Part I Chapter IV: Hell

Chapter IV: Hell

CHAPTER IV HELL SECTION i THE EXISTENCE OF HELL i. Definition. — Our English word “Hell” comes from the Anglo-Saxon hel, which originally signified “a hidden place.” 1 According to present-day usage Hell means the abode of evil spirits and the place or state of punishment of the wicked after death. The Hebrew term sheol is sometimes used in the same sense, though its proper meaning is “cave,” “nether world,” or “abode of the departed.” The Latin infernus (Greek, 38^) more definitely signifies the place where the wicked are tormented. The Hebrew name for this place is gehenna, which originally meant “valley of the Hinnom.” This valley was near Jerusalem and once belonged to the sons of Hinnom (Ennom). Later it became the scene of cruel sacrifices to Moloch and finally served as a garbage dump.2 The term gehenna in the sense 1 See the Oxford New English 2 Cfr. 4 Kings XXIII, 10; Jer. Dictionary, Vol. V. s. v. VII, 31; XIX, 6. 45 of infernus was in common use among the Jews at the time of our Lord.8 Besides these more or less technical terms, Holy Scripture employs a number of metaphorical expressions to designate the abode of the damned, e. g., ” exterior darkness,” accompanied by “weeping and gnashing of teeth ;” 4 “everlasting fire;“5 “the second death,“6 etc. Though all these phrases, with the exception of the last, may connote a place, the emphasis is upon the state of eternal damnation and torment. Very truly, therefore, has it been said that the damned carry Hell around with them. 2. The Existence of Hell Proved from Sacred Scripture and Tradition. — The existence of Hell was denied by the Jewish sect of the Sadducees, by the followers of the Gnostic heretic Valentinus, and, generally, by unbelievers of all ages. The Catholic Church, on the contrary, has repeatedly and solemnly defined that “the wicked [will receive] eternal punishment together with the devil.” 7 a) Sacred Scripture inculcates this truth so frequently and unmistakably that it has been justly said that no other Catholic dogma has such a solid Biblical basis. St Jude designates Hell as sCfr. Matth. V, aa, 29; Mark T Cone, Lat. IV, Cap. ” Fir miIX, 46; Luke XII, 5. ter”: ” I Hi [scil. nuiU] cum diabolo 4 Tenebrae exterior es, CK&rot Poeuam perpetuam et tstl tscil. bom] it&TtpoV’ (Matth. VIII, 12). cum Christ 0 glorlam semplternatn 5 Matth. XXV, 41; Mark IX, 42. {recipient}.” (Denzinger-Bannvrart, 6 V. supra, p. 5. n. 429). HELL 47 “the punishment of eternal fire.” 8 St. Paul calls it “eternal punishment in destruction.” 0 Our Lord Himself describes it as an “unquenchable fire,” a place “where the worm dieth not and the fire is not extinguished,” 10 a “furnace of fire,* 11 etc. St. John in the Apocalypse refers to Hell as a pool burning with fire and brimstone.” 12 Many other texts could be cited, but it is unnecessary to multiply proofs in view of our Lord’s own declaration that the wicked will be cast into an “everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.” 18 b) The Fathers faithfully echo this teaching of Scripture. Thus St. Ignatius of Antioch writes to the Ephesians : “Do not err, my brethren ; … if a man by false teaching corrupt the faith of God, for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified, such a one shall go in his foulness to the unquenchable fire,14 as also shall he who listens to him.” 15 Not content with testifying to the teaching of Scripture on the subject, the Fathers proved it from reason. Thus they argue that God in His justice cannot possibly allow crim• Jude 7: ” ignis aeterni poenom.” I or urn erit in stagno ardentl igne 0 2 Thess. I, 9: * Qui poenas da- et sulphure: quod est mors secunda. bunt in interim aetemas a facie — For other expressions see No. i, Domini …” supra. 10 Mark IX, 4$’ ” Ubi vermis 18 Matth. XXV, 41: * Discedite eorum non moritur, et ignis non a me male die ti in ignem aeternum, exHnguitur.* qui paratus est diabolo et angelis 11 Matth. XIII, 42: “Et mittent suis.” eos in caminum ignis …” 14 els to wvp to iafteerav. i2Apoc. XXI, 8: ”… pars il- is Ad Eph.. XVI, . 4» THE LAST THINGS OF MAN inals to go unpunished. “I will briefly reply/’ says St. Justin Martyr, “that if the matter be not thus, either there is no God, or if there is, He does not concern Himself with men, virtue and vice mean nothing, and they who transgress important laws are unjustly punished by the lawgivers.” 16 St. Chrysostom writes: “All of us, — Greeks and Jews, heretics and Christians, — acknowledge that God is just. Now many who sinned have passed away without being punished, while many others, who led virtuous lives, did not die until they had suffered innumerable tribulations. If God is just, how will He reward the latter and punish the former, unless there be a Hell and a Resurrection?” 17 c) A cogent philosophical argument for the existence of Hell can be drawn from the consensus of mankind that there must be a place where criminals receive their just punishment in the next world. This belief is so general, so definite, and so clearly demanded by reason that it must be true. Society and the moral order could not exist without belief in Hell, and it is probably on this account that all nations have clung to this belief despite its terrors. Those individuals who deny the existence of Hell are mostly atheists or libertines, distinguished neither for learning nor purity of life. Wherever conscience is allowed to speak, it voices the firm conviction that God will punish the wicked and reward the just in the world 16 Apol., II, n. 9- — Other Patristic testimonies infra, 17 Horn, in Bp. ad Phil, 6, n. 6. Sect 3. beyond. St. Chrysostom aptly observes : ” If those who argue against Hell would embrace virtue, they would soon be convinced of its existence.,, 18 2. The Location of Hell. — The Fathers and Scholastics believed Hell to be somewhere under the earth or near its centre, which latter view is immortalized in Dante’s Inferno.19 This ancient belief was based on such Biblical passages as Numb. XVI, 31 sqq.: “Immediately as he had made an end of speaking, the earth broke asunder under their feet, and opening her mouth, devoured them with their tents and all their substance, and they went down alive into hell/’ Ps. LIV, 16: “Let death come upon them, and let them go down alive into hell/’ Isaias V, 14: “Therefore hath hell … opened her mouth, and their strong ones … shall go down into it.” Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself “descended into hell20 a) But these texts no more prove that Hell is beneath or in the earth than the ancient conception of Heaven as * above ” proves that the abode of the Blessed is located somewhere beyond the firmament. The ancients had a 18 Horn, in Bp. ad Rom., 31, n. 20Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Soteriology, 4. — The argument from reason in p. 91. — Other Patristic utterances St Thomas, Summa c. Gent., Ill, in Lessius, Dg Perfect. Moribusque 140; Summa Theol., ia zae, qu. 87, Divinis, XIII, 24. — The question reart. 1. — Cfr. H. Luken, Die Tra- garding the probable location of Hell ditionen des Menschengeschlechtes, is treated at length by Bautz, Die 2nd ed., pp. 410 sqq., Munster 1869. H’dlle, im Anschluss an die Schois Cfr. Patruzzi, De Sede Infemi lastik, 2nd ed., pp. 28 sqq., Mayence in Terra Quaerenda, Venice 1763. 1905. THE LAST THINGS OF MAN geocentric conception of the universe, which found its scientific expression in the Ptolemaic system. To them the earth was the centre of the universe, surrounded in great circles, called deferents, by the revolving centers of smaller circles, called epicycles, on whose circumferences the planets were supposed to move. Beyond the last and highest sphere was an imaginary region of light, the empyreum, to which fire and other tenuous bodies were believed to tend as to their natural goal. This conception of the universe led the Scholastics to locate Heaven in the empyreum and Hell in the centre of the earth, with Purgatory and the Limbo somewhere in the outer strata of our planet. Those who, like Cosmas Indicopleustes,21 conceived the earth as a rectangular plane encircled by steep walls, placed Hell underneath this plane. b) It is easy to ridicule these naive ideas from the advanced standpoint of modern science, as Draper and Flammarion have done. But no sane philosopher will argue that Hell does not exist because * there is no place for it in the heliocentric system.* We readily admit that modern astronomy has corrected many erroneous notions and that the progress of geography and physics has exercised a wholesome influence on Eschatology. To-day ” above ” and ” below 99 are recognized as purely relative terms, and we know that the heavens constantly change their position towards us as the earth revolves around its own axis and around the sun. Holy Scripture and the Fathers speak the language of the common people, and such phrases as take the geocentric system for granted, must not be interpreted literally. The unfortunate Galileo case is a warning to theolo21 Topographia Christiana, 1. II. han, Patrology, pp. 555 sq., St (On this writer and his Christian Louis 1908). Topography cfr. Bardenhewer-Sha 

HELL gians. The Church has never defined that Hell is a place, though the dogma of the Resurrection seems to entail this conclusion. Still less has she defined where Hell is. That is a question lying entirely outside the sphere of dogma. St. Gregory the Great says: “I dare not define anything on this subject, for some believed Hell to be situated somewhere within the earth, whereas others look for it under the earth/’ 21 In point of fact we know nothing at all about it, and rather than pry into the unknowable, we ought to heed the warning of St. Chrysostom: “Do not inquire where Hell is, but how to escape it.” 2S 22 Dial, IV, 42: * De hoc re hune sub terra esse aesHmant.* temere deHnire nihil audeo. Nonnul- (Migne, P. L„ LXXVII, 400). /« namque in quadam ierrarum parte 28 Horn, in Ep. ad Rom., 31, n. 5 infemum esse putaverunt, alii vero (Migne, P.

SECTION 2 NATURE OF THE PUNISHMENT Though the Church has defined nothing with regard to the nature of the punishment which the wicked are compelled to suffer in Hell, theologians usually describe it as partly privative and partly positive. Its most dreadful element is undoubtedly the loss of the beatific vision. To this (poena damni) are added certain positive torments (poena sensus). The twofold punishment of the wicked, according to St. Thomas, corresponds to the twofold nature of sin, which is both a turning away from God (aversio a Deo) and an inordinate turning towards the creature (conversio ad ereaturam). “Punishment,” he says, “is proportionate to sin. Now sin comprises two things. First, there is the turning away from the immutable good, which is infinite, and therefore, in this respect, sin is infinite. Secondly, there is the inordinate turning to mutable good. In this respect sin is finite, both because the mutable good itself is finite, and because the movement of 52 turning towards it is finite, since the acts of a creature cannot be infinite. Accordingly, in so far as sin consists in turning away from God, its corresponding punishment is the pain of loss, which also is infinite, because it is the loss of the infinite good, i. e. God. But in so far as sin turns inordinately [to the mutable good], its corresponding punishment is the pain of sense, which also is finite.” 1 i. The Pain of Loss (Poena Damni). — Damnation consists essentially in a realization on the part of the creature of the fact that through its own fault it has lost the greatest of all goods and missed the very purpose of its existence, and thereby its natural destiny. This knowledge causes a feeling of unhappiness akin to desperation, which is the exact counterpart of the beatitude of Heaven. The poena damni is expressed in the words, “Depart from me, ye cursed!” whereas the poena sensus is indicated in the phrase, “into eternal fire.” 2 There are other Scriptural texts that confirm this doctrine. Luke l Summa Thiol., 1a aae, qu. $7, turn etiam quia ipsa conversio est art. 4: “Poena proportionate pec* Unit a; non enim possunt esse actus cato. In peccato autem duo sunt: creoturoe inAnitu Ex parts igitur quorum unum est aversio ab tn- aversionis respondet ptceato poena commutabili bono, quod est infinitum, damni, quae etiam est infinita; est unde ex hoe parte peccatum est in* enim amissio infiniti boni, scilicet Anitum; aliud quod est in peccata Dei, Ex parte autem inordinatae est inordinata conversio ad com- conversions respondet ei poena senmutabile bonum; et ex hoc parte sus, quae etiam est Anita” peccatum est Anitum, turn quia ip- 2 V, infra, No. 2. sum bonum commutabile est Anitum, THE LAST THINGS OF MAN XIV, 24 : “But I say unto you that none of those men that were invited, shall taste of my supper/’ 3 In the parable of the Master of the house, Luke XIII, 27 sq., the Lord says: “I know you not, whence you are : depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you shall see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.” 4 The Fathers unanimously confirm the teaching of Scripture. St. John Chrysostom describes the pain of loss, in contradistinction to the pain of sense, as follows: “The fire of Hell is insupportable— who does not know it? — and its torments are awful. But if you were to heap a thousand hell-fires one on top of the other, it would be as nothing compared to the punishment [that consists in] being excluded from the beatific glory of Heaven, hated by Christ, and compelled to hear Him say, ‘I know thee not/ ” 5 It is difficult, nay impossible, to write a psychology of the damned. This much, however, is certain : the reprobates in Hell are beyond redemption and sanctifying grace in their souls is replaced by a fierce hatred of Almighty God. 8 Luke XIV, 24: ” Dieo autem omnet operarii iniquitatis. Ibi erit vobis, quod nemo virorum illorum, ttetus et stridor dentium: quum viqui vocati sunt, gust obit eoenam deritis Abraham et Isaac et Iacob meant.* et omnes prophetas in regno Dei, 4 Luke XIII, 27 tq.: * Nescio vos autem expelli foras.* vos, undt sitis: discediU a me * Horn, in Motth., 23, n. 8. Schell6 has protested against the * rigorism ” which asserts that the will of the wicked after death is suddenly set against God and that their previous half-hearted love of, or indifference towards Him, becomes transformed into ” satanic malice.” The germs of moral good which a soul takes with it into the next world, he argues, cannot be lost, since God destroys no good thing. This doubtful principle led Schell to conclusions closely akin to those of Hirscher.1 His teaching was violently assailed by Father J. Stufler, S. J.8 Professor F. X. Kiefl defended Schell and interpreted his words more mildly. It is undeniable, however, because of the essential distinction existing between the status viae and the status termini, that when the damned enter Hell, where grace ceases and conversion becomes impossible, they are smitten with great confusion of spirit and a corresponding sentiment of impenitence. Being permanently deprived of grace makes them enemies of God. It is not necessary to conceive this state as a sort of confirmed ” Satanism.” No doubt there are degrees of malice and impenitence in Hell. But all the damned hate God more or less because He is no longer their friend. Herein lies the dreadfulness of eternal punishment. The natural will, being a gift of God, remains good ; but it no longer wills that which is good. It wills the bad, or if it wills the good, wills it with a wrong intention. St. Thomas explains the reason as follows: “The damned are absolutely turned away from the final end of the rightly directed will. The will cannot be good except it be ordered to that end, so that, even if [the damned] willed something good, they would not will it in the right way, i. e. so 6 Dogmatik, Vol. II, Part II, pp. » Dit Htiligkeit Gottes und dtr 745 sqq. ewigt Tod, Innsbruck 1904. 7 V. supra, p. 15. that their will might be called good.” 9 Though such an exercise of the will is sinful, it entails no demerit, because the damned are in the status termini.10 Hence the damned by the sins which they commit in Hell do not merit an increase of the poena damni or of the torments which constitute the poena sensus. This is the common teaching of Catholic theologians, based on the wisdom and justice of God.11 2. The Pain or Punishment of Sense (Poena Sensus). — “Pain of sense” in Catholic theology means a pain which is caused by a sensible medium, regardless of whether it is felt by the senses or not.12 The external medium through which the positive punishments of Hell are inflicted is called by Sacred Scripture fire (ignis, Must this term be taken literally or may it be interpreted in a metaphorical sense? ” The worm that dieth not ” 18 is undoubtedly a figure of speech, signifying the pangs of conscience, and hence there is no intrinsic reason why the word ” fire ” might not signify mental anguish, as Origen, Ambrose Catharinus,1* Mohler,15 and others have maintained. The • Comment, in Sent., IV, dist 50, qu. 2, art. x: ” Bt hoc ideo, quia sunt perfecte aver si a fine ultimo rectoe voluntatis. Nec aliqua voluntas potest esse bona nisi Per ordinem ad Unern prae dictum, unde etiam si aliquid bonum velint, non tamen bene bonum volunt Mud. ut ex hoc voluntas eorum bona did possit.” 10 V. Ch. I, Thesis III, p. 13. llCfr. Chr. Petch, S.J., Theologische Zeitfragen, ate Folge; pp. 83 sqq., Freiburg 1901; J. Lehner, Der IVillenssustand des Sunders nach dem Tode, Vienna 1906. 12 Cfr. Suarez, De Angelis, VIII, 12. 13 Mark IX, 43. 14 Opuscula, ed. Lug dun., 1542, pp. 145 sqq. 16 Neue Untersuchungen, 5th cd., p. 318, Ratisbon 1890. Church has never issued a dogmatic definition on the subject. Hence we are not dealing with an article of faith nor even with a sententia fidei proximo. However, as the literal interpretation is favored by the great majority of Fathers and ScholaJtics, it may be regarded as ” sententia certa” There must be some external medium or agent — (whether solid, fluid or gaseous, or in some state transcending the laws of nature) — by which the wicked are tormented, and the nature of which is absolutely unknown to us. In taking this position we oppose the naive realism of those who regard Hell as literally a gigantic “furnace” or an active volcano. a) In trying to ascertain the nature of the infernal fire, the first thing that strikes us is that, though it is physical and real, it cannot be material. a) Neither in its nature nor in its properties, neither in its beneficent nor in its malign effects, is the fire of Hell identical with, or even similar to, the material fire of nature. Sacred Scripture speaks of Hell as a ” furnace of fire,” a ” pool of fire and brimstone,” an * external darkness in which there is howling and gnashing of teeth,* an ” eternal fire ” prepared for the devil and his angels from the beginning.16 Now the devil and his angels (the demons), being pure spirits, cannot be affected by material substances such as fire and brimstone, heat and darkness, because they possess neither senses nor Senit V. supra, Sect i.

sitive faculties. The same is true of the souls of the wicked during their disembodied state, i. e. before the Resurrection of the flesh. This fact was clearly perceived by the Fathers. Lactantius says : ” The nature of that everlasting fire is different from this fire of ours, which we use for the necessary purposes of life, and which ceases to burn unless it be sustained by the fuel of some material. But that divine fire always lives by itself, and burns without nourishment ; nor has it any smoke mixed with it, but it is pure and liquid and fluid, after the manner of water.” 17 St. Ephraem 18 and St. Basil 19 declare that the fire of Hell causes darkness and incessantly torments its victims, without however destroying them. St. Ambrose writes : ” Therefore it is neither a gnashing of the bodily teeth, nor a perpetual bodily fire, nor a bodily worm.” 20 St. Augustine says that the fire of Hell, while it bears some resemblance to our material fire, is not identical with it.21 St. John of Damascus teaches : ” The devil and his angels and his man, i. e. Antichrist, as well as all other impious and wicked men, will be thrust into eternal fire, [which is] not a material fire like ours, but of a quality known to God.” 22 P) A few Catholic theologians (Henry of Ghent, Toletus, Tanner, Lessius, and Fr. Schmid 28 ) conceive the 17 De Div. Inst., VII, si. 18 Serm. Exeget., Opera Syriace et Latin*, Vol. II, p. 354. 19 In Psai,, a8, 7, n. 6. 20 In Lucam, VII, n. 304: “Ergo neque est corporalium stridor aliquis dentium neque ignis alir quis perpetuus Aammarum cor* poralium neque vermis est corporalis.* si De Genesi ad Liter am, XII, 3a, 61: * Non esse cor por alio, sed similia corporalibus, quibus animae corporibus exutae oMciontur.” 22 o#X tfXllCO>» oZoi» TO TOO* P. d\’ olov b\v eUklrj 6 6e6f. {De Fide Orthodoxo, IV, 27). — Some of the Fathers explain the term “eternal fire ” metaphorically; cfr. Peach, Proelect. Dogmata Vol. IX, and ad., pp. 122 aq. 28 Quaestiones S electa*, pp. 143 •qq., Paderborn 1891. action of the infernal fire upon the demons and the souls of the wicked as that of a material upon an immaterial substance.24 Opposed to this theory is the fact that pure spirits as well as disembodied souls are utterly devoid of sense perception. But could not God make them feel sensual pain by a miracle? That depends on the answer to another question, vis.: Is there an intrinsic contradiction involved in the assertion that pure spirits can be affected by a material substance? Neither philosophy nor Revelation gives a definite answer to this question. The existing uncertainty has led other theologians to devise a more plausible theory. They regard the effect of the fire of Hell as purely spiritual, holding that the constant presence of fire, which is a material element, occupies the intellect of the damned in a disagreeable manner and fills the will with sadness and aversion,25 or the fact of their being locally and inseparably bound up with this lowly element 26 hinders the free activity of the spirit and thus causes internal anguish (per modum detentionis) . The souls of the lost before the Resurrection, says St. Thomas, “shall suffer from corporeal fire by a sort of constriction (alligatio). For spirits can be tied to bodies, either as their form, as the soul is tied to the human body to give it life ; or without being the body’s form, as magicians by diabolic power tie spirits to images.27 Much more by divine power may spirits under damnation be tied to corporeal fire; and it is an affliction to them to know that they are tied to the meanest creatures for punishment.* 28 This opinion is 24 Cfr. Lessius, De Div. Perf., ullo cor port medio f* XIII, 30: ” Si ignis naturaliter per 26 Cfr. St Thomas, Summa Thiol., suum calorem potest afHigere spkitum Supplement., qu. 70, art 3* hominis mediant* cor pore, cur idem 26 Cfr. a Pet II, 4; Jude 6. ignis ut instrumentum Dei non po- 27 See Rickaby’s note on this pasterit afHigere eundem spirUum sine sage in God and His Creatures, p. 4x3, London 1905.

6o THE LAST THINGS OF MAN shared by the majority of Thomists. Suarez goes so far as to say29 that the effect of hell-fire is purely spiritual, disfiguring the demons and the disembodied souls of the lost in a manner analogous to that in which sanctifying grace beautifies the angels and saints. This theory, though it correctly emphasizes the mysterious nature of the fire, reduces it to the level of an intangible metaphor. One thing has been made certain by the subtle debates of the Schoolmen, namely, that the fire of Hell cannot be identical with material fire, but must be something at the same time physical and supra-physical, a punishment invented by an avenging God, of which we know nothing except that it exists and torments the damned. b) What we have so far said applies principally to the demons, who are pure spirits ; but it is applicable also to the souls of the wicked before the Resurrection. These souls, it is true, do not lose their sensitive faculties when they leave the body. But they become incapable of sense perception for lack of adequate organs (brain and nervous system). “Incorporeal subsistent spirits,” says St. Thomas, ” have no organs of sense nor the use of sensory powers.” 80 It is different after the Resurrection, when the souls are reunited with their bodies. ” Whatever may be said of the fire which torments the disembodied souls,” adds the Angelic Doctor, “the fire that torments the bodies of the damned after the Res28 Summa Contra Gent., IV, 90; sensuum non habent ntqut pottntiis cfr. D* Veritate, qu. 26, art x. sensitivis utuntur.” (Summa contra 29 D* Angelis, VIII, 14. Gent,, IV, 90). so ” Substantia* incorporeal organ*

urrection must be regarded as corporeal, because a pain is not adapted to the body unless it is a bodily pain.” 81 Nevertheless, the theory we have set forth is not free from difficulties. It implies two strange corollaries, vis.: (i) that the pains of sense which the souls of the lost suffer in Hell differ before and after the Resurrection; and (2) that the souls of wicked men throughout eternity suffer more intensely than the demons, for whom the everlasting fire was originally prepared. For if that fire be qualitatively the same for the demons and the souls of wicked men, it must cause the same kind of pain to both. True, the body, too, is affected; but this bodily pain need not be conceived as a real burning; it may be something entirely sui generis. We can obtain no certain knowledge in the matter, though the possibility of a real burning is undeniable. However, if we consider that the assumption of a material fire, or a fire analogous to the material, does not sufficiently account for either the quantitative inequality of the torments inflicted or their qualitative adaptability to the different kinds of sins to be punished, we shall be confirmed in the conviction that the fire of Hell in no wise resembles the material fire of nature.82 Sl ” Quidquid dicatur d$ igne, qui anitnas separata* cruciat, de igne tamen, quo cruciabuntur corpora damnatorum post resurrectionem, oportet die ere, quod sit corporeus, quia corpori non potest convenient er adaptari poena, nisi sit corporeal’ (Summa TheoU, Supplement., qu. 79. art 5). •2Fr. Joseph Rickaby, S. J., says in a recent brochure {Everlasting Punishment, pp. 7~”» London 19 16) : “The fire of hell is real fire: that is to say, the word fire is the most proper and exact word which human speech affords to tell us what that terrible thing is. ‘Everlasting fire* is not a figurative expression; it occurs in a judicial sentence. Judges in passing sentence do not use figurative language; not in any figurative or metaphorical sense shall you be ’ hung by the neck till you are dead.’ At the same time we have no exact and certain knowledge of the precise nature of the fire of hell. Is it exactly like the fire of earth? But what exactly is the fire of earth? What is combustion? Not till the end of the 62 THE LAST THINGS OF MAN But if this be true, why does Sacred Scripture call the mysterious medium of eternal punishment ” fire ” ? Why not “water,” or “snow,” or “ether”? The answer is eighteenth century was man able to reply, ’ combustion it rapid combination with oxygen/ Our ancestors did not scientifically know what fire was. They thought it was a ’ substance/ an ‘element/ the lightest and in natural position the highest of the four elements, fire, air, water, and earth, out of which all bodies were composed. So then the fire of hell, if it really was fire, they thought must be a substance too. So it well may be, but we must speak cautiously. Modern science presents us with heat, fire, light, and electricity, and tells us that they are all so many, not substances or elements, but modes of motion affecting substance, whatever substance may be. They are most abundant things in nature: the fixed stars are all on fire; electricity is suspected of being a primary constituent of matter. We know much more about these things than our ancestors did: still we are in great perplexity over them, indeed our perplexities grow with our knowledge. Such is our ignorance of the fire of this world, matter though it be of our daily experience. Of a fire such as that in which angels and disembodied souls burn, happily we have no experience. And beyond teaching us that there is such a fire, real fire, Christian revelation does not go. It would be therefore extremely rash, beyond the existence (an sit) of such a fire, to pretend to lay down with certainty its nature, qualities, composition, and mode of action (quid sit). The Church does not do so. Her theologians echo St Augustine’ 8 words: ‘As to which fire, of what sort, and in what part of the world or universe it is to be, I am of opinion that no man knows, unless haply some one to whom the Spirit of God has shown it/ (Qui ignis cujusmodi et in qua mundi vel rerum parte futurus sit hominem scire arbitror n eminent, nisi forte cui Spiritus divinus revelavit. — De Ctvitate Dei, xx. 16). There is, however, a general consent of the faithful to regard it as a ’ material ’ fire, and though this be not absolutely of faith, still it cannot be denied without incurring the theological note of ’ rashness/ In accordance with this general consent I have described it as ‘a material environment’ A further speculation: is this material environment itself on fire, or is it such that the soul chafing and struggling against that constraint — ‘the great net of slavery/ fiiya SovXelas y&yyafxov, to borrow a phrase of .ASschylus — and, as St Teresa says, * continually tearing herself in pieces’ — thereby sets herself on fire? The question is beyond our knowledge to answer. We are accustomed to pictures of flames, with souls in bodily shapes writhing in them, and in such sensible representations we must fain acquiesce as being the best way to bring home to imagination the reality of hellfire. God knows His own justice, which in hell at any rate works so as by fire. Over and above this material environment I have been myself led to argue the probability of the spiritual substance of the soul, or evil angel, itself coming truly to burn under two opposing constraints, the natural constraint, or effort, of the spirit, seeking to go out to God, easy to guess. The most intense pain known to man is caused by fire. We can no more form an adequate conception of the nature of eternal punishment and its medium than of the beatitude of Heaven,88 and hence the sacred writer could hardly have chosen a more appropriate phrase than “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,” 84 even in a context where metaphorical expressions are otherwise avoided. If Christ had called the infernal fire by its true name, we should not have understood His meaning as well as we do now. in whom alone, as it finds out too late, its essential happiness lies, and to the contrary, the constraining hand of God, driving that spirit back upon itself. (By ‘the constraining hand of God ’ I do not mean the ’ material environment.’ I mean simply God’s will to carry out the sentence, * Depart from me.’). Under analogous constraint, any material substance, as all physicists now know, would grow hot and glow intensely. The laws of matter may well have their analogue in the spirit world. If this be so, the mere depart from me must involve everlasting fire. If this be so again, the wicked spirit has made its own hell, having first rejected the God who now rejects it. Also, if this be so, it becomes transparently clear that as Heaven means God, so hell means no God; and no God is just what the obstinate impenitent sinner has chosen to have in this life, and consequently in the next This, however, is a speculation. It makes the fire of hell very real and very terrible. For what is terrible in a fire is not the medium in which you are placed, but how you yourself burn. ” There are two perfectly distinct fires of hell, arising from quite distinct causes. There is first what I have called ‘a material environment,’ ‘some external objective environment/ producing in the soul plunged into it a pain which to us, with our human experiences, is most properly declared by calling it the pain of fire. Of the nature of this material environment I have no idea, no theory, any more than St Augustine had. I accept the fact of it simply because I wish to keep my rank in the common herd of Christian believers. Secondly, there is the loss of God; and about that, what I have had to say comes to this, that considering the relation in which the soul stands to its Last End, the mere felt loss of God, apart from all other agency, may, on an analogy drawn from the physical to the spiritual, be enough to set the substance of the soul veritably on fire. The “mighty constraining force,’ which I have invoked for this theory, is something quite over and above the ‘material environment’ It is God’s refusal of the soul, driving it away from Him, a refusal called a force only by analogy with things physical.” U 1 Cor. II, 9. S4Matth. XXV, 41. For all these reasons we deem it advisable to confess our ignorance in a matter that plainly exceeds human understanding, rather than engage in speculations which might easily lead us into error. Let us live so that we need not fear the mysterious fire of Hell.35 3. Accidental Pains of the Damned. — Besides the pain of loss and the pain of sense, which together constitute the essence of Hell, the damned suffer various accidental punishments. There is first and above all the remorse of conscience, which the Bible compares to a worm that will not die.36 These are all the more terrible as the damned never experience the slightest alleviation of their suffering and are compelled to live forever with demons and witness their hideous outbursts of rage and hatred. The reunion of soul and body after the Resurrection will further increase the misery of the lost soul»in Hell. 35 Cfr. Knabenbauer, Comment in Christentums, 3rd ed., pp. 607 tqq., Matth., Vol. II, pp. 384 sq., Paris Freiburg 19 12. 1894; Schcebcn, Die Mytterien des 99 Mark IX, 43. SECTION 3 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PAINS OF HELL The pains of Hell have two distinguishing characteristics: (i) they are eternal and (2) they differ in degree according to guilt. 1. The Pains of Hell are Eternal. — In consequence of the erroneous teaching of Origen, the Church early in her history defined the eternity of Hell as an article of faith. She did this at the Council of Constantinople, in 543. The definition given by this Council was approved by the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553.1 The Athanasian Creed, which was compiled about the same time, says: ‘They that have done good shall go into everlasting bliss, and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.” 2 This truth was repeated in similar terms by the Fourth Council of the Lateran.3 The Protestant Reformers did not attack the dogma of eternal punishment, and hence the Tridentine Synod contented itself with declaring: If any one saith that in every good 1 Cfr. Hcfcle, Cone Hie ngeschichte, nem aeternum. (Denzinger-BannVol. II, § 257. wart, n. 40). a ” Qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vi- 8 V. supra, p. 46. tarn aeternam, qui veto mala, in ig65 work the just man sins, … and consequently deserves eternal punishments, … let him be anathema.* 4 a) The dogma of eternal punishment is clearly contained in Sacred Scripture. The prophet Daniel proclaims: Many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth, shall awake : some unto life everlasting, and others unto reproach, to see it always. 5 The New Testament speaks repeatedly of an eternal and inextinguishable fire.6 St. John says in the Apocalypse: And the beast and the false prophet shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” 7 Though saeculum (almv) is sometimes used indefinitely to denote a period of long duration,8 its meaning in this passage obviously is eternity. The phrase in saecula saeculorum always has this meaning in the New Testament, whether referring to the glory of God,9 the kingdom of Christ, 10 or the joys of Heaven.11 St. Augustine has pointed out that there is no stronger argument for the eternity of Hell than the fact that Sacred Scripture compares it in respect of duration to Heaven.12 This rea4Sess. VI, can. 25: Si quis dixerit, iustum in quolibet opere bono peccare … atque ideo poenas aeternas mereri, anathema sit. 5 Dan. XII, 2: “Et tnulti de his, qui dormiunt in terrae pulvere, evigilabunt: alii in vitam aeternam, et alii in opprobrium ut videant semper/’ e V. supra, Sect. 1. 7Apoc. XX, 10: … et bestia et pseudopropheta cruciabuntur die ac-nocte in saecula saeculorum 8Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, pp. 306 sqq. » 1 Tim. I, 17; 2 Tim. IV, 18; Gal. I, 5; Apoc. XV, 7. lOApoc. I, 18; XI, 15. 11 Apoc. XXII, 5. 12 De Civitate Dei, XXI, 23: ” Si utrumque aeternum, profecto aut utrumque cum fine diuturnum aut utrumque sine fine perpetuum debet intellegi; par pari enim relata sunt/ HELL 67 soning is confirmed by the Biblical teaching that the fate of every man is irrevocably sealed at death.18 That there is no hope of salvation for the wicked in Hell may be concluded from our Saviour’s dictum, ” It were better for him if that man had never been born.” 14 b) The Fathers echo the teaching of Scripture. St. Polycarp tells his executioners : “You threaten me with fire, which burns but for an hour15 and then is extinguished; for you know not the eternal fire of punishment reserved for the wicked.” 16 Minucius Felix says : “There is neither measure nor termination to these torments. There the intelligent fire (™p povovv) burns the limbs and restores them, feeds on them and nourishes them… . So that penal fire is not fed by the waste of those who burn, but is nourished by the unexhausted eating away of their bodies.” 17 Origen held that all free creatures, demons as well as lost souls, will ultimately share in the grace of salvation (apocatastasis) . This heretical teaching to some extent influenced even such enlightened writers as Didymus the 18 V. supra, Sect, i, No. 2, Thes. 3. l4Matth. XXVI, 24: …bonum erat ei, si natus non fuisset homo tile. irpb% &pav. italwvtor KoX&ffcws irvp. (Martyr. Polyc, XI, 2; Funk, Patres Apost., I, 295). 17 Octavius, 35: ” Nec tormentis out modus ullus out terminus, lllic sapiens ignis membra urit et reficit, carpit et nutrit… . Ita poenale itlud incendium non damnis ardenttum pascitur, sed inexesa corporum lacerations nutritur.” Some editors have changed sapiens to rapiens, but there is no need of this, as irvp euMppovovr is an expression of Clemens Alexandrinus. (See R. E. Wallis, The Writings of Cyprian, Vol. II, p. 509, n. x, Edinburgh 1869). For additional Patristic testimonies see Petavius, De Angelis, III, 8, Blind, Evagrius of Pontus, and St. Gregory of Nyssa. It is not true, however,18 as some writers assert, that St. Gregory of Nazianzus and St. Jerome denied the dogma of eternal punishment.19 c) The proposition, “Ex inferno nulla redemption can be demonstrated also by theological reasoning. If it were possible to rescue a lost soul from Hell, this could only be in one of four ways: by conversion, by an apocatastasis in the sense of Origen, by complete annihilation, or through the intercession of the living. The first and second of these methods have been excluded by positive arguments, which incidentally also prove the impossibility of the fourth. St. Augustine expressly says that the damned do not receive the slightest alleviation of their sufferings through the intercession of the living.20 Some Fathers and theologians, particularly St. Chrysostom21 and the poet Prudentius,‘22 held that now and then, on stated days, as in the night before Easter, God grants the damned a certain respite through the prayers of the faithful. Petavius28 judges this hypothesis mildly, whereas St. Thomas rejects it as vain, presumptuous, and without authority.24 The singing of 18 Cfr. Kleinheidt, Gregorii Nyss. Doctrina de Angelis, pp. 4B sqq., Freiburg i860; Hilt, Des hi. Gregor von Nyssa Lehre vom Menschen, Cologne 1890. 10 Cfr. Peach, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. IX, and ed„ pp. 309 sqq. — On the eternity of Hell tee Bautz, Dig HolU, and ed., pp. 56 sqq., Mayence 1905. 20 De Civitate Dei, XXI, 24. Elsewhere, however (e. g. Enchir., no) he seems to take a different view. 21 Horn, in Ep. ad Phil, 2, n. 3. 22 Hymn., V, 125 sqq., in Migne, P. L„ LIX, 827. 28 De Angelis, III, 8. 24 Summa TheoL, Supplement., qu. 71, art. 5: ” Est praedicta opinio praesumptuosa, utpote dictis sanctoHELL 69 a certain hymn by St. Prudentius at the lighting of the Paschal candle is not equivalent to an ecclesiastical approval of the author’s belief.25 The only other means by which a reprobate could escape eternal punishment is complete annihilation. * The Socinians thus interpret ” the second death ” of the Apocalypse. But this interpretation is contrary to the teaching of St. John. Cfr. Apoc. XIV, 11 : ” The smoke of their torments shall ascend up for ever and ever.” 26 Apoc. XX, 14 : ” And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire ; this is the second death.” 27 St. Paul, too, plainly avers that the damned are punished forever. ” The wicked,” he says, ” will pay the penalty of everlasting ruin, from before the face of the Lord and the glory of his might.” 28 Tradition is equally positive. St. Cyprian declares that the fire of Hell is everlasting and no respite is granted to the damned.29 St. Gregory, in a characteristic passage of his Expositio in Librutn Job, generally known by the title of Moralia, calls Hell ” mors sine morte, finis sine fine, defectus sine defectu, quia et mors vivit et finis semper incipit et deficere defectus nescit.” 30 d) Philosophy cannot furnish conclusive evidence for the eternity of Hell, but it can show that this truth is not repugnant to reason and rum contraria et vana, nulla auctoritate fulto.” 25 Cfr. H. Hurter, S.J., Compendium Theologiae Dogmat., Vol. Ill, 11. 808. 26 Apoc. XIV. xi : Kal 6 Kawrbs tov paaavurftov airwv els altera. alwvwv dva^ahet. 27 Apoc. XX, 14: Kal 6 davarot Kal lp\4&r)car els r^r \tprnr tov mvpSs- ovros 6 Odvaros d devrepos iffrtviCfr Apoc. XXI, 8.) 28a Thess. I, 9: Qui poenas dabunt in inter it u aeternas (dlKrjp rlaovffiw 6\edpov alwrtor) a facie Domini et a gloria virtutis eius. 29 Ad Demetr., 24: ” Cremabit addictos ardens semper gehenna et vivacibus ftammis vorax poena. Nec erit, unde habere torment a vel requiem possint aliquando vel Unern.” so Moralia, IX, 66. that the objections raised against it prove nothing. o) When the wicked soul enters into the status termini, it realizes that it is irrevocably lost. God, who alone could save it, refuses to do so. ” He who falls into mortal sin by his own free will,” says St. Thomas, ” puts himself into a state from which he cannot be rescued except with the help of God, just as one who casts himself into an abyss from which he could not escape unaided, might say that it was his will to stay there forever, no matter what else he may have thought.” 81 The final decision being irrevocable, the will is confirmed in malice and can no longer feel contrition.82 Moreover, punishment must be coextensive with guilt. The guilt of mortal sin consists in the deprivation of grace, which loss, for those who have entered upon the status termini, is irretrievable, and consequently the reatus poenae, too, must be eternal. ” Therefore,” says St. Thomas, “whatever sins turn man away from God, so as to destroy charity, considered in themselves, incur a debt of eternal punishment.” 88 p) It has been objected that there is no proportion between a sinful act or thought, which lasts but one brief moment, and eternal punishment. The comparison is not correctly drawn. Though the sinful act (peccatutn 81 Summa Theol., Supplement, qu. 99, art. i : ” Qui in peccatum mortale labitur propria voluntate, se ponit in statu, a quo erui non potest nisi divinitus adiutus; sicut si aliquis se in foveam proiiceret, unde exire non posset, nisi adiutus, posset did quod in aeternum ibi manere voluerit, quantumcunque aliter cogit arei.* 82 Cfr. Op. cit., qu. 98, art x sqq. zz Summa Theol., ia 2ae, qu. 87, art. 3: * Et ideo quae cun que peccata avertunt a Deo caritatem auferentia, quantum est de se, inducunt reatum aeternae poenae/’ — Other arguments apud Sachs, Die ewige Dauer der Hollenstrafen, Paderborn 2900. HELL 7i actuate) be brief and transient, the ensuing sinful habitus or state endures. St. Thomas explains this with his wonted lucidity as follows : ” The fact that adultery or murder is committed in a moment, does not call for a momentary punishment; in fact, these crimes are sometimes punished by imprisonment or banishment for life, sometimes even by death; … this punishment, in its own way, represents the eternity of punishment inflicted by God.” 84 The so-called misericordes, whom St. Augustine combatted,35 appealed to the mercy of God as an argument against eternal punishment. But God is not only merciful, He is also infinitely just and holy, and His justice and holiness compel Him to hate and punish sin in proportion to its guilt. The divine mercy is not a weakly sentimentality, but benevolent goodness tempered by strict justice. If there were any chance of conversion in the other world, or any hope that Hell might end, even after millions of years, how few would shrink from sin!8* The thought of eternal punishment alone deters the average man from crime. St. Gregory of Nyssa’s friendly attitude towards Origen’s theory of a universal apocatastasis is explicable on the assumption that he regarded the reform of the evildoer as the sole object of punishment. This view is incorrect. Punishment is inflicted primarily to satisfy divine justice and to vindicate and restore the disturbed moral order (poena vindicativa) .8T Not even worldly Sumtna TheoL, ia aae, qu. 87, totem poenae divinitus inMctae art. 3, ad 1: * Non enim quia zDe Civitate Dei, XXI, 18, 1. adulterium vel homicidium in mo- 86 Cfr. St. Jerome, In Ioa., 3, 6 mento committitur, propter hoc mo- (Migne, P. L., XXV, 1142). mentane& poent punitur. sed quan- 37 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His doque quid em perpetuo carcere vel Knowobility, Essence, end Attributes, exUio, quandoque etiam morte, … pp. 460 sqq. 9% tic repraesentat sue modo oeterni*

justice can get along without vindictive punishments, though Lombroso and Liszt have tried to abolish them by declaring all crimes to be the result of bodily disease or mental disorder. ” Even the punishment that is inflicted according to human laws,” says St. Thomas, ” is not always intended as a medicine for the one who is punished, but sometimes only for others. Thus when a thief is hanged, this is not done for his own amendment, but for the sake of others, that at least they may be deterred from crime through fear of punishment.” 88 Another objection raised against the dogma of eternal punishment is based upon the desire for happiness which the Creator has implanted in every human heart. But God is not obliged to gratify this desire in all men. He has conditioned eternal happiness upon a good life. If the innate desire for happiness remains unsatisfied in some, it is their fault, not God’s. It is true that the happiness of rational creatures is the secondary purpose of creation ; but, as we have seen in a previous treatise,89 this purpose is subordinate to the glory of God (gloria Dei), which is attained by the manifestation of His justice no less than His mercy. 2. The Pains of Hell Differ in Degree According to Guilt. — Though one single mortal sin renders the sinner as deserving of Hell as a thousand crimes, justice demands that sins be punished in proportion Ho their grievousness. AcZBSumma Theol., ia aae, qu. 87, art 3, ad 21 “Poena, quae etiam secundum leges hunxanas inMgitur, non semper est medicinalis ei, qui punitur, sed solum aliis; sicut quum latro suspenditur, non ut ipse emendetur, sed propter alios, ut saltern metu poenae peccare desistant.” 80 Pohle-Preuss, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, pp. 80 tqq. cordingly, to the degrees of reward and happiness enjoyed by the Blessed in Heaven there correspond analogous degrees of punishment and misery in Hell. This is the express teaching of the Church.40 a) Our Divine Saviour draws a clear-cut distinction between the judgment pronounced on Tyre and Sidon and the penalty inflicted on the unbelieving inhabitants of Corozain and Bethsaida. The inspired seer of the Apocalypse says of the corrupt city of Babylon : “Render to her even as herself hath rendered, and give her double according to her works ; … as much as she hath glorified herself and wantoned in luxury, so much give her of torment and mourning/’ 41 Cf r. Wisd. VI, 7 sqq. : . . the mighty shall be mightily tormented, . .\ a greater punishment is ready for the more mighty/’ 42 b) The Fathers seem to have held that the poena damni, being a mere privation, is inflicted equally on all, but that the poenae sensus differ in degree. Thus St. Gregory the Great says: “As there are many mansions in the house of the Father, according to the different degrees of virtue, so the disparity of guilt subjects the damned 40Poenis tamen disparibus in deliciis fuit, tantum date UU tor{Cone. Florent., A. D. 1439). mentum et luctum.” 41 Apoc. XVIII, 6 sq. : ’* Reddite 42 ” Potent es autem potent er torUli stent et ipsa reddidit vobis: et menta patientur, … fortioribus, duplicate ei duplkia secundum opera autem fortior instat cruciatio,* eius; . , . quantum gloriilcavit 4$ et in different degrees to the fire of Hell.* 43 Dante exemplifies this belief in the concentric circles of his Inferno. Of course only a mysterious and essentially supernatural fire can produce such radically different effects. Readings : — Patuzzi, De Futuro Impiorum Statu, Venice 1749. — Carle, Du Dogme Catholique sur VEnfer, Paris 1842. — J. Bautz, Die Holle, 2nd ed., Mayence 1905. — L. de Segur, L’Enfer, 39th ed., Paris 1905 (German tr., Die Holle, 3rd ed., Mayence 1889.)— Fr. Schmid, Quaestiones Selectae ex Theologia Dogtnatica, pp. 145 sqq., Paderborn 1891. — Tournelize, Opinions du Jour sur les Peines d’Outre-tombe: Feu Mitaphorique, Universolistne, Conditionalisnte, Mitigation, Paris 1899. — Passaglia, De Aeternitate Poenarum deque Igne Inferno, Rome 1854. — J. Sachs, Die ewige Dauer der Hollenstrafen, Paderborn 1900. — C. Gutberlet, “Die Poena Sensus,” in the Mayence Katholik, 1901, II, 305 sqq. — F. X. Kiefl, Die Ewigkeit der Holle und ihre spekulative Begrundung, Paderborn 1905. — J. Hontheim, S.J., art. “Hell,” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, pp. 207-211. — Card. Billot, De Novissimis, Rome 1902. — Hewitt, ” I gnus Aeternus,” in the Catholic World, LXVII (1893), pp. 426 sqq.— V. Morton, Thoughts on Hell; A Study in Eschatology, London 1899. — Jos. Rickaby, S.J., Everlasting Punishment, London 1916. — Dublin Review, Jan. 188 1.— Charles R. Roche, S.J., “Eternal Punishment,” in the Irish Theological Quarterly, Vol. V (1910), No. 17, pp. 64-79. 48 Moral, IV, 47: Stent in diver so supplicio gehennae ignibus domo Patris mansion es multae sunt subiicit disparitas criminis pro diver sit ate virtutis, sic datnnatos