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

title_alt:
Utrum sit infernus
Whether there is a hell

source_text:
<!-- page 920 -->

### Articulus I. *De existentia et loco inferni.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum sit infernus.*[^p920-0]

Primo ergo est quaestio, utrum sit ponere cruciatum aeternum, quem vocamus infernum. Et quod non, videtur.

1. Deuteronomii vigesimo quinto[^p920-2]: *Iuxta mensuram peccati erit et plagarum modus*; sed nullus peccat aeternaliter: ergo nullus cruciatur aeternaliter.

2. Item, Isaiae vigesimo quarto[^p920-3]: *Congregabuntur congregatione unius fascis, et post multos dies visitabuntur*; sed congregatio malorum est in die iudicii, secundum quod dicitur Matthaei decimo tertio: ergo visitatio erit post iudicium. Sed non erit ad intensionem supplicii, ergo erit ad liberationem: ergo non cruciabuntur aeternaliter.

3. Item, hoc ipsum videtur per novum testamentum, Matthaei septimo[^p920-4]: *Qua mensura mensi fueritis, remetietur vobis*; constat, illud esse dictum quantum ad peccati punitionem; sed omnis peccati mensura finita est, cum sit a virtute finita: ergo punitio peccati finita est: ergo nullus cruciatus aeternus.

4. Item, Iacobi secundo[^p920-5]: *Misericordia superexaltat iudicium*: ergo magis misericors est Deus quam iustus in effectu: ergo si aeternaliter punire hoc est summae severitatis, impossibile est, quod Deus aeternaliter puniat.

5. Item, hoc ipsum videtur ratione: quia ad hoc, quod iudicium sit iustum, requiritur iustus ordo, iusta causa et iustus animus[^p920-6]. Iustus autem animus dicitur, qui punit non libidine vindictae, sed propter aliquod bonum: ergo Deus non intendit vindictam, sed potius correctionem. Si ergo intentio divina non frustratur, homo aliquando corrigitur, dum a Deo punitur; sed cum correctus est, non indiget amplius puniri: ergo necesse est ipsam poenam terminari.

6. Item, summe misericordis est a summa miseria liberare; sed summa miseriarum est poena debita damnatis: ergo Deus ab illa liberat: ergo nullum aeternaliter cruciat; et ita non est ponere cruciatum aeternum, ac per hoc nec infernum.

**Contra:** 1. Isaiae ultimo[^p920-7]: *Vermis eorum non morietur, et ignis eorum non exstinguetur*: ergo aeternaliter cruciabuntur in infinitum: ergo est ponere infernum et cruciatum aeternum.

2. Item, Matthaei vigesimo quinto[^p920-8]: *Ite maledicti in ignem aeternum*; ignem autem aeternum vocamus aeternum supplicium: ergo etc.

<!-- page 921 -->
3. Item, ratione videtur: quia, si de duobus contrariis est reperire alterum extremorum et medium, necesse est ponere alterum extremum — hoc enim est radix et via stabiliendi contraria apud philosophos[^p921-1] — sed est ponere perfectam beatitudinem in patria et medium statum in via inter beatitudinem et perfectam miseriam: ergo est ponere perfectam miseriam post hanc vitam; hanc autem dicimus infernum: ergo etc.

4. Item, peccatum opponitur merito iustitiae; sed merito debetur gloria aeterna, secundum quod dicitur secundae ad Corinthios quarto[^p921-2]: ergo et peccato poena aeterna, per *locum a commutata proportione*, sive *per consequentiam in ipso*; quia, sicut se habet meritum ad praemium, ita demeritum ad supplicium; et *iterum*, « *si oppositum in opposito, et propositum in proposito*[^p921-3] »:

5. Item, qui peccat mortaliter praeponit bonum commutabile bono aeterno et infinito, ergo contemnit et offendit bonum infinitum; sed tanta est offensa, quantus est is qui offenditur: ergo cum ipse sit infinitus, offensa debet iudicari infinita. Cum igitur poena debeat proportionari offensae, necesse est, quod peccato mortali reddatur poena infinita; sed non potest reddi infinita intensione, sed[^p921-4] duratione: ergo etc.

6. Item, sicut Deus est summe misericors, ita est summe iustus; sicut ergo summe misericordis est summe misereri et misericordiam suam summe[^p921-5] manifestare, sic et summe iusti est summe punire et suam iustitiam manifestare per effectum: si ergo infinita iustitia non potest manifestari nisi per effectum infinitum, videtur, quod aliquibus peccatoribus reddi debeat cruciatus infinitus. Sed non potest esse cruciatus immensus: ergo necesse est, esse cruciatum aeternum; hunc autem dicimus infernum: ergo etc.

### Conclusio
> In inferno ponendus est cruciatus aeternus.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod aliqui negaverunt, infernum esse, pro eo quod dixerunt, *nullum cruciatum* esse post hanc vitam. — Et istorum errorem convincit ratio manifesta, quoniam aequitas iustitiae et ratio recta ita dictat, quod malum non debet remanere impunitum[^p921-6]. Si ergo multi peccant in hac vita, qui in hac vita non cruciantur, immo gaudent et laetantur: ergo necesse est, eos post hanc vitam cruciari aut destruere ordinem universi, aut divinam iustitiam negligentem et remissam esse circa punitionem peccati.

Alii vero negaverunt, infernum esse, pro eo quod negaverunt, impios aeternaliter cruciari, quamvis eis post hanc vitam aliquis maneat cruciatus. Dixerunt enim, quod hoc non potest divina misericordia sustinere, quod creatura sua, quam non odit, sed diligit[^p921-7], aeternaliter sit in poenis, cum ipse non delectetur in punitione nostra nec satietur cruciatibus nostris; nec aliquid obsistat, quin bene possit eos qui puniuntur, sine aliquo praeiudicio liberare a poenis. Et si aliquando Scriptura comminatur peccatoribus poenam aeternam; hoc dicunt non esse dictum secundum *veritatem promissionis*, sed secundum *terrorem comminationis*, qua intendit Deus malos liberare a peccatis.

Iste autem error Origenis[^p921-8] fuit et suorum sequacium, qui tanto est immanior, quanto videtur esse mitior et misericordior: pro eo quod divinam iustitiam blasphemat, dum eam diminuit, dum tantum dat misericordiae, quod non relinquit locum iustitiae. — Secundo vero, quia spem nostram evacuat. Si enim Scriptura supplicium peccatoribus comminatur non secundum veritatem, sed ut deterreat; quid causae est, cur etiam non intelligamus praemia promittere non secundum veritatem, sed ut ad opus iustitiae alliciat[^p921-9]? Ac per hoc Scriptura tota et fides nostra vana et frivola poterit iudicari.

Et ideo est tertia positio rationabilis et fidelis, quod sit ponere cruciatum aeternum; et hoc manifeste dicit divina *Scriptura*, confirmat *fides* et concordat *ratio recta*. Et quod *Scriptura dicat*, et quod *fides consentiat*, hoc planum est ex obiectis[^p921-10]. — Quod etiam *ratio concordet*, hoc patet, quia hoc dictat et per modum *congruitatis* et *necessitatis*. Cruciatum enim aeternum ponere facit ad *complementum universi* et *iustum iudicium Dei*. Sed prima est ratio congruitatis, secunda necessitatis.

Congruum enim est, ut pulcritudo universi decoretur quibusdam antithetis[^p921-11], ut, sicut bonis redduntur bona aeterna, ita et malis aeterna supplicia. — Necessarium est etiam ad servandum ordinem <!-- page 922 -->iustitiae, ut unicuique reddatur secundum merita sua, cum ventum fuerit ad iudicium. Peccator autem, cum peccat, peccat *contra bonum aeternum et infinitum*; et ex hoc dignus est cruciatu aeterno. Dum in peccato perseverat, peccat *in suo aeterno*[^p922-1], id est peccandi proposito aeterno; et dum decesserit, non est amplius locus meriti, ac per hoc nec remissionis peccati, et ideo semper est culpa; et quia culpa ordinatur in poena, semper debet esse in poena. Quia igitur peccat *in bonum aeternum*, ideo cruciatu aeterno est dignus, sed quia *in suo aeterno*, ideo cruciatum aeternum assequitur. — Et ista est una ratio completa, quae colligitur ex Gregorio et Augustino. Gregorius enim dicit in quarto Dialogorum[^p922-2], quod ideo peccator aeternaliter cruciandus est, quia peccat in suo aeterno. Augustinus vero dicit[^p922-3], quod ideo aeternaliter punitur, quia peccavit *contra bonum aeternum*. Et quod istud sit iustum, ostendit[^p922-4] per hoc exemplum in humanis iudiciis et legibus, ubi dicitur, quod peccans contra rempublicam « aliquo grandi crimine morte moriatur, non quia moram, qua occiditur, eius supplicium leges esse aestiment, cum sit hora perbrevis, sed quia eum in sempiternum auferunt a societate viventium ». — Sic igitur concedendae sunt rationes ostendentes, infernum esse.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de commensuratione poenae et culpae; dicendum, quod in poena duo sunt, scilicet *duratio* et *intensio*, et intensio respondet intensioni libidinis, duratio vero durationi peccati. Et quia peccatum, quamvis sit finitum, tamen durat in infinitum; ideo punitur poena *finita* acerbitate, tamen[^p922-5] *infinita* duratione.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de visitatione et congregatione, dicendum, quod est loqui de congregatione dupliciter: aut de congregatione *in fieri*, aut *in facto esse*. Si *in fieri*, sic quotidie congregantur quantum ad animas; si *in facto esse*, sic congregabuntur in iudicio quantum ad animas et corpora. Et de prima congregatione loquitur Isaias, post quam est visitatio in iudicio ad incrementum poenae; de secunda vero est sermo in Matthaeo, post quam non est visitatio, sed aeterna damnatio[^p922-6].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de mensura retributionis, dicendum, quod secundum quod dicit Augustinus[^p922-7], istud intelligitur non quantum ad « *commensurationem* in *quantitate*, sed quantum ad *similitudinem* in *qualitate*, ut qui male fecerunt male recipiant ». — Vel potest dici, quod hoc intelligitur quantum ad comparationem *proportionalitatis*, non quantum ad aequalitatem *proportionis*, ut magna poena respondeat magnae culpae, non quod praecise sit tanta poena, quanta culpa. — Vel dicendum, sicut prius[^p922-8] dictum est, quod hoc intelligitur quantum ad *acerbitatem*.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod misericordia superexaltat iudicium; dicendum, quod illud est verum, quando est tempus misericordiae, ut puta in praesenti, in futuro autem erit tempus iustitiae, iuxta illud[^p922-9]: *Cum accepero tempus, ego iustitias iudicabo*. — Aliter potest dici, quod intelligitur de misericordia in merito, per quam quis meretur evadere severitatem divinae iustitiae.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod iustus animus non punit amore vindictae; dicendum, quod Deus punit amore *iustitiae*, non *vindictae*; et quamvis non puniat ad correctionem, punit tamen ad iustitiae manifestationem. Aliter enim sunt puniendi corrigibiles, aliter incorrigibiles. — Si quando tamen legatur, *quod Deus ulciscitur se de suis inimicis*[^p922-10] et vindicat se de eis; hoc non est in praeiudicium iustitiae: quia, cum ipse sit iustitia, *vindicare se* <!-- page 923 -->hoc non est aliud quam servare iustitiam. Hoc autem in homine non contingit, qui non est iustitia, licet sit iustus; ideo non debet appetere vindicare se.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, quod summe misericordis est summe misereri; dicendum, quod sicut Deus est summe misericors, ita etiam decet, ut sit summe iustus; et ideo effectus summae misericordiae non excludit effectum iustitiae; et propter hoc Deus duo tempora sibi distinxit[^p923-1]: unum, in quo ostenderet misericordiae suae infinitatem, tradendo unigenitum Filium suum pro omnibus inimicis suis et parcendo omnibus ad se redire volentibus; aliud, in quo ostenderet iustitiae suae immensitatem, et hoc est tempus, quod deputatum est aeternis cruciatibus.

english:
### Article I. *On the existence and place of hell.*
### Question I. *Whether there is a hell.*[^p920-0]

First, then, is the question whether an eternal torment is to be posited, which we call hell. And that there is not, it seems.

1. Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-five[^p920-2]: *According to the measure of the sin shall be also the measure of the stripes*; but no one sins eternally: therefore no one is tormented eternally.

2. Likewise, Isaiah, chapter twenty-four[^p920-3]: *They shall be gathered together into the gathering of one bundle, and after many days they shall be visited*; but the gathering of the wicked is on the day of judgment, according to what is said in Matthew, chapter thirteen: therefore the visitation will be after the judgment. But it will not be for the intensifying of the punishment, therefore it will be for liberation: therefore they will not be tormented eternally.

3. Likewise, this same thing seems [to be shown] through the New Testament, Matthew, chapter seven[^p920-4]: *With what measure you have measured, it shall be measured back to you*; it is agreed that this is said with respect to the punishment of sin; but the measure of every sin is finite, since it is [wrought] by a finite power: therefore the punishment of sin is finite: therefore there is no eternal torment.

4. Likewise, James, chapter two[^p920-5]: *Mercy exalts itself above judgment*: therefore God is more merciful than just in effect: therefore, if to punish eternally is [an act] of the greatest severity, it is impossible that God should punish eternally.

5. Likewise, this same thing seems [to be shown] by reason: for, in order that a judgment be just, there is required a just order, a just cause, and a just disposition[^p920-6]. Now a disposition is called just which punishes not from a lust for vengeance, but for the sake of some good: therefore God does not intend vengeance, but rather correction. If then the divine intention is not frustrated, a man is at some point corrected while he is punished by God; but when he has been corrected, he no longer needs to be punished: therefore it is necessary that the punishment itself be terminated.

6. Likewise, it belongs to one supremely merciful to liberate from the greatest misery; but the greatest of miseries is the punishment owed to the damned: therefore God liberates from it: therefore he torments no one eternally; and so an eternal torment is not to be posited, and through this neither a hell.

**On the contrary:** 1. Isaiah, the last chapter[^p920-7]: *Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be extinguished*: therefore they will be tormented eternally, without end: therefore a hell and an eternal torment are to be posited.

2. Likewise, Matthew, chapter twenty-five[^p920-8]: *Go, you cursed, into eternal fire*; but eternal fire we call eternal punishment: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, it seems by reason: for, if of two contraries it is [possible] to find one of the extremes and a mean, it is necessary to posit the other extreme — for this is the root and the way of establishing contraries among the philosophers[^p921-1] — but there is to be posited a perfect beatitude in the fatherland and a middle state on the way, between beatitude and perfect misery: therefore there is to be posited a perfect misery after this life; and this we call hell: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, sin is opposed to the merit of justice; but to merit is owed eternal glory, according to what is said in the second [letter] to the Corinthians, chapter four[^p921-2]: therefore to sin also [is owed] an eternal punishment, by *the topic from proportion transposed*, or *by consequence in it*; for, as merit stands to reward, so demerit to punishment; and *again*, « *if the opposite [is] in the opposite, then the proposed [is] in the proposed*[^p921-3] »:

5. Likewise, he who sins mortally prefers a changeable good to an eternal and infinite good, therefore he despises and offends the infinite good; but the offense is as great as is he who is offended: therefore, since he is infinite, the offense must be judged infinite. Since therefore the punishment must be proportioned to the offense, it is necessary that for mortal sin an infinite punishment be rendered; but it cannot be rendered infinite in intensity, but[^p921-4] in duration: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, as God is supremely merciful, so he is supremely just; as therefore it belongs to one supremely merciful to have mercy supremely and to manifest his mercy supremely[^p921-5], so also it belongs to one supremely just to punish supremely and to manifest his justice through an effect: if therefore infinite justice cannot be manifested except through an infinite effect, it seems that to some sinners an infinite torment must be rendered. But there cannot be an immense [i.e. infinitely intense] torment: therefore it is necessary that there be an eternal torment; and this we call hell: therefore etc.

### Conclusion
> In hell an eternal torment is to be posited.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the aforesaid it must be noted that some have denied hell to be, on the ground that they said *there is no torment* after this life. — And a manifest reason convicts the error of these men, since the equity of justice and right reason so dictate, that evil ought not to remain unpunished[^p921-6]. If then many sin in this life who in this life are not tormented, but rather rejoice and are glad: therefore it is necessary either that they be tormented after this life, or that the order of the universe be destroyed, or that the divine justice be negligent and remiss concerning the punishment of sin.

Others, however, have denied hell to be, on the ground that they denied that the impious are tormented eternally, although after this life some torment remains for them. For they said that the divine mercy cannot bear this, that its own creature, which it does not hate but loves[^p921-7], should be in punishments eternally, since he himself takes no delight in our punishment nor is sated with our torments; nor does anything stand in the way but that he can well liberate from the punishments, without any prejudice, those who are punished. And if at some time Scripture threatens sinners with eternal punishment, this, they say, is not said according to *the truth of the promise*, but according to *the terror of the threat*, by which God intends to liberate the wicked from their sins.

Now this was the error of Origen[^p921-8] and of his followers, which is the more monstrous the more merciful and compassionate it seems: on the ground that it blasphemes the divine justice, while it diminishes it, while it grants so much to mercy that it leaves no place for justice. — Secondly, indeed, because it empties out our hope. For if Scripture threatens sinners with punishment not according to truth, but in order to deter, what reason is there why we should not also understand [it] to promise rewards not according to truth, but in order to allure to the work of justice[^p921-9]? And through this the whole of Scripture and our faith could be judged empty and frivolous.

And therefore the third position is the reasonable and faithful one, that an eternal torment is to be posited; and this the divine *Scripture* manifestly declares, *faith* confirms, and *right reason* agrees. And that *Scripture declares [it]*, and that *faith consents [to it]*, this is plain from the objections[^p921-10]. — That *reason* also *agrees*, this is evident, because [reason] dictates this both by way of *congruity* and of *necessity*. For to posit an eternal torment makes for the *completion of the universe* and the *just judgment of God*. But the first is the reason of congruity, the second of necessity.

For it is congruous that the beauty of the universe be adorned with certain antitheses[^p921-11], so that, as to the good are rendered eternal goods, so also to the wicked eternal punishments. — It is also necessary for the preserving of the order of justice, that to each one be rendered according to his own merits, when it shall have come to the judgment. Now the sinner, when he sins, sins *against the eternal and infinite good*; and from this he is worthy of eternal torment. While he perseveres in sin, he sins *in his eternal*[^p922-1], that is, in an eternal purpose of sinning; and when he shall have died, there is no longer any place for merit, and through this neither for remission of sin, and therefore there is always guilt; and since guilt is ordered unto punishment, it must always be in punishment. Since therefore he sins *against the eternal good*, therefore he is worthy of eternal torment, but because [he sins] *in his eternal*, therefore he attains eternal torment. — And this is one complete reason, which is gathered from Gregory and Augustine. For Gregory says in the fourth [book] of the Dialogues[^p922-2] that the sinner is therefore to be tormented eternally, because he sins in his eternal. But Augustine says[^p922-3] that he is therefore punished eternally, because he sinned *against the eternal good*. And that this is just, he shows[^p922-4] through this example in human judgments and laws, where it is said that one who sins against the commonwealth « by some great crime should die by death, not because the laws should reckon as his punishment the delay in which he is slain, since it is a very brief hour, but because they remove him forever from the society of the living ». — Thus therefore the reasons showing hell to be are to be granted.

1. To that which is objected concerning the commensuration of punishment and guilt; it must be said that in punishment there are two [things], namely *duration* and *intensity*, and the intensity corresponds to the intensity of the lust, but the duration to the duration of the sin. And because sin, although it be finite, nevertheless endures unto infinity; therefore it is punished by a punishment *finite* in harshness, yet[^p922-5] *infinite* in duration.

2. To that which is objected concerning the visitation and the gathering, it must be said that there are two ways of speaking of the gathering: either of the gathering *in becoming*, or *in accomplished being*. If *in becoming*, thus they are gathered daily as to their souls; if *in accomplished being*, thus they will be gathered at the judgment as to their souls and bodies. And of the first gathering Isaiah speaks, after which there is a visitation at the judgment for the increase of the punishment; but of the second there is the discourse in Matthew, after which there is no visitation, but eternal damnation[^p922-6].

3. To that which is objected concerning the measure of retribution, it must be said that, according to what Augustine says[^p922-7], this is understood not with respect to « the *commensuration* in *quantity*, but with respect to the *likeness* in *quality*, so that they who did evil should receive evil ». — Or it can be said that this is understood with respect to a comparison of *proportionality*, not with respect to an equality of *proportion*, so that a great punishment corresponds to a great guilt, not that the punishment is precisely as great as the guilt. — Or it must be said, as was said before[^p922-8], that this is understood with respect to *harshness*.

4. To that which is objected, that mercy exalts itself above judgment; it must be said that that is true when it is the time of mercy, as, for instance, in the present, but in the future it will be the time of justice, according to that [word][^p922-9]: *When I shall have taken a time, I will judge justices*. — Otherwise it can be said that it is understood of mercy in merit, through which one merits to escape the severity of the divine justice.

5. To that which is objected, that a just disposition does not punish from love of vengeance; it must be said that God punishes from love of *justice*, not of *vengeance*; and although he does not punish unto correction, he punishes nevertheless unto the manifestation of justice. For the corrigible are to be punished in one way, the incorrigible in another. — If nevertheless it is sometimes read *that God takes vengeance on his enemies*[^p922-10] and avenges himself on them; this is not to the prejudice of justice: for, since he himself is justice, *to avenge himself* is nothing other than to preserve justice. Now this does not befall in man, who is not justice, although he be just; therefore he ought not to desire to avenge himself.

6. To that which is objected last, that it belongs to one supremely merciful to have mercy supremely; it must be said that, as God is supremely merciful, so also it is fitting that he be supremely just; and therefore the effect of the supreme mercy does not exclude the effect of justice; and on account of this God has distinguished two times for himself[^p923-1]: one, in which he might show the infinity of his mercy, by handing over his only-begotten Son for all his enemies and by sparing all who are willing to return to him; the other, in which he might show the immensity of his justice, and this is the time which is assigned to the eternal torments.

la: S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2. ad 4; Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 5.

en: St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1, quaestiunc. 2, ad 4; Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 5.

la: Vers. 2: *Pro mensura peccati* etc.

en: Verse 2: *According to the measure of the sin* etc.

la: Vers. 22: *Et congregabuntur in congregatione unius fascis in lacum, et claudentur ibi in carcere, et post* etc. — Seq. locus est Matth. 13, 41: *Mittet Filius hominis Angelos suos, et colligent* etc. Cfr. ibid. 25, 32. seqq.: *Et congregabuntur ante eum omnes gentes* etc. (Vat. cum pluribus codd. hoc allegat).

en: Verse 22: *And they shall be gathered together into the gathering of one bundle into the pit, and shall be shut up there in prison, and after* etc. — The following passage is Matt. 13:41: *The Son of man shall send his Angels, and they shall gather* etc. Cf. ibid. 25:32 sqq.: *And all nations shall be gathered before him* etc. (the Vatican edition, with several codices, cites this).

la: Vers. 2.

en: Verse 2.

la: Vers. 13.

en: Verse 13.

la: Vide supra pag. 495, nota 5. — In fine arg. cod. aa addit: *ergo Deus ab illa liberat: ergo nullum aeternaliter cruciat.*

en: See above, p. 495, note 5. — At the end of the argument codex aa adds: *therefore God liberates from it: therefore he torments no one eternally.*

la: Vers. 24. — Pro *in infinitum*, quod codd. R S T X omittunt, cod. O *in inferno*; codd. G L N Y legunt: *cruciabuntur; ergo cruciabuntur in infinitum.* In fine arg. codd. K R S T X omittunt *infernum*, post quod ex codd. M O supplevimus *et.*

en: Verse 24. — For *unto infinity*, which codices R S T X omit, codex O [reads] *in hell*; codices G L N Y read: *they shall be tormented; therefore they shall be tormented unto infinity.* At the end of the argument codices K R S T X omit *hell*, after which from codices M O we have supplied *and.*

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

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

la: Vide tom. II. pag. 42, nota 2. et 8. verba Aristot. — In seqq. Vat. voci *perfectam*, quae ter occurrit, subiungit *et aeternam.*

en: See tom. II, p. 42, notes 2 and 8, the words of Aristotle. — In what follows, the Vatican edition subjoins to the word *perfect* (which occurs three times) *and eternal.*

la: Vers. 17: *Id enim, quod in praesenti est momentaneum... in sublimitate aeternum gloriae pondus operatur in nobis.* — De loco *a commutata proportione* cfr. tom. III. pag. 684, nota 3, et de *consequentia in ipso* sive *ordine directo* vide tom. I. pag. 822, nota 1.

en: Verse 17: *For that which is at present momentary... works in us, above measure, an eternal weight of glory.* — On the topic *from proportion transposed* cf. tom. III, p. 684, note 3, and on *consequence in it* or *direct order* see tom. I, p. 822, note 1.

la: Aristot., IV. Topic. c. 4.

en: Aristotle, Topics IV, c. 4.

la: Codd. E L N Y *ergo*, Vat. *sed solum.*

en: Codices E L N Y [read] *therefore*, the Vatican edition *but only.*

la: Cod. L addit *et perfecte*, ac inferius post *iustitiam* repetit *summe.* Edd. hic legunt: *summe manifestare per effectum.*

en: Codex L adds *and perfectly*, and further on, after *justice*, it repeats *supremely.* The editions here read: *to manifest supremely through an effect.*

la: Cfr. supra pag. 356, nota 6. — Hic error describitur Sap. 2, 1. seqq. Cfr. ibid. 5, 1. seqq. — Paulo superius post *convincit* dedimus lectionem codd. B D G L P Q Y (E a secunda manu); alii vero et edd. omittunt *ratio manifesta, quoniam aequitas iustitiae et*, atque addunt *quae ante ita dictat.*

en: Cf. above, p. 356, note 6. — This error is described in Wisdom 2:1 sqq. Cf. ibid. 5:1 sqq. — A little above, after *convicts*, we have given the reading of codices B D G L P Q Y (E by a second hand); but others and the editions omit *a manifest reason, since the equity of justice and*, and add *[the things] which [come] before, thus dictate.*

la: Sap. 11, 25: *Diligis enim omnia quae sunt, et nihil odisti eorum quae fecisti* — etc. De seq. propos. cfr. supra pag. 352, nota 6. — Aliquanto inferius pro *promissionis* ed. 1 *impletionis*, Vat. *impletionis vel promissionis.*

en: Wisdom 11:25: *For you love all things that are, and hate none of the things which you have made* — etc. On the following proposition cf. above, p. 352, note 6. — Somewhat further on, for *of the promise* edition 1 [reads] *of the fulfillment*, the Vatican edition *of the fulfillment or of the promise.*

la: Libr. I. Periarch. c. 6. seq. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 177, nota 2, ubi etiam allegavimus August., XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 17. et 23, in quibus haec sententia refellitur.

en: Book I of the *Peri Archon*, c. 6 seq. Cf. tom. II, p. 177, note 2, where we also cited Augustine, *City of God* XXI, cc. 17 and 23, in which this opinion is refuted.

la: Secundum Gregor., XXXIV. Moral. c. 19. n. 35. seqq., et IV. Dialog. c. 44.

en: According to Gregory, *Moralia* XXXIV, c. 19, n. 35 sqq., and *Dialogues* IV, c. 44.

la: Sive fundamentis.

en: Or, from the foundations.

la: Secundum August., XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 18. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 786, nota 7.

en: According to Augustine, *City of God* XI, c. 18. Cf. tom. I, p. 786, note 7.

la: Bernard., Tract. de gratia et lib. arb. c. 9. n. 28, de libero arbitrio dicit, « quod in ipso potissimum *aeternae* et *incommutabilis Divinitatis* substantiva quaedam imago impressa videatur. Nam etsi habuerit initium, nescit tamen occasum... Quid aeternitati similius, quod non sit aeternitas? » Ibid. n. 29. seqq. docet, hanc imaginem, scil. liberum arbitrium, etiam in damnatis reperiri damnatosque puniri poena aeterna, quia nunquam volunt reluctari peccato, eorumque voluntas semper vult in malitia persistere. — Codd. communiter omittunt *id est... aeterno.* Inferius post *et ideo* codd. R S aa bb addunt *quia.*

en: Bernard, *Treatise on Grace and Free Will* c. 9, n. 28, says of free will « that in it especially there seems to be impressed a certain substantive image of the *eternal* and *unchangeable Divinity.* For although it had a beginning, yet it knows no setting... What is more like eternity, than that which is not eternity? » Ibid. n. 29 sqq. he teaches that this image, namely free will, is found even in the damned, and that the damned are punished with eternal punishment, because they never will to struggle against sin, and their will always wills to persist in malice. — The codices commonly omit *that is... eternal.* Further on, after *and therefore*, codices R S aa bb add *because.*

la: Cap. 44: *Iniqui enim ideo cum fine deliquerunt, quia cum fine vixerunt. Nam voluissent* [cfr. nota praeced.] *utique, si potuissent, sine fine vivere, ut potuissent sine fine peccare... Ad magnam ergo iustitiam iudicantis pertinet, ut nunquam careant supplicio, qui in hac vita nunquam voluerunt carere peccato.*

en: Chapter 44: *For the wicked have offended with an end for this reason, that they lived with an end. For they would indeed have willed, had they been able, to live without end, so that they might have been able to sin without end... It belongs therefore to the great justice of the Judge, that those never lack punishment, who in this life never willed to lack sin.*

la: Libr. XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 12, loquens de Adam peccante, ait: *Quanto enim magis homo fruebatur Deo, tanto maiore impietate dereliquit Deum et factus est malo dignus aeterno, qui hoc in se peremit bonum, quod esse posset aeternum.* Cfr. Bernard., Serm. 3. in Tempore resurrect. n. 3, ubi docet, infernum esse ex *propria* voluntate, quae se subtrahit dominatui divino et Deum ipsum, quantum in ipsa est, perimit, volendo scil., Deum peccata aut vindicare non posse, aut nolle, aut ea nescire.

en: *City of God* XXI, c. 12, speaking of Adam sinning, says: *For the more a man enjoyed God, the greater the impiety with which he forsook God and became worthy of an eternal evil, who destroyed in himself this good, which could have been eternal.* Cf. Bernard, Sermon 3 for Eastertide, n. 3, where he teaches that hell is from one's *own* will, which withdraws itself from the divine dominion and, as far as in it lies, destroys God himself, by willing, namely, that God either cannot, or will not, or does not know how to avenge sins.

la: Libr. XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 11: *Qui vero pro aliquo grandi crimine morte multatur, nunquid mora, qua occiditur, quae perbrevis est, eius supplicium leges aestimant, et non quod eum in... viventium?* — Pro *moriatur* codd. E Y *multatur*, et pro *moram*, quod exhibet cod. H, alii codd. vel *mora* vel *hora* vel *in hora*, edd. *mortem vel horam.*

en: *City of God* XXI, c. 11: *But as for one who is punished with death for some great crime, do the laws reckon as his punishment the delay in which he is slain, which is very brief, and not that they [remove] him from... the living?* — For *should die* codices E Y [read] *is punished*, and for *delay*, which codex H exhibits, other codices [read] either *delay* or *hour* or *in an hour*, the editions *death or hour.*

la: Plures codd. *cum.*

en: Several codices [read] *with* [for *yet*].

la: Cfr. Hieron., VIII. Comment. in Isai. 24, 22, ex quo Glossa *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum.

en: Cf. Jerome, *Commentary on Isaiah* VIII, on 24:22, from which [comes] the *ordinary* Gloss in Strabo and Lyra.

la: Libr. XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 11: *Nec attendunt* [obiicientes hoc Domini verbum, Matth. 7, 2.], *non propter aequale temporis spatium, sed propter vicissitudinem mali, id est, ut qui mala fecerit mala patiatur, eandem dictam fuisse mensuram* etc. Cfr. Epist. 102. (alias 49.) q. 4, ubi hoc verbum plenius exponitur. — De secunda solut. vide tom. I. pag. 852, nota 6.

en: *City of God* XXI, c. 11: *Nor do they consider* [those who object this word of the Lord, Matt. 7:2], *that the same measure was spoken of not for an equal span of time, but for the reciprocity of evil, that is, so that he who has done evils should suffer evils* etc. Cf. Letter 102 (alias 49), q. 4, where this word is more fully expounded. — On the second solution see tom. I, p. 852, note 6.

la: In solut. ad 1. et infra d. 46. a. 1. q. 2. in fine.

en: In the solution to [objection] 1, and below, d. 46, a. 1, q. 2, at the end.

la: Psalm. 74, 3. Cfr. supra pag. 482, nota 9, et August., XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 27. n. 4. — Inferius pro *misericordia in merito* edd. *misericordiae merito.*

en: Psalm 74:3. Cf. above, p. 482, note 9, and Augustine, *City of God* XXI, c. 27, n. 4. — Further on, for *mercy in merit* the editions [read] *by the merit of mercy.*

la: Iudith 13, 27: *Quod ulciscatur se* etc. Eccli. 5, 3: *Deus enim vindicans vindicabit.* Isai. 1, 24: *Vindicabor de inimicis meis.* — In fine solut. post *qui non est* ex cod. K (I a secunda manu) supplevimus *iustitia, licet sit.*

en: Judith 13:27: *That he may avenge himself* etc. Sirach 5:3: *For God, avenging, will avenge.* Isaiah 1:24: *I will be avenged of my enemies.* — At the end of the solution, after *who is not*, from codex K (I by a second hand) we have supplied *justice, although he be [just].*

la: Codd. F bb *constituit,* edd. *distinxit vel constituit.*

en: Codices F, bb [read] *constituit* ("appointed"); the editions [read] *distinxit vel constituit* ("distinguished or appointed").

latin_scholion:
**I.** Locum quendam tormentorum peccatoribus post mortem paratum esse, communiter crediderunt, vel ipsi pagani. Libertini vero ab antiquo simul cum immortalitate animae negabant omnem post hanc vitam retributionem (cfr. hic opinio 1.). Alii cum Almarico et multis rationalistis fingebant, nec locum aliquem realem punitionis esse, nec poenas aeternas; qui error etiam Origeni imputatur. Contra Almaricum definivit Concilium Lateran. IV. c. 1: « Omnes cum suis propriis resurgent corporibus, quae nunc gestant, ut recipiant secundum opera sua sive bona fuerint, sive mala: illi cum diabolo poenam perpetuam, et isti cum Christo gloriam sempiternam ». De 1. quaestione pauci illius aetatis auctores specialiter tractant, sed in aliis quaestionibus rem satis tractant: Scot., hic q. 2. et praecipue infra d. 46. q. 4. — S. Thom., infra d. 46. q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2; Suppl. q. 99. a. 1; hic q. 3, et Suppl. q. 97; S. c. Gent. IV. cc. 90. 91. — B. Albert. et Petr. a Tar. rem tangunt in seqq. qq. — Altamen Richard. a Med., de hoc specialiter agit hic a. 2. q. 1.

**II.** Ad 2. quaestionem respondent, quod antiqui doctores communius [tenent] infernum esse in centro terrae, et subtus terram; hoc tamen non affirmant ut rem omnino exploratam. — In solut. ad 5. observandum est, sententiam, quod sol sit in centro, non reprobari a S. Bonaventura. De eadem: S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3; Suppl. q. 97. a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 2. — Durand., hic q. 9. n. 7. seqq. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. 8.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** That a certain place of torments has been prepared for sinners after death, even the pagans themselves commonly believed. But the Libertines from of old, together with the immortality of the soul, denied all retribution after this life (cf. here, opinion 1). Others, with Almaric and many rationalists, imagined that there is neither any real place of punishment nor eternal penalties; which error is also imputed to Origen. Against Almaric the Fourth Lateran Council defined, c. 1: « All shall rise again with their own bodies, which they now bear, that they may receive according to their works, whether they have been good or evil: those with the devil perpetual punishment, and these with Christ everlasting glory ». Concerning the 1st question few authors of that age treat specifically, but in other questions they treat the matter sufficiently: Scotus, here q. 2 and especially below, d. 46, q. 4. — St. Thomas, below d. 46, q. 1, a. 3, quaestiunc. 2; Suppl. q. 99, a. 1; here q. 3, and Suppl. q. 97; Summa contra Gentiles IV, cc. 90, 91. — Bl. Albert and Peter of Tarentaise touch the matter in the following questions. — Nevertheless Richard of Middleton treats of this specifically here, a. 2, q. 1.

**II.** To the 2nd question the ancient doctors reply that hell is more commonly [held to be] in the center of the earth, and beneath the earth; this, however, they do not affirm as a thing entirely explored. — In the solution to [objection] 5 it is to be observed that the opinion that the sun is in the center is not rejected by St. Bonaventure. Concerning the same: St. Thomas, here q. 3, a. 2, quaestiunc. 3; Suppl. q. 97, a. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit. q. 2. — Durandus, here q. 9, n. 7 seqq. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following questions, here q. 8.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw slice L97869–L98248 and verified against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{920,921,922}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (read Left col 0→2, then Right, per the VOL II/IV override — PDF column-band read authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio/footer regions). English is a fresh literal parallel.

**Page span corrected 920 → 923.** Frontmatter skeleton had `printed_pages: [920,921,922]`; running heads show the chunk actually runs onto **p. 923**: the recto running head `DIST. XLIV. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. II. 923` prints *above* reply 6 and the Scholion (the compositor's head anticipates Quaestio II, which begins lower on 923, after our scholion). The mid-923 seam is `vindicare se | hoc non est aliud quam servare iustitiam` (reply 5, grammatically continuous). Corrected to `[920,921,922,923]` / pdf `[940,941,942,943]`. Offset pdf = printed + 20.

**No band for p. 923.** Disk-tight environment (no colcrop/extract runs). Reply 6 + the full Scholion were transcribed from OCR only; they read cleanly, but were not band-verified. Flagged below.

**Scholion ownership.** This Article I (Pars II) scholion covers **both** q1 (§I, *De existentia*) and q2 (§II, *De loco*); rendered in full and LAST in both language blocks per the parser rule (body first, scholion last). Sibling `p2-a1-q2` carries no scholion.

**Apparatus.** 30 entries: p920 = 8 numbered + 1 unnumbered lead ref (`p920-0`); p921 = 11; p922 = 10. Footnote numbering restarts each printed page (page-qualified labels). Cross-page footer split at the 921/922 and 922/923 seams handled by body anchor.

**`[?]` flags (unresolved / low-confidence):**
- **p.920 note 1 — RESOLVED at the d.41–d.50 gate (2026-07-21): the entry is NOT this chunk's.** It had been anchored provisionally on *Primo* here because the superscript was not legible in the p920 band. The note reads *Codd. Quando*, and `bon-sent-IV-d44-p2-divisio` anchors it on Lombard's *Cum* (*Cum autem constet, animas* etc.) — *Quando* is the codical variant of *Cum*, not of *Primo*. The duplicate definition and both provisional anchors were removed from this chunk; the entry lives in the divisio alone. Duplicate definitions silently drop entries at render time, so this was a real defect, not a cosmetic one.
- Scholion §II: OCR is two-column-shattered around *"antiqui doctores ... in centro terrae, et subtus terram"*; the connective *[tenent]* is an editorial reconstruction (bracketed). Verb form not band-confirmed. `sol sit in centro` retained verbatim (Quaracchi editors' note on Bonaventure's cosmology, not a *Sol.* = *Solutio* marginal).
- p. 923: OCR line for *"Deus duo tempora sibi distinxit"* carries a possible footnote marker (apostrophe artifact); no p923 footer text falls within the captured raw range, so no apparatus entry was fabricated for it. Verify when p923 band is next generated. — **RESOLVED 2026-07-21 (d.41–d.50 boundary sweep).** The p.923 footer band was generated (gutter 1495) and read: p.923 note 1 is *Codd. F bb constituit, edd. distinxit vel constituit* — a variant on *distinxit*, confirming the apostrophe artifact was a real marker. The note was added as the p923-1 entry, anchored on *distinxit* in reply 6 and mirrored in the English. The sibling chunk `bon-sent-IV-d44-p2-a1-q2` had already recorded that this note belonged here and was not claimed there, so the note had been unowned by any chunk until now. Apparatus count is now 31 entries (p920 = 8 + `p920-0`; p921 = 11; p922 = 10; p923 = 1).

**Marginal glosses omitted.** Quaracchi's editorial side-headers (*Ad oppositum*, *Error 1/2*, *Reprobatur dupliciter*, *Conclusio*, *Duplex ratio*, *Ratio congruitatis / necessitatis*, *Notandum*, *Exemplum*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Notanda distinctio*, *Distinctio*, *Sol.*, *Aliud*, *Nota*) are editorial marginalia, not Bonaventure's text, and are trimmed out per the CLAUDE.md OCR-cleanup rule.

**Header garble.** The printed ARTICULUS I header is OCR-garbled (`ARTlCUtUS..l.`); cleaned to `Articulus I` — the p920-R band unambiguously shows `ARTICULUS I.` and title `De existentia et loco inferni.`


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

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

title_alt:
Ubi sit infernus
Where hell is

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 923 -->

### Quaestio II. *Ubi sit infernus.*

Secundo quaeritur, ubi sit infernus. Et quod sit sub terra, videtur:

1. Primo per *Symbolum*[^p923-2], ubi dicitur: *Descendit ad inferos* etc. Si descendit, cum *descendere* dicat motum ad illud quod deorsum est, et ipse erat in terra: ergo infernus sub terra.

2. Item, hoc ostenditur per *Scripturam*, Isaiae decimo quarto[^p923-3]: *Infernus subtus conturbatus est.*

3. Item, hoc ostenditur *per denominationem*: quia, ut dicit Gregorius in quarto Dialogorum[^p923-4], «infernus dicitur, quia inferius iacet; quod enim est terra ad caelum, hoc est infernus ad terram».

4. Item, hoc videtur *per rationem*: quia quanto corpus est nobilius, tanto locus debetur ei nobilior: si ergo nobilissimis corporibus, utpote gloriosis, debetur locus supremus, scilicet empyreum[^p923-5], ergo restat, ut corporibus ignobilibus, utpote corporibus damnatorum, debeatur locus infimus. Hic autem est sub terra: ergo etc.

5. Item, locus debet per concordantiam respondere statui; sed status viae est medius inter poenam et gloriam: ergo et locus debet esse medius; ergo cum sit inferior loco Beatorum, debet esse superior loco damnatorum.

**Contra:** 1. Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram libro duodecimo[^p923-6]: «Sub terris dicuntur esse inferi vel creduntur, quia congruenter in spiritu per illas corporalium rerum similitudines sic demonstrantur»: ergo videtur secundum hoc, quod infernus non sit sub terra, etsi *appareat* esse sub terra.

2. Item, idem volens rationem nominis assignare dicit[^p923-7]: «Inferi, eo quod infra sunt, appellantur Latine. Sicut autem secundum corpus, si ponderis sui ordinem teneant, inferiora sunt omnia graviora; ita secundum spiritum inferiora sunt omnia tristiora»: ergo si *tristari* non dicit inferioritatem secundum situm, sed potius secundum spiritum; videtur, quod infernus non sit inferius secundum situm, sed secundum affectum.

3. Item, locus debet proportionari ponderi trahenti ad locum, alioquin pondus nunquam traheret, nisi haberet cum loco similitudinem; sed pondus <!-- page 924 --> trahens ad infernum est peccatum, et hoc est quid spirituale, non corporale[^p924-1]: ergo et locus debet habere situm spiritualem, non corporalem, ergo non est sub terra.

4. Item, multo plures sunt damnati quam electi; sed caelum erit plenum electis, secundum quod dicitur Matthaei vigesimo secundo[^p924-2]: *Ut impleatur domus discumbentibus*: ergo necesse est, quod damnati habeant maiorem locum, quam sit locus caeli, cum sint multo plures: ergo cum infernus complectatur omnes damnatos, necesse est, quod sit tantae amplitudinis, ut caelum: ergo impossibile est, quod sit sub terra.

5. Item, ordo partium in maiori mundo debet respondere ordini partium in minori mundo[^p924-3]; sed nobilissima pars hominis est in medio, utpote cor: ergo si medium terrae est medium mundi, ille locus erit nobilissimus: ergo in illo loco debet situari nobilissima pars mundi, non ergo peccatores: ergo si sunt in inferno, infernus non est sub terra, vel in medio terrae.

### Conclusio.

> *Possumus dicere, infernum esse locum corporeum, sub terra situm habentem.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quamvis temerarium videatur istam quaestionem determinare, pro eo quod Augustinus arbitratus est, eam neminem scire, secundum quod dicitur in littera[^p924-4], sed opinatus est, infernum non esse locum *corporalem*, sed *spiritualem*, secundum quod dicitur duodecimo super Genesim ad litteram; attamen non est praesumptuosum modernis aliquid super hoc dicere, cum Gregorius expresse dicat quarto Dialogorum[^p924-5], infernum esse locum corporalem se non ambigere; et astruit etiam per auctoritatem Scripturae, infernum sub terra esse, tum ex illo quod dicitur in Psalmo: *Eruisti animam meam ex inferno inferiori*; tum ex illo quod dicitur Apocalypsis quinto: *Non est inventus aliquis, nec in caelo nec in terra nec subtus terram* etc. Et ideo ipsius auctoritate muniti, dicere possumus, infernum locum esse corporeum, sub terra habentem situm. Et huic concordat Scriptura, concordat denominatio, concordat et ratio. Sicut enim status damnatorum perfecta distantia distat a statu Beatorum, ita et locus a loco; et sicut statui beatitudinis debetur locus supremus, ita et statui miseriae locus infimus, etiam secundum corpus.

**1. 2.** Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium, dicendum, quod Augustinus non dixit hoc asserendo, sed ratiocinando et coniecturando; unde et illud retractavit in libro Retractationum secundo[^p924-6] dicens: «Magis mihi videtur dicere debuisse de inferis, quod sub terra sint, quam rationem reddidisse, cur sub terris esse creduntur, quasi non ita sit».

**3.** Ad aliud quod obiicitur secundo de pondere peccati, dicendum, quod est *ordo iustitiae* et *ordo naturae*. Peccatum autem trahit deorsum non secundum *ordinem naturae*, cum non habeat conformitatem ad illum, sed secundum *ordinem iustitiae*, quia peccatum, cum sit vilissimum, disponit hominem ad locum vilissimum et infimum.

**4.** Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod caelum plenum est electis; dicendum, quod istud non intelligitur de plenitudine *coangustationis*, sed de plenitudine *pulcritudinis*, qua dicimus, caelum plenum esse stellis, et mare piscibus, et mundum hominibus. — Si autem quaeras imaginationem, qualiter capiatur istud, quod tanta hominum multitudo sub terra sit; dici potest, quod omnes homines, qui nunc sunt, vix caperent millesimam partem terrae, si simul essent. Si ergo omnes homines, qui fuerunt ab initio usque in finem, vix excedunt homines, qui nunc sunt, in millecupla[^p924-7] proportione, omnes homines vix occuparent superficiem terrae. Si ergo concavitas maioris est capacitatis, quam sit superficies, multo magis poterunt capi in concavitatibus terrae, quae, quamvis nobis non appareant, tamen multae sunt, sicut ostendunt decursus aquarum de montibus et concussiones terrae motuum; et infernus creditur esse maximae concavitatis, ac per hoc et magnae capacitatis.

**5.** Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur de ordine, vel de situ in partibus hominis; voluerunt aliqui dicere, quod id quod est cor in corpore hominis, hoc est corpus solis in medio mundi; et secundum <!-- page 925 --> istam viam terra non iudicatur esse media, sed magis extremum, et extremum infimum. — Aliter potest dici, quod non est simile: quia cum universum sit orbiculare, et circumferentia sit eiusdem naturae; quodlibet[^p925-1] extremum tenet rationem superioris, et ideo medium tenet rationem infimi. In homine autem non sic: quia una extremitas, ut caput, dicitur esse superius; alia, ut pedes, dicitur esse inferius; et ideo medietas nec inferius nec superius est, sed habet influentiam ad utrumque: et ideo nobilis pars debet situari in homine in medio; non sic in universo, sed potius in extremo[^p925-2].

---

english:
### Question II. *Where hell is.*

Secondly it is asked, where hell is. And that it is under the earth seems [to be so]:

1. First, through the *Creed*[^p923-2], where it is said: *He descended into the lower regions* etc. If he descended, since *to descend* signifies motion toward that which is below, and he himself was on the earth: therefore hell is under the earth.

2. Likewise, this is shown through *Scripture*, Isaiah the fourteenth[^p923-3]: *Hell beneath was thrown into confusion.*

3. Likewise, this is shown *by denomination [from the name]*: for, as Gregory says in the fourth [book] of the Dialogues[^p923-4], «it is called hell (*infernus*) because it lies lower (*inferius*); for what earth is to heaven, that hell is to earth».

4. Likewise, this seems [to hold] *by reason*: for the nobler a body is, the nobler a place is owed to it: if therefore to the noblest bodies, namely the glorified, the highest place is owed, namely the empyrean[^p923-5], then it remains that to ignoble bodies, namely the bodies of the damned, the lowest place should be owed. But this is under the earth: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, place ought by concordance to correspond to state; but the state of the wayfarer is midway between punishment and glory: therefore the place too ought to be midway; therefore, since it is lower than the place of the Blessed, it ought to be higher than [the place] of the damned.

**On the contrary:** 1. Augustine, on Genesis according to the letter, book twelve[^p923-6]: «Under the earth the lower regions are said, or believed, to be, because they are fittingly demonstrated in the spirit through those likenesses of corporeal things»: therefore it seems, according to this, that hell is not under the earth, even though it *appears* to be under the earth.

2. Likewise, the same [Augustine], wishing to assign the reason of the name, says[^p923-7]: «They are called *inferi* (the lower ones) in Latin because they are below (*infra*). But just as, according to the body, if they keep the order of their own weight, all heavier things are lower; so according to the spirit all sadder things are lower»: therefore, if *to be sad* does not denote inferiority according to position but rather according to spirit; it seems that hell is not lower according to position, but according to affection.

3. Likewise, place ought to be proportioned to the weight drawing toward the place, otherwise the weight would never draw unless it had a likeness with the place; but the weight <!-- page 924 --> drawing toward hell is sin, and this is something spiritual, not corporeal[^p924-1]: therefore the place too ought to have a spiritual position, not a corporeal one, therefore it is not under the earth.

4. Likewise, the damned are far more numerous than the elect; but heaven will be full of the elect, according to what is said in Matthew the twenty-second[^p924-2]: *That the house may be filled with those reclining [at table]*: therefore it is necessary that the damned have a greater place than the place of heaven is, since they are far more numerous: therefore, since hell encompasses all the damned, it is necessary that it be of such great size as heaven: therefore it is impossible that it be under the earth.

5. Likewise, the order of the parts in the greater world ought to correspond to the order of the parts in the lesser world[^p924-3]; but the noblest part of man is in the middle, namely the heart: therefore, if the middle of the earth is the middle of the world, that place will be the noblest: therefore in that place the noblest part of the world ought to be situated, therefore not sinners: therefore if they are in hell, hell is not under the earth, or in the middle of the earth.

### Conclusion.

> *We can say that hell is a corporeal place, having its position under the earth.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, although it may seem rash to determine this question—for the reason that Augustine judged that no one knows it, according to what is said in the text[^p924-4], but was of the opinion that hell is not a *corporeal* place but a *spiritual* one, according to what is said in the twelfth [book] on Genesis according to the letter—nevertheless it is not presumptuous for moderns to say something about this, since Gregory expressly states, in the fourth [book] of the Dialogues[^p924-5], that he does not doubt hell to be a corporeal place; and he also establishes, by the authority of Scripture, that hell is under the earth, both from that which is said in the Psalm: *Thou hast rescued my soul from the lower hell*; and from that which is said in Apocalypse the fifth: *No one was found, neither in heaven nor on earth nor beneath the earth* etc. And therefore, fortified by his authority, we can say that hell is a corporeal place, having its position under the earth. And with this Scripture agrees, denomination agrees, and reason too agrees. For just as the state of the damned stands at a perfect distance, distant from the state of the Blessed, so also place [is distant] from place; and just as to the state of beatitude the highest place is owed, so also to the state of misery the lowest place, even according to the body.

**1, 2.** To that which is objected on the contrary, it must be said that Augustine did not say this by asserting it, but by reasoning and conjecturing; whence he also retracted it in the second book of the Retractations[^p924-6], saying: «It seems to me rather that I ought to have said of the lower regions that they are under the earth, than to have given the reason why they are believed to be under the earth, as if it were not so».

**3.** To the other [objection] which is raised secondly concerning the weight of sin, it must be said that there is an *order of justice* and an *order of nature*. But sin draws downward not according to the *order of nature*, since it has no conformity to it, but according to the *order of justice*, because sin, since it is most vile, disposes man toward the most vile and lowest place.

**4.** To that which is objected, that heaven is full of the elect; it must be said that this is not understood of a fullness of *crowding*, but of a fullness of *beauty*, by which we say heaven is full of stars, and the sea full of fish, and the world full of men. — But if you seek an imagining of how this is to be grasped, that so great a multitude of men is under the earth; it can be said that all the men who now exist would scarcely fill a thousandth part of the earth, if they were all together at once. If therefore all the men who have been from the beginning unto the end scarcely exceed the men who now exist by a thousandfold[^p924-7] proportion, all men together would scarcely occupy the surface of the earth. If therefore the hollow is of greater capacity than the surface is, much more will they be able to be contained in the hollows of the earth, which, although they do not appear to us, nevertheless are many, as the courses of waters from the mountains and the shakings of earthquakes show; and hell is believed to be of the greatest hollowness, and thereby also of great capacity.

**5.** To that which is finally objected concerning order, or concerning position in the parts of man; some wished to say that what the heart is in the body of man, that the body of the sun is in the middle of the world; and according to <!-- page 925 --> this way the earth is not judged to be the middle, but rather the extreme, and the lowest extreme. — Otherwise it can be said that it is not similar: because, since the universe is spherical, and the circumference is of the same nature, any[^p925-1] extreme holds the character of the superior, and therefore the middle holds the character of the lowest. But in man it is not so: because one extremity, as the head, is called superior; another, as the feet, is called inferior; and therefore the middle is neither inferior nor superior, but has an influence toward both: and therefore the noble part ought to be situated in man in the middle; not so in the universe, but rather in the extreme[^p925-2].

---

la: Scilicet Apostolorum. — In fine arg. Vat. supplet *est*.

en: That is, [the Creed] of the Apostles. — At the end of the argument the Vatican edition supplies *est*.

la: Vers. 9: *Infernus subter* etc. — Cfr. Hieron., ibid. in v. 19.

en: Verse 9: *Hell beneath* etc. — Cf. Jerome, on the same passage, on v. 19.

la: Cap. 42. Pro *hoc est* textus originalis *esse debet*.

en: Chapter 42. For *hoc est* the original text has *esse debet*.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 2. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. fundam. 4. — Mox pro *ignobilibus* cod. Z *ignobilissimis*.

en: Cf. II Sent., d. 2, p. II, a. 1, q. 1, fundamentum 4. — Shortly after, for *ignobilibus* codex Z reads *ignobilissimis*.

la: Cap. 34. n. 66. — Pro *congruenter* cod. A *non incongruenter*, non pauci alii codd. et ed. I perperam *non congruenter*. *Inferius* pro *etsi appareat* (plures codd. *appetat*) edd. *sed quod apparet*.

en: Chapter 34, n. 66. — For *congruenter* codex A reads *non incongruenter*; not a few other codices and edition I wrongly read *non congruenter*. Below, for *etsi appareat* (several codices *appetat*) the editions read *sed quod apparet*.

la: Loc. cit. in praeced. nota. Pro *teneant* edd. cum pluribus codd. *teneat*. In fine arg. pro *affectum* Vat. *effectum*.

en: The passage cited in the preceding note. For *teneant* the editions, with several codices, read *teneat*. At the end of the argument, for *affectum* the Vatican edition reads *effectum*.

la: Quod enim est pondus in corporibus, hoc est amor in spiritibus, ut docet August. (cfr. tom. III. pag. 639, nota 3.). Vide etiam supra pag. 583, nota 1. Glossam, quae est secundum August., Enarrat. 2. in Ps. 29. n. 10. — Post *ergo et locus* cod. L addit *ergo infernus*.

en: For what weight is in bodies, that is love in spirits, as Augustine teaches (cf. tom. III, p. 639, note 3). See also above, p. 583, note 1, the Gloss, which is according to Augustine, Enarratio 2 on Ps. 29, n. 10. — After *ergo et locus* codex L adds *ergo infernus*.

la: Vers. 10: *Et egressi servi eius in vias congregaverunt...* et *impletae sunt nuptiae discumbentium*. Cfr. Luc. 14, 23: *Compelle intrare, ut impleatur domus mea*. — Pro *maiori* vide Matth. 22, 14: *Multi enim sunt vocati, pauci vero electi*.

en: Verse 10: *And his servants going out into the ways gathered together...* and *the marriage was filled with guests reclining [at table]*. Cf. Luke 14:23: *Compel them to come in, that my house may be filled*. — For *maiori* see Matthew 22:14: *For many are called, but few are chosen*.

la: Cfr. Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 17. (c. 2.). Cfr. tom. II. pag. 336, nota 6. — Hieron., in Ionam 2, 4: *Porro per cor maris significatur infernus, pro quo in Evangelio legimus: In corde terrae* [Matth. 12, 14.]. *Quomodo autem cor animalis in medio est, ita et infernus in medio terrae esse perhibetur.* — Inferius pro *erit* cod. Z *debet esse*, et pro *situari* cod. aa *servari*.

en: Cf. Aristotle, Physics VIII, text 17 (c. 2). Cf. tom. II, p. 336, note 6. — Jerome, on Jonah 2:4: *Now by the heart of the sea hell is signified, for which in the Gospel we read: In the heart of the earth* [Matthew 12:14]. *But just as the heart of an animal is in the middle, so also hell is held to be in the middle of the earth.* — Below, for *erit* codex Z reads *debet esse*, and for *situari* codex aa reads *servari*.

la: Hic c. 6. — Seq. locus August. est XII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 32. n. 61. Verba vide infra a. 2. q. 1. arg. 5. ad oppos. Cfr. ibid. c. 34. n. 66. in arg. 1. et 2. ad oppos. iam allegatum.

en: Here chapter 6. — The following passage of Augustine is Book XII On Genesis according to the letter, c. 32, n. 61. See the words below, a. 2, q. 1, arg. 5 ad oppositum. Cf. ibid. c. 34, n. 66, in arguments 1 and 2 ad oppositum, already cited.

la: Cap. 42. — Duo loci Scripturae sunt Ps. 85, 13. (plures codd. vel *Eduxisti* vel *Extraxisti*) et Apoc. 5, 3. seq.: *Et nemo poterat, neque in caelo neque in terra neque subtus terram* [plures codd. *sub terra*] *aperire librum... et ego flebam multum, quoniam nemo dignus inventus est aperire librum* etc.

en: Chapter 42. — The two scriptural passages are Ps. 85:13 (several codices either *Eduxisti* or *Extraxisti*) and Apoc. 5:3ff.: *And no one was able, neither in heaven nor on earth nor beneath the earth* [several codices *under the earth*] *to open the book... and I wept much, because no one was found worthy to open the book*, etc.

la: Cap. 24. n. 2: *In duodecimo* [libro de Gen. ad lit.] *de inferis magis mihi videor docere debuisse, quod... quam rationem reddere... credantur* [ita etiam cod. L] *sive dicantur, quasi non ita sit*.

en: Chapter 24, n. 2: *In the twelfth* [book On Genesis according to the letter] *concerning the lower regions I seem to myself rather to have had to teach that... than to give the reason... they are believed* [so also codex L] *or are said, as if it were not so*.

la: Edd. cum aliquot codd. *millesima*. In fine solut. pro *magnae* cod. aa *maximae*.

en: The editions, with some codices, read *millesima*. At the end of the solution, for *magnae* codex aa reads *maximae*.

la: Vat. *pro eo quod.* Mox substituimus ex cod. F (E a secunda manu) *superioris* pro *inferioris.* Inferius pro *medietas* multi codd. et edd. *mediocritas.*

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *pro eo quod.* Presently, from codex F (E by a second hand), we have substituted *superioris* ("of the superior") for *inferioris* ("of the inferior"). Below, for *medietas* ("middle") many codices and editions [read] *mediocritas* ("mean").

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion on the preceding question.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set verbatim from IA djvu OCR (raw L98249–98417), reflowed column-by-column against the p.923 and p.924 left/right column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p923*`, `vol4-p924*`). No scholion here: the Article I (Pars II) SCHOLION covers both q1 and q2 and lives in the sibling chunk `bon-sent-IV-d44-p2-a1-q1` (`has_scholion: false`).
- **Page span corrected 923 → 923–925.** The skeleton frontmatter listed only [923, 924], but q2's fifth solution (*Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur de ordine…*) runs off the foot of p.924 (right col., "…corpus solis in medio mundi; et secundum") and concludes at the top of p.925 ("istam viam terra non iudicatur esse media… sed potius in extremo") immediately before ARTICULUS II (*De quidditate poenae infernalis*, raw L98418) opens. printed_pages/pdf_pages updated to [923, 924, 925] / [943, 944, 945] (offset +20). Running heads confirm: p.923 "DIST. XLIV. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. II."; p.925 "DIST. XLIV. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. I."
- **p.925 tail set from OCR (no band).** Only p.923/p.924 bands were provided. The short p.925 continuation of solution 5 is clean running prose in the djvu OCR (not cascade-fragmented) and was transcribed from it.
- **Repair 2026-07-21 (d.41–d.50 boundary sweep): p.925 notes 1–2 recovered.** Because the p.925 band was never read when this chunk was written, its two footers were never claimed — and the following chunk (`bon-sent-IV-d44-p2-a2-q1`) correctly declined them, recording that p.925 notes 1–2 anchor here and that it opens at p.925 note 3. Both notes were therefore unowned by any chunk. The p.925 footer band was generated at the measured gutter (1581) and read: note 1 = *Vat. pro eo quod. Mox substituimus ex cod. F (E a secunda manu) superioris pro inferioris. Inferius pro medietas multi codd. et edd. mediocritas*; note 2 = *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* Note 1's lemmas (*superioris*, *medietas*) fall inside this chunk's p.925 sentence, fixing its marker at *quodlibet*; note 2's cross-reference to the preceding question's scholion (this chunk carries none of its own) fixes its marker at the closing *in extremo*. Both positions match the anchors independently reported by the a.2 q.1 writer from the same band. Anchors added in Latin and mirrored in English; nothing retranslated or renumbered. Apparatus count is now 15 entries (p923 = 6, p924 = 7, p925 = 2).
- **Footer split at the p.923 shared page (cross-chunk hand-off).** Page 923 carries footers 1–7. Footer **1** (*Codd. F bb constituit, edd. distinxit vel constituit*) anchors on "distinxit" in the tail of the *preceding* quaestio (a.1 q.1, "Deus duo tempora sibi distinxit¹") and therefore belongs to `p2-a1-q1`, NOT claimed here. This chunk claims p923 nn. **2–7** (6 footers) + p924 nn. **1–7** (7 footers) — and, per the 2026-07-21 repair recorded below, p925 nn. **1–2** — = **15 apparatus entries**, all anchored in this body. If a.1 q.1 was promoted without its p923 note 1, it should be added there.
- **p924 footer 2 lemma — RESOLVED at the d.41–d.50 decade gate (2026-07-21).** Re-read at 600 dpi in the p.924 left-column footer (PDF p.944): the clause is *— Pro* **maiori** *vide Matth. 22, 14: Multi enim sunt vocati, pauci vero electi.* The lemma is *maiori*. `[?]` removed in Latin and English.
- **p924 footer 3, `[Matth. 12, 14.]` — reverted to as-printed at the d.41–d.50 decade gate (2026-07-21).** At 600 dpi the page plainly prints **[Matth. 12, 14.]**; the OCR was faithful. The earlier build emended it to `12, 40` on scriptural grounds (Matt 12:40 is indeed the *in corde terrae* verse), but that is a silent correction of Quaracchi and the project rule is to transcribe as printed and record the anomaly. Restored to `12, 14` in both languages; **the intended locus is certainly Matt 12:40** and is noted here rather than in the text.
- **Repair 2026-07-21 (d.41–d.50 decade gate).** The English body was missing one apparatus anchor: p.924 note 7 (the *millecupla*/*millesima* variant). The Latin marker sits on *millecupla*, immediately before *proportione*; it was mirrored into the English at the matching point, on "thousandfold" before "proportion". The other twelve English anchors were already correct. Nothing was retranslated, renumbered, or otherwise altered; the position was unambiguous from the parallel text, so no page images were needed.
- **Marginal editorial glosses trimmed** (not Bonaventure's text): "Duo tempora" (belongs to a1-q1 tail), "Ad oppositum", "Notandum", "Conclusio", and the p.924 right-column solution markers.

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. 44, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1

title_alt:
Utrum ignis inferni sit verus ignis
Whether the fire of hell is a true fire

source_text:
<!-- page 925 -->

### Articulus II. *De quidditate poenae infernalis.*

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de quidditate poenae infernalis. Et circa hoc duo quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur, utrum affligens in illa poena sit ignis verus. Secundo, utrum sit ignis solus.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum ignis inferni sit verus ignis.*

Primo quaeritur, utrum sit ignis verus, habens formam et naturam et speciem ignis. Et quod non, videtur.

1. Damascenus in fine libri sui[^p925-3]: «Tradentur diabolus et impii in ignem aeternum, non materialem, qualis apud nos est, sed qualem Deus novit»: ergo videtur, quod non habeat naturam ignis nostri.

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia exstinguibile et inexstinguibile differunt sicut corruptibile et incorruptibile; sed corruptibile et incorruptibile variant rem per essentiam[^p925-4], cum naturaliter insunt, non per gratiam: si ergo ignis infernalis est inexstinguibilis, et ignis apud nos est exstinguibilis: ergo non sunt eiusdem naturae et speciei.

3. Item, lux non accidit igni, immo est de ignis substantia et consequitur ignem in omni materia, in qua salvatur species ignis; sed ignis infernalis caret luce, secundum quod dicitur Iob decimo octavo[^p925-5]: *Nonne lux impii exstinguetur?* et sicut melius patebit infra, cum dicantur impii proiici *in tenebras exteriores.*

4. Item, operatio consequitur formam et speciem: ergo quae habent diversam operationem sunt diversa secundum formam[^p925-6]; sed ignis iste et infernalis diversam habent operationem, quia iste consumit et agendo in suam naturam convertit, ille vero minime: ergo etc.

5. Item, spirituale et corporale differunt non tantum secundum speciem, verum etiam secundum genus; sed ignis iste corporalis est, ignis vero infernalis spiritualis, sicut dicit Augustinus duodecimo super Genesim ad litteram[^p925-7]: «Est prorsus inferior substantia, sed eam spiritualem, non corporalem arbitror»: ergo videtur, quod non tantum specie, verum etiam genere ab isto igne differat.

**Contra:** 1. Gregorius, quarto Dialogorum[^p925-8]: «Ignem infernalem corporalem esse non ambigo, cum dicatur: *Ite maledicti in ignem aeternum*»; sed «omnis aqua materialis omni aquae corporali est eadem specie et natura»: ergo omnis ignis omni igni.

2. Item, similiter Basilius dicit in Hexaemeron, exponens illud Psalmi[^p925-9]: *Vox Domini intercidentis flammam ignis,* quod «ignis materialis cedet ad punitionem damnatorum, quantum ad id quod habet ardoris». Si ergo species eius non mutabitur, ergo iste ignis aptus est ad puniendum reprobos: ergo videtur, quod iste et ille sint eiusdem naturae et speciei.

<!-- page 926 -->

3. Item, omne corpus aut est *mixtum,* aut *simplex*; sed si ignis infernalis est corpus *mixtum,* ergo non est tantae caliditatis, ac per hoc nec tantae actionis. Si *simplex*; sed omne corpus simplex aut est unum de quatuor elementis aut est quinta essentia: ergo cum ille ignis non sit quinta essentia, cum sit infra terram[^p926-1], et sic maxime repugnans bonae dispositioni: ergo est aliquid elementorum quatuor. Sed non terra nec aqua nec aer: ergo est ignis.

4. Item, iste ignis est calidissimum corpus, sicut dicitur et verum est: ergo cum infernalis ignis sit calidissimus, et «quod *per superabundantiam* dicitur convenit uni soli[^p926-2]» speciei, vel individuo: ergo ignis ille est eiusdem speciei cum isto.

5. Item, Sapientiae undecimo[^p926-3]: *Per quae peccat quis, per haec et torquetur:* si ergo per corpus et per ea quae sunt de compositione nostri corporis, peccamus, ergo per eadem in specie et natura debemus puniri: ergo videtur, quod ignis, qui est de compositione corporum et qui est afflictivus in inferno, sit idem secundum speciem.

### Conclusio.

> *Ignis inferni est corporalis et fortasse eiusdem speciei cum igne elementari, licet diversas habeat proprietates, saltem accidentales.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum quod quamvis ad hanc quaestionem videatur temerarium respondere, quia Scriptura eam non determinat, nec doctor praecipuus Augustinus explicat, sed magis relinquit insolutam, dicens[^p926-4] quod «nulli manifestum est, cuiusmodi sit ille ignis, nisi ei cui divinus Spiritus ostendit»; et amplius opinari videtur, quod «ille ignis sit *spiritualis,* non *corporalis*»; tamen satis possumus pro certo habere per doctores posteriores, utpote per beatum Gregorium, cui multa divinus Spiritus revelavit, quod ignis infernalis sit corporalis.

Sed utrum ille ignis sit *elementaris* sive eiusdem speciei cum igne, qui apud nos est; hoc non ita potest pro constanti a quocumque determinari. Attamen, si quis non adducat fortiores rationes, quam quae adductae sunt, non compellimur ponere, ignem infernalem esse *diversae naturae* et *speciei* ab igne qui apud nos est, si proprie velimus speciem appellare formam substantialem et specificativam, secundum quod dicitur, quod «omnis aqua omni aquae est eadem in specie». — Et huic opinioni satis videtur consonare Augustinus vigesimo primo de Civitate Dei[^p926-5], ubi inquirit, quomodo ille ignis vere habeat naturam ignis, et tamen non consumat corpora, in quae agit etc. — Si tamen loquamur de proprietatibus *accidentalibus,* quae non variant speciem, sed operationem; ille ignis habet diversas proprietates ab isto. Nec mirum, cum istud appareat in aliis creaturis, sicut exemplificat Augustinus[^p926-6] et Isidorus in naturis fontium et aquarum. Dicit enim, quod apud Garamantes est fons, «in quo faces accensae exstinguuntur, et exstinctae accenduntur», sicut et alii fontes diversarum proprietatum, colorum et operationum; attamen in specifica natura aliis aquis assimilantur: sic etiam intelligere possumus in proposito.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Damasceno, dicendum, quod non negat Damascenus similitudinem in forma specifica, sed potius in proprietatibus et operationibus consequentibus.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de proprietate exstinguibilitatis, potest responderi dupliciter: primo, quod sicut corpora damnatorum eadem sunt cum nostris secundum speciem, et tamen sunt immortalia; ita ignis crucians corpora illa idem est cum igne nostro, quamvis non deficiat, quia hoc non habet per naturam, sed per vim superadditam. — Aliter potest dici, quod hoc non variat speciem: quia per operationem artis fieri potest, quod ignis non exstinguatur; sicut dicunt aliqui, qui experti sunt, quod si ignis cum sulphure includatur in vase, ex quo nulla possit fieri evaporatio, in aeternum duraret sine nutrimenti appositione, si locus in aeternum permaneret: hoc autem nihil prohibet in igne infernali intelligere, cum sub terra constet inclusum esse[^p926-7].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de luciditate, dicendum, quod ignis tres sunt species, scilicet *lux, flamma* et *carbo*[^p926-8], et istae sunt species materiales; et quamvis in omnibus his salvetur natura lucis, tamen minime est in materia terrestri, et *maxime terrestris* parum habet de luce et multum resolubilis est in fumositatem; et in tali materia, utpote in sulphure et pice, ignis potius est tenebrosus quam lucidus, quia magis visum impedit, quam adiuvet. Et per hunc modum imaginari possumus ignem
<!-- page 927 -->
infernalem et ad hoc adiuvari auctoritate Scripturae. Dicitur enim Apocalypsis decimo quarto[^p927-1]: *Cruciabuntur igne et sulphure;* item, Isaiae trigesimo quarto: *Dies ultionis Domini* etc.; et post: *Convertentur torrentes eius in picem, et humus eius in sulphur.*

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de operatione, dicendum, quod illud non sequitur, quia eadem secundum speciem diversas habent operationes; nec istud verbum veritatem habet, nisi intelligatur de operatione consequente totam speciem.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de verbis Augustini dicendum est, illud esse retractatum, sicut et de loco infernali, ubi dicitur[^p927-2], quod est locus spiritualis, non corporalis; sic in proposito intelligendum est, quod infernalis ignis corporalis est et sub terra est.

english:
### Article II. *On the quiddity of the infernal punishment.*

Next, as to the second article, inquiry is made concerning the quiddity of the infernal punishment. And concerning this, two things are asked. First it is asked whether that which afflicts in that punishment is a true fire. Second, whether it is fire alone.

### Question I. *Whether the fire of hell is a true fire.*

First it is asked whether it is a true fire, having the form and nature and species of fire. And that it is not, seems [to be the case].

1. Damascene, at the end of his book[^p925-3]: «The devil and the impious shall be handed over into eternal fire, not material, such as is among us, but such as God knows»: therefore it seems that it does not have the nature of our fire.

2. Likewise, it seems [so] *by reason*: because the extinguishable and the inextinguishable differ as the corruptible and the incorruptible; but the corruptible and the incorruptible vary a thing in its essence[^p925-4], since they are in it naturally, not by grace: if therefore the infernal fire is inextinguishable, and the fire among us is extinguishable: therefore they are not of the same nature and species.

3. Likewise, light is not accidental to fire, nay it is of the substance of fire and follows fire in every matter in which the species of fire is preserved; but the infernal fire lacks light, according to what is said in Job the eighteenth[^p925-5]: *Shall not the light of the wicked be extinguished?* and as will better appear below, when the impious are said to be cast *into the exterior darkness.*

4. Likewise, operation follows form and species: therefore things which have a diverse operation are diverse according to form[^p925-6]; but this fire and the infernal one have a diverse operation, because this one consumes and by acting converts [things] into its own nature, but that one by no means [does so]: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, the spiritual and the corporeal differ not only according to species, but also according to genus; but this fire is corporeal, whereas the infernal fire is spiritual, as Augustine says in the twelfth [book] On Genesis to the Letter[^p925-7]: «It is an altogether inferior substance, but I judge it to be spiritual, not corporeal»: therefore it seems that it differs from this fire not only in species, but also in genus.

**On the contrary:** 1. Gregory, in the fourth [book] of the Dialogues[^p925-8]: «I do not doubt that the infernal fire is corporeal, since it is said: *Go, you cursed, into eternal fire*»; but «all material water is of the same species and nature as every corporeal water»: therefore every fire [is of the same species and nature] as every fire.

2. Likewise, similarly Basil says in the Hexaemeron, expounding that [text] of the Psalm[^p925-9]: *The voice of the Lord dividing the flame of fire,* that «material fire shall pass over to the punishment of the damned, as regards what it has of burning». If therefore its species will not be changed, then this fire is fit for punishing the reprobate: therefore it seems that this one and that one are of the same nature and species.

<!-- page 926 -->

3. Likewise, every body is either *mixed* or *simple*; but if the infernal fire is a *mixed* body, then it is not of such great heat, and thereby not of such great action. If *simple*; but every simple body is either one of the four elements or the fifth essence: therefore since that fire is not the fifth essence, since it is beneath the earth[^p926-1], and thus most repugnant to a good disposition: therefore it is one of the four elements. But it is not earth nor water nor air: therefore it is fire.

4. Likewise, this fire is the hottest body, as is said and is true: therefore since the infernal fire is hottest, and «what is said *by superabundance* belongs to one alone[^p926-2]» in species, or in individual: therefore that fire is of the same species as this one.

5. Likewise, [in] Wisdom the eleventh[^p926-3]: *By what things a person sins, by these also is he tormented:* if therefore we sin through the body and through those things which are of the composition of our body, then we ought to be punished through the same things in species and nature: therefore it seems that the fire which is of the composition of bodies and which is afflictive in hell is the same according to species.

### Conclusion.

> *The fire of hell is corporeal and perhaps of the same species as elemental fire, although it may have diverse properties, at least accidental ones.*

**I respond:** It must be said that although it may seem rash to respond to this question, since Scripture does not determine it, nor does the pre-eminent doctor Augustine explain it, but rather leaves it unresolved, saying[^p926-4] that «to no one is it manifest of what sort that fire is, except to him to whom the divine Spirit has shown it»; and further he seems to be of the opinion that «that fire is *spiritual,* not *corporeal*»; nevertheless we can hold with sufficient certainty, through the later doctors, namely through blessed Gregory, to whom the divine Spirit revealed many things, that the infernal fire is corporeal.

But whether that fire is *elemental* or of the same species as the fire which is among us; this cannot so firmly be determined by anyone. Nevertheless, if anyone does not adduce stronger reasons than those which have been adduced, we are not compelled to posit that the infernal fire is of a *diverse nature* and *species* from the fire which is among us, if we wish properly to call "species" the substantial and specifying form, according to what is said, that «all water is the same in species as all water». — And with this opinion Augustine, in the twenty-first [book] On the City of God[^p926-5], seems sufficiently to agree, where he inquires how that fire truly has the nature of fire, and yet does not consume the bodies on which it acts, etc. — If however we speak of the *accidental* properties, which do not vary the species but the operation; that fire has diverse properties from this one. Nor is it a wonder, since this appears in other creatures, as Augustine[^p926-6] and Isidore exemplify in the natures of springs and waters. For he says that among the Garamantes there is a spring, «in which lighted torches are extinguished, and extinguished ones are lit», just as also other springs of diverse properties, colors, and operations; yet in their specific nature they are assimilated to other waters: so also we can understand in the [matter] proposed.

1. To that which is objected concerning Damascene, it must be said that Damascene does not deny the likeness in specific form, but rather in the properties and operations that follow.

2. To that which is objected concerning the property of extinguishability, it can be answered in two ways: first, that just as the bodies of the damned are the same as ours according to species, and yet are immortal; so the fire tormenting those bodies is the same as our fire, although it does not fail, because it has this not through nature, but through a superadded power. — Otherwise it can be said that this does not vary the species: because through the operation of art it can come about that fire is not extinguished; as some say, who have experience, that if fire be enclosed with sulphur in a vessel, from which no evaporation can occur, it would last forever without the addition of nourishment, if the place should remain forever: but nothing prohibits [us from] understanding this in the case of the infernal fire, since it is agreed to be enclosed beneath the earth[^p926-7].

3. To that which is objected concerning luminosity, it must be said that there are three species of fire, namely *light, flame,* and *coal*[^p926-8], and these are material species; and although the nature of light is preserved in all of these, nevertheless it is least [preserved] in earthy matter, and *the most earthy* has little of light and is much resolvable into smokiness; and in such matter, such as in sulphur and pitch, fire is dark rather than luminous, because it impedes sight more than it aids it. And in this way we can imagine the fire
<!-- page 927 -->
[to be] infernal, and be aided in this by the authority of Scripture. For it is said in the Apocalypse the fourteenth[^p927-1]: *They shall be tormented with fire and sulphur;* likewise, [in] Isaiah the thirty-fourth: *The day of the vengeance of the Lord* etc.; and after: *Its torrents shall be turned into pitch, and its soil into sulphur.*

4. To that which is objected concerning operation, it must be said that it does not follow, because things the same according to species have diverse operations; nor does that statement hold truth, unless it be understood of an operation following upon the whole species.

5. To that which is objected concerning the words of Augustine, it must be said that it was retracted, just as also concerning the infernal place, where it is said[^p927-2] that it is a spiritual place, not corporeal; so in the [matter] proposed it must be understood that the infernal fire is corporeal and is beneath the earth.

la: Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 27. in fine.

en: [Damascene,] Book IV On the Orthodox Faith, c. 27, at the end.

la: Aristot., X Metaph. text. 26. (IX. c. 10.): Cum vero contraria specie diversa sunt, corruptibile autem et incorruptibile contraria sunt; privatio namque determinata impotentia; necesse est, diversum genere esse corruptibile et incorruptibile. — Pro *naturaliter insunt* plures codd. *materialiter insunt,* edd. *materialiter vel naturaliter ibi sit.*

en: Aristotle, Metaphysics X, text 26 (IX, c. 10): "But since things diverse in species are contraries, and the corruptible and the incorruptible are contraries; for a determinate privation is an impotence; it is necessary that the corruptible and the incorruptible be diverse in genus." — For *naturaliter insunt* many codices [read] *materialiter insunt,* the editions *materialiter vel naturaliter ibi sit.*

la: Vers. 5. — In fine arg. respicitur Matth. 8, 12; 22, 13. et 25, 30. Cfr. infra d. 50. p. 1. a. 2. q. 1. seqq. — In fine arg. cod. K (I a secunda manu) addit: *ignis igitur infernalis non habet lucem: ergo non sunt eiusdem naturae.*

en: Verse 5. — At the end of the argument reference is made to Matthew 8:12; 22:13; and 25:30. Cf. below d. 50, p. 1, a. 2, q. 1 ff. — At the end of the argument codex K (I from a second hand) adds: *therefore the infernal fire does not have light: therefore they are not of the same nature.*

la: Cfr. Damasc., III. de Fide orthod. c. 14. Vide etiam tom. I. pag. 51, nota 11. et pag. 84, nota 7.

en: Cf. Damascene, III On the Orthodox Faith, c. 14. See also vol. I, p. 51, note 11, and p. 84, note 7.

la: Cap. 32. n. 61. Pro *inferior* textus originalis *inferorum.*

en: Chapter 32, n. 61. For *inferior* the original text [reads] *inferorum* (of the lower regions).

la: Cap. 29. Post *ambigo* textus originalis plura addit. — Locus Scripturae est Matth. 25, 41: Discedite a me maledicti etc. — Minor est ex Aristot., I. Topic. c. 6. (c. 5.). Vide supra pag. 79, nota 5. — Pro *materialis* plures codd. *naturalis,* Vat. *materialis seu naturalis.*

en: Chapter 29. After *ambigo* the original text adds more. — The scriptural passage is Matthew 25:41: "Depart from me, you cursed," etc. — The minor [premise] is from Aristotle, Topics I, c. 6 (c. 5). See above p. 79, note 5. — For *materialis* many codices [read] *naturalis,* the Vatican [edition] *materialis seu naturalis.*

la: Psalm. 28, 7, quem exponens Basil., in Hexaem. homil. 6. n. 3. ait: Unde etiam cum rerum in vita gestarum merces retribuetur, arcanus quidam sermo nos docet, naturam ignis divisum iri, et lucem quidem in fruitionem iustis, adustionis vero acerbitatem puniendis destinandam esse. Cfr. Homil. in Ps. 28, 7. n. 6. — Inferius pro *species eius* plures codd. *species est,* edd. *ignis species est, eatenus.*

en: Psalm 28:7, expounding which Basil, in the Hexaemeron, homily 6, n. 3, says: "Whence also, when the reward for deeds done in life is repaid, a certain hidden discourse teaches us that the nature of fire will be divided, and light indeed destined for the enjoyment of the just, but the sharpness of burning [destined] for those to be punished." Cf. Homily on Ps. 28:7, n. 6. — Below, for *species eius* many codices [read] *species est,* the editions *ignis species est, eatenus.*

la: Vide supra a. 1. q. 2. — De *quinta* essentia i. e. firmamento, cfr. II. Sent. d. 14. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2.

en: See above a. 1, q. 2. — On the *fifth* essence, i.e. the firmament, cf. II Sent. d. 14, p. 1, a. 1, q. 2.

la: Aristot., V. Topic. c. 3. (c. 5.). Cfr. VII. c. 1.

en: Aristotle, Topics V, c. 3 (c. 5). Cf. VII, c. 1.

la: Vers. 17.

en: Verse 17.

la: Libr. XX. de Civ. Dei, c. 16. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 6. — De altera opinione August. cfr. supra arg. 5. ad oppos., et de sententia Gregorii vide fundam. 1.

en: Book XX On the City of God, c. 16. See here the Master's text, c. 6. — On the other opinion of Augustine cf. above arg. 5 on the opposite side, and on the view of Gregory see fundamentum 1.

la: Cap. 2. seqq. — Cum cod. F substituimus *inquirit* pro *inquit,* quod non congruum est; cfr. Magister, hic in lit. c. 5. — Superius pro *specificativam* codd. H L *specificam.*

en: Chapter 2 ff. — With codex F we have substituted *inquirit* for *inquit,* which is not congruous; cf. the Master, here in the text, c. 5. — Above, for *specificativam* codices H L [read] *specificam.*

la: Libr. XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 5. n. 1: Apud Garamantas quendam fontem [scriptores exhibent] tam frigidum diebus, ut non bibatur; tam fervidum noctibus, ut non tangatur. In Epiro alium fontem, in quo faces, ut in ceteris, exstinguuntur accensae, sed, non ut in ceteris, accenduntur exstinctae. Idem refert Isidor., XIII. Etymolog. c. 13. n. 10. — Pro *fontium et aquarum* codd. R S T U *fontium aquarum.* Inferius pro *sicut* codd. B E F L (V primitus) aa *sunt.*

en: Book XXI On the City of God, c. 5, n. 1: "Among the Garamantes [the writers present] a certain spring so cold by day that it cannot be drunk; so hot by night that it cannot be touched. In Epirus another spring, in which torches, as in the others, are extinguished when lit, but, not as in the others, are lit when extinguished." The same is reported by Isidore, Etymologies XIII, c. 13, n. 10. — For *fontium et aquarum* codices R S T U [read] *fontium aquarum.* Below, for *sicut* codices B E F L (V originally) aa [read] *sunt.*

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 2. — Cod. F supplet *eum.*

en: Cf. above a. 1, q. 2. — Codex F supplies *eum.*

la: Secundum Aristot., V. Topic. c. 3. (c. 5.). — Inferius post *et maxime* codd. L N Y aa addunt *cum materia.*

en: According to Aristotle, Topics V, c. 3 (c. 5). — Below, after *et maxime* codices L N Y aa add *cum materia.*

la: Vers. 10: Cruciabitur igne etc. — Seq. locus est Isai. 34, 8. et 9. Post *humus* codd. omittunt *eius.*

en: Verse 10: "He shall be tormented with fire," etc. — The following passage is Isaiah 34:8 and 9. After *humus* the codices omit *eius.*

la: Vide supra a. 1. q. 2. ad 1. et 2.

en: See above a. 1, q. 2, ad 1 and 2. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Communiter Scholastici reprobant Avicennam, qui, cum resurrectionem corporum non crederet, ignem corporeum in inferno esse negavit ignemque tantum metaphoricum admisit, quo *animae* malorum punirentur, non per corpora, sed per corporum similitudines, sicut nunc in somniis imaginatio solet animam affligere. Attamen «quidquid dicatur de igne, qui *animas* separatas cruciat, de igne tamen, quo cruciabuntur *corpora* damnatorum post resurrectionem, oportet dicere, quod sit *corporeus,* quia corpori non potest convenienter adaptari poena nisi corporea» (S. Thom., locis infra citt.). Idem recte annotat, etiam S. Augustinum (XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 10.) idem docere. Quod autem ille ignis habeat aliquas proprietates ab elementari igne diversas, saltem accidentales, omnes confitentur. — De 1. quaestione: Scot., hic q. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. 2; Suppl. q. 97. a. 5. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 37. 38. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. 4. — Durand., hic q. 9. n. 1. seqq.

**II.** De 2. quaestione: S. Thom., infra d. 50. q. 2. a. 3; Suppl. loc. cit. a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 10.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Commonly the Scholastics reject Avicenna, who, since he did not believe in the resurrection of bodies, denied that there is a corporeal fire in hell and admitted only a metaphorical fire, by which the *souls* of the evil would be punished, not through bodies, but through likenesses of bodies, just as now in dreams imagination is wont to afflict the soul. Nevertheless «whatever be said concerning the fire which torments separated *souls,* concerning the fire, however, by which the *bodies* of the damned will be tormented after the resurrection, one must say that it is *corporeal,* because a punishment cannot be fittingly adapted to a body except a corporeal one» (S. Thomas, in the places cited below). The same [author] rightly notes that S. Augustine too (XXI On the City of God, c. 10) teaches the same. But that this fire has some properties diverse from elemental fire, at least accidental ones, all confess. — On the 1st question: Scotus, here q. 3. — S. Thomas, here q. 3, a. 2, quaestiuncula 1, 2; Suppl. q. 97, a. 5, 6. — B. Albert, here a. 37, 38. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 2, q. 3, 4. — Durandus, here q. 9, n. 1 ff.

**II.** On the 2nd question: S. Thomas, below d. 50, q. 2, a. 3; Suppl. loc. cit. a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 4. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit. q. 10.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the Internet Archive djvu OCR (raw L98418–98676) against the p. 925/926/927 colcrop column bands (`vol4-p{925,926,927}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), read Left column top→bottom then Right, body bands then footer bands. English is a fresh literal translation; apparatus taken directly from the printed footers.

**Page span correction.** Frontmatter `printed_pages` was `[925, 926]`; the chunk in fact runs onto **p. 927**. Q1's solution (replies 4–5) and the Article II scholion are printed at the top of p. 927, whose running head reads *DIST. XLIV. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. II* only because QUAESTIO II begins lower on that same page. Corrected to `printed_pages: [925, 926, 927]` / `pdf_pages: [945, 946, 947]` (offset pdf = printed + 20).

**Footnote numbering (restarts per printed page).**
- p. 925: markers begin at **3**; notes 1–2 of that page anchor in the *preceding* chunk (a.1 q.2 — `quodlibet¹`, `in extremo²`), so this chunk carries p925 notes **3–9** (7 entries).
- p. 926: notes **1–8** (8 entries), all anchored in this body.
- p. 927: only notes **1–2** fall in this question (reply 3 tail `Apocalypsis…¹`, reply 5 `ubi dicitur²`); notes 3–10 of p. 927 belong to sibling q2. → **17 apparatus entries total.**

**Negative argument 5.** The IA OCR / skeleton mislabeled the fifth "quod non" argument (`spirituale et corporale differunt…`) as "3." The column band crops off the marginal numeral, but the sequence is unambiguous — negative args 1–4 stand in the p. 925 left column, and this fifth argument concludes `…genere ab isto igne differat` immediately before the `Contra`. Rendered **5**; no `[?]` flag warranted.

**Scholion (owned by this chunk; covers q1 AND q2).** Printed full-width on p. 927 between q1's solution and QUAESTIO II. Rendered **last** in both language blocks per the parser rule (body first, scholion last), regardless of source print order. Sibling p2-a2-q2 carries **no** scholion. Opening numeral rendered **I.** to pair with the clear **II.** (`De 2. quaestione`); the source glyph could be read as arabic "1." `infra d. 50` (in the q2 citation line) is read from the band; the skeleton OCR had "d. 30."

**Seam.** Opens after a1-q2 (ends L98417) at the `ARTICULUS II` header; tail ends before `QUAESTIO II` (L98677). No unresolved `[?]` flags — all readings resolved against the bands.