreted according to the unanimous consensus of the holy Fathers. Therefore, if any doubt could remain as to whether the fire of hell is material and real as it is presented in the Scriptures, that doubt would vanish from the constant tradition of the Fathers. For a) the Fathers constantly speak in the same way concerning the infernal fire as Scripture itself does, and attribute to it the same effects and properties; therefore by the same arguments by which it has been proved that Scripture speaks of real and not metaphorical fire, it is also proved that this is the same sense of the Fathers.
b) Indeed, explicitly and expressly the Fathers assert that the fire of hell is corporeal and real. Thus St. Augustine, in The City of God, book 20, chapter 22, explaining the place, "Their worm does not die, and the fire is not extinguished," says that it is more credible that the fire is properly referred to the body, but the worm tropically to the soul. In book 21, chapter 10, he says: "Why should we not say that, although in wondrous, yet true ways, even incorporeal spirits can be afflicted by the punishment of corporeal fire, if the spirits of men, certainly themselves incorporeal, both now could be enclosed in bodily members, and then will be able to be bound inseparably by the bonds of their bodies? Therefore, if they have no bodies, the spirits of demons, or rather spirit-demons, although incorporeal, will adhere to corporeal fires in order to be tormented." St. Gregory, in Dialogues, book 4, chapter 28: "As beatitude gladdens the elect, so it is necessary to believe that, from the day of their departure, fire burns the reprobate." Peter then asks: "And by what reason must it be believed that corporeal fire can hold an incorporeal thing?" which he pursues in chapter 29. And at last he expressly asks: "Whether the fire of hell is corporeal," and answers: "I do not doubt that it is corporeal." - St. Jerome, Letter 59 to Avitus, among the errors to be avoided in the books of Origen, puts this one: "That the fire of hell does not punish in torments, but in the conscience of sinners." And on Ephesians 5, "Let no one seduce you," or, as he himself reads, "deceive you with empty words," among these empty words he places the opinion of those "who say that there will be no punishments for sins, nor torments applied from without, but that sin itself and the conscience of fault are instead of punishment, while the worm does not die in the heart and fire is kindled in the mind." - Hugh Etherianus, On the Return of the Soul, chapter 12: "Nor must it be placed among doubtful matters that the fire of that kind is corporeal, in which it is certain that spirits are tormented." - Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments, book 2, part 16, chapter 3: "It is most truly proved by the authority of sacred speech and by the testimony of Catholic truth that souls, even now before the reception of bodies, are tormented by bodily and material fire."
c) The Fathers compare the fire of hell with the fire which we use here and by which God in this life has sometimes punished sins. Thus St. Gregory of Nyssa, in the Great Catechetical Oration, chapter 40: "But even if some one of the things which are there among the torments has been named by names which are known here, nevertheless the difference is not slight. For when you hear fire, you have learned to understand one different from this one from the fact that something has been added to that fire which is not in this one; for that one is not extinguished, whereas many things have been discovered which extinguish this one: but the difference is great between that which is extinguished and that which admits no extinction." - St. John Chrysostom, homily 4 on the Epistle to the Romans, no. 3: "If on hearing gehenna you laugh and are unbelieving, recall that fire of Sodom. For we have seen, we have seen even in the present life an image of gehenna." - St. Augustine, sermon 80 on time: "This fire, which is in the present life, consumes all things which it receives; but that one always torments those whom it has received, and preserves them whole for its punishment ... No voice can set forth the power of that fire; no discourse will be able to explain it."
d) Without making any distinction, the Fathers speak of the fire tormenting the bodies of the damned after the resurrection and of the fire tormenting demons and souls. Thus Lactantius, Institutes, book 7, chapter 21: "The sacred writings teach us in what manner the impious are to suffer punishments. For because they contracted sins in bodies, they will again be clothed with flesh, so that they may pay the penalty in bodies ... by torments and everlasting fire, whose nature is different from this fire of ours, which we use for the necessities of life, and which, unless it is fed by the fuel of some matter, is extinguished. But that divine fire lives and flourishes always by itself, without any nourishment, nor does it have smoke mixed in, but it is pure and liquid, and fluid after the manner of water." - St. Isidore of Seville, On the Highest Good, book 1, chapter 3: "The punishment of the damned in gehenna is twofold: sadness burns their mind, and flame their body by a just return, so that those who had treated in the mind what they would accomplish by the body may be punished at once in soul and in body." - St. Bernard, On the Interior House, chapter 38: "The torments will be without interval and without moderation. Fear will trouble you when the earth is opened before you, and you will rush and fall into the lake of burning and fetid sulfur. Fire from without will consume your flesh; the worm from within will gnaw your conscience."
e) In order to defend the infernal fire, which the pagans mocked, the Fathers did not say that it was metaphorical, but, appealing to the pagans' own traditions, asserted that it was real and corporeal. Thus Minucius Felix, in Octavius, no. 35: "Men are reminded by the books and songs of the most learned poets of that fiery river and of the stygian marsh, often surrounding with heat, which things, prepared for eternal torments and known by the indications of demons and the oracles of the Prophets, they have handed down. Nor is there any measure or end to the torments. There a wise fire burns and repairs the members, consumes and nourishes them. As the fires of thunderbolts touch bodies and do not consume them; as the fires of Etna and Vesuvius and of burning lands everywhere blaze and are not spent; so that penal conflagration is not fed by the losses of those who burn, but is nourished in the gnawed laceration of bodies." - Arnobius, book 2: "Do you dare to laugh at us, when we say gehennae and certain inextinguishable fires, into which we have learned that souls are cast ... what then? Does not that Plato of yours, in the volume which he composed on the immortality of the soul, name Acheron, Styx ... in which he asserts that souls are rolled, plunged, burned? ... Although, as a gentle man and of benevolent will, he believed it inhuman to condemn souls by a capital sentence, nevertheless he did not absurdly suspect that they are cast into rivers rushing with globes of flames." Compare Petavius, On Angels, book 3, chapter 5; Suarez, On Angels, book 8, chapter 12, nos. 11-15. For the objections, however, compare the same Suarez, same place, nos. 20-40.