Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 4
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/3/d/22/q/bon-sent-III-d22-a1-q4
----------------------------------------
### Question IV. *On the descent of the soul of Christ into hell.*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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