title: Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 456 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum corpus Christi per triduum fuerit in sepulcro.*

Tertio quaeritur de quiete corporis in sepulcro, et est quaestio, utrum corpus Christi per triduum fuerit in sepulcro. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. *Matthaei* duodecimo[^p456-2]: *Sicut Ionas fuit tribus diebus et tribus noctibus in ventre ceti, sic filius hominis erit tribus diebus et tribus noctibus in corde terrae*: ergo corpus eius fuit tribus diebus et tribus noctibus in sepulcro.

2. Item, *Ioannis* secundo[^p456-3]: *Solvite templum hoc, et in tribus diebus excitabo illud*; et subiungit Evangelista, quod hoc intellexit *de templo corporis sui*: ergo redit idem quod prius.

3. Item, in Symbolo[^p456-4]: « Tertia die resurrexit a mortuis »: ergo corpus eius iacuit per triduum in sepulcro.

4. Item, hoc ipsum probatur per communem Ecclesiae observantiam, quae mortem eius in die Veneris celebrat et resurrectionem in die tertia[^p456-5], scilicet in die dominico: si ergo iacuit in sepulcro a morte usque ad resurrectionem, patet etc.

**Sed contra:** 1. Figura debet respondere veritati; sed resurrectio Christi praefigurata fuit in Samsone, de quo legitur *Iudicum* decimo sexto[^p456-6], quod dormivit usque ad medietatem noctis, et tulit portas

<!-- page 457 -->

civitatis etc.: ergo videtur, quod Christus usque ad tertium diem in sepulcro non requieverit.

2. Item, *Actuum* secundo[^p457-1]: *Quem Deus suscitavit a mortuis, iuxta quod impossibile erat, detineri eum*; sed si non potuit detineri: ergo videtur, quod statim resurrexerit, alioquin detentus fuit.

3. Item, opus nostrae redemptionis statim post mortem consummatum fuit: ergo glorificatio corporis Christi iam non debuit amplius differri, et ita corpus Christi non debuit in sepulcro per triduum relinqui.

4. Item, anima Christi in illo triduo aut appetebat uniri suo corpori, aut non. Si non appetebat: ergo non habebat naturam aliarum animarum; si appetebat: ergo retardabatur a contemplatione perfecta, si corpus eius non reddebatur ei. Sed hoc est inconveniens: ergo videtur, quod statim corpus eius debuerit suscitari.

Est igitur quaestio de tempore et hora resurrectionis. Nam aliquae Glossae[^p457-2] videntur dicere, quod Christus surrexit in media nocte, aliquae vero, quod in mane. — Rursus, quaestio est: quare Christus praevenit resurrectionem aliorum mortuorum, et corpus eius non fuit nisi per triduum in sepulcro, cum corpora aliorum hominum exspectent usque ad diem extremum?

### Conclusio.

> Christus requievit per triduum in sepulcro; sed triduum intelligitur secundum synecdochen.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod non conveniebat, corpus Christi statim post mortem suscitari; nec tamen conveniebat, suscitationem eius usque ad generalem resurrectionem differri.

Et ratio huius est, quia nostrae fidei certitudo, qua credimus nos resurrecturos, fundata est supra veram resurrectionem Christi[^p457-3]. Ad hoc autem, quod constet nobis de veritate resurrectionis, duo concurrunt: primum est, quod opportunum est, quod constet de veritate *mortis*; secundum est, quod oportet, quod constet de veritate *coniunctionis iteratae animae et carnis*. Veritas *mortis* non constitisset nobis, si Christus statim resurrexisset, sed potuisset aliquis suspicari, ipsum finxisse se mortuum. — Veritas *iteratae coniunctionis* non constitisset, si Christus adhuc non resurrexisset, immo[^p457-4] potius posset quis desperare quam exspectare; immo certe, si non resurrexisset, fides in Apostolis omnino defecisset, nec aliquis fuisse Christum Deum crederet, sed hominem purum. Necesse igitur fuit propter nostrae fidei veritatem et firmitatem, resurrectionem Christi accelerari, nec tamen adeo accelerari, quin manifestaretur veritas mortis. Ideo usque ad tertium diem distulit et non amplius, quia per tempus illud vere poterat manifestari fuisse mortuus.

Requievit igitur, sicut dicit fides nostra, per triduum in sepulcro, non tamen per tres dies integros et completos, sed per ultimam partem diei Veneris et per primam partem dominicae diei et per totam diem sabbati, ita quod requietio illa per triduum intelligenda est per synecdochen[^p457-5]. Et in hoc omnes Sancti concordant, licet de hora temporis videatur esse controversia. Nam quidam videntur dicere, quod surrexit in media nocte, quidam vero, quod surrexit in aurora[^p457-6].

Ratio autem huius diversitatis est, pro eo quod considerant diversimode in illa dilatione congruentiam quantum ad numerum horarum. Nam aliqui incipiunt tempus computare ab hora sexta, qua crucifixus est, et *tenebrae factae sunt super universam terram*[^p457-7]; et isti protendunt tempus usque ad mediam noctem inter diem sabbati et diem dominicam; et sic computant triginta sex horas, quia tunc erat aequinoctium vernale, quando Christus Dominus passus est. — Aliqui inceperunt computare a sero, in quo positus fuit in sepulcro, et protendunt tempus usque ad diluculum dominicae diei; et tam isti quam illi eandem considerant congruentiam tantae dilationis. Ideo enim Dominus distulit per triginta sex horas, ut in hoc significetur, quia liberatio et victoria est perfecta. Ille enim numerus est ex se-

<!-- page 458 -->

nario numero in se ducto, qui quidem numerus est primus numerus perfectus secundum arithmeticum[^p458-1]. — Est et alia congruentia, quia in triginta sex horis sunt duae noctes et unus dies, ita quod salva est ibi proportio « simpli ad duplum », ut dicit Augustinus, in quo significatur, quod Christus una simpla sua vetustate abstulit duas nostras vetustates, quae quidem intelliguntur per duas noctes; et hanc rationem assignat Augustinus in libro *de Trinitate*[^p458-2]. Haec eadem ratio assignatur super illud *Lucae* vigesimo quarto: *Oportuit Christum pati*; Glossa: « Merito una die et duabus noctibus in sepulcro iacuit, quia lucem, id est gratiam suae mortis, quae tantum in carne erat, tenebris nostrae duplae mortis, quae in carne et anima erant, opponit ». Et hoc ipsum dicit super illud *ad Romanos* sexto[^p458-3]: *Hoc scientes, quia vetus homo* etc.; Glossa: « Quievit in sepulcro uno die et duabus noctibus, quia nostram duplam vetustatem sua simpla consumsit ».

Et ideo licet videantur differre in temporis *hora*, conveniunt tamen in assignando temporis *congruentiam*. Nec tamen in *hora* sibi contradicunt, quia dupliciter dicitur res fieri: aut quando *fit* secundum veritatem, aut quando *innotescit*[^p458-4]. Et illi qui horam mediam noctis assignant resurrectioni, tempus determinant, quando primo fuit; qui vero *mane* assignant, tempus determinant, quando innotuit. — Vel certe resurrectio fuit inter horam mediae noctis et mane diei dominicae; et quia medium denominatur ab extremis, ideo aliqui dicunt, fuisse in media nocte, aliqui in mane sine aliqua contradictione. — Concedendum est igitur, quod Christus requievit per triduum in sepulcro, ita quod per synecdochen hoc intelligatur. Concedendae sunt nihilominus rationes, quae hoc ostendunt.

1. Ad illud quod primo obiicitur de Samsone, iam patet responsio: quia, esto quod media nocte resurrexit, non tamen ex hoc sequitur, quod Christus non quieverit per triduum in sepulcro, quia media illa nox fuit pars diei dominicae, et per synecdochen per mediam illam noctem intelligitur[^p458-5] tota dies sequens; computatur enim nox cum die sequenti post Christi resurrectionem. — Praeterea, non oportet, quod veritas in omnibus respondeat figurae, quia nulla figura est ita similis veritati, quin sit ex aliqua sui parte dissimilis.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod impossibile fuit, eum detineri; dicendum, quod detentio dicit violentiam; Christus autem distulit resurgere usque ad tertiam diem non propter violentiam, sed propter meram voluntatem: et ideo non erat detentio, sed rationalis exspectatio.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod iam opus nostrae redemptionis consummatum erat; dicendum, quod licet consummatum esset secundum veritatem, non tamen nobis innotuerat. Ad hoc autem, quod nobis valeret, necesse erat, quod nobis innotesceret; ad hoc autem, quod nobis certitudinaliter innotesceret, necesse erat differre: ideo non absque causa, sed propter salutem nostram resurrectionem distulit in diem tertium[^p458-6].

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod anima Christi, si appetebat uniri corpori, retardabatur a perfectione contemplationis; dicendum, quod hoc non oportebat propter unionem ipsius ad Verbum et tantam plenitudinem gratiae, quae in ipsa erat, ut non solum separata a corpore, verum etiam existens in corpore passibili, non retardaretur a contemplatione divina. Non sic autem est in aliis animabus reperiri; nec est mirandum, si illa anima inter alias animas habuit privilegium singulare.

english:
<!-- page 456 -->

### Question III. *Whether the body of Christ was in the tomb for three days.*

Thirdly it is asked concerning the rest of the body in the tomb, and the question is whether the body of Christ was in the tomb for three days. And that it was, seems [to follow]:

1. *Matthew*, chapter twelve[^p456-2]: *As Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth*: therefore his body was three days and three nights in the tomb.

2. Likewise, *John*, chapter two[^p456-3]: *Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up*; and the Evangelist adds that he understood this *of the temple of his body*: therefore the same as before follows.

3. Likewise, in the Creed[^p456-4]: « On the third day he rose again from the dead »: therefore his body lay in the tomb for three days.

4. Likewise, this very thing is proved by the common observance of the Church, which celebrates his death on the day of Friday and his resurrection on the third day[^p456-5], namely on the Lord's day: if therefore he lay in the tomb from death until the resurrection, it is clear, etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. The figure ought to correspond to the truth; but the resurrection of Christ was prefigured in Samson, of whom we read in *Judges*, chapter sixteen[^p456-6], that he slept until the middle of the night, and carried off the gates

<!-- page 457 -->

of the city, etc.: therefore it seems that Christ did not rest in the tomb until the third day.

2. Likewise, *Acts*, chapter two[^p457-1]: *Whom God hath raised up from the dead, according as it was impossible that he should be holden by it*; but if he could not be held: therefore it seems that he rose at once, otherwise he was held.

3. Likewise, the work of our redemption was consummated immediately after [his] death: therefore the glorification of Christ's body ought no longer to have been deferred, and so the body of Christ ought not to have been left in the tomb for three days.

4. Likewise, the soul of Christ in that three-day span either desired to be united to its body, or did not. If it did not desire it: therefore it did not have the nature of other souls; if it did desire it: therefore it was held back from perfect contemplation, if its body was not restored to it. But this is unfitting: therefore it seems that his body ought to have been raised at once.

There is therefore a question concerning the time and hour of the resurrection. For some Glosses[^p457-2] seem to say that Christ rose in the middle of the night, but others that [he rose] in the morning. — Again, there is the question: why did Christ anticipate the resurrection of other dead persons, and his body was in the tomb only for three days, whereas the bodies of other men wait until the last day?

### Conclusion.

> Christ rested in the tomb for three days; but the three days are to be understood according to synecdoche.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that it was not fitting that the body of Christ be raised immediately after death; nor yet was it fitting that his being raised be deferred until the general resurrection.

And the reason for this is that the certitude of our faith, by which we believe that we shall rise again, is founded upon the true resurrection of Christ[^p457-3]. For it to be established for us concerning the truth of the resurrection, two things concur: the first is that it is opportune that the truth of his *death* be established; the second is that it must be that the truth of the *renewed conjunction of soul and flesh* be established. The truth of his *death* would not have been established for us if Christ had risen at once, but someone could have suspected that he had feigned himself dead. — The truth of the *renewed conjunction* would not have been established if Christ had not yet risen; rather[^p457-4] one might sooner despair than hope; indeed, surely, if he had not risen, faith in the Apostles would have utterly failed, nor would anyone believe that Christ had been God, but [merely] a mere man. It was therefore necessary, for the truth and firmness of our faith, that the resurrection of Christ be hastened, yet not so hastened that the truth of his death not be made manifest. Therefore he deferred it until the third day and no longer, because through that span of time it could truly be made manifest that he had been dead.

He rested therefore, as our faith says, in the tomb for three days, yet not for three whole and complete days, but for the last part of the day of Friday and for the first part of the Lord's day and for the whole day of the Sabbath, so that that resting through three days is to be understood by synecdoche[^p457-5]. And in this all the Saints agree, although concerning the hour of the time there seems to be controversy. For some seem to say that he rose in the middle of the night, but others that he rose at dawn[^p457-6].

Now the reason for this diversity is that they consider in diverse ways the fittingness in that delay as regards the number of hours. For some begin to compute the time from the sixth hour, at which he was crucified, and *there was darkness over all the earth*[^p457-7]; and these extend the time until the middle of the night between the day of the Sabbath and the Lord's day; and thus they compute thirty-six hours, because then it was the vernal equinox, when Christ the Lord suffered. — Others began to compute from the evening, in which he was laid in the tomb, and they extend the time until the dawn of the Lord's day; and both these and those consider the same fittingness of so great a delay. For the Lord deferred for thirty-six hours, so that by this it might be signified that the liberation and the victory is perfect. For that number is from

<!-- page 458 -->

the senary number multiplied into itself, which number is indeed the first perfect number according to the arithmetician[^p458-1]. — And there is another fittingness, because in thirty-six hours there are two nights and one day, so that there is preserved there the proportion « of the single to the double », as Augustine says, by which it is signified that Christ by his one single oldness took away our two oldnesses, which are understood by the two nights; and Augustine assigns this reason in the book *On the Trinity*[^p458-2]. This same reason is assigned upon that text of *Luke*, chapter twenty-four: *It behoved Christ to suffer*; the Gloss: « Rightly did he lie in the tomb for one day and two nights, because the light, that is the grace of his death, which was only in the flesh, he opposes to the darkness of our double death, which was in flesh and soul ». And he says this same thing upon that text of *Romans*, chapter six[^p458-3]: *Knowing this, that our old man*, etc.; the Gloss: « He rested in the tomb for one day and two nights, because by his single [oldness] he consumed our double oldness ».

And therefore, although they seem to differ in the *hour* of the time, they nevertheless agree in assigning the *fittingness* of the time. Nor yet do they contradict one another concerning the *hour*, because a thing is said to come about in two ways: either when it *comes about* according to truth, or when it *becomes known*[^p458-4]. And those who assign the hour of the middle of the night to the resurrection determine the time as to when it first was; but those who assign the *morning* determine the time as to when it became known. — Or surely the resurrection was between the hour of the middle of the night and the morning of the Lord's day; and because a midpoint is named from its extremes, therefore some say that it was in the middle of the night, others in the morning, without any contradiction. — It is therefore to be conceded that Christ rested in the tomb for three days, in such a way that this be understood by synecdoche. The reasonings which show this are nevertheless to be conceded.

1. To that which is first objected concerning Samson, the answer is now clear: because, granted that he rose in the middle of the night, it does not however follow from this that Christ did not rest for three days in the tomb, because that middle night was part of the Lord's day, and by synecdoche by that middle night is understood[^p458-5] the whole following day; for the night is computed with the following day after Christ's resurrection. — Moreover, it is not necessary that the truth correspond to the figure in all things, because no figure is so like the truth that it is not in some part of itself unlike it.

2. To that which is objected, that it was impossible for him to be held; it must be said that detention implies violence; but Christ deferred to rise until the third day not on account of violence, but on account of his mere will: and therefore it was not detention, but a rational waiting.

3. To that which is objected, that the work of our redemption was already consummated; it must be said that although it was consummated according to truth, it had not however become known to us. For it to avail us, it was necessary that it become known to us; and for it to become known to us with certainty, it was necessary to defer: therefore not without cause, but for our salvation, he deferred the resurrection until the third day[^p458-6].

4. To that which is objected, that the soul of Christ, if it desired to be united to its body, was held back from the perfection of contemplation; it must be said that this was not necessary, on account of its union to the Word and the so great fullness of grace which was in it, so that not only when separated from the body, but also when existing in the passible body, it was not held back from divine contemplation. But it is not so to be found in other souls; nor is it to be wondered at if that soul had among other souls a singular privilege.

la: Vers. 40.

en: Verse 40. [Matthew 12:40.]

la: Vers. 19. Seq. Script. loc. est ibid. v. 21. — Paulo inferius pro *intellexit* edd. cum Vulgata *dicebat*.

en: Verse 19. [John 2:19.] The following scriptural passage is in the same place, v. 21. — A little below, for *intellexit* ["understood"] the editions, with the Vulgate, read *dicebat* ["was saying"].

la: Scil. Apostolorum.

en: Namely [the Creed] of the Apostles.

la: Cfr. August., *Epist.* 53. (alias 119.) c. 13. n. 23. et *Serm.* 169. (alias 15. de Verbis Apostoli) c. 2. n. 3. nec non *Serm.* 280. (alias 231. de Tempore), in appendice operum S. Augustini. Vide etiam libr. *de Divin. Officiis* (inter opera Alcuini), c. 27. — Post *die tertia* edd. addunt *sequenti*.

en: Cf. Augustine, *Letter* 53 (elsewhere 119), c. 13, n. 23; and *Sermon* 169 (elsewhere 15, On the Words of the Apostle), c. 2, n. 3; as also *Sermon* 280 (elsewhere 231, On the Season), in the appendix to the works of St. Augustine. See also the book *On the Divine Offices* (among the works of Alcuin), c. 27. — After *die tertia* ["on the third day"] the editions add *sequenti* ["following"].

la: Vers. 3. — Gregor., II. *Homil. in Evang.* homil. 21. n. 7: *Quem nisi Redemptorem nostrum Samson ille significat?... Samson vero media nocte non solum exiit, sed etiam portas tulit, quia Redemptor noster, ante lucem resurgens, non solum liber de inferno exiit, sed et ipsa etiam inferni claustra destruxit* etc.

en: Verse 3. [Judges 16:3.] — Gregory, *Homilies on the Gospels*, Book II, homily 21, n. 7: *Whom does that Samson signify but our Redeemer?... But Samson at the middle of the night not only went out, but also carried off the gates, because our Redeemer, rising before the light, not only went out free from hell, but also destroyed the very bars of hell* etc.

la: Vers. 24.

la: Ambros., X. *super Luc.* 24, I. n. 151: « Non ergo vesperante die, sed noctis vespere resurrexit. Denique Graecus *sero* dixit... Est et *sero* tempus noctis profundum, ut si dicas: *Sero ad lucubrandum surrexit*, id est non vespertino tempore, sed profunda nocte surrexit ». Quod autem Christus *mane* resurrexit, Glossa dicit, quam supra pag. 247, nota 3. allegavimus. Cfr. etiam Lyran. in *Matth.* 28, I.

en: Ambrose, on *Luke*, Book X, [ch.] 24, [v.] 1, n. 151: « Therefore he rose not as the day was waning, but at the evening of the night. Finally, the Greek said *sero* ["late"]... There is also *sero* [as] the deep time of the night, as if you should say: *He rose late to keep vigil*, that is, he rose not at evening time, but in the deep night ». But that Christ rose *in the morning*, the Gloss says, which we cited above on p. 247, note 3. Cf. also Lyranus on *Matthew* 28, [v.] 1.

la: Cfr. I. *Cor.* 15, 12. seqq., et supra pag. 44, nota 4. — Mox voci *resurrectionis* Vat. adiicit *Christi*.

en: Cf. 1 *Corinthians* 15:12 ff., and above p. 44, note 4. — Shortly after, to the word *resurrectionis* the Vatican edition adds *Christi*.

la: Pro *immo* cod. C *sed*, edd. *ergo*. Paulo inferius pro *nec aliquis fuisse* cod. aa (L a secunda manu) *nec aliquis fuisset qui*.

en: For *immo* ["rather"] codex C [reads] *sed* ["but"], the editions *ergo* ["therefore"]. A little below, for *nec aliquis fuisse* ["nor would anyone... had been"] codex aa (L by a second hand) [reads] *nec aliquis fuisset qui* ["nor would there be anyone who"].

la: August., III. *de Consensu Evang.* c. 24. n. 66: *Nam et ipsum triduum, quo Dominus mortuus est et resurrexit, nisi isto loquendi modo, quo a parte totum diei solet [synecdoche], recte intelligi non potest* etc.

en: Augustine, *On the Agreement of the Evangelists*, Book III, c. 24, n. 66: *For even that very three-day span, in which the Lord died and rose again, cannot rightly be understood except by this manner of speaking, by which the whole of a day is customarily [denoted] from a part [of it] [i.e. synecdoche]* etc.

la: Petr. Comestor, *Histor. scholast. in Evang.* c. 185. trium Sanctorum de hac re opiniones inter se discordantes recenset: Hieronymi, qui *Epist.* 120. (alias 150.) ad Hebidiam, c. 3. scripsit: « Aut enim non recipimus Marci testimonium, quod in raris fertur Evangeliis... aut hoc respondendum, quod uterque verum dixerit: Matthaeus, quando Dominus surrexerit vespere sabbati, Marcus autem, quando eum viderit Maria Magdalene, id est mane prima sabbati ». — Ambrosii asserentis: « Non vesperante die, sed noctis vespere » — et Augustini, qui, ut Comestor refert, « dixit [III. de Consensu Evang. c. 24. n. 65.], eum diluculo surrexisse, cui consentit auctoritas illa [Glossa scil. ordinaria in I. *Mach.* 3,39, sumta ex Raban. in hunc loc., et a Rabano formata ex August. IV. *Trin.* c. 6. n. 10.], quae dicit, Dominum 40 horis fuisse mortuum et totidem diebus post moratum in terra ante ascensionem; quia horis 4 vespertinis parasceves et 36 duarum noctium et unius diei. Ecclesia quoque assentire videtur, quae matutinas laudes pro Christi resurrectione celebrat ».

en: Peter Comestor, *Scholastic History, on the Gospels*, c. 185, reviews the mutually discordant opinions of three Saints on this matter: of Jerome, who in *Letter* 120 (elsewhere 150) to Hedibia, c. 3, wrote: « For either we do not accept the testimony of Mark, which is found in few Gospels... or this is to be answered, that both spoke truly: Matthew, [referring to] when the Lord rose on the evening of the Sabbath, but Mark, when Mary Magdalene saw him, that is, in the morning of the first [day] of the week »; — of Ambrose, who asserts: « Not as the day was waning, but at the evening of the night »; — and of Augustine, who, as Comestor reports, « said [*On the Agreement of the Evangelists*, Book III, c. 24, n. 65] that he rose at daybreak, with whom that authority agrees [namely the ordinary Gloss on 1 *Maccabees* 3:39, taken from Rabanus on this passage, and formed by Rabanus out of Augustine, *On the Trinity*, Book IV, c. 6, n. 10], which says that the Lord was dead for 40 hours and remained on earth for as many days afterward before the ascension; because [the count is] from the 4 evening hours of the day of preparation and the 36 [hours] of two nights and one day. The Church too seems to agree, which celebrates Matins for Christ's resurrection ».

la: Paulo superius ante *distulit* edd. supplent *resurgere*. Subinde ante *liberatio* codd. AKLUZ aa bb omittunt *quia*, et post *victoria* cum nonnullis aliis codd. etiam *est*. Mox post *numero in se ducto* cod. F (U a secunda manu) addit *quia scilicet est series sex*. Denique paulo inferius pro *simpli ad duplum* plures codd. et edd. I, 2 *a simpli* [alii codd. *a simplici*] *ad duplum*.

en: A little above, before *distulit* the editions supply *resurgere*. Then before *liberatio* codices AKLUZ aa bb omit *quia*, and after *victoria*, with some other codices, [omit] also *est*. Soon after, following *numero in se ducto* codex F (U by a second hand) adds *quia scilicet est series sex*. Finally, a little below, for *simpli ad duplum* several codices and editions I, 2 [read] *a simpli* [other codices *a simplici*] *ad duplum*.

la: Libr. IV. c. 3. n. 5. seq. Ibid. c. 6. n. 10: *Refertur autem ad illam rationem simpli ad duplum, ubi est coaptationis maxima consonantia. Duodecim enim ad viginti quatuor simplo ad duplum conveniunt et fiunt triginta sex: nox tota cum die toto et nocte tota, neque hoc sine illo sacramento, quod supra memoravi. Non absurde quippe spiritum diei comparamus, corpus autem noctis. Dominicum enim corpus in morte ac resurrectione et spiritus nostri figuram et corporis gerebat* exemplum etc. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XV. c. I, et Comment. dub. 1. — Scripturae locus, qui subinde affertur, est *Luc.* 24, 46. In Glossa, quae ordinaria est, a Strabo et Lyrano (in v. 7.) pro *id est gratiam suae mortis* exhibetur *suae simplae mortis* et deinde *opposuit* pro *opponit*.

en: [Augustine, *On the Trinity*,] Book IV, c. 3, n. 5 f. Likewise c. 6, n. 10: *It is referred to that ratio of the single to the double, where there is the greatest consonance of adaptation. For twelve agree with twenty-four as single to double, and they make thirty-six: a whole night with a whole day and a whole night, and this not without that mystery which I mentioned above. For not absurdly do we compare the spirit to the day, and the body to the night. For the Lord's body in death and resurrection bore both the figure of our spirit and the* example *of [our] body*, etc. Cf. above the text of the Master, d. XV, c. I, and the Commentary, dub. 1. — The scriptural passage which is then cited is *Luke* 24:46. In the Gloss, which is the ordinary one, by Strabo and Lyranus (at v. 7) for *id est gratiam suae mortis* there is given *suae simplae mortis*, and then *opposuit* for *opponit*.

la: Vers. 6. Glossa, quae est ordinaria, refertur iam a Strabo.

en: Verse 6. [Romans 6:6.] The Gloss, which is the ordinary one, is reported already by Strabo.

la: Vide supra pag. 293, nota 5. — Non multo post pro *fuit* edd. *fuit facta*.

en: See above p. 293, note 5. — Not much later, for *fuit* the editions [read] *fuit facta*.

la: Pro *intelligitur*, quod in pluribus codd. desideratur, codd. BCDN *computatur*.

en: For *intelligitur* ["is understood"], which is wanting in several codices, codices BCDN [read] *computatur* ["is computed"].

la: Codd. FILNTUV aa bb *in die tertia*.

en: Codices FILNTUV aa bb [read] *in die tertia* ["on the third day"].

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{456,457,458}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`). Per the **VOL II/III OVERRIDE**, the PDF bands are authoritative for the cascade-shattered Respondeo, congruentia computation, and all footers; OCR is the base only for the clean *videtur*/*sed contra* prose. `pdf = printed + 22`.
- **Raw range / OCR cutoff.** The IA OCR for this quaestio runs raw lines **31733–31888** and then jumps straight to QUAESTIO IV (raw 31889). The OCR cuts off mid-sentence at the opener of solutio ad-1 (*1. Ad illud quod primo obiicitur de Samsone,*). The **remainder of solutiones ad-1 through ad-4 was recovered from the PDF** — they print in the **right column of p.458**, above QUAESTIO IV, and the OCR cascade dropped them. q3 ends at *…habuit privilegium singulare* (p.458 R), immediately before QUAESTIO IV.
- **Page-split map.** Printed pp.456–458 (PDF 478–480). q3 **opens at the bottom of p.456** (the q2/q3 seam falls inside p.456; q2 closed its scholion §III on p.456 R). Body breaks: p.456→457 mid-*sed contra* 1 (*…et tulit portas | civitatis etc.*); p.457→458 mid-congruentia (*…Ille enim numerus est ex se- | nario numero…*). Solutiones ad 1–4 sit in the p.458 right column.
- **Apparatus — 18 entries, per-page restart.** p.456: nn.2–6 (n.1 *Vide solut. ad 4.* is q2's, not repeated here); p.457: nn.1–7; p.458: nn.1–6 (n.7 *Plurimi codd. male ipso…animas* and n.9 *Vers. 24.* belong, n.8 to scholion ref / q4 — see below). Markers placed at PDF footnote-call positions, mirrored in English.
- **p.458 footnote disposition.** p.458 prints nn.1–9. q3's body markers occupy nn.1–6. **n.7** (*Plurimi codd. male ipso. Circa finem solut. codd. GHIT bb omittunt alias, codd. AL aa animas*) is a codex-variant note on solutio ad-4's tail (*privilegium singulare*); it is a minor variant and the calling word is ambiguous in the bands — it is **not rendered as a separate body marker** (no clean call-point), folded conceptually into ad-4. **n.8** = *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* — an editorial cross-reference, not a body footnote. **n.9** (*Vers. 24.*) is QUAESTIO IV's first footnote (Acts 2:24, q4 arg 1). Counted apparatus = 18 (5 + 7 + 6).
- **Scholion finding — NONE.** Verified on the p.458 PDF bands: solutio ad-4 (*…privilegium singulare*) is immediately followed by QUAESTIO IV with no intervening SCHOLION header. This is confirmed by **p.458 footer n.8** (*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* — "See the scholion to the preceding question"), which redirects the reader to q2's scholion. q2's scholion §III already carried the 36-vs-40-hour triduum debate forward (its cross-ref *hic pag. 457, nota 9* points into this question's hour-computation apparatus; note that p.457 itself carries only nn.1–7, the 40-hour material living in the long Comestor note p457-6 and on p.458 — the OCR'd "nota 9" is an imprecise/garbled cross-page reference). `has_scholion: false`.
- **Footers IN / OUT.** IN from q2's p.456: **none for the body**; p.456 footers nn.2–6 are q3's own (read fresh). OUT to q4: p.458 n.9 (*Vers. 24.*, Acts 2:24) belongs to q4 and is left for the q4 chunk.
- **Marginal sigla trimmed** (editorial, not Bonaventure's text): *Fundamenta.*, *Ad oppositum.*, *Quaestio I incidens.*, *Quaestio 2 incidens.*, *Ad 2 quaest. incidentem.*, *Ad 1 quaest. incidentem.*, *Ratio.*, *Duo requiruntur ad probandam resurrect.*, *Conclusio 1.*, *Conclusio 2.*, *Explicantur 2 opiniones.*, *Congruentia 1.*, *Congruentia 2.*, *Conciliantur 2 opiniones.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Alia ratio.*
- **Seam status: CLEAN** on both ends. q2 closed its scholion §III on p.456 R; QUAESTIO III opens fresh at the bottom of p.456. q3 closes at *…privilegium singulare* (p.458 R) immediately before QUAESTIO IV (*De descensu animae Christi ad inferos / Quarto quaeritur…*, raw 31889).
- **No `[?]` flags.**


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 4

title_alt: Utrum anima Christi descenderit ad inferos

title_alt: Whether the soul of Christ descended into hell

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 458 -->

### Quaestio IV. *De descensu animae Christi ad inferos.*

Quarto quaeritur de descensu animae Christi ad inferos. Et quod anima Christi illuc descenderit, ostenditur:

1. Primo per illud quod dicitur Actuum secundo[^p458-9]: *Quem Deus suscitavit, solutis doloribus inferni* etc.: ergo videtur, quod in inferno fuerit anima eius.

2. Item, in Symbolo Apostolorum: « Descendit
<!-- page 459 -->
ad inferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis »; nihil hoc expressius dici potest.

3. Item, Damascenus[^p459-1]: « Descendit ad inferna anima deificata, ut quemadmodum his qui in terra sunt, ita et his qui in inferno sunt et *in tenebris et in umbra mortis sedent*, superlucescat »: ergo descendit ad inferos.

4. Item, sicut Christus nos docuit per adventum suum in carnem, ita etiam detentos in inferno liberavit per egressum suum a carne; sed adveniendo in terris nobiscum conversatus est et vixit[^p459-2]: ergo moriendo ad inferna descendit.

**Sed contra:** 1. Augustinus ad Dardanum[^p459-3] et etiam super Genesim ad litteram: « Non facile in Scripturis nomen inferni in bono invenitur »: si ergo Christo nihil mali attribuendum est, videtur, quod Christus ad inferna non descenderit.

2. Item, optimo debetur optimus locus[^p459-4]; sed anima Christi erat optima, et infernus erat locus vilissimus: ergo nunquam videtur fuisse conveniens, quod anima Christi descenderet ad inferna.

3. Item, maioris potestatis est liberare subditos de manu adversarii sola voluntate et virtute quam praesentia[^p459-5] corporali: ergo si Christus iam triumphaverat in cruce de diabolo, videtur, quod non oportebat, ipsum ad infernum descendere ad liberandum suos.

4. Item, per mortem Christi illi qui prius descenderant ad infernum, merebantur ascendere in caelum: ergo si idem non est causa oppositorum[^p459-6], videtur, quod Christus moriendo non descenderit ad inferos.

### Conclusio

> Christi anima descendit ad inferos propter vinctorum in limbo consolationem et propter adversariorum confutationem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod nomine inferni aliquando intelligitur poena, aliquando locus poenae; et secundum hoc dupliciter potest aliquis dici[^p459-7] descendere ad inferos: aut quia descendit ad *poenam*, aut quia descendit ad *locum poenae*. Primo modo non convenit Christo; in eo enim nec fuit poena *damni*, nec fuit poena *sensus*; secundo vero modo competit Christo. Descendit enim quantum ad illam partem, in qua erant iusti, qui detinebantur merito peccati primi parentis, quae quidem pars consuevit *limbus* appellari[^p459-8]; ad illam, inquam, partem descendit, non compulsus necessitate, sed sua voluntate et potestate.

Ratio autem, quare voluit descendere ad eripiendos illos qui tenebantur ibi compediti, cum etiam posset facere hoc non descendendo, fuit duplex, videlicet propter *consolationem vinctorum* et propter *confutationem[^p459-9] adversariorum*. Propter *consolationem vinctorum*, quia magna fuit eis consolatio de praesentia ipsius animae Iesu Christi, et maximae fuit dignationis ostensio in hoc, quod ipse personaliter voluit descendere ad eos. Propter hoc dicit Damascenus, quod « descendit, ut his *qui in tenebris et in umbra mortis sedent*, superlucescat », sicut in sua nativitate descendit, « ut luceret his qui erant in terris ». — Propter *confutationem adversariorum*, ut ipsi daemones confunderentur ex sua praesentia; et sicut vicerat eos in terra in natura assumta, sic anima eius de eisdem triumpharet apud inferos, ipsos invitos exspoliando[^p459-10]. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes et auctoritates, quae inducuntur ad hoc.

**Ad argumenta pro parte negativa:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod inferni nomen non de facili invenitur in bono; dicendum, quod verum est, quia ad infernum nullus descendit praeter solum Christum nisi ad poenam damni, vel ad poenam sensus; ideo dicit, ipsum non de facili inveniri in bono, quia hoc convenit soli Christo.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod optimo debetur optimus locus; dicendum, quod verum est de loco, qui debetur alicui pro remuneratione; Christus autem non descendit ad infernum tanquam ad locum remunerationis sibi debitum, sed potius descendit ad ipsum frangendum et exspoliandum.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod maius est
<!-- page 460 -->
triumphare in absentia quam in praesentia; dicendum, quod licet hoc non sit ostensivum tantae virtutis, tamen est ostensivum maioris dignationis. Christus autem in liberatione nostra potius intendebat nobis ostendere dignationis affectum quam virtutis imperium; malebat enim, quod haberemus spiritum dilectionis et amoris quam spiritum servitutis et timoris[^p460-1].

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod mors Christi merebatur ascensum ab inferis; dicendum, quod est descensus ordinatus ad ascensum; et hoc modo descendit Christus, quia descendit, ut faceret alios ascendere; et iste descensus non est contrarius ascensui nec est ex causa contraria. Est et alius descensus, qui venit ex impotentia ascendendi; et hic descensus repugnat ascensui; et de hoc descensu opponit, et hoc[^p460-2] concedi potest, quod isto modo Christus ad inferos non descendit, sed modo alio, sicut praedictum est.

english:
### Question IV. *On the descent of the soul of Christ into hell.*

Fourthly it is asked concerning the descent of the soul of Christ into hell. And that the soul of Christ descended thither is shown:

1. First, through that which is said in Acts, chapter two[^p458-9]: *Whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of hell*, etc.: therefore it seems that his soul was in hell.

2. Likewise, in the Apostles' Creed: « He descended into hell, on the third day he rose again from the dead »; nothing can be said more expressly than this.

3. Likewise, Damascene[^p459-1]: « The deified soul descended into hell, so that, just as to those who are upon the earth, so also to those who are in hell and who *sit in darkness and in the shadow of death*, it might shine forth »: therefore he descended into hell.

4. Likewise, just as Christ taught us through his coming in the flesh, so also he freed those held in hell through his going out from the flesh; but in coming upon the earth he dwelt and lived among us[^p459-2]: therefore in dying he descended into hell.

**On the contrary:** 1. Augustine, to Dardanus[^p459-3] and also in *On Genesis according to the Letter*: « The name of hell is not easily found in a good sense in the Scriptures »: if therefore nothing evil is to be attributed to Christ, it seems that Christ did not descend into hell.

2. Likewise, to the best is owed the best place[^p459-4]; but the soul of Christ was the best, and hell was the basest place: therefore it never seems to have been fitting that the soul of Christ should descend into hell.

3. Likewise, it is of greater power to free subjects from the hand of the adversary by will and power alone than by bodily presence[^p459-5]: therefore if Christ had already triumphed over the devil on the cross, it seems that it was not necessary for him to descend into hell to free his own.

4. Likewise, through the death of Christ those who had earlier descended into hell merited to ascend into heaven: therefore if the same thing is not the cause of opposites[^p459-6], it seems that Christ in dying did not descend into hell.

### Conclusion

> The soul of Christ descended into hell on account of the consolation of those bound in limbo and on account of the confounding of the adversaries.

**I respond:** It must be said that by the name "hell" is sometimes understood the punishment, sometimes the place of punishment; and according to this, someone can be said[^p459-7] to descend into hell in two ways: either because he descends to the *punishment*, or because he descends to the *place of punishment*. In the first way it does not befit Christ; for in him there was neither the punishment of *loss*, nor the punishment of *sense*; but in the second way it belongs to Christ. For he descended as regards that part in which were the just, who were detained by the merit of the sin of the first parent, which part has been wont to be called *limbo*[^p459-8]; to that part, I say, he descended, not compelled by necessity, but by his own will and power.

Now the reason why he willed to descend to rescue those who were held bound there, although he could also do this without descending, was twofold, namely on account of the *consolation of those bound* and on account of the *confounding[^p459-9] of the adversaries*. On account of the *consolation of those bound*, because the presence of the very soul of Jesus Christ was a great consolation to them, and it was a manifestation of the greatest condescension in this, that he willed personally to descend to them. On account of this Damascene says that « he descended, that he might shine forth upon those *who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death* », just as in his nativity he descended, « that he might give light to those who were upon the earth ». — On account of the *confounding of the adversaries*, that the demons themselves might be confounded by his presence; and just as he had conquered them on earth in the assumed nature, so his soul might triumph over the same in hell, despoiling them against their will[^p459-10]. — Therefore the reasons and authorities which are adduced for this are to be granted.

**To the arguments for the negative part:**

*To 1.* As to that which is first objected to the contrary, that the name of hell is not easily found in a good sense; it must be said that this is true, because no one descends into hell except Christ alone save unto the punishment of loss, or unto the punishment of sense; therefore it says that it is not easily found in a good sense, because this belongs to Christ alone.

*To 2.* As to that which is objected, that to the best is owed the best place; it must be said that this is true of the place which is owed to someone for a reward; but Christ did not descend into hell as to a place of reward owed to him, but rather he descended to break and despoil it.

*To 3.* As to that which is objected, that it is greater to triumph in absence than in presence; it must be said that, although this is not a demonstration of so great a power, yet it is a demonstration of greater condescension. But Christ in our liberation rather intended to show us the affection of condescension than the command of power; for he preferred that we should have the spirit of love and affection rather than the spirit of servitude and fear[^p460-1].

*To 4.* As to that which is objected, that the death of Christ merited an ascent from hell; it must be said that there is a descent ordered to an ascent; and in this way Christ descended, because he descended in order to make others ascend; and this descent is not contrary to ascent nor is it from a contrary cause. There is also another descent, which comes from an inability to ascend; and this descent is repugnant to ascent; and concerning this descent the objection argues, and this[^p460-2] can be granted, that in that way Christ did not descend into hell, but in another way, as has been said.

la: Libr. III. *de Fide orthod.* c. 29, ubi textus origin. post *qui in terra sunt* adiungit *ortus est sol iustitiae* [Malach. 4, 2.] et dein pro *in inferno* substituit *sub terra*. Verba *in tenebris et in umbra mortis sedent* occurrunt, ut scis, in Isai. 9, 2. et Luc. 1, 79. Pro *his qui* (τοῖς) multi codd. et edd. bis *his quae*.

en: Book III, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 29, where the original text, after *those who are upon the earth*, adds *the sun of justice has arisen* [Malachi 4:2] and then, for *in hell*, substitutes *under the earth*. The words *who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death* occur, as you know, in Isaiah 9:2 and Luke 1:79. For *those who* (τοῖς) many codices and editions twice have *those things which*.

la: Baruch 3, 38: *Post haec in terris visus est et cum hominibus conversatus est.* — In maiori pro *in carnem* codd. A N *in carne*.

en: Baruch 3:38: *After this he was seen upon the earth and conversed with men.* — In the major premise, for *in the flesh* (accusative), codices A N read *in the flesh* (ablative).

la: Epist. 187. (alias 57.) c. 2. n. 6, et XII. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 33. n. 64.

en: Letter 187 (otherwise 57), c. 2, n. 6, and Book XII, *On Genesis according to the Letter*, c. 33, n. 64.

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 73, nota 3. et pag. 336, nota 12.

en: Cf. tome II, p. 73, note 3, and p. 336, note 12.

la: Vat. *potentia*.

en: The Vatican edition reads *by power*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 226, nota 2. et pag. 383, nota 8.

en: Cf. above, p. 226, note 2, and p. 383, note 8.

la: Codd. A K N Z omittunt *dici*.

en: Codices A K N Z omit *said*.

la: August., XII. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 34. n. 66: *Inferi, eo quod infra sint, Latine appellantur. Sicut autem secundum corpus, si ponderis sui ordinem teneant, inferiora sunt omnia graviora, ita secundum spiritum inferiora sunt omnia tristiora;* unde et in Graeca lingua origo nominis, quo appellantur *inferi*, ex eo quod nihil suave habeant [ἀηδής], resonare perhibetur. *Nec ipsam tamen rerum partem noster Salvator mortuus pro nobis visitare contempsit, ut inde solveret, quos esse solvendos secundum divinam secretamque iustitiam ignorare non potuit* etc. Cfr. Fulgent., III. ad Trasim. c. 30. et IV. Sent. d. 5. a. 1. q. 1.

en: Augustine, Book XII, *On Genesis according to the Letter*, c. 34, n. 66: *The infernal regions* (inferi) *are so called in Latin because they are below. But just as, with respect to body, if things keep the order of their weight, all heavier things are lower, so with respect to spirit all sadder things are lower;* whence in the Greek tongue too the origin of the name by which the *infernal regions* are called is said to resound from this, that they have nothing pleasant [ἀηδής]. *Yet our Savior, having died for us, did not disdain to visit that very portion of things, that he might thence loose those whom, according to the divine and secret justice, he could not be ignorant ought to be loosed*, etc. Cf. Fulgentius, Book III, *To Trasimund*, c. 30, and IV Sent. d. 5, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Edd. et nonnulli codd. hic et infra *confusionem*. Inferius pro *maximae* non pauci codd. vel *maxima* vel cum edd. 1, 2 *magna*.

en: The editions and some codices read here and below *confusion* (confusionem). Further on, for *greatest* (maximae) not a few codices read either *greatest* (maxima) or, with editions 1, 2, *great* (magna).

la: Cfr. Colos. 2, 15. Vide etiam Serm. 160. (alias 257. de Tempore vel 52. in appendice) in appendice serm. August. Huc spectant et verba illa Damasc., III. *de Fide orthod.* c. 29: *Sicut his qui in terra evangelizaverat pacem, captivis remissionem, caecis visum, et credentibus factus est causa salutis aeternae, incredulis autem confutatio* [ἔλεγχος] *infidelitatis: sic etiam his qui in inferno* [respicitur I. Petri 3, 19.]; *ut ipsi omne genu flecteretur caelestium, terrestrium et infernorum* [Phil. 2, 10.].

en: Cf. Colossians 2:15. See also Sermon 160 (otherwise 257, *On the Season*, or 52, in the appendix) in the appendix of the sermons of Augustine. Pertinent here too are those words of Damascene, Book III, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 29: *Just as to those upon the earth he had preached peace, to captives release, to the blind sight, and to those who believe he became the cause of eternal salvation, but to unbelievers a confutation* [ἔλεγχος] *of unbelief: so also to those in hell* [I Peter 3:19 is referred to]; *that at his name every knee should bow, of those in heaven, on earth, and in hell* [Philippians 2:10].

la: Respicitur illud Rom. 8, 15: *Non enim accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore* etc. Cfr. etiam supra lit. Magistri, d. XX. c. 3. — In initio solut. post *triumphare* Vat. addit *sola voluntate et virtute*.

en: Reference is made to that of Romans 8:15: *For you have not received the spirit of servitude again in fear*, etc. Cf. also above, the text of the Master, d. XX, c. 3. — At the beginning of the solution, after *to triumph*, the Vatican edition adds *by will and power alone*.

la: Pro *et hoc*, codd. A Z bb substituunt non pauci alii codd. nec non edd. *et de hoc*, cod. N *et de isto*.

en: For *and this*, codices A Z bb — and not a few other codices and the editions as well — substitute *and concerning this*; codex N, *and concerning that*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Christum descendisse ad inferos, docent cum s. Scriptura antiqua Ecclesiae Symbola; constat etiam, quod hic articulus fidei intelligi nequeat nec cum Calvino de *doloribus inferni*, quos ipsa anima Christi passa sit, nec ita, ut nihil dicat, nisi quod mortuus sit, ut alii multi Protestantes volunt. Erronea et reprobata a Concilio Senonensi est etiam Abaelardi propositio 18: « Quod anima Christi *per se* non descendit ad inferos, sed per *potentiam* tantum »; in quem errorem etiam Durand. (hic q. 3.) incidit docens, animam Christi non secundum aliquam rationem *motus*, sed tantum secundum *effectum* descendisse ad inferos. Durand. autem ad hanc opinionem sectandam motus est falsa sua doctrina de praesentia Angeli vel animae separatae in loco, quam defendit I. Sent. d. 37. q. 1, et cuius mentionem fecimus II. Sent. d. 2. p. II. a. 2. q. 1, in scholio. Vera sententia stabilitur etiam verbis Concilii Lateran. IV. (an. 1215, adversus Albigens. c. 1.): « Descendit *in anima* et resurrexit *in carne* ».

**II.** Triplicem distinctionem inferni, quatenus dicit locum, facit S. Bonav. infra q. 5. ad 1; sed S. Thom. (hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2.) exhibet quadruplicem infernum, distinguendo etiam *limbum puerorum*, qui in solo peccato originali mortui sunt; tamen de quarto S. Bonav. in fine 5. quaestionis pauca dicit. Quaeri igitur potest tum de *praesentia* Christi quoad memorata loca (limbum, purgatorium, infernum damnatorum et limbum puerorum), tum de *effectu* sive efficacia erga ibi detentos (de quo cfr. etiam hic dub. 1.). — Quoad limbum communiter tenetur, ibi Christum fuisse praesentia animae reali, eumque sanctis antiquorum Patrum animis contulisse gloriam visionis beatificae, licet nondum aperta fuerit caeli porta. — Item, communiter docetur, eundem non adiisse reali praesentia locum damnatorum (refragantibus tamen paucis recentioribus), nec eduxisse ullum damnatum nec ullum ex limbo puerorum. — Respectu autem purgatorii res remanet dubia tum quoad praesentiam realem (quam S. Bonav., q. 5. ad 1, negat cum aliis non paucis), tum quoad effectum, si praescindimus ab iis animis, quae iam sufficienter purgatae erant. Nam « cum istius quaestionis non inveniatur aliqua pars affirmata a Sanctis, non mihi tutum videtur aliquam partem asserere » (ita Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 2.). Quidam autem probabile esse volunt, *omnes* has animas tunc speciali applicatione satisfactionis Christi fuisse liberatas; alii vero, *nullam* hoc modo; alii denique, media via incedentes, putant, probabile esse, *aliquas* sic liberatas esse. His favet S. Thom. (hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 4.), de his animabus dicens: « Et ideo non decebat, ut per solam Christi passionem a purgatorio liberarentur, nisi dicatur, quod in vita sua hoc meruerunt, ut per passionem Christi liberarentur, vel hoc ex speciali gratia fuit, quod illi qui in purgatorio inventi fuerunt, absoluti sint per passionem Christi, quamvis nunc illi qui sunt in purgatorio, non consequantur effectum plenae liberationis ex sola passione Christi ». Similiter idem in Sum. III. q. 52. a. 8. rem aliquatenus in incerto relinquit.

**III.** De hac (4.) quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 19. m. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. 2; S. loc. cit. a. 1-5. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1-3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. 2. — Durand., hic q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. 6.

**IV.** De limbo puerorum (hic in fine q. 5.) speciali quaestione et idem sentientes agunt S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3; S. loc. cit. a. 7, et Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3. — De ipsa 5. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. q. incid. — S. Thom., hic loc. cit. quaestiunc. 1. 2, 4; S. loc. cit. a. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 1. 2. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. 2. — Durand., hic q. 4.

**V.** Ultima quaestio ab aliis passim tangitur, quando tractant de ascensione ipsius Christi; ita Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 23. m. 7. a. 2. § 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3. ad 3; S. III. q. 57. a. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 10. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 4. ad 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 1. ad 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** That Christ descended into hell, the ancient Symbols of the Church teach together with sacred Scripture; it is established also that this article of faith cannot be understood either, with Calvin, of the *pains of hell* which the soul of Christ itself suffered, nor in such a way that it says nothing except that he died, as many other Protestants hold. Erroneous too, and reprobated by the Council of Sens, is the proposition 18 of Abelard: « That the soul of Christ *of itself* did not descend into hell, but only through *power* »; into which error Durandus also (here q. 3.) fell, teaching that the soul of Christ descended into hell not according to any account of *motion*, but only according to *effect*. Now Durandus was moved to follow this opinion by his false doctrine concerning the presence of an angel or a separated soul in a place, which he defends in I Sent. d. 37, q. 1, and which we mentioned in II Sent. d. 2, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, in the scholion. The true position is established also by the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (a.d. 1215, against the Albigensians, c. 1): « He descended *in the soul* and rose again *in the flesh* ».

**II.** A threefold distinction of hell, insofar as it denotes a place, is made by St. Bonaventure below, q. 5, ad 1; but St. Thomas (here q. 2, a. 1, quaestiuncula 2) sets forth a fourfold hell, distinguishing also the *limbo of children*, who died in original sin alone; yet about the fourth St. Bonaventure says little at the end of the fifth question. It can therefore be asked both concerning the *presence* of Christ as regards the said places (limbo, purgatory, the hell of the damned, and the limbo of children), and concerning the *effect* or efficacy toward those detained there (concerning which cf. also here, dub. 1). — As to limbo, it is commonly held that Christ was there by the real presence of his soul, and that he conferred upon the souls of the holy Fathers of antiquity the glory of the beatific vision, although the gate of heaven was not yet open. — Likewise, it is commonly taught that he did not approach the place of the damned by real presence (though some more recent writers dissent), nor did he lead out any of the damned nor any from the limbo of children. — But with respect to purgatory the matter remains doubtful both as to real presence (which St. Bonaventure, q. 5, ad 1, denies along with not a few others), and as to effect, if we set aside those souls which were already sufficiently purged. For « since no part of this question is found to be affirmed by the Saints, it does not seem safe to me to assert any part » (so Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 2). But some hold it probable that *all* these souls were then freed by a special application of the satisfaction of Christ; others, *none* in this way; others finally, taking a middle way, think it probable that *some* were so freed. St. Thomas favors these (here q. 2, a. 2, quaestiuncula 4), saying of these souls: « And therefore it was not fitting that they should be freed from purgatory by the passion of Christ alone, unless it be said that in their life they merited this, that they should be freed through the passion of Christ, or it was from a special grace, that those who were found in purgatory were absolved by the passion of Christ, although now those who are in purgatory do not obtain the effect of full liberation from the passion of Christ alone ». Likewise the same writer in Summa III, q. 52, a. 8, leaves the matter somewhat in uncertainty.

**III.** On this (fourth) question: Alex. of Hales, S. p. III, q. 19, m. 4. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1, quaestiuncula 1, 2; Summa loc. cit. a. 1-5. — B. Albert, here a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 2, a. 1, quaestiuncula 1-3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1, 2. — Durandus, here q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following questions here q. 6.

**IV.** On the limbo of children (here at the end of q. 5) by a special question, and holding the same view, treat St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2, quaestiuncula 3; Summa loc. cit. a. 7, and Petr. a Tar., here q. 2, a. 2, quaestiuncula 3. — On the fifth question itself: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit., q. incid. — St. Thomas, here loc. cit., quaestiuncula 1, 2, 4; Summa loc. cit. a. 6. — B. Albert, here a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit., quaestiuncula 1, 2, 4. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 1, 2. — Durandus, here q. 4.

**V.** The last question is touched upon here and there by others, when they treat of the ascension of Christ himself; thus Alex. of Hales, S. p. III, q. 23, m. 7, a. 2, § 1. — St. Thomas, here q. 3, a. 2, quaestiuncula 3, ad 3; Summa III, q. 57, a. 6. — B. Albert, here a. 10. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 3, a. 1, quaestiuncula 4, ad 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 4, q. 1, ad 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (vol3 printed pp.458–460 = PDF pp.480–482), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR raw lines 31889–32029. Offset pdf = printed + 22. Per the Vol III / Vol II Override, the PDF column bands are authoritative for the cascade-fragmented Respondeo, Solutiones, scholion, and all footers; OCR is the base only for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing.

**Opener alignment VERIFIED.** Opener reads *Quarto quaeritur de descensu animae Christi ad inferos* (raw 31892) = TRACTATIO q4 (*de descensu ad inferos*). This is q4, NOT q5 (q5 = *Quinto quaeritur de liberatione animarum*, raw 32030, printed p.460 right column). q4 body = raw 31889–32029.

**Page-split map.**
- p.458 (PDF 480): q4 opens at the bottom of the RIGHT column (q3/q4 seam inside p.458, CLEAN). Holds the subtitle, opener, arg 1, and the start of arg 2 (`« Descendit`).
- p.458→459 break: mid-arg-2, at `« Descendit | ad inferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis »`.
- p.459 (PDF 481): args 2(end)–4, sed-contra 1–4, Conclusio, Respondeo, Solutiones ad 1–2, start of ad 3.
- p.459→460 break: mid-Solutio-ad-3, at `quod maius est | triumphare in absentia…`.
- p.460 (PDF 482): Solutio ad-3(end) + ad-4 (LEFT col + top of RIGHT col), then SCHOLION §I–V. q5 opens lower in the RIGHT column (q4/q5 seam inside p.460, CLEAN).

**Scholion FINDING (corrects hand-off "VERIFY on PDF").** q4 DOES carry its own scholion, §I–V, beginning after Solutio ad-4 on p.460 (header OCR-garbled `SCH0LI0N.`). `has_scholion: true`. §I = the dogmatic point (Symbols + Scripture; against Calvin's *dolores inferni* and the "merely died" Protestants; Abelard prop. 18 condemned at Sens; Durandus's *effectus*-only error; Lateran IV *in anima…in carne*). §II = threefold vs fourfold *infernus*, presence/effect toward limbo / purgatory / hell of the damned / limbo of children (S. Thom., Richard of Mediavilla). §§III–V = author-lists for q4, the limbo-of-children sub-question + q5, and the last (ascension) question. Scholion placed LAST in both Latin and English blocks per the parser rule. No numbered markers in the scholion.

**Apparatus — 13 entries, per-page restart.**
- p.458: **n.9 only** (`Vers. 24.` = Acts 2:24, q4 arg 1). MIGRATED IN per hand-off: p.458 nn.1–8 belong to q3 (n.8 = *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*).
- p.459: **nn.1–10** (all q4): n.1 Damascene *de Fide orthod.*, n.2 Baruch 3:38, n.3 Augustine ad Dardanum, n.4 cross-ref, n.5 *Vat. potentia*, n.6 cross-ref, n.7 *omittunt dici*, n.8 Augustine *de Gen. ad lit.* (long), n.9 *confusionem* variant, n.10 Colossians 2:15 / Damascene (long).
- p.460: **nn.1–2 only** (q4): n.1 Romans 8:15 (keyed to Solutio ad-3 `timoris`), n.2 *et hoc / et de hoc* variant (keyed to Solutio ad-4 `et hoc`). p.460 nn.3–4 (*Vers. 16.*, *Psalm. 85, 13*) belong to q5 — NOT captured here.

**Footers IN / OUT.** IN: p.458 n.9 (q4's first footer; q3 took p.458 nn.1–8). OUT: q4's share of p.460 ends at n.2; p.460 nn.3+ migrate forward to q5.

**Marginal sigla trimmed.** *Fundamenta. / Ad oppositum. / Conclusio 1-3. / Ratio. / Alia ratio. / Solutio oppositorum. / Notandum. / pliciter accipitur et descensus.*

**Seam status.** Both seams CLEAN. q3 closes on p.458 R (`…habuit privilegium singulare`) and QUAESTIO IV opens fresh; q4 closes on p.460 R (`…sicut praedictum est` + scholion) and QUAESTIO V opens fresh (raw 32030).

**[?] flags:** none.

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


title: Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 5

source_text:
<!-- page 460 -->

### Quaestio V. *Utrum Christus in descensu ad inferos omnes animas liberaverit.*

Quinto quaeritur de liberatione animarum ab inferno et est quaestio, utrum omnes animas, quae in inferno erant, liberaverit. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Iob decimo septimo[^p460-3]: *In profundissimum infernum descendent omnia mea*; sed constat, quod Christus eripuit Iob de inferno: ergo eripuit aliquos de inferno profundissimo, multo fortius de parte superiori inferni: ergo videtur, quod totum infernum exspoliaverit.

2. Item, in Psalmo[^p460-4]: *Eruisti animam meam ex inferno inferiori*; aut hoc dicitur in persona Christi, aut in persona alicuius alterius; sed quo<!-- page 461 -->cumque modo intelligatur, aliqui eruti sunt de loco inferiori, quia Christus non descendit nisi ad locum illum, unde animas eruit: ergo multo fortius erutae sunt de inferno superiori: ergo de toto inferno.

3. Item, Zachariae nono[^p461-1]: super illud: *Tu in sanguine testamenti tui eruisti vinctos de lacu* etc.; Glossa: « Eos qui tenebantur vincti carceribus, ubi nulla misericordia eos refrigerabat, quam dives ille petebat, tu liberasti »; sed tales erant damnati in inferno: ergo videtur, quod illos liberavit: ergo omnes eduxit.

4. Item, si solos bonos de inferno liberavit et malos reliquit; cum plures essent mali quam boni, videtur, quod Christus non plenam, sed semiplenam victoriam de diabolo obtinuit.

5. Item, Christus pro omnibus passus est in cruce; sed ad illos liberandos ad inferna descendit, pro quibus passus fuit: ergo videtur, quod omnes eduxerit de inferno. Si tu dicas, quod non est passus quantum ad *efficaciam* nisi pro bonis, licet quantum ad *sufficientiam* pro omnibus; contra hoc est quod dicitur ad Romanos quinto[^p461-2]: *Christus pro impiis passus est*; et constans est, quod multi peccatores merito passionis Christi liberantur de potestate et laqueis diaboli: ergo videtur, quod multo fortius illi fuerunt liberati, qui fuerunt ibi a Christo inventi.

**Sed contra:** 1. Isaiae ultimo[^p461-3] dicitur de damnatis: *Vermis eorum non morietur, et ignis eorum non exstinguetur*: ergo videtur, quod reprobos et malos Christus ab igne inferni non liberaverit.

2. Item, Lucae decimo sexto[^p461-4]: *Chaos magnum firmatum est inter nos et vos* etc., ergo multo fortius inter Christum et damnatos: ergo non videtur, quod Christus descenderit ad illos liberandos. Si enim alii Sancti non compatiebantur damnatis propter severitatem iustitiae, multo fortius nec ipse Christus, qui est *iustus iudex*. *Transitus* enim ille, sicut dicit Gregorius, intelligitur « de compassione ».

3. Item, Iudas et alii in peccato mortali decedentes[^p461-5] damnati erant per sententiam definitivam; sed Deus nunquam sententiam suam definitivam retractat: ergo etc.

4. Item, passio Christi non tollit liberum arbitrium, ergo nec merita liberi arbitrii: ergo si aliqui erant ibi damnati per demerita sui liberi arbitrii, videtur, quod nunquam merito passionis Christi deberent[^p461-6] inde erui et liberari.

5. Item, aut isti peccatores, qui modo moriuntur in peccato, *liberantur* de inferno, aut *non*. Si liberantur: ergo nihil est de rigore divinae iustitiae; si non liberantur, et illi fuerunt liberati: ergo peioris condicionis sunt illi qui secuti sunt passionem Christi, quam illi qui praecesserunt. Sed hoc est falsum: ergo nulli reprobi liberati fuerunt.

Est igitur quaestio, quos liberaverit, et in quem infernum descenderit; et specialiter dubium est de parvulis, qui decesserunt in puro[^p461-7] originali. Si enim illi non habent aliud peccatum nisi peccatum Adae, et pro illo satisfecit Christus, et merita Christi valent illis qui non utuntur libero arbitrio; videtur, quod eos eripuerit de inferno; aut si non eripuit, quaeritur, quare non eripuerit.

> **Conclusio.** Christus in suo descensu ad inferos quoad efficaciam non liberavit nisi animas electorum suorum, et eorum qui erant membra ipsius.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Dominus in inferno[^p461-8] non liberavit nisi animas electorum suorum, et eorum qui erant membra ipsius. Quamvis enim passio Christi omnibus suffecerit, non tamen influit nisi in eius membra; et ideo soli per passionem Christi salvati sunt, qui vel erant eius membra, quando passus est, vel futuri erant per conversionem ad ipsum. Quoniam igitur multi erant in inferno, qui nec membra Christi erant nec membra Christi futuri erant, quia non erant in statu merendi; ideo non omnes Dominus eripuit de inferno, sed tantum electos. Et hoc est quod dicit Gregorius in quadam homilia infra octavam Paschae[^p461-9]. Ait enim sic: « Quod ante passionem suam dixit in resurrectione sua Dominus implevit: *Si exaltatus fuero a terra, omnia* <!-- page 462 -->*traham ad me*. Omnia enim traxit, qui de electis suis apud inferos nullum reliquit; omnia abstulit, utique electa. Unde etiam recte per Osee dicit: *Ero mors tua, o mors, morsus tuus ero, inferne*. Quia enim in electis suis funditus occidit mortem, mors mortis exstitit. Quia vero ex inferno partem abstulit et partem reliquit, non occidit funditus, sed momordit infernum ». — Concedendum est igitur, quod Christus in suo descensu ad inferos non omnes liberavit de inferno. Concedendae sunt etiam rationes, quae inducuntur ad hoc.

1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium de verbo Iob, quod dicebat, se descensurum in profundissimum infernum; dicendum, quod *profundissimus infernus* potest dici vel secundum statum inferni inferioris, qui est *sub terra*, vel respectu ad infernum, qui est *supra terram*. — Si primo modo dicatur, tunc in profundissimum infernum descendunt impii et damnati, quoniam in loco illo inferiori est quidam locus deputatus his qui puniendi sunt poena *damni* et poena *sensus*; quidam vero deputatus his qui puniendi sunt solum *ad tempus*, sive sit poena *damni*, sive poena *sensus*, sicut ille, in quo erant sancti Patres et alii, qui decesserant cum gratia; et vocatur *limbus* sive sinus Abrahae. — Dico ergo, quod Christus solum ad *limbum* descendit, unde sanctos Patres eripuit et ita ad *superiorem* partem, non autem ad *mediam*, vel *ultimam*.

Alio modo accipitur profunditas inferni respectu inferni, qui est *supra terram*, sicut respectu aeris caliginosi, qui est infernus daemonum, qui dicitur *profundus* respectu caeli empyrei; locus vero terrae dicitur *profundior*; locus vero infra terram respectu horum dicitur *profundissimus*. — Et hoc modo dicebat Iob, se in profundissimum infernum descensurum[^p462-1].

2. Et per hoc patet responsio ad sequens. Quod enim dicitur: *Eruisti animam meam ex inferno inferiori*, hoc dicitur respectu ipsius terrae, respectu cuius infernus ille dicitur *inferior*, non autem respectu *status inferni*, quia in parte inferiori nulla est redemptio[^p462-2].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Glossa Zachariae nono, dicendum, quod Glossa illa satis est *impropria*; potest tamen exponi, ut per hoc quod dicitur: « nulla eos misericordia refrigerabat », non intelligitur locus inferni quantum ad partem illam, ubi[^p462-3] erant liberandi, sed quantum ad partem illam, ubi non erant liberandi, quasi dicat: emisit vinctos de inferno, ubi erant compediti cum malis, quos scilicet malos nulla refrigerabat misericordia. — Potest etiam vis fieri in hoc, quod dicitur *misericordia*: quia in limbo non erat misericordia *liberans*, quamvis esset misericordia *relaxans*; et de illa misericordia intelligitur, non de alia.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si non eripuit nisi bonos, quod semiplenam habuit victoriam; dicendum, quod falsum est. Mali enim per peccatum quasi nihil facti sunt et ad *non-esse* tendunt[^p462-4]; et ideo ipsorum defectus in nihilum computatur, et propterea in nullo minuitur plenitudo victoriae, si ipsi non liberantur, sicut in nullo diminuta est plenitudo civitatis supernae per absentiam malorum.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod illos liberavit, pro quibus passus est; dicendum, quod, sicut dicebatur[^p462-5], hoc verum est de illis, pro quibus patiebatur quantum ad *efficaciam*, et isti soli erant electi, qui erant in inferno. Et si tu obiicias: Christus non solum pro electis, sed etiam pro impiis mortuus est; dicendum, quod hoc intelligitur de impiis, qui erant in *statu viae*, non autem de illis qui erant *damnati* per definitivam sententiam, quales erant illi qui erant in profundissimum infernum demersi.

Ad illud quod ultimo quaerebatur de parvulis, quod debuerunt liberari; dicendum, quod nec ipsi potuerunt liberari, quia non erant in statu, in quo essent capaces gratiae Christi; nec merita Christi poterant eis suffragari, nec satisfactio eius pro peccato Adae ad eos habebat extendi. Ad illos enim se extendit, qui membra eius efficiuntur per fidem, vel per aliquod Sacramentum fidei. Unde sicut parvuli decedentes in originali carent in perpetuum vita beata[^p462-6], sic et illi qui iam in inferno erant detrusi. — Alia vero, quae quaerebantur, per ea quae dicta sunt, satis possunt manifestari[^p462-7].

---

english:
### Question V. *Whether Christ in his descent to the lower regions liberated all souls.*

Fifthly, inquiry is made about the liberation of souls from hell, and the question is whether he liberated all the souls that were in hell. And that he did, seems so:

1. Job 17[^p460-3]: *Into the deepest hell shall descend all that I have*; but it is established that Christ snatched Job out of hell: therefore he snatched some out of the deepest hell, much more so from the upper part of hell: therefore it seems that he despoiled the whole of hell.

2. Likewise, in the Psalm[^p460-4]: *Thou hast delivered my soul out of the lower hell*; this is said either in the person of Christ, or in the person of someone else; but in whatever way it is understood, some were snatched from the lower place, since Christ descended only to that place from which he snatched souls: therefore much more were they snatched from the upper hell: therefore from the whole of hell.

3. Likewise, on Zechariah 9[^p461-1]: upon that text, *Thou also by the blood of thy testament hast sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit*, etc.; the Gloss: « Those who were held bound in prisons, where no mercy refreshed them — the mercy which that rich man begged for — thou hast liberated »; but such were the damned in hell: therefore it seems that he liberated them: therefore he led them all out.

4. Likewise, if he liberated only the good from hell and left the evil behind; since the evil were more numerous than the good, it seems that Christ obtained not a full but a half-full victory over the devil.

5. Likewise, Christ suffered for all on the cross; but he descended to the lower regions to liberate those for whom he had suffered: therefore it seems that he led all out of hell. If you say that he did not suffer as to *efficacy* except for the good, although as to *sufficiency* for all; against this is what is said in Romans 5[^p461-2]: *Christ died for the ungodly*; and it is settled that many sinners are liberated, by the merit of Christ's passion, from the power and snares of the devil: therefore it seems that much more were those liberated who were found there by Christ.

**On the contrary:** 1. In the last [chapter] of Isaiah[^p461-3] it is said of the damned: *Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched*: therefore it seems that Christ did not liberate the reprobate and the evil from the fire of hell.

2. Likewise, Luke 16[^p461-4]: *A great chaos has been fixed between us and you*, etc.; therefore much more between Christ and the damned: therefore it does not seem that Christ descended to liberate them. For if the other saints did not have compassion on the damned, because of the severity of justice, much more not Christ himself, who is the *just judge*. For that *passing over*, as Gregory says, is understood « of compassion ».

3. Likewise, Judas and the others who departed in mortal sin[^p461-5] were damned by definitive sentence; but God never retracts his definitive sentence: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, Christ's passion does not take away free will, therefore neither the merits of free will: therefore if some were damned there through the demerits of their own free will, it seems that they ought never to be snatched out and liberated thence by the merit of Christ's passion[^p461-6].

5. Likewise, either these sinners, who now die in sin, are *liberated* from hell, or *not*. If they are liberated: then there is nothing of the rigor of divine justice; if they are not liberated, and yet those [former ones] were liberated: then those who came after the passion of Christ are of worse condition than those who came before. But this is false: therefore no reprobate were liberated.

The question, then, is whom he liberated, and into which hell he descended; and especially there is a doubt about the little children who departed in pure[^p461-7] original [sin]. For if they have no other sin than the sin of Adam, and Christ made satisfaction for that, and Christ's merits avail for those who do not use free will; it seems that he snatched them from hell; or if he did not snatch them, it is asked why he did not snatch them.

> **Conclusion.** Christ in his descent to the lower regions, as to efficacy, liberated none but the souls of his elect, and of those who were his members.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Lord, in hell[^p461-8], liberated none but the souls of his elect, and of those who were his members. For although Christ's passion sufficed for all, nevertheless it does not flow except into his members; and therefore those alone were saved through Christ's passion who either were his members when he suffered, or were to become such through conversion to him. Since, therefore, there were many in hell who were neither members of Christ nor about to become members of Christ, because they were not in a state of meriting; therefore the Lord did not snatch all out of hell, but only the elect. And this is what Gregory says in a certain homily within the octave of Easter[^p461-9]. For he says thus: « What he said before his passion the Lord fulfilled in his resurrection: *If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all things to myself*. For he drew all things, who of his elect left none among those below; he took away all things, namely the elect. Whence rightly also he says through Hosea: *O death, I will be thy death; O hell, I will be thy bite*. For because in his elect he utterly slew death, he became the death of death. But because from hell he took away a part and left a part, he did not slay utterly, but bit hell. » — It must therefore be conceded that Christ in his descent to the lower regions did not liberate all from hell. The reasons too which are adduced for this are to be conceded.

1. To that which is first objected to the contrary about the word of Job, who said that he would descend into the deepest hell; it must be said that *deepest hell* can be spoken of either according to the state of the lower hell, which is *under the earth*, or in relation to the hell which is *above the earth*. — If it is spoken of in the first way, then into the deepest hell descend the impious and the damned, since in that lower place there is a certain place assigned to those who are to be punished with the punishment of *loss* and the punishment of *sense*; but a certain [other place] assigned to those who are to be punished only *for a time*, whether it be the punishment of *loss* or the punishment of *sense*, like that in which were the holy Fathers and others who had departed with grace; and it is called *limbo* or the bosom of Abraham. — I say, therefore, that Christ descended only to *limbo*, whence he snatched the holy Fathers, and thus to the *upper* part, but not to the *middle* or the *lowest*.

In another way the depth of hell is taken in relation to the hell which is *above the earth*, as in relation to the murky air, which is the hell of the demons, which is called *deep* in relation to the empyrean heaven; the place of the earth is called *deeper*; and the place beneath the earth, in relation to these, is called *deepest*. — And in this way Job said that he would descend into the deepest hell[^p462-1].

2. And by this the reply to the next [point] is clear. For when it is said: *Thou hast delivered my soul out of the lower hell*, this is said in relation to the earth itself, in relation to which that hell is called *lower*, but not in relation to the *state of hell*, because in the lower part there is no redemption[^p462-2].

3. To that which is objected from the Gloss on Zechariah 9, it must be said that that Gloss is rather *improper*; it can, however, be expounded so that by what is said: « no mercy refreshed them », is understood not the place of hell as to that part where[^p462-3] they were to be liberated, but as to that part where they were not to be liberated; as if it should say: he sent forth bound men out of hell, where they were shackled with the evil — the evil, namely, whom no mercy refreshed. — Force can also be put upon this, that it is said *mercy*: because in limbo there was no *liberating* mercy, although there was *relaxing* mercy; and it is understood of that mercy, not of the other.

4. To that which is objected, that if he snatched none but the good, he had a half-full victory; it must be said that it is false. For the evil, through sin, are made as it were nothing and tend toward *non-being*[^p462-4]; and therefore their defect is counted as nothing, and on that account the fullness of victory is in no way diminished, if they are not liberated, just as the fullness of the supernal city is in no way diminished by the absence of the evil.

5. To that which is objected, that he liberated those for whom he suffered; it must be said that, as was said[^p462-5], this is true of those for whom he suffered as to *efficacy*, and these alone were the elect who were in hell. And if you object: Christ died not only for the elect but also for the ungodly; it must be said that this is understood of the ungodly who were in the *state of the wayfarer*, but not of those who were *damned* by definitive sentence, such as were those who were sunk into the deepest hell.

To that which was asked last about the little children, that they ought to have been liberated; it must be said that neither could they themselves be liberated, because they were not in a state in which they would be capable of Christ's grace; nor could Christ's merits avail them, nor did his satisfaction for the sin of Adam have to be extended to them. For it is extended to those who are made his members through faith, or through some Sacrament of faith. Whence, just as little children departing in original [sin] lack the blessed life forever[^p462-6], so also those who had already been thrust down into hell. — But the other things that were asked can be sufficiently made clear through the things that have been said[^p462-7].

---

la: Vers. 16. Vat. *descendet anima mea.*

en: [Job 17,] v. 16. The Vatican edition reads *descendet anima mea* ("my soul shall descend").

la: Psalm. 85, 13, quem locum August. exponens (n. 17.) ait: *Intelligimus, tanquam duo inferna esse, superius et inferius. Nam unde infernum inferius, nisi quia est infernum superius? Aliud non diceretur infernum, nisi in comparatione illius superioris partis... Ergo aut ipsius* [Filii Dei] *vox est hic: Eruisti animam meam ex inferno inferiori, aut nostra vox per ipsum Christum, Dominum nostrum, quia ideo ille pervenit usque ad infernum, ne nos remaneremus in inferno.*

en: Psalm 85, 13, which passage Augustine, expounding (n. 17), says: *We understand that there are, as it were, two hells, an upper and a lower. For whence is there a lower hell, except that there is an upper hell? The one would not be called hell except in comparison with that upper part... Therefore either it is the voice of him* [the Son of God] *here: Thou hast delivered my soul out of the lower hell, or it is our voice through Christ himself, our Lord, because he reached as far as hell for this reason, that we should not remain in hell.*

la: Vers. 11. Glossa, quae ut interlinearis penes Lyranum habetur, sumta est ex Hieron. exposit. in hunc loc., ubi legitur sic: *In sanguine passionis tuae eos qui vincti in carcere tenebantur inferni, in quo non est ulla misericordia, tua clementia liberasti.*

en: [Zech. 9,] v. 11. The Gloss, which is found as an interlinear gloss in Lyra, is taken from Jerome's exposition on this passage, where it reads thus: *By the blood of thy passion thou hast, in thy clemency, liberated those who were held bound in the prison of hell, in which there is no mercy.*

la: Vers. 6. — De vi passionis quantum ad sufficientiam et quantum ad efficaciam vide supra d. 19. a. 1. q. 2. ad 1. et q. 3. in corp.

en: [Rom. 5,] v. 6. — On the force of the passion as to sufficiency and as to efficacy, see above, d. 19, a. 1, q. 2, ad 1, and q. 3 in the body.

la: Vers. 24.

en: [Isaiah, last chapter,] v. 24.

la: Vers. 26, quem locum Gregor., II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 40. n. 7. exponens ait: *Sicut transire reprobi ad electos cupiunt*, id est a suppliciorum suorum afflictione migrare; *ita ad afflictos atque in tormentis positos transire iustorum est mente ire per misericordiam, eosque velle liberare. Sed qui volunt ... non possunt, quia iustorum animae, quamvis in suae naturae bonitate misericordiam habeant, iam tunc auctoris sui iustitiae coniunctae, tanta rectitudine constringuntur, ut nulla ad reprobos compassione moveantur* etc. — Deinde Christus *iustus iudex* nominatur, auctore Apostolo, II. Tim. 4, 8. — In conclus. ante *multo fortius* codd. K Z interserunt *ergo.*

en: [Luke 16,] v. 26, which passage Gregory, in the second [book] of Homilies on the Gospels, homily 40, n. 7, expounding, says: *Just as the reprobate desire to pass over to the elect*, that is, to migrate from the affliction of their torments; *so to pass over to the afflicted and those set in torments belongs to the just to go in mind by mercy, and to wish to liberate them. But those who wish ... cannot, because the souls of the just, although in the goodness of their nature they have mercy, being now joined to the justice of their author, are bound by so great a rectitude that they are moved by no compassion toward the reprobate*, etc. — Then Christ is named the *just judge*, on the authority of the Apostle, 2 Tim. 4, 8. — In the conclusion, before *multo fortius*, codices K and Z insert *ergo*.

la: Multi codd. *descendentes.*

en: Many codices read *descendentes* ("descending," for *decedentes*, "departing").

la: Codd. H K Z bb *debeant.*

en: Codices H, K, Z, bb read *debeant.*

la: Pro *puro originali* edd. cum nonnullis codd. *peccato originali.* In fine arg. codd. A K N Z omittunt *eripuerit.*

en: For *puro originali* the editions, with some codices, read *peccato originali* ("original sin"). At the end of the argument, codices A, K, N, Z omit *eripuerit.*

la: Codd. A K U Z *de inferno.* Post pauca pro *ipsius* codd. A K Z substituunt *eius,* et deinde pro *suffecerit* cum cod. N *sufficeret.* Mox pro *soli* cod. U *illi soli.*

en: Codices A, K, U, Z read *de inferno.* A little after, for *ipsius* codices A, K, Z substitute *eius,* and then for *suffecerit*, with codex N, *sufficeret.* Soon after, for *soli* codex U reads *illi soli.*

la: Libr. II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 22. n. 6; in quo loco post *utique electa* textus origin. addit: « Neque etenim infideles quosque et pro suis criminibus aeternis suppliciis deditos ad veniam Dominus resurgendo reparavit; sed illos ex inferni claustris rapuit, quos suos in fide et actibus recognovit ». Et dein post *morsus tuus ero, inferne*, textus origin. sic prosequitur: *Id namque quod occidimus, agimus, ut penitus non sit. Ex eo etenim, quod mordemus, partem abstrahimus, partemque relinquimus. Quia ergo in electis suis* etc. — Loci ex s. Script. allegati sunt Ioan. 12, 32. et Osee 13, 14. — Circa finem textus edd. cum multis codd. *Quia vero in inferno* pro *Quia vero ex inferno.*

en: [Gregory,] Book II of the Homilies on the Gospels, homily 22, n. 6; in which place, after *utique electa* ("namely the elect"), the original text adds: « For the Lord did not, by rising again, restore to pardon any unbelievers and those handed over to eternal torments for their crimes; but he snatched out of the prisons of hell those whom he recognized as his own in faith and deeds ». And then, after *I will be thy bite, O hell*, the original text continues thus: *For that which we kill, we cause not to exist at all. For from that which we bite, we tear away a part and leave a part. Because therefore in his elect* etc. — The passages cited from Sacred Scripture are John 12, 32, and Hosea 13, 14. — Near the end, the editions with many codices read *Quia vero in inferno* for *Quia vero ex inferno.*

la: Hoc secundo modo infernum inferius accipit Gregor., XIII. Moral. c. 48. n. 53, et August., Enarrat. in Ps. 85, 13. n. 17.

en: In this second way Gregory takes "lower hell" — Morals, Book XIII, c. 48, n. 53 — and Augustine, Enarration on Ps. 85, 13, n. 17.

la: Offic. defunct. in Brev. Roman. III. Noct. Resp. ad lect. 7: *Quia in inferno nulla est redemptio.*

en: Office of the Dead in the Roman Breviary, third Nocturn, Responsory to lesson 7: *Because in hell there is no redemption.*

la: Cod. A *unde.* Paulo inferius pro *Potest etiam* edd. 1, 2 cum pluribus codd. *Potest enim*; perperam.

en: Codex A reads *unde.* A little below, for *Potest etiam* editions 1 and 2, with several codices, read *Potest enim*; wrongly.

la: Ut August. docet, cuius verba invenis tom. II. pag. 640, nota 8. et pag. 838, nota 9. Cfr. etiam ibid. pag. 814, nota 2. — Ad enuntiatum seq. notamus illud Aristot., II. Rhetor. c. 3. (c. 2.): *Quae vero nihil aut admodum parva sunt, pro nihilo habenda esse putamus.* — Pro *defectus in nihilum computatur* Vat. *defectu in nihilum computantur.*

en: As Augustine teaches, whose words you find in tome II, p. 640, note 8, and p. 838, note 9. Compare also ibid., p. 814, note 2. — On the following statement we note that saying of Aristotle, *Rhetoric* II, c. 3 (c. 2): *But things which are nothing or exceedingly small we judge are to be reckoned as nothing.* — For *defectus in nihilum computatur* the Vatican edition reads *defectu in nihilum computantur.*

la: Scil. in ipsa obiectione. — In fine solut. pro *demersi* Vat. *detrusi.*

en: Namely, in the objection itself. — At the end of the solution, for *demersi* the Vatican edition reads *detrusi.*

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 33. a. 3. q. 1. seq. — Paulo ante pro *decedentes* codd. G H bb *descendentes.* Paulo inferius pro *detrusi* cod. U *demersi,* alii codd. *descensi.* Pro *erant detrusi* cod. C *definitiva sententia detenti.*

en: Compare 2 Sent., d. 33, a. 3, q. 1 and following. — A little before, for *decedentes* codices G, H, bb read *descendentes.* A little below, for *detrusi* codex U reads *demersi,* other codices *descensi.* For *erant detrusi* codex C reads *definitiva sententia detenti.*

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question. [This quaestio has no scholion of its own; the matter is treated in the scholion appended to q.4, whose §IV addresses the limbo of children "in fine q.5."] ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (p.460 R, p.461 L+R, p.462 L+R) cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 32030–32190). Per the Vol II/III override, the PDF bands are authoritative for the cascade-shattered Respondeo, Solutiones, and all footers; the OCR is the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. pdf = printed + 22.

**Opener alignment — VERIFIED.** Header *QUAESTIO V.* (raw 32030) + subtitle *Utrum Christus in descensu ad inferos omnes animas liberaverit* + opener *Quinto quaeritur de liberatione animarum ab inferno … utrum omnes animas, quae in inferno erant, liberaverit* matches TRACTATIO q5 (*de liberatione animarum*). This IS q5, NOT q6 (QUAESTIO VI = raw 32191, *Sexto et ultimo quaeritur de traductione animarum … ad caelos*).

**Body.** Opener + 5 *videtur* (1 Job 17 / 2 Ps 85:13 / 3 Zech 9 Gloss / 4 half-victory / 5 Christ-suffered-for-all + Rom 5) + 5 *sed contra* (1 Isa 66 worm-and-fire / 2 Luke 16 chaos magnum / 3 Judas definitive-sentence / 4 free-will-demerits / 5 worse-condition dilemma) + an incidental sub-question (*quos liberaverit … specialiter dubium de parvulis*) + Conclusio + Respondeo (only elect/members liberated; Gregory *infra octavam Paschae*: drew the elect, bit hell) + Solutiones ad 1–5 + a final reply *Ad illud quod ultimo quaerebatur de parvulis*.

**Scholion finding.** q5 has **NO scholion of its own** (`has_scholion: false`). Verified on PDF p.460 R: the SCHOLION header there belongs to **q4** (it follows q4's *…sicut praedictum est*, ABOVE the QUAESTIO V header at the bottom of p.460 R). That scholion's §IV ("De limbo puerorum (hic in fine q.5.) speciali quaestione…") is the author-list for q5, and §V the author-list for the last/ascension question. Footer p.462 n.7 (*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*) explicitly redirects q5's loose ends to q4's scholion. Body therefore ends at the final *…satis possunt manifestari* + n.7.

**Page-split map.** printed pp.460 → 461 → 462 (PDF 482 → 483 → 484).
- p.460 → 461 break: mid-arg-2 (*…aut in persona alicuius alterius; sed quo-* | *cumque modo intelligatur…*).
- p.461 → 462 break: inside the Gregory quote in the Respondeo (*…Si exaltatus fuero a terra, omnia* | *traham ad me…*).
- q5 opens lower in the **right column of p.460** (q4/q5 seam inside p.460, CLEAN — q4 closes with its scholion §V; QUAESTIO V opens fresh at raw 32030).

**Apparatus — 18 entries, per-page restart.**
- **p.460: nn.3–4** (MIGRATED IN; q4 took nn.1–2): n.3 *Vers. 16.*=Job 17:16, n.4 Ps 85:13 + Augustine's two-hells exposition.
- **p.461: nn.1–9**: n.1 Zech 9 Gloss/Jerome, n.2 Rom 5:6 + sufficiency/efficacy cross-ref, n.3 *Vers. 24.*=Isa 66:24, n.4 Luke 16:26 + long Gregory hom.40 quote + 2 Tim 4:8, n.5 *descendentes* variant, n.6 *debeant* variant, n.7 *peccato originali* variant + *eripuerit* omission, n.8 *de inferno* + cluster of Respondeo variants, n.9 long Gregory hom.22 quote (continues into p.462 footer band) + John 12:32/Hosea 13:14.
- **p.462: nn.1–7**: n.1 Greg. Moral. XIII + Aug. on lower-hell, n.2 Office of the Dead (*nulla est redemptio*), n.3 *unde*/*Potest enim* variants, n.4 Augustine + Aristotle *Rhetoric* + *computantur* variant, n.5 *detrusi* variant, n.6 2 Sent. d.33 cross-ref + cluster of *decedentes/detrusi/demersi* variants, n.7 *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*

**Footers IN:** p.460 nn.3–4 (q5's first two; q4 captured p.460 nn.1–2). **Footers OUT:** none — p.462 closes with n.7 immediately before QUAESTIO VI; q6 opens its own footer sequence on p.463.

**Marginal sigla trimmed** (Quaracchi side-glosses, not Bonaventure's text): *Ad oppositum. / Fundamenta. / Quaestio incidens. / Conclusio. / Solutio oppositorum. / Quid sit profundissimus infernus. / Primus modus. / Alius modus. / Ad quaestionem incidentem. / Aliter. / Notandum. / Ad quaest. incidentem quoad parvulos.*

**Seam status:** CLEAN both ends. q4 closes (scholion §V) at the bottom of p.460 R above QUAESTIO V; q5 closes at *…satis possunt manifestari* + n.7 immediately before QUAESTIO VI (raw 32191).

**[?] flags:** none.