That Achan’s sons and daughters suffered these punishments on account of [their] own sin, certain Rabbis of old asserted (in Abulensis, q. 69) — namely, in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin ch. 6, and in ch. 38 of R. Eliezer; and they placed that sin in this, that they were accomplices of the parent’s sacrilege, and did not indicate [it], as was said above (q. 8). And [it] once pleased the fathers of the Council of Aachen under Pepin (bk. 1, ch. 2). And the same opinion now pleases the Innovators, Junius and Tremellius. “He condemned,”
(col. 887)
they say, “[in the persons] the contagion of complicity.” And to this matter can be brought the word of God (Deut. 24:16): “The fathers shall not be slain for the sons, nor the sons for the fathers; but each shall die for his own sin.” And Ezek. 18:4: “The soul which sins, itself shall die.” And again (v. 20): “The soul which sins, itself shall die; the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.” And Jer. 31:30. And St. Bernard (epistle 326): “The punishment ought not to be equal, where the cause is unequal.” Others will [have it] that they [the children] came to that [depth] of calamity on account of the father’s sin. For (Exod. 34:7) it is said: “Who repayest the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons and grandsons, unto the third and fourth generation.” This question can be treated in two ways. 1. Briefly and precisely, by saying only: on account of whose sin was this punishment inflicted on them? whether on account of [their] own or the father’s? 2. More fully, so that both the adduced scriptures may be reconciled, and other [things] may be recalled to this question, with which it is entirely connected, [namely]: Can anyone be punished on account of another’s sin? In the former way, therefore, I say.
First, whether Achan’s sons and daughters were of such an age that they could be accomplices of the paternal impiety, or whether [they were] younger, is not established. So Cajetan, and Abulensis (qq. 70 and 72), who nevertheless, in the same places and in q. 53, grants that they were younger by birth, and not yet emancipated from the father’s power. Secondly: If they were younger in age than to be able to consent to the paternal sacrilege, and to approve it either by [active] help or by silence, they were burned on the father’s account; but if [they were] older, they could indeed be accomplices, yet that is not [thereby] necessary. Because he [Achan] could have received these spoils at Jericho without their knowing [it]; and buried [them] in his tent, they likewise not knowing. For if they had been so grown-up as to dwell outside his tent, it is plain that he could have hidden and buried the plunder in his own tent, they being ignorant. But if [they were] older indeed, yet so that they were still in the father’s family, and used the same tent with him, it could happen that either by night, they sleeping deeply, he dug [it]; or by day, sent them meanwhile elsewhere, as though to do some other thing; or, they again approving and watching, he dug, but persuaded [them of] some other cause of the digging — for example, that he might have a little pit for keeping a cooler drink, or that he might keep some vegetables and roots, as is sometimes done here among us, or that he might set up some little column in the middle of the tent — or indeed something else accommodated to the place, the time, and [his] wit. If they were accomplices, they perished by their own crime — not so much because they did not accuse the father (to which Abulensis, on Deut. 13, q. 3, [and] Gregory of Toulouse, ch. 16, bk. 32, utterly deny that they were obligated; but others assert [they were], on the 2a2ae, q. 68, a. 1, as Salonius there, controversy 3) — as because it pleased them, and they held it ratified and pleasing, as though they might thereby become richer. But if they were conscious to themselves of nothing, [the fact] that they were cremated is to be imputed to the father. Thirdly: It seems likely that Achan’s sons and daughters were of every kind — that is, partly still little [children], and ignorant of all evil, partly somewhat grown-up; and that these, either all or certainly some of them, had noted with their eyes what the father had done, and had delighted, as it were, in that notable gain. And so [they] perished, condemned to the fire partly for the paternal, partly for [their] own guilt. The other [things] which you might require concerning these, you will find in the other manner of treating this question, below (qq. 36 and 39).