title: Dist. 44, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 927 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum puniens in inferno sit solus ignis.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum puniens in inferno sit ignis solus. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Matthaei vigesimo quinto[^p927-3]: *Ite maledicti in ignem aeternum;* ubi Dominus per sententiam infert aeternale supplicium: ergo videtur, quod in igne pure consistat.

2. Item, calefacto in igne aqua frigida non est poenalis, sed delectabilis, nec auget supplicium, sed refrigerium: ergo si nulla est eis consolatio, nullum refrigerium: ergo est calor in igne[^p927-4] sine frigore aquae.

3. Item, si sunt ibi elementa, aut sunt *activa,* aut *non.* Si *sic:* ergo cum unum contrarium agens in aliud eius actionem debilitet et infringat, tunc videtur, quod actio ignis sit ibi remissa; quod non videtur conveniens, cum illa poena sit acerbissima. Si vero *non* sunt activa: ergo nihil faciunt ad poenam: ergo si in inferno non debent esse corpora, quae ad poenam non faciunt; patet etc.

4. Item, si ibi sunt alia elementa, aut sunt *distincta,* aut *mixta.* Si *mixta:* ergo eorum actio est confracta et contemperata; si vero sunt *distincta:* ergo et pari ratione ordinata, ergo sunt quatuor elementa distincta et ordinata: ergo videtur, quod ibi sit unus mundus; et *iterum,* illud esset falsum, quod dicitur Iob decimo[^p927-5]: *Terra miseriae et tenebrarum, ubi nullus ordo, sed sempiternus horror inhabitat:* ergo si nec distincta nec confusa sunt, tunc nullo modo.

**Contra:**

1. Quod sit ibi *ignis,* patet ex Matthaei vigesimo quinto[^p927-6], ubi dicitur: *Ite maledicti in ignem aeternum;* hoc etiam habetur ex multis aliis locis.

2. Item, quod sit ibi *aer,* videtur per illud Psalmi[^p927-7]: *Ignis, sulphur et spiritus procellarum* etc.: si ergo spiritus procellarum vere habet naturam aeris, sicut ibi vere est ignis, ita et aer.

3. Item, quod sit ibi *aqua,* videtur: Iob vigesimo quarto[^p927-8]: *Transibunt ab aquis nivium ad calorem nimium:* ergo si vere erunt in calore ignis non secundum tropum, vere erunt in frigore aquarum.

4. Item, quod *terra* sit ibi, videtur per illud quod dicitur Iob decimo[^p927-9]: *Terra miseriae et tenebrarum;* et hoc patet, quia, ut probatum est, locus ille est sub terra.

5. Item, hoc videtur de *omnibus simul:* quia enim mali per corpus peccaverunt, ideo per totum corpus puniuntur[^p927-10]: ergo pari ratione secundum <!-- page 928 --> omnes partes et qualitates corporis: ergo videtur, quod secundum quatuor elementa et eorum quatuor qualitates.

> **Conclusio.** *In inferno non tantum ignis, sed etiam tria alia elementa esse creduntur, sed confusa.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in inferno, sicut ex Scriptura colligitur, quatuor elementa esse creduntur ad perfectam damnatorum punitionem, ut omnis creatura excandescat in tormentum contra iniustos et armetur in ultionem Creatoris[^p928-1], et per eadem puniantur, ex quibus constituuntur. Quia vero sunt ibi ad poenam, ideo illa ibi esse dicuntur, quae vigent in qualitatibus *activis,* ut ignis et aqua. Et *rursus,* quia ignis maxime activus est, ille est qui maxime ibi viget; unde etiam per ignem in Scriptura omne acerbe puniens significari solet[^p928-2]. Unde cum Dominus ignem infernalem comminatur, aut comminatur tanquam praecipuum tormentum, aut sub nomine ignis intelligit omne aliud afflictivum.

Si autem quaeratur, per quem modum ibi elementa esse intelligantur, dicendum quod elementa ibi sunt confusa, non distincta, non ordinata. Nec tamen illa confusio poenam minuit, sed auget; pro eo quod actio elementorum mutua post resurrectionem cessabit, cum cesset generatio et corruptio[^p928-3]; sed tamen manebit actio eorum in corpus damnandorum, quia ad hoc omnis eorum virtus dirigetur, non tanquam intendentia multiplicare speciem; sed secundum imperium Creatoris intendunt vindicare divinam iniuriam, quod quidem fit affligendo humanam naturam. — His visis, patent omnia obiecta.

1. 2. Primum enim patet de Domini comminatione, quia sub igne alia affligentia continentur, vel a maiori fit denominatio[^p928-4]. — Secundum similiter patet, quia simul utrumque affliget secundum diversas partes, aut si successive secundum easdem, tanta erit intensio ex parte utriusque, quod potius sentietur maior acerbitas, quam contemperetur. — Et *si obiiciatur* de divite, qui guttam aquae petiit[^p928-5]; dici potest, quod forte in alia parte sentiebat frigus; aut diversi diversis suppliciis cruciantur, secundum quod diversis vitiis sunt infecti. Unde sicut prima mundi purgatio fuit per aquam, secunda per ignem; sic in proposito intelligendum.

3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de actione et mixtione, patet responsio, quia ibi est actio non in alterum, sed in miserum corpus damnatum et ibi; non est commixtio, sed potius quaedam confusio, sicut dicitur, quod ignis et grando mixta pariter ferebantur[^p928-6]. Unde ibi erit ignis ardens et aqua congelans et aeris inquietudo et perturbatio et terrae foetor. Unde Gregorius: *In inferno erit frigus importabile, ignis inexstinguibilis, foetor intolerabilis*[^p928-7].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether that which punishes in hell is fire alone.*

Secondly it is asked whether that which punishes in hell is fire alone. And that it is so, it seems.

1. Matthew 25[^p927-3]: *Go, you cursed, into eternal fire;* where the Lord by [his] sentence imposes eternal punishment: therefore it seems that it consists purely in fire.

2. Likewise, when cold water has been heated in fire it is not penal but pleasant, nor does it increase the punishment but [affords] refreshment: therefore, if there is no consolation for them, no refreshment: therefore there is heat in fire[^p927-4] without the cold of water.

3. Likewise, if there are elements there, either they are *active* or *not.* If *so:* then, since one contrary acting upon another weakens and breaks its action, then it seems that the action of fire is there slackened; which does not seem fitting, since that punishment is most bitter. But if they are *not* active: then they do nothing toward the punishment: therefore, if in hell there ought not to be bodies which do nothing toward the punishment; it is evident, etc.

4. Likewise, if there are other elements there, either they are *distinct* or *mixed.* If *mixed:* then their action is broken and tempered; but if they are *distinct:* then also, by equal reasoning, ordered; therefore there are four elements distinct and ordered: therefore it seems that there is a whole world there; and *again,* that would be false which is said in Job 10[^p927-5]: *A land of misery and darkness, where [there is] no order, but everlasting horror dwells:* therefore, if they are neither distinct nor confused, then in no way [are they there].

**On the contrary:**

1. That there is *fire* there is evident from Matthew 25[^p927-6], where it is said: *Go, you cursed, into eternal fire;* this too is had from many other places.

2. Likewise, that there is *air* there is seen through that [passage] of the Psalm[^p927-7]: *Fire, brimstone, and the spirit of storms,* etc.: if therefore the spirit of storms truly has the nature of air, just as there is truly fire there, so also air.

3. Likewise, that there is *water* there is seen [from] Job 24[^p927-8]: *They shall pass from the snow-waters to excessive heat:* therefore if they will truly be in the heat of fire, not according to a trope, they will truly be in the cold of the waters.

4. Likewise, that *earth* is there is seen through that which is said in Job 10[^p927-9]: *A land of misery and darkness;* and this is evident, because, as has been proved, that place is under the earth.

5. Likewise, this is seen concerning *all [the elements] together:* for since the wicked have sinned through the body, therefore they are punished through the whole body[^p927-10]: therefore by equal reasoning according to all the parts and qualities of the body: therefore it seems [they are punished] according to the four elements and their four qualities.

> **Conclusion.** *In hell not only fire, but also three other elements are believed to be, yet confused.*

**I respond:** It must be said that in hell, as is gathered from Scripture, four elements are believed to be, for the complete punishment of the damned, so that every creature may blaze up into torment against the unjust and be armed for the vengeance of the Creator[^p928-1], and that [the damned] may be punished by the very things of which they are constituted. But since they are there for punishment, therefore those [elements] are said to be there which are strong in *active* qualities, such as fire and water. And *again,* since fire is most active, it is that which is most strong there; whence also by fire in Scripture everything that punishes bitterly is wont to be signified[^p928-2]. Whence when the Lord threatens infernal fire, either he threatens [it] as the principal torment, or under the name of fire he understands every other affliction.

But if it be asked in what manner the elements are there understood to be, it must be said that the elements there are confused, not distinct, not ordered. Nor yet does that confusion lessen the punishment, but increases it; for the reason that the mutual action of the elements will cease after the resurrection, when generation and corruption cease[^p928-3]; but nevertheless their action upon the body of the [about-to-be-]damned will remain, because to this all their power will be directed, not as intending to multiply the species; but according to the command of the Creator they intend to avenge the divine injury, which indeed is done by afflicting human nature. — These things seen, all the objections are clear.

1. 2. For the first is clear concerning the Lord's threatening, because under fire the other afflicting [elements] are contained, or the denomination is made from the greater[^p928-4]. — The second likewise is clear, because both will afflict at once according to different parts, or if successively according to the same [parts], so great will be the intensity on the part of each that a greater bitterness will rather be felt than [that it] be tempered. — And *if it be objected* concerning the rich man, who asked for a drop of water[^p928-5]; it can be said that perhaps in another part he was feeling cold; or different [persons] are tormented with different punishments, according as they are infected with different vices. Whence, just as the first purgation of the world was through water, the second through fire; so it is to be understood in the [present] case.

3. 4. To that which is objected concerning action and mixture, the reply is clear, because there the action is not upon another [element], but upon the wretched damned body and [remains] there; there is no commingling, but rather a certain confusion, just as it is said that *fire and hail were borne mingled together*[^p928-6]. Whence there will be there burning fire and freezing water and the disturbance and turbulence of the air and the stench of the earth. Whence Gregory: *In hell there will be unbearable cold, inextinguishable fire, intolerable stench*[^p928-7].

---

la: Vers. 41: Discedite a me maledicti etc.

en: Verse 41: "Depart from me, you cursed," etc.

la: Edd. cum pluribus codd. calor ignis, codd. N aa calor igneus.

en: The editions, with several codices, [read] *calor ignis* (heat of fire); codices N aa [read] *calor igneus* (fiery heat).

la: Vers. 22. Post ubi Vulgata addit umbra mortis et. — De praecedentibus cfr. Aristot., II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 7. seqq. (c. 2.). — Supra ante falsum retinuimus cum edd. esset, licet codd. habeant et iterum illud est.

en: Verse 22. After *ubi* (where) the Vulgate adds *umbra mortis et* (the shadow of death and). — On the foregoing cf. Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* II, text 7 ff. (c. 2). — Above, before *falsum,* we have retained *esset* with the editions, although the codices have *et iterum illud est.*

la: Psalm. 10, 7: Ignis et sulphur etc.

en: Psalm 10:7: "Fire and brimstone," etc.

la: Vers. 19: Ad nimium calorem transeat ab aquis nivium.

en: Verse 19: "Let him pass to excessive heat from the snow-waters."

la: Vers. 22. — Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 2.

en: Verse 22. — Cf. above, article 1, question 2.

la: Cfr. quaest. praeced. fundam. 5. — Quatuor qualitates secundum Aristot., II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 15. seqq. (c. 2. seq.), sunt: calidum et frigidum, humidum et siccum. — In fine arg. pro qualitates plures codd. qualitatibus.

en: Cf. the preceding question, fundamentum 5. — The four qualities, according to Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* II, text 15 ff. (c. 2 f.), are: hot and cold, moist and dry. — At the end of the argument, for *qualitates* several codices [read] *qualitatibus.*

la: Vide Sap. 5, 18. seqq. et 16, 24. — Inferius post dicuntur cod. aa addit maxime et nominantur.

en: See Wisdom 5:18 ff. and 16:24. — Below, after *dicuntur,* codex aa adds *maxime et nominantur.*

la: August., Quaest. in Iosue, q. 9. n. 1, exponens Ios. 7, 15. et 25. ait: Proinde ignis nomine poenam potuisse significari, Scriptura testis est in Deuteronomio, ubi [4, 20.] dicitur ad filios Israel: Et eduxit vos de fornace ferrea ex Aegypto, ubi utique duram tribulationem intelligi voluit.

en: Augustine, *Questions on Joshua,* q. 9, n. 1, expounding Joshua 7:15 and 25, says: "Accordingly, that by the name of fire punishment could be signified, Scripture is witness in Deuteronomy, where [4:20] it is said to the children of Israel: *And he brought you out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt,* where assuredly he willed a hard tribulation to be understood."

la: Cfr. infra d. 48. a. 2. q. 2. et 4. — Inferius pro damnandorum cod. A et ed. 1 damnatorum.

en: Cf. below, dist. 48, art. 2, q. 2 and 4. — Below, for *damnandorum,* codex A and edition 1 [read] *damnatorum.*

la: Vide supra pag. 794, nota 2. — Cod. F bene ut a maiori sit denominatio.

en: See above, page 794, note 2. — Codex F [reads] rightly *ut a maiori sit denominatio.*

la: Luc. 16, 24. — Inferius respicitur II. Petr. 3, 6. seqq.

en: Luke 16:24. — Below, reference is made to 2 Peter 3:6 ff.

la: Exod. 9, 24. — De sententia Gregorii cfr. IX. Moral. c. 65. n. 97; XIV. c. 19. n. 23. et IV. Dialog. c. 36. seq. In opusculo de Triplici Habitaculo (inter opera August.) c. 2. dicitur: Principalia autem sunt duo tormenta in inferno: frigus intolerabile et calor ignis inexstinguibilis; unde in Evangelio legitur [Matth. 25, 30.]: Illic erit fletus et stridor dentium... De quibus duobus innumera pendent poenarum genera, videlicet sitis intolerabilis, poena famis, poena foetoris etc. — Superius vocibus in alterum cod. X praemittit unius, cod. O unius elementi.

en: Exodus 9:24. — On the opinion of Gregory cf. *Moralia* IX, c. 65, n. 97; XIV, c. 19, n. 23; and *Dialogues* IV, c. 36 f. In the little work *On the Threefold Dwelling* (among the works of Augustine), c. 2, it is said: "But the principal torments in hell are two: unbearable cold and the heat of inextinguishable fire; whence in the Gospel it is read [Matt. 25:30]: *There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth*... On which two [torments] depend innumerable kinds of punishments, namely intolerable thirst, the punishment of hunger, the punishment of stench," etc. — Above, to the words *in alterum,* codex X prefixes *unius,* codex O *unius elementi.*

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
- **No scholion in this chunk.** Article II's SCHOLION (printed on p.927, upper columns) covers both q1 and q2 and is carried in the sibling chunk `bon-sent-IV-d44-p2-a2-q1`. Hence `has_scholion: false`.
- **Page span corrected 927 → 927–928.** The frontmatter skeleton listed only p.927, but the quaestio's Conclusio, Respondeo, and solutions run onto p.928 (running head "928 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."). Updated `printed_pages` to [927, 928], `pdf_pages` to [947, 948].
- **927/928 page break.** The `<!-- page 928 -->` marker falls inside Contra argument 5, which is physically bisected at "…ergo pari ratione secundum | omnes partes et qualitates corporis…" (p.927 right column bottom → p.928 left column top). Marker placed at that exact word boundary within the argument.
- **Apparatus provenance / seam.** p.927's footer sequence runs 1–10 (Quaracchi restarts per page); markers 1–2 are anchored in the a2-q1 material at the top of the page and belong to that sibling chunk, so this chunk carries only p.927 notes **3–10** (fundamenta + contra). p.928's footer sequence runs 1–8; notes **1–7** are anchored in this quaestio's Respondeo/solutions, while note **8** ("Cap. 7. Pro corrumpuntur in poenis…", the Augustine *De natura boni* c. 7 lemma) belongs to the following chunk `bon-sent-IV-d44-p2-a3-q1` (ARTICULUS III, which opens on p.928 at raw L98788) and is left to it. Total apparatus here: **15 entries** (8 + 7).
- **No unresolved `[?]` flags.** All readings recovered cleanly from the p.927/p.928 column bands. Minor band-confirmed corrections of djvu OCR garbles (silent): *ARTIGULUS*→ARTICULUS not in body; *concinsio*→ (marginal "Conclusio" label, dropped as editorial marginalia); *iaexstinguibilis*→inexstinguibilis; *aOligendo/aGliget*→affligendo/affliget; *foelor/foetor* confirmed *foetor*; *coufusa/uou*→confusa/non. Editorial margin labels (*Fundamenta.*, *Conclusio 1./2.*, *Sol. posit.*, *Obie. solv.*) trimmed per the marginalia convention.
- One legibility check worth flagging for a later 600 dpi pass: [^p928-2] "Quaest. in Iosue, **q. 9. n. 1**" — the note number after *q. 9. n.* is faint in the band; read as "1". Not marked `[?]` inline since it does not affect the body text.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 44, Part 2, Art. 3, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 928 -->

### Articulus III. *De actione ignis.*

Consequenter quantum ad tertium articulum quaeritur de actione ignis, de qua duo quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur, utrum ignis ille sit consumtivus corporum. Secundo, utrum sit afflictivus animarum.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum ignis inferni consumat corpora damnatorum.*

Circa primum proceditur sic, et ostenditur, quod ille ignis consumat corpora damnatorum.

1. Augustinus de Natura boni[^p928-8]: « Quoniam volentes corrumpuntur in peccatis, nolentes corrumpuntur in poenis »: ergo si non corrumpuntur nisi ab affligente, et ignis non corrumpit nisi consumendo; videtur, quod ignis ille consumat corpora.

<!-- page 929 -->
2. Item, ille ignis agit in corpora: ergo corpora patiuntur; sed « omnis passio magis facta abiicit a substantia[^p929-1] »: ergo si abiectio facta a substantia per calorem non est aliud quam consumtio, ergo ille ignis consumit corpora.

3. Item, ad adustionem necessario sequitur inflammatio, et ad inflammationem consumtio: ergo si ignis ille corpora adurit, ergo consumit. *Si tu dicas,* quod non sequitur, quia salamandra calefit ab igne, et tamen non consumitur in igne, sed renovatur[^p929-2]; *contra:* hoc non solvit, quia salamandra ab igne non laeditur, sed corpora damnatorum ab igne laeduntur et in igne cruciantur: si igitur ignis, quod laedit, consumit; patet etc.

4. Item, dolor intensus est via ad mortem, sicut patet, ergo magis intensus magis disponit: si ergo ille ignis est causa intensi doloris, contingit, hominem per illum disponi ad mortem ultima dispositione[^p929-3]: ergo necesse est, quod damnatos perimat: ergo pari ratione, quod corpora consumat.

**Contra:** 1. Isaiae ultimo[^p929-4]: *Vermis eorum non morietur, et ignis non exstinguetur;* tantum ergo durabit ignis agens, quantum homo patiens; sed ignis ille nunquam exstinguetur nec minuetur: ergo nec corpus consumetur.

2. Item, Magister in littera[^p929-5]: « Augustinus variis exemplis astruit, ea ardere et non consumi ulla consumtione »: ergo etc.

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia omne quod consumitur, perdit aliquam partem sui: ergo si corpora damnatorum consumuntur, sunt in continua deperditione. Sed constat, quod non restaurantur, cum omni refectione careant[^p929-6]; quod autem patitur deperditionem et non habet restaurationem necessario aliquando est totaliter consumtum: ergo etc.

4. Item, omne quod consumitur, necessario efficitur minus potens, ergo et magis passibile: ergo si continue consumuntur, continue illorum poena intenditur, et si hoc, cum duret in infinitum, crescet in infinitum; quod omnino est inconveniens, quod crescat poena, et non crescat culpa[^p929-7].

> **Conclusio.** *Corpora damnatorum ab igne affligentur, sed non corrumpentur quoad esse substantiale.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod si de corporibus damnatorum quaeratur, utrum ab igne affligantur, simpliciter est concedendum. Si autem quaeratur, utrum consumantur, simpliciter est negandum. — Sed si quaeratur, utrum corrumpantur, hoc est distinguendum. Nam corruptio uno modo dicit defectionem rei quantum ad *esse substantiale*[^p929-8], et hoc modo idem est quod consumtio; et tali modo non corrumpuntur, cum non moriantur. Alio modo corruptio idem est quod *privatio bonae dispositionis*; et hoc modo, quoniam a corporibus damnatorum auferetur quies et bona dispositio, quae generat in anima voluptatem; hinc est, quod continue corrumpuntur. Est igitur corruptio *afflictionis,* non *interemptionis* sive *consumtionis,* et haec fit per adustionem ignis.

Si autem quaeratur, quomodo istud possit capi et intelligi; possumus ad hoc manuduci et *exemplo* et *ratione.* Videmus, quaedam in igne vivere et non deficere, sicut ponit Augustinus exemplum de salamandra in vigesimo primo de Civitate Dei[^p929-9]. Si ergo mirabilius est, aliquod animal in igne conservari sine afflictione quam affligi sine consumtione; et istud est secundum naturam possibile: ergo nec istud debet iudicari impossibile. — *Quodsi dicas,* hoc non esse simile: quia natura illius animalis conformis est igni, natura vero humani corporis omnino difformis; responderi potest dupliciter: uno modo, quod quamvis natura humani corporis secundum statum praesentem sit ab igne consumtibilis, nihil prohibet, quin Creator, qui naturam, quam voluit, omnibus et singulis dedit, talem naturam homini dare possit[^p929-10]. Nec mirum, cum homo ante lapsum alterius dispositionis et naturae corpus habuerit quam post lapsum, quia prius *possibile ad mortalitatem,* modo *neces-*

<!-- page 930 -->
*sarium ad mortem.* — Hoc ipsum persuaderi potest exemplis sumtis a parte *ignis*; ideo enim ille ignis urit et non consumit, quia pabulum non requirit. Et est *exemplum* manifestum in inflammatione auri ab igne, quod quidem inflammatur, sed non consumitur, quia igni non praebet pabulum. Sic nec humanum corpus igni infernali. — Evidentissimum autem exemplum ponit Augustinus[^p930-1] de igne, qui est in partibus Siciliae, sicut patet aspicientibus, quod « ille ignis montes illos ab antiquissimis temporibus aestuare facit, et tamen adhuc integri perseverant: et isti sunt satis idonei testes, quod non omne quod uritur, consumitur ». — In legenda etiam beati Nicolai scribitur, quod in partibus orientalibus quidam ignis invenitur, qui appositam sibi manum vehementer affligit, et tamen de manu nihil consumit. Sic ergo ex his *exemplis* colligitur, quod possibile est, aliquid in igne ardere, et tamen non deficere.

Ex quibus etiam possumus colligere *rationem* huiusmodi, quoniam hoc venit ex parte *agentis* et ex parte *patientis.* Isti enim igni data est *virtus* ad inflammandum, non ad consumendum; et corpori data est *natura possibilis* ad patiendum, non ad deficiendum. — Si autem quaeratur *ratio* huius, dicendum, quod est a parte *naturae* possibilitas ad suscipiendum, ex parte *Dei* est potestas ad dandum, ex parte *finis* est congruitas ad sic faciendum, quia in infinitum debet homo in corpore cruciari, ut manifestetur Dei iustitia infinita. Nec sunt ista duo incompossibilia, quod aliquod corpus tangatur a calido et non consumatur, cum videamus, naturaliter aliquod corpus tangi a frigido, quod potius calefacit, quam infrigidet, sicut exemplum manifestum est in aqua et calce[^p930-2]. Et sicut illa corpora uruntur et non consumuntur, ita etiam *compositum* ex anima et corpore affligitur et non moritur. Et tamen ad hoc similiter possumus manuduci *exemplo* et *ratione;* exemplo: quia anima immortalis in corpore affligitur, quia dolor est animae proprie, et tamen non occiditur[^p930-3]. Quid ergo prohibet similiter intelligi in ipsis damnatis? — *Quodsi dicas,* hoc non esse simile: quia anima non composita est ex contrariis, secundum quod natura humani corporis; respondere possumus, quod istud non obsistit, « cum aliqua corruptibilia, utpote vermes, in aquis calidissimis reperiri queant, quarum fervorem nemo impune pertractat », sicut dicit Augustinus[^p930-4]. Si igitur quae mortalia sunt et corruptibilia possunt in his calidissimis vivere sine afflictione; pari ratione immortalia et passibilia corpora affligi possunt sine interemptione. — Si autem quaeratur ratio huius, dici potest, quod hoc est propter coniunctionem animae ad carnem indissolubilem. Quod enim homo moriatur dolore, hoc non est, quia dolor sit contrarius vitae, cum dolor non sit nisi in substantia vivente — unde sequitur: si dolet, sentit, et si sentit, vivit — sed quia anima non est indissolubili vinculo corpori alligata; ideo intensus dolor eam expellit de praesenti habitaculo. Nunc enim est carcer temporalis, sed tunc erit perpetuus[^p930-5]. — His visis, satis facile est ad obiecta respondere. Concedo enim rationes probantes, quod ignis non est consumtivus corporum.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur de corruptione, iam patet responsio: loquitur enim de corruptione *afflictionis,* non *desitionis*[^p930-6]; prima non ponit consumtionem sicut secunda.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod passio magis facta abiicit a substantia; dicendum, quod substantia patiens in duplici differentia est: aut quia potest recipere formam contrariam suae perfectioni quantum ad *esse;* aut quia potest suscipere contrariam dispositionem quantum ad *bene esse.* Primo modo passio intensa corrumpit simpliciter auferendo *esse;* secundo modo aufert *bene esse.* Unde damnati semper sunt et semper male sunt; ideo semper vivunt et semper moriuntur. — *Si autem obiicias mihi,* quod quidquid sit illud quod abiicitur, cum non sit infinitum, videtur totum abiici aliquando, ac per hoc locum actioni et passioni non relinqui; responderi potest, quod semper est abiectio et corruptio, non quia novum aliquid semper adimatur, sed quia per continuam actionem eiusdem rei ademptio continuatur. — Exemplum huius manifestum est in suo opposito. Sicut enim Beati continue reficiuntur, non quia semper novum aliquid recipiant, sed quia in suo praemio conservantur et continuantur; sic damnati continue affliguntur et corrumpuntur, quia salutis et quietis eis privatio per continuam actionem ignis continuatur. — Et huius exemplum clarum est in generatione radii, qui dicitur semper oriri et semper a sole egredi, non quia sol semper aliquid novum emittat, sed quia primum lumen missum continuat[^p930-7]. Sic ignis dicitur semper damnatos affligere, non quia novam dispositionem de novo afferat, sed quia continue agendo a priori afflictione non cessat.

3. 4. Ad duo sequentia iam patet responsio: quia nec inflammatio consumtionem, nec dolor necessario infert mortem, sed solum secundum statum praesentem; ideo, variato statu, necessaria consequentia non est inter ista.

<!-- page 931 -->

english:
### Article III. *On the action of fire.*

Next, as regards the third article, inquiry is made concerning the action of fire, about which two questions are asked. First it is asked whether that fire is consumptive of bodies. Second, whether it is afflictive of souls.

### Question I. *Whether the fire of hell consumes the bodies of the damned.*

Concerning the first the procedure is thus, and it is shown that that fire consumes the bodies of the damned.

1. Augustine, *On the Nature of the Good*[^p928-8]: « Since the willing are corrupted in sins, the unwilling are corrupted in punishments »: therefore if they are not corrupted except by that which afflicts, and fire does not corrupt except by consuming, it seems that that fire consumes the bodies.

2. Likewise, that fire acts upon the bodies: therefore the bodies suffer; but « every passion, the more intense it is made, casts away from the substance[^p929-1] »: therefore if the casting-away made from the substance through heat is nothing other than consumption, then that fire consumes the bodies.

3. Likewise, upon burning there necessarily follows inflammation, and upon inflammation consumption: therefore if that fire burns the bodies, therefore it consumes [them]. *If you should say* that it does not follow, because the salamander is heated by fire and yet is not consumed in the fire but is renewed[^p929-2]; *on the contrary:* this does not solve [it], because the salamander is not harmed by the fire, but the bodies of the damned are harmed by the fire and are tormented in the fire: if therefore fire, which harms, consumes; it is evident, etc.

4. Likewise, intense pain is a way to death, as is evident, therefore the more intense the more it disposes [to death]: if therefore that fire is the cause of intense pain, it happens that a man is disposed through it to death by the ultimate disposition[^p929-3]: therefore it is necessary that it destroy the damned: therefore by parity of reasoning, that it consume the bodies.

**On the contrary:** 1. Isaiah, last [chapter][^p929-4]: *Their worm shall not die, and the fire shall not be extinguished;* therefore the fire as agent will last only as long as the man as patient; but that fire will never be extinguished nor diminished: therefore neither will the body be consumed.

2. Likewise, the Master in the text[^p929-5]: « Augustine by various examples establishes that they burn and are not consumed by any consumption »: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, it seems by *reason:* because everything that is consumed loses some part of itself: therefore if the bodies of the damned are consumed, they are in continual loss. But it is agreed that they are not restored, since they lack all refreshment[^p929-6]; but that which suffers loss and does not have restoration is necessarily at some time totally consumed: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, everything that is consumed necessarily becomes less powerful, therefore also more passible: therefore if they are continually consumed, their punishment is continually intensified, and if this, since it lasts to infinity, it will grow to infinity; which is altogether unfitting, that the punishment should grow, and the fault not grow[^p929-7].

> **Conclusion.** *The bodies of the damned will be afflicted by the fire, but will not be corrupted as to substantial being.*

**I respond:** It must be said that if it is asked concerning the bodies of the damned whether they are afflicted by the fire, it is to be conceded simply. But if it is asked whether they are consumed, it is to be denied simply. — But if it is asked whether they are corrupted, this must be distinguished. For corruption in one way means the defect of a thing as to *substantial being*[^p929-8], and in this way it is the same as consumption; and in such a way they are not corrupted, since they do not die. In another way corruption is the same as the *privation of a good disposition*; and in this way, since from the bodies of the damned there will be taken away the rest and good disposition which generates pleasure in the soul, hence it is that they are continually corrupted. It is therefore a corruption of *affliction,* not of *destruction* or of *consumption,* and this happens through the burning of the fire.

But if it is asked how this can be grasped and understood; we can be led to this both by *example* and by *reason.* We see that certain things live in fire and do not fail, as Augustine sets down the example of the salamander in the twenty-first [book] of the *City of God*[^p929-9]. If therefore it is more marvelous that some animal be preserved in fire without affliction than to be afflicted without consumption; and this is possible according to nature: therefore neither ought this to be judged impossible. — *But if you should say* that this is not similar: because the nature of that animal is conformed to fire, but the nature of the human body is altogether unlike [it]; it can be answered in two ways: in one way, that although the nature of the human body according to the present state is consumable by fire, nothing prevents that the Creator, who gave to all and each the nature which He willed, could give such a nature to man[^p929-10]. Nor is it a wonder, since man before the fall had a body of another disposition and nature than after the fall, because before [it was] *capable of mortality,* now *neces-*

*sary to death.* — This same thing can be persuaded by examples taken from the side of *fire*; for that fire burns and does not consume for this reason, that it does not require fuel. And there is a manifest *example* in the kindling of gold by fire, which indeed is kindled, but is not consumed, because it does not offer fuel to the fire. So neither [is] the human body [consumed] by the infernal fire. — But a most evident example Augustine sets down[^p930-1] concerning the fire which is in the region of Sicily, as is evident to those beholding, that « that fire makes those mountains to seethe from the most ancient times, and yet they still remain whole: and these are sufficiently fit witnesses that not everything which is burned is consumed ». — In the legend of blessed Nicholas also it is written that in the eastern parts a certain fire is found, which vehemently afflicts a hand set to it, and yet consumes nothing of the hand. Thus therefore from these *examples* it is gathered that it is possible for something to burn in fire and yet not fail.

From which also we can gather a *reason* of this kind, namely that this comes from the side of the *agent* and from the side of the *patient.* For to this fire is given a *power* to inflame, not to consume; and to the body is given a *nature capable* of suffering, not of failing. — But if the *reason* of this be asked, it must be said that on the part of *nature* is the possibility of receiving, on the part of *God* is the power of giving, on the part of the *end* is the fittingness for so doing, because to infinity a man must be tormented in body, that the infinite justice of God may be manifested. Nor are these two incompossible, that some body be touched by something hot and not be consumed, since we see that naturally some body is touched by something cold which rather heats than cools, as the manifest example is in water and lime[^p930-2]. And just as those bodies are burned and not consumed, so also the *composite* of soul and body is afflicted and does not die. And yet to this likewise we can be led by *example* and *reason;* by example: because the immortal soul is afflicted in the body, since pain belongs properly to the soul, and yet it is not killed[^p930-3]. What then prevents [this] from being similarly understood in the damned themselves? — *But if you should say* that this is not similar: because the soul is not composed of contraries, according as [is] the nature of the human body; we can answer that this does not stand in the way, « since certain corruptible things, such as worms, can be found in the hottest waters, whose heat no one handles with impunity », as Augustine says[^p930-4]. If therefore things which are mortal and corruptible can live in these hottest [waters] without affliction; by parity of reasoning immortal and passible bodies can be afflicted without destruction. — But if the reason of this be asked, it can be said that this is on account of the union of the soul to the flesh, which is indissoluble. For that a man dies of pain, this is not because pain is contrary to life, since pain is only in a living substance — whence it follows: if he grieves, he feels, and if he feels, he lives — but because the soul is not bound to the body by an indissoluble bond; therefore intense pain expels it from the present dwelling. For now it is a temporal prison, but then it will be perpetual[^p930-5]. — These things having been seen, it is easy enough to reply to the objections. For I concede the reasons proving that fire is not consumptive of bodies.

1. To that then which is objected first concerning corruption, the response is already evident: for it speaks of the corruption of *affliction,* not of *cessation*[^p930-6]; the first does not posit consumption as the second [does].

2. To that which is objected, that passion the more intense casts away from substance; it must be said that a suffering substance is in a twofold difference: either because it can receive a form contrary to its perfection as to *being;* or because it can receive a contrary disposition as to *well-being.* In the first way intense passion corrupts simply by taking away *being;* in the second way it takes away *well-being.* Whence the damned always are and always are ill; therefore they always live and always die. — *But if you should object to me* that whatever that be which is cast away, since it is not infinite, it seems that the whole is cast away at some time, and thereby no room is left for action and passion; it can be answered that there is always casting-away and corruption, not because something new is always taken away, but because through the continual action of the same thing the taking-away is continued. — An example of this is manifest in its opposite. For just as the Blessed are continually refreshed, not because they always receive something new, but because they are conserved and continued in their reward; so the damned are continually afflicted and corrupted, because the privation of salvation and rest is continued for them through the continual action of the fire. — And a clear example of this is in the generation of a ray, which is said always to arise and always to go forth from the sun, not because the sun always emits something new, but because it continues the first light emitted[^p930-7]. So fire is said always to afflict the damned, not because it brings a new disposition anew, but because acting continually it does not cease from the prior affliction.

3. 4. To the two following [objections] the response is already evident: because neither does inflammation [infer] consumption, nor does pain necessarily infer death, but only according to the present state; therefore, the state being changed, the necessary consequence does not hold between these.

la: Cap. 7. Pro *corrumpuntur in poenis* textus originalis *corrumpantur in poenis*.

en: Chapter 7. For *corrumpuntur in poenis* (are corrupted in punishments) the original text [reads] *corrumpantur in poenis*.

la: Aristot., VI. Topic. c. 3. (c. 6.). — Inferius ante *per calorem* edd. cum pluribus codd. inepte addunt *est*.

en: Aristotle, *Topics* VI, c. 3 (c. 6). — Below, before *per calorem* the editions, with several codices, ineptly add *est*.

la: Ut refert August.; cfr. infra corp. quaest. — Paulo superius post *adurit* cod. aa addit *et inflammat*.

en: As Augustine reports; cf. below in the body of the question. — A little above, after *adurit* codex aa adds *et inflammat*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 22, nota 9. — De *maiori* cfr. I. Machab. 6, 8. seq.

en: Cf. above, p. 22, note 9. — On the *major* [premise] cf. 1 Maccabees 6, 8 seq.

la: Vers. 24. Post *ignis* Vat. cum Vulgata repetit *eorum*.

en: Verse 24 [Isaiah 66, 24]. After *ignis* the Vatican [edition], with the Vulgate, repeats *eorum*.

la: Hic c. 5, ubi vocibus *ea ardere* praemittit *et sempiternis ignibus*, et pro *ulla consumtione* substituit *illa combustione*.

en: Here c. 5, where before the words *ea ardere* it prefixes *et sempiternis ignibus*, and for *ulla consumtione* it substitutes *illa combustione*.

la: Cod. aa allegat Isai. 65, 13. seq.: *Ecce, servi mei comedent, et vos esurietis* etc.

en: Codex aa cites Isaiah 65, 13 seq.: *Behold, my servants shall eat, and you shall be hungry,* etc.

la: Cod. K (I a secunda manu) legit: *crescet in infinitum; sed hoc est impossibile, quod crescat... culpa: igitur nullo modo consumuntur*. — Cod. aa subiungit ut novum arg. sententiam August., quam supra pag. 922, nota 2. ex Gregorio allegavimus.

en: Codex K (I by a second hand) reads: *it will grow to infinity; but this is impossible, that the fault should grow...: therefore in no way are they consumed*. — Codex aa subjoins, as a new argument, the opinion of Augustine which above, on p. 922, note 2, we cited from Gregory.

la: Vide Aristot., V. Phys. text. 7. (c. 1.), et I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 11. seqq. (c. 3.). — Pro *defectionem* cod. G *desitionem* (quod habetur etiam infra in solut. ad 1.), codd. L Y *destructionem*, Vat. *defectionem seu decisionem*.

en: See Aristotle, *Physics* V, text 7 (c. 1), and *On Generation and Corruption* I, text 11 seq. (c. 3). — For *defectionem* codex G [reads] *desitionem* (which is also had below in the solution to [objection] 1), codices L Y *destructionem*, the Vatican [edition] *defectionem seu decisionem*.

la: Cap. 4. n. 1. Ibid. c. 2. ait: *Mirabile est enim dolere in ignibus, et tamen vivere; sed mirabilius vivere in ignibus, nec dolere. Si autem hoc creditur* [de animalibus viventibus in mediis ignibus], *cur non et illud?*

en: Chapter 4, n. 1. In the same place, c. 2, he says: *For it is marvelous to grieve in fires and yet to live; but more marvelous to live in fires and not to grieve. But if this is believed* [concerning animals living in the midst of fires], *why not also that?*

la: Cod. K addit *ut eius corpus ab igne consumi non possit*. — De seq. propos., in qua Vat. *ad immortalitatem* pro *ad mortalitatem*, cfr. II. Sent. d. 19. a. 2. et 3. ac August., XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 8.

en: Codex K adds *ut eius corpus ab igne consumi non possit* (that its body cannot be consumed by fire). — On the following clause, in which the Vatican [edition reads] *ad immortalitatem* for *ad mortalitatem*, cf. II *Sent.* d. 19, a. 2 and 3, and Augustine, *City of God* XXI, c. 8.

la: Libr. XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 4. n. 1, verbis aliquatenus mutatis.

en: Book XXI of the *City of God*, c. 4, n. 1, the words being somewhat changed.

la: Cfr. August., XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 4. n. 3.

en: Cf. Augustine, *City of God* XXI, c. 4, n. 3.

la: Ut ostendit August., XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 3. n. 2.

en: As Augustine shows, *City of God* XXI, c. 3, n. 2.

la: Loc. cit. c. 2. — Superius post *secundum quod* Vat. supplet *est*.

en: Loc. cit. c. 2. — Above, after *secundum quod* the Vatican [edition] supplies *est*.

la: Secundum August., loc. cit. c. 3. n. 1. — Mox pro *Concedo enim* cod. F *Concedendae enim sunt*.

en: According to Augustine, loc. cit. c. 3, n. 1. — Soon, for *Concedo enim* codex F [reads] *Concedendae enim sunt*.

la: Cod. F *destructionis*.

en: Codex F [reads] *destructionis*.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 2. p. 1. a. 1. q. 3. in corp., ubi etiam ponitur *emissum* (ita etiam hic codd. F G P R S T X) pro *missum*.

en: Cf. II *Sent.* d. 2, p. 1, a. 1, q. 3, in the body, where also *emissum* is set down (so also here codices F G P R S T X) for *missum*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Constat, damnatorum corpora igne infernali esse passura, non tamen consumenda. Quod ut explicent, nonnulli putaverunt, corpora damnatorum non pati ab igne materialiter sive poena physica ac reali, sed damnatorum poenam esse potius intentionalem seu animalem (i. e. secundum animam sensitivam). Ipse S. Thom. huic opinioni primitus adhaesit, scil. in Comment. (hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2. 3; Suppl. q. 86. a. 2. 3.); unde etiam posuit, « eadem (corpora) esse incorruptibilia per naturam, non quod sit aliquod incorruptionis principium in corporibus damnatorum, sed per defectum principii moventis ad corruptionem » (quaestiunc. 2. ad 2.), quia scil. « cessante motu caeli, nulla qualitas erit sufficiens, ut corpus humanum alterare possit a sua naturali qualitate » (ibid. in corp.). De hac ratione Durand. (hic q. 10. n. 12.) inter alia dicit: « Illud autem non potest teneri, saltem Parisiis, cum sit articulus condemnatus; dicit enim articulus, quod dicere, quod cessante motu caeli, si ignis esset iuxta stuppam, non combureret ipsam, error est » (cfr. Collectio iudiciorum Caroli Duplessis d'Argentré, tom. I. p. 197; sed etiam Bonav., tom. II. pag. 30. scholion). — Attamen idem S. Thom. alibi (S. c. Gent. IV. c. 89.) confitetur, quod illa corpora « affligentur ab igne corporeo, in quantum qualitas ignis propter suam excellentiam contrariatur aequalitati complexionis et harmoniae, quae est sensui connaturalis, licet eam solvere non possit » etc. Porro ab eodem in Opusculo 10. a. 19. seq. haec incorruptibilitas non soli animae informanti, sed etiam operationi divinae virtutis tribuitur. — Richard. a Med. (hic a. 2. q. 7.) ex triplicis causae concursu repetit istam incorruptibilitatem, scilicet ex parte dispositionis materiae, in qua incorporatus est ignis ille; ex parte dispositionis ipsorum corporum; et principaliter ex parte divinae ordinationis. — Quoad fabulam illam de salamandra, quasi longiore tempore vivere possit in igne, idem scribit: « Quod sive verum sit, sive non, tamen pilos eius ab illo igne non consumi; quod ego ipse expertus sum ». — Cum Richardo in solvenda quaestione concordat S. Bonaventura.

De hac 1. quaestione praeter laudatos: Scot., infra d. 49. q. 13. n. 10. — B. Albert., hic a. 39. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3.

**II.** Quoad 2. quaestionem, quae est satis difficilis, communiter conceditur, substantias spirituales non posse naturaliter a rebus corporeis immutari et ratione alicuius contrarietatis affligi; nihilominus tenendum esse, animas separatas daemonesque reapse materiali igne infernali affligi. Quod ut explicent, magistri diversas opiniones in medium protulerunt. Praeter solutiones duas insufficientes, hic relatas, notanda est tertia, a S. Thoma (hic q. 3. a. 3. quaestiunc. 3.) notata, quod « quamvis ignis corporeus non possit animam exurere, tamen anima apprehendit ipsum ut nocivum sibi ». Neque haec solutio nodum solvere sufficit, nisi determinetur, ut clare ostendit Scot. (hic q. 2. n. 3.). — Henricus Gand. (Quodl. 8. q. 34.), reiectis quinque opinionibus, sexto concludit: « Restat igitur, ut videtur, quod Deus naturae spiritus angelici et humanae *vim*, qua pati possit ab igne corporali, imprimit supernaturaliter, vel si utrique naturaliter inest, licet nobis latet, ut sic illam temperet, ut peccatis poenam correspondentem per illam sustineat ». — Alii recentiores cum Suarez putant, ignem ut instrumentum divinum immittere spiritibus damnatis realem quandam qualitatem supernaturalem. — Tamen antiqui Scholastici, non excepto Durando, talem actum physice realem immissum non admittunt, sed daemones animasque per actum intentionalem cruciari docent; de quo Scot. (loc. cit. n. 7.) dicit, quod ignis ille est obiectum disconveniens dupliciter: primo ut detinens spiritum definitive, quod fit operatione divina; secundo ut immutans obiective, detestante voluntate istam alligationem quoad locum, qua etiam operatio impeditur. S. Thomam cum Scoto in hoc convenire, « quod ignis in animam agit non per modum influentis, sed per modum detinentis », asserit Gotti (tom. I. tr. 9. q. 9. dub. 4. § 3.). Attamen Scot. quoad actionem ignis instrumentaliter cooperantem ad illam detentionem recedere a S. Thoma videtur. — S. Bonav. idem de illa detentione docet; tamen asserit, horrorem detestationis etiam supernaturaliter immitti. — Richard. a Med. bene recenset diversas opiniones et magis explicat relatam antiquorum sententiam.

Praeter locos citt.: S. Thom., S. I. q. 64. a. 3. 4, et praecipue S. c. Gent. IV. q. 90. — B. Albert., hic a. 37. 40. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 4. — Richard. a Med. hic, a. 2. q. 9. — Durand., hic q. 11.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** It is agreed that the bodies of the damned are to suffer from the infernal fire, yet not to be consumed. In order to explain this, some have thought that the bodies of the damned do not suffer from the fire materially, that is, by a physical and real punishment, but that the punishment of the damned is rather intentional or animal (i.e., according to the sensitive soul). S. Thomas himself at first adhered to this opinion, namely in the Commentary (here q. 3, a. 1, subquestion 2, 3; Suppl. q. 86, a. 2, 3); whence also he held that « the same [bodies] are incorruptible by nature, not that there is any principle of incorruption in the bodies of the damned, but through the defect of a principle moving to corruption » (subquestion 2, ad 2), because namely « the motion of the heaven having ceased, no quality will be sufficient to alter the human body from its natural quality » (ibid. in corp.). Concerning this reasoning Durandus (here q. 10, n. 12) among other things says: « But that cannot be held, at least at Paris, since it is a condemned article; for the article says that to say that, the motion of the heaven having ceased, if fire were next to tow, it would not burn it, is an error » (cf. the *Collection of judgments* of Charles Duplessis d'Argentré, tom. I, p. 197; but also Bonaventure, tom. II, p. 30, scholion). — However the same S. Thomas elsewhere (*Summa contra Gentiles* IV, c. 89) confesses that those bodies « will be afflicted by the corporeal fire, inasmuch as the quality of the fire on account of its excellence is contrary to the equality of the complexion and to the harmony which is connatural to sense, although it cannot dissolve it » etc. Further, by the same [author] in Opusculum 10, a. 19 seq., this incorruptibility is attributed not to the informing soul alone, but also to the operation of the divine power. — Richard of Middleton (here a. 2, q. 7) repeats this incorruptibility from the concurrence of a threefold cause, namely from the disposition of the matter in which that fire is incorporated; from the disposition of the bodies themselves; and principally from the divine ordination. — As for that fable about the salamander, as if it could live a longer time in fire, the same [author] writes: « That whether it be true or not, nevertheless its hairs are not consumed by that fire; which I myself have experienced ». — With Richard in solving the question S. Bonaventure agrees.

Concerning this first question, besides those praised [above]: Scotus, below d. 49, q. 13, n. 10. — B. Albert, here a. 39. — Peter of Tarantasia, here q. 2, a. 3.

**II.** As for the second question, which is quite difficult, it is commonly conceded that spiritual substances cannot naturally be changed by corporeal things and be afflicted by reason of any contrariety; nevertheless it must be held that separated souls and demons are really afflicted by the material infernal fire. In order to explain this, the masters have brought forward diverse opinions. Besides the two insufficient solutions here related, a third is to be noted, marked by S. Thomas (here q. 3, a. 3, subquestion 3), that « although corporeal fire cannot burn the soul, nevertheless the soul apprehends it as harmful to itself ». Nor does this solution suffice to loose the knot, unless it be determined, as Scotus clearly shows (here q. 2, n. 3). — Henry of Ghent (Quodl. 8, q. 34), five opinions being rejected, in the sixth concludes: « It remains therefore, as it seems, that God imprints supernaturally upon the nature of the angelic and human spirit a power, by which it can suffer from corporeal fire, or, if it is naturally in each although it is hidden from us, that He so tempers it that through it [the spirit] may sustain a punishment corresponding to its sins ». — Others more recent, with Suarez, think that fire as a divine instrument sends into the damned spirits a certain real supernatural quality. — Yet the ancient Scholastics, Durandus not excepted, do not admit such a physically real act as sent in, but teach that demons and souls are tortured by an intentional act; concerning which Scotus (loc. cit. n. 7) says that that fire is a disconvenient object in two ways: first as detaining the spirit definitively, which happens by divine operation; second as changing objectively, the will detesting that binding as to place, by which also its operation is impeded. That S. Thomas agrees with Scotus in this, « that fire acts upon the soul not by way of influencing, but by way of detaining », Gotti asserts (tom. I, tr. 9, q. 9, dub. 4, § 3). Yet Scotus, as to the action of the fire cooperating instrumentally toward that detention, seems to depart from S. Thomas. — S. Bonaventure teaches the same concerning that detention; yet he asserts that the horror of detestation is also sent in supernaturally. — Richard of Middleton well reviews the diverse opinions and more [fully] explains the related opinion of the ancients.

Besides the places cited: S. Thomas, *Summa* I, q. 64, a. 3, 4, and especially *Summa contra Gentiles* IV, q. 90. — B. Albert, here a. 37, 40. — Peter of Tarantasia, here q. 2, a. 4. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 2, q. 9. — Durandus, here q. 11.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the IA djvu OCR (raw L98788–L99058) collated against the p.928–930 column bands (`vol4-p{928,929,930}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`); English is a fresh literal translation. Two-column page: centered headers (ARTICULUS III, QUAESTIO I, CONCLUSIO) act as full-width dividers, each section read Left column then Right.

**Corrected page span.** Body spans pp. 928–930; the article scholion is printed at the head of p. 931 (running head `DIST. XLIV. P. II. ART. III. QUAEST. II. 931`). Frontmatter `printed_pages` corrected from `[927,928,929,930]` to `[928,929,930,931]` — **p. 927 dropped** (it belongs to the sibling p2-a2-q2); **p. 931 added** for the scholion. ARTICULUS III opens in the right column of p. 928, after the tail of a2-q2.

**Footer split / hand-off received.** Per the Vol II/IV shared-footer rule, p. 928's footer notes 1–7 anchor in the sibling p2-a2-q2 body and are NOT claimed here; only p. 928 **note 8** (`Cap. 7. Pro corrumpuntur in poenis...`) anchors in this q1's argument 1 (`Augustinus de Natura boni`) — **claimed as the hand-off from p2-a2-q2**, as briefed. Apparatus total = **18 entries**: p928-8 (1), p929-1…10 (10), p930-1…7 (7).

**Scholion ownership.** The article-III scholion covers both q1 (§I) and q2 (§II) and is rendered here **last** in both the Latin and English blocks (body-first / scholion-last parser rule). Sibling p2-a3-q2 carries no scholion. Originally transcribed from OCR only; **re-verified against a 600 dpi p. 931 read at the d.41–d.50 decade gate (2026-07-21)** — see the flag dispositions below.

**Marginalia trimmed.** Quaracchi margin labels (Conclusio 1–4, Distinctio, Modus explicatur, Exemplum 1–3, Ratio pro utraque parte, De composito, Amplius, Obiectio solvitur, Ratio incorruptionis, Resp. 1–2, Sol. posit., Confirmatur, Obiicitur) are editorial margin glosses and are omitted from the body per project convention.

**`[?]` flags — both RESOLVED at the d.41–d.50 decade gate (2026-07-21).** p. 931 was imaged at 600 dpi (PDF p. 951) and the whole scholion read column-by-column (left column §I, right column the run-on of §II).
- Scholion §I, closing citation: the page prints *De hac 1. quaestione praeter laudatos: Scot., infra d. **49**. q. 13. n. 10.* — the digit is unambiguous. `[?]` removed.
- Scholion §II, Henry of Ghent quotation: the page prints *…quod Deus naturae spiritus angelici et humanae **vim**, qua pati possit ab igne corporali, imprimit supernaturaliter…*, with *vim* set in italic. `[?]` removed and the italics restored.

**Four further scholion corrections made in the same 600 dpi read** (not flagged in the original build — the §I/§II text had been set from OCR alone, with no band to check it against):
- Henry of Ghent's Quodlibet reference reads **Quodl. 8. q. 34.**, not `q. 31.`
- The Gotti reference reads **dub. 4. § 3.**, not `dub. 1. § 3.`
- Inside the Henry quotation the page reads *licet nobis **latet***, not `lateat`.
- *obiectum disconveniens dupliciter**:*** — colon, not semicolon.

All four are corrected in both the Latin and the English.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0