24:45):
"I will penetrate to all the lower parts of the earth.
"I will penetrate to all the lower parts of the earth.
Summa Theologica
6:4: "We are buried together with Christ by baptism
into death. "
Reply to Objection 1: Though buried, Christ proved Himself "free among
the dead": since, although imprisoned in the tomb, He could not be
hindered from going forth by rising again.
Reply to Objection 2: As Christ's death wrought our salvation, so
likewise did His burial. Hence Jerome says (Super Marc. xiv): "By
Christ's burial we rise again"; and on Is. 53:9: "He shall give the
ungodly for His burial," a gloss says: "He shall give to God and the
Father the Gentiles who were without godliness, because He purchased
them by His death and burial. "
Reply to Objection 3: As is said in a discourse made at the Council of
Ephesus [*P. iii, cap. 9], "Nothing that saves man is derogatory to
God; showing Him to be not passible, but merciful": and in another
discourse of the same Council [*P. iii, cap. 10]: "God does not repute
anything as an injury which is an occasion of men's salvation. Thus
thou shalt not deem God's Nature to be so vile, as though It may
sometimes be subjected to injuries. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ was buried in a becoming manner?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was buried in an unbecoming
manner. For His burial should be in keeping with His death. But Christ
underwent a most shameful death, according to Wis. 2:20: "Let us
condemn Him to a most shameful death. " It seems therefore unbecoming
for honorable burial to be accorded to Christ, inasmuch as He was
buried by men of position---namely, by Joseph of Arimathea, who was "a
noble counselor," to use Mark's expression (Mk. 15:43), and by
Nicodemus, who was "a ruler of the Jews," as John states (Jn. 3:1).
Objection 2: Further, nothing should be done to Christ which might set
an example of wastefulness. But it seems to savor of waste that in
order to bury Christ Nicodemus came "bringing a mixture of myrrh and
aloes about a hundred pounds weight," as recorded by John (19:39),
especially since a woman came beforehand to anoint His body for the
burial, as Mark relates (Mk. 14:28). Consequently, this was not done
becomingly with regard to Christ.
Objection 3: Further, it is not becoming for anything done to be
inconsistent with itself. But Christ's burial on the one hand was
simple, because "Joseph wrapped His body in a clean linen cloth," as is
related by Matthew (27:59), "but not with gold or gems, or silk," as
Jerome observes: yet on the other hand there appears to have been some
display, inasmuch as they buried Him with fragrant spices (Jn. 19:40).
Consequently, the manner of Christ's burial does not seem to have been
seemly.
Objection 4: Further, "What things soever were written," especially of
Christ, "were written for our learning," according to Rom. 15:4. But
some of the things written in the Gospels touching Christ's burial in
no wise seem to pertain to our instruction---as that He was buried "in
a garden . . . "in a tomb which was not His own, which was "new," and
"hewed out in a rock. " Therefore the manner of Christ's burial was not
becoming.
On the contrary, It is written (Is. 11:10): "And His sepulchre shall be
glorious. "
I answer that, The manner of Christ's burial is shown to be seemly in
three respects. First, to confirm faith in His death and resurrection.
Secondly, to commend the devotion of those who gave Him burial. Hence
Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i): "The Gospel mentions as praiseworthy
the deed of those who received His body from the cross, and with due
care and reverence wrapped it up and buried it. " Thirdly, as to the
mystery whereby those are molded who "are buried together with Christ
into death" (Rom. 6:4).
Reply to Objection 1: With regard to Christ's death, His patience and
constancy in enduring death are commended, and all the more that His
death was the more despicable: but in His honorable burial we can see
the power of the dying Man, who, even in death, frustrated the intent
of His murderers, and was buried with honor: and thereby is
foreshadowed the devotion of the faithful who in the time to come were
to serve the dead Christ.
Reply to Objection 2: On that expression of the Evangelist (Jn. 19:40)
that they buried Him "as the manner of the Jews is to bury," Augustine
says (Tract. in Joan. cxx): "He admonishes us that in offices of this
kind which are rendered to the dead, the custom of each nation should
be observed. " Now it was the custom of this people to anoint bodies
with various spices in order the longer to preserve them from
corruption [*Cf. Catena Aurea in Joan. xix]. Accordingly it is said in
De Doctr. Christ. iii that "in all such things, it is not the use
thereof, but the luxury of the user that is at fault"; and, farther on:
"what in other persons is frequently criminal, in a divine or prophetic
person is a sign of something great. " For myrrh and aloes by their
bitterness denote penance, by which man keeps Christ within himself
without the corruption of sin; while the odor of the ointments
expresses good report.
Reply to Objection 3: Myrrh and aloes were used on Christ's body in
order that it might be preserved from corruption, and this seemed to
imply a certain need (in the body): hence the example is set us that we
may lawfully use precious things medicinally, from the need of
preserving our body. But the wrapping up of the body was merely a
question of becoming propriety. And we ought to content ourselves with
simplicity in such things. Yet, as Jerome observes, by this act was
denoted that "he swathes Jesus in clean linen, who receives Him with a
pure soul. " Hence, as Bede says on Mark 15:46: "The Church's custom has
prevailed for the sacrifice of the altar to be offered not upon silk,
nor upon dyed cloth, but on linen of the earth; as the Lord's body was
buried in a clean winding-sheet. "
Reply to Objection 4: Christ was buried "in a garden" to express that
by His death and burial we are delivered from the death which we incur
through Adam's sin committed in the garden of paradise. But for this
"was our Lord buried in the grave of a stranger," as Augustine says in
a sermon (ccxlviii), "because He died for the salvation of others; and
a sepulchre is the abode of death. " Also the extent of the poverty
endured for us can be thereby estimated: since He who while living had
no home, after death was laid to rest in another's tomb, and being
naked was clothed by Joseph. But He is laid in a "new" sepulchre, as
Jerome observes on Mat. 27:60, "lest after the resurrection it might be
pretended that someone else had risen, while the other corpses
remained. The new sepulchre can also denote Mary's virginal womb. " And
furthermore it may be understood that all of us are renewed by Christ's
burial; death and corruption being destroyed. Moreover, He was buried
in a monument "hewn out of a rock," as Jerome says on Mat. 27:64,
"lest, if it had been constructed of many stones, they might say that
He was stolen away by digging away the foundations of the tomb. " Hence
the "great stone" which was set shows that "the tomb could not be
opened except by the help of many hands. Again, if He had been buried
in the earth, they might have said: They dug up the soil and stole Him
away," as Augustine observes [*Cf. Catena Aurea]. Hilary (Comment. in
Matth. cap. xxxiii) gives the mystical interpretation, saying that "by
the teaching of the apostles, Christ is borne into the stony heart of
the gentile; for it is hewn out by the process of teaching, unpolished
and new, untenanted and open to the entrance of the fear of God. And
since naught besides Him must enter into our hearts, a great stone is
rolled against the door. " Furthermore, as Origen says (Tract. xxxv in
Matth. ): "It was not written by hazard: 'Joseph wrapped Christ's body
in a clean winding-sheet, and placed it in a new monument,'" and that
"'he rolled a great stone,' because all things around the body of Jesus
are clean, and new, and exceeding great. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's body was reduced to dust in the tomb?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's body was reduced to dust in
the tomb. For just as man dies in punishment of his first parent's sin,
so also does he return to dust, since it was said to the first man
after his sin: "Dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return" (Gn.
3:19). But Christ endured death in order to deliver us from death.
Therefore His body ought to be made to return to dust, so as to free us
from the same penalty.
Objection 2: Further, Christ's body was of the same nature as ours. But
directly after death our bodies begin to dissolve into dust, and are
disposed towards putrefaction, because when the natural heat departs,
there supervenes heat from without which causes corruption. Therefore
it seems that the same thing happened to Christ's body.
Objection 3: Further, as stated above [4274](A[1]), Christ willed to be
buried in order to furnish men with the hope of rising likewise from
the grave. Consequently, He sought likewise to return to dust so as to
give to them who have returned to dust the hope of rising from the
dust.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 15:10): "Nor wilt Thou suffer Thy
holy one to see corruption": and Damascene (De Fide Orth. iii) expounds
this of the corruption which comes of dissolving into elements.
I answer that, It was not fitting for Christ's body to putrefy, or in
any way be reduced to dust, since the putrefaction of any body comes of
that body's infirmity of nature, which can no longer hold the body
together. But as was said above ([4275]Q[50], A[1], ad 2), Christ's
death ought not to come from weakness of nature, lest it might not be
believed to be voluntary: and therefore He willed to die, not from
sickness, but from suffering inflicted on Him, to which He gave Himself
up willingly. And therefore, lest His death might be ascribed to
infirmity of nature, Christ did not wish His body to putrefy in any way
or dissolve no matter how; but for the manifestation of His Divine
power He willed that His body should continue incorrupt. Hence
Chrysostom says (Cont. Jud. et Gent. quod 'Christus sit Deus') that
"with other men, especially with such as have wrought strenuously,
their deeds shine forth in their lifetime; but as soon as they die,
their deeds go with them. But it is quite the contrary with Christ:
because previous to the cross all is sadness and weakness, but as soon
as He is crucified, everything comes to light, in order that you may
learn it was not an ordinary man that was crucified. "
Reply to Objection 1: Since Christ was not subject to sin, neither was
He prone to die or to return to dust. Yet of His own will He endured
death for our salvation, for the reasons alleged above ([4276]Q[51],
A[1]). But had His body putrefied or dissolved, this fact would have
been detrimental to man's salvation, for it would not have seemed
credible that the Divine power was in Him. Hence it is on His behalf
that it is written (Ps. 19:10): "What profit is there in my blood,
whilst I go down to corruption? " as if He were to say: "If My body
corrupt, the profit of the blood shed will be lost. "
Reply to Objection 2: Christ's body was a subject of corruption
according to the condition of its passible nature, but not as to the
deserving cause of putrefaction, which is sin: but the Divine power
preserved Christ's body from putrefying, just as it raised it up from
death.
Reply to Objection 3: Christ rose from the tomb by Divine power, which
is not narrowed within bounds. Consequently, His rising from the grave
was a sufficient argument to prove that men are to be raised up by
Divine power, not only from their graves, but also from any dust
whatever.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ was in the tomb only one day and two nights?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was not in the tomb during only
one day and two nights; because He said (Mat. 12:40): "As Jonas was in
the whale's belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man
be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. " But He was
in the heart of the earth while He was in the grave. Therefore He was
not in the tomb for only one day and two nights.
Objection 2: Gregory says in a Paschal Homily (Hom. xxi): "As Samson
carried off the gates of Gaza during the night, even so Christ rose in
the night, taking away the gates of hell. " But after rising He was not
in the tomb. Therefore He was not two whole nights in the grave.
Objection 3: Further, light prevailed over darkness by Christ's death.
But night belongs to darkness, and day to light. Therefore it was more
fitting for Christ's body to be in the tomb for two days and a night,
rather than conversely.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. iv): "There were thirty-six
hours from the evening of His burial to the dawn of the resurrection,
that is, a whole night with a whole day, and a whole night. "
I answer that, The very time during which Christ remained in the tomb
shows forth the effect of His death. For it was said above
([4277]Q[50], A[6]) that by Christ's death we were delivered from a
twofold death, namely, from the death of the soul and of the body: and
this is signified by the two nights during which He remained in the
tomb. But since His death did not come of sin, but was endured from
charity, it has not the semblance of night, but of day: consequently it
is denoted by the whole day during which Christ was in the sepulchre.
And so it was fitting for Christ to be in the sepulchre during one day
and two nights.
Reply to Objection 1: Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii): "Some
men, ignorant of Scriptural language, wished to compute as night those
three hours, from the sixth to the ninth hour, during which the sun was
darkened, and as day those other three hours during which it was
restored to the earth, that is, from the ninth hour until its setting:
for the coming night of the Sabbath follows, and if this be reckoned
with its day, there will be already two nights and two days. Now after
the Sabbath there follows the night of the first day of the Sabbath,
that is, of the dawning Sunday, on which the Lord rose. Even so, the
reckoning of the three days and three nights will not stand. It remains
then to find the solution in the customary usage of speech of the
Scriptures, whereby the whole is understood from the part": so that we
are able to take a day and a night as one natural day. And so the first
day is computed from its ending, during which Christ died and was
buried on the Friday; while the second. day is an entire day with
twenty-four hours of night and day; while the night following belongs
to the third day. "For as the primitive days were computed from light
to night on account of man's future fall, so these days are computed
from the darkness to the daylight on account of man's restoration" (De
Trin. iv).
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (De Trin. iv; cf. De Consens.
Evang. iii), Christ rose with the dawn, when light appears in part, and
still some part of the darkness of the night remains. Hence it is said
of the women that "when it was yet dark" they came "to the sepulchre"
(Jn. 20:1). Therefore, in consequence of this darkness, Gregory says
(Hom. xxi) that Christ rose in the middle of the night, not that night
is divided into two equal parts, but during the night itself: for the
expression "early" can be taken as partly night and partly day, from
its fittingness with both.
Reply to Objection 3: The light prevailed so far in Christ's death
(which is denoted by the one day) that it dispelled the darkness of the
two nights, that is, of our twofold death, as stated above.
__________________________________________________________________
OF CHRIST'S DESCENT INTO HELL (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We have now to consider Christ's descent into hell; concerning which
there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it was fitting for Christ to descend into hell?
(2) Into which hell did He descend?
(3) Whether He was entirely in hell?
(4) Whether He made any stay there?
(5) Whether He delivered the Holy Fathers from hell?
(6) Whether He delivered the lost from hell?
(7) Whether He delivered the children who died in original sin?
(8) Whether He delivered men from Purgatory?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it was fitting for Christ to descend into hell?
Objection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting for Christ to
descend into hell, because Augustine says (Ep. ad Evod. cliv. ): "Nor
could I find anywhere in the Scriptures hell mentioned as something
good. " But Christ's soul did not descend into any evil place, for
neither do the souls of the just. Therefore it does not seem fitting
for Christ's soul to descend into hell.
Objection 2: Further, it cannot belong to Christ to descend into hell
according to His Divine Nature, which is altogether immovable; but only
according to His assumed nature. But that which Christ did or suffered
in His assumed nature is ordained for man's salvation: and to secure
this it does not seem necessary for Christ to descend into hell, since
He delivered us from both guilt and penalty by His Passion which He
endured in this world, as stated above ([4278]Q[49], AA[1],3).
Consequently, it was not fitting that Christ should descend into hell.
Objection 3: Further, by Christ's death His soul was separated from His
body, and this was laid in the sepulchre, as stated above
([4279]Q[51]). But it seems that He descended into hell, not according
to His soul only, because seemingly the soul, being incorporeal, cannot
be a subject of local motion; for this belongs to bodies, as is proved
in Phys. vi, text. 32; while descent implies corporeal motion.
Therefore it was not fitting for Christ to descend into hell.
On the contrary, It is said in the Creed: "He descended into hell": and
the Apostle says (Eph. 4:9): "Now that He ascended, what is it, but
because He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? " And
a gloss adds: "that is---into hell. "
I answer that It was fitting for Christ to descend into hell. First of
all, because He came to bear our penalty in order to free us from
penalty, according to Is. 53:4: "Surely He hath borne our infirmities
and carried our sorrows. " But through sin man had incurred not only the
death of the body, but also descent into hell. Consequently since it
was fitting for Christ to die in order to deliver us from death, so it
was fitting for Him to descend into hell in order to deliver us also
from going down into hell. Hence it is written (Osee 13:14): "O death,
I will be thy death; O hell, I will be thy bite. " Secondly, because it
was fitting when the devil was overthrown by the Passion that Christ
should deliver the captives detained in hell, according to Zech. 9:11:
"Thou also by the blood of Thy Testament hast sent forth Thy prisoners
out of the pit. " And it is written (Col. 2:15): "Despoiling the
principalities and powers, He hath exposed them confidently. " Thirdly,
that as He showed forth His power on earth by living and dying, so also
He might manifest it in hell, by visiting it and enlightening it.
Accordingly it is written (Ps. 23:7): "Lift up your gates, O ye
princes," which the gloss thus interprets: "that is---Ye princes of
hell, take away your power, whereby hitherto you held men fast in
hell"; and so "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow," not only
"of them that are in heaven," but likewise "of them that are in hell,"
as is said in Phil. 2:10.
Reply to Objection 1: The name of hell stands for an evil of penalty,
and not for an evil of guilt. Hence it was becoming that Christ should
descend into hell, not as liable to punishment Himself, but to deliver
them who were.
Reply to Objection 2: Christ's Passion was a kind of universal cause of
men's salvation, both of the living and of the dead. But a general
cause is applied to particular effects by means of something special.
Hence, as the power of the Passion is applied to the living through the
sacraments which make us like unto Christ's Passion, so likewise it is
applied to the dead through His descent into hell. On which account it
is written (Zech. 9:11) that "He sent forth prisoners out of the pit,
in the blood of His testament," that is, by the power of His Passion.
Reply to Objection 3: Christ's soul descended into hell not by the same
kind of motion as that whereby bodies are moved, but by that kind
whereby the angels are moved, as was said in the [4280]FP, Q[53], A[1].
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ went down into the hell of the lost?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ went down into the hell of the
lost, because it is said by the mouth of Divine Wisdom (Ecclus.
24:45):
"I will penetrate to all the lower parts of the earth. " But the hell of
the lost is computed among the lower parts of the earth according to
Ps. 62:10: "They shall go into the lower parts of the earth. " Therefore
Christ who is the Wisdom of God, went down even into the hell of the
lost.
Objection 2: Further, Peter says (Acts 2:24) that "God hath raised up
Christ, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that He
should be holden by it. " But there are no sorrows in the hell of the
Fathers, nor in the hell of the children, since they are not punished
with sensible pain on account of any actual sin, but only with the pain
of loss on account of original sin. Therefore Christ went down into the
hell of the lost, or else into Purgatory, where men are tormented with
sensible pain on account of actual sins.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (1 Pet. 3:19) that "Christ coming
in spirit preached to those spirits that were in prison, which had some
time been incredulous": and this is understood of Christ's descent into
hell, as Athanasius says (Ep. ad Epict. ). For he says that "Christ's
body was laid in the sepulchre when He went to preach to those spirits
who were in bondage, as Peter said. " But it is clear the unbelievers
were in the hell of the lost. Therefore Christ went down into the hell
of the lost.
Objection 4: Further, Augustine says (Ep. ad Evod. clxiv): "If the
sacred Scriptures had said that Christ came into Abraham's bosom,
without naming hell or its woes, I wonder whether any person would dare
to assert that He descended into hell. But since evident testimonies
mention hell and its sorrows, there is no reason for believing that
Christ went there except to deliver men from the same woes. " But the
place of woes is the hell of the lost. Therefore Christ descended into
the hell of the lost.
Objection 5: Further, as Augustine says in a sermon upon the
Resurrection: Christ descending into hell "set free all the just who
were held in the bonds of original sin. " But among them was Job, who
says of himself (Job 17:16): "All that I have shall go down into the
deepest pit. " Therefore Christ descended into the deepest pit.
On the contrary, Regarding the hell of the lost it is written (Job
10:21): "Before I go, and return no more, to a land that is dark and
covered with the mist of death. " Now there is no "fellowship of light
with darkness," according to 2 Cor. 6:14. Therefore Christ, who is "the
light," did not descend into the hell of the lost.
I answer that, A thing is said to be in a place in two ways. First of
all, through its effect, and in this way Christ descended into each of
the hells, but in different manner. For going down into the hell of the
lost He wrought this effect, that by descending thither He put them to
shame for their unbelief and wickedness: but to them who were detained
in Purgatory He gave hope of attaining to glory: while upon the holy
Fathers detained in hell solely on account of original sin, He shed the
light of glory everlasting.
In another way a thing is said to be in a place through its essence:
and in this way Christ's soul descended only into that part of hell
wherein the just were detained. so that He visited them "in place,"
according to His soul, whom He visited "interiorly by grace," according
to His Godhead. Accordingly, while remaining in one part of hell, He
wrought this effect in a measure in every part of hell, just as while
suffering in one part of the earth He delivered the whole world by His
Passion.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ, who is the Wisdom of God, penetrated to
all the lower parts of the earth, not passing through them locally with
His soul, but by spreading the effects of His power in a measure to
them all: yet so that He enlightened only the just: because the text
quoted continues: "And I will enlighten all that hope in the Lord. "
Reply to Objection 2: Sorrow is twofold: one is the suffering of pain
which men endure for actual sin, according to Ps. 17:6: "The sorrows of
hell encompassed me. " Another sorrow comes of hoped-for glory being
deferred, according to Prov. 13:12: "Hope that is deferred afflicteth
the soul": and such was the sorrow which the holy Fathers suffered in
hell, and Augustine refers to it in a sermon on the Passion, saying
that "they besought Christ with tearful entreaty. " Now by descending
into hell Christ took away both sorrows, yet in different ways: for He
did away with the sorrows of pains by preserving souls from them, just
as a physician is said to free a man from sickness by warding it off by
means of physic. Likewise He removed the sorrows caused by glory
deferred, by bestowing glory.
Reply to Objection 3: These words of Peter are referred by some to
Christ's descent into hell: and they explain it in this sense: "Christ
preached to them who formerly were unbelievers, and who were shut up in
prison"---that is, in hell---"in spirit"---that is, by His soul. Hence
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "As He evangelized them who are
upon the earth, so did He those who were in hell"; not in order to
convert unbelievers unto belief, but to put them to shame for their
unbelief, since preaching cannot be understood otherwise than as the
open manifesting of His Godhead. which was laid bare before them in the
lower regions by His descending in power into hell.
Augustine, however, furnishes a better exposition of the text in his
Epistle to Evodius quoted above, namely, that the preaching is not to
be referred to Christ's descent into hell, but to the operation of His
Godhead, to which He gave effect from the beginning of the world.
Consequently, the sense is, that "to those (spirits) that were in
prison"---that is, living in the mortal body, which is, as it were, the
soul's prison-house---"by the spirit" of His Godhead "He came and
preached" by internal inspirations, and from without by the admonitions
spoken by the righteous: to those, I say, He preached "which had been
some time incredulous," i. e. not believing in the preaching of Noe,
"when they waited for the patience of God," whereby the chastisement of
the Deluge was put off: accordingly (Peter) adds: "In the days of Noe,
when the Ark was being built. "
Reply to Objection 4: The expression "Abraham's bosom" may be taken in
two senses. First of all, as implying that restfulness, existing there,
from sensible pain; so that in this sense it cannot be called hell, nor
are there any sorrows there. In another way it can be taken as implying
the privation of longed-for glory: in this sense it has the character
of hell and sorrow. Consequently, that rest of the blessed is now
called Abraham's bosom, yet it is not styled hell, nor are sorrows said
to be now in Abraham's bosom.
Reply to Objection 5: As Gregory says (Moral. xiii): "Even the higher
regions of hell he calls the deepest hell . . . For if relatively to
the height of heaven this darksome air is infernal, then relatively to
the height of this same air the earth lying beneath can be considered
as infernal and deep. And again in comparison with the height of the
same earth, those parts of hell which are higher than the other
infernal mansions, may in this way be designated as the deepest hell. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the whole Christ was in hell?
Objection 1: It would seem that the whole Christ was not in hell. For
Christ's body is one of His parts. But His body was not in hell.
Therefore, the whole Christ was not in hell.
Objection 2: Further, nothing can be termed whole when its parts are
severed. But the soul and body, which are the parts of human nature,
were separated at His death, as stated above ([4281]Q[50], AA[3],4),
and it was after death that He descended into hell. Therefore the whole
(Christ) could not be in hell.
Objection 3: Further, the whole of a thing is said to be in a place
when no part of it is outside such place. But there were parts of
Christ outside hell; for instance, His body was in the grave, and His
Godhead everywhere. Therefore the whole Christ was not in hell.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Symbolo iii): "The whole Son is
with the Father, the whole Son in heaven, on earth, in the Virgin's
womb, on the Cross, in hell, in paradise, into which He brought the
robber. "
I answer that, It is evident from what was said in the [4282]FP, Q[31],
A[2], ad 4, the masculine gender is referred to the hypostasis or
person, while the neuter belongs to the nature. Now in the death of
Christ, although the soul was separated from the body, yet neither was
separated from the Person of the Son of God, as stated above (Q[50],
A[2]). Consequently, it must be affirmed that during the three days of
Christ's death the whole Christ was in the tomb, because the whole
Person was there through the body united with Him, and likewise He was
entirely in hell, because the whole Person of Christ was there by
reason of the soul united with Him, and the whole Christ was then
everywhere by reason of the Divine Nature.
Reply to Objection 1: The body which was then in the grave is not a
part of the uncreated Person, but of the assumed nature. Consequently,
the fact of Christ's body not being in hell does not prevent the whole
Christ from being there: but proves that not everything appertaining to
human nature was there.
Reply to Objection 2: The whole human nature is made up of the united
soul and body; not so the Divine Person. Consequently when death
severed the union of the soul with the body, the whole Christ remained,
but His whole human nature did not remain.
Reply to Objection 3: Christ's Person is whole in each single place,
but not wholly, because it is not circumscribed by any place: indeed,
all places put together could not comprise His immensity; rather is it
His immensity that embraces all things. But it happens in those things
which are in a place corporeally and circumscriptively, that if a whole
be in some place, then no part of it is outside that place. But this is
not the case with God. Hence Augustine says (De Symbolo iii): "It is
not according to times or places that we say that the whole Christ is
everywhere, as if He were at one time whole in one place, at another
time whole in another: but as being whole always and everywhere. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ made any stay in hell?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not make any stay in hell.
For Christ went down into hell to deliver men from thence. But He
accomplished this deliverance at once by His descent, for, according to
Ecclus. 11:23: "It is easy in the eyes of God on a sudden to make the
poor man rich. " Consequently He does not seem to have tarried in hell.
Objection 2: Further, Augustine says in a sermon on the Passion (clx)
that "of a sudden at our Lord and Saviour's bidding all 'the bars of
iron were burst'" (Cf. Is. 45:2). Hence on behalf of the angels
accompanying Christ it is written (Ps. 23:7, 9): "Lift up your gates, O
ye princes. " Now Christ descended thither in order to break the bolts
of hell. Therefore He did not make any stay in hell.
Objection 3: Further, it is related (Lk. 23:43) that our Lord while
hanging on the cross said to the thief: "This day thou shalt be with Me
in paradise": from which it is evident that Christ was in paradise on
that very day. But He was not there with His body. for that was in the
grave. Therefore He was there with the soul which had gone down into
hell: and consequently it appears that He made no stay in hell.
On the contrary, Peter says (Acts 2:24): "Whom God hath raised up,
having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that He should
be held by it. " Therefore it seems that He remained in hell until the
hour of the Resurrection.
I answer that, As Christ, in order to take our penalties upon Himself,
willed His body to be laid in the tomb, so likewise He willed His soul
to descend into hell. But the body lay in the tomb for a day and two
nights, so as to demonstrate the truth of His death. Consequently, it
is to be believed that His soul was in hell, in order that it might be
brought back out of hell simultaneously with His body from the tomb.
Reply to Objection 1: When Christ descended into hell He delivered the
saints who were there, not by leading them out at once from the
confines of hell, but by enlightening them with the light of glory in
hell itself. Nevertheless it was fitting that His soul should abide in
hell as long as His body remained in the tomb.
Reply to Objection 2: By the expression "bars of hell" are understood
the obstacles which kept the holy Fathers from quitting hell, through
the guilt of our first parent's sin; and these bars Christ burst
asunder by the power of His Passion on descending into hell:
nevertheless He chose to remain in hell for some time, for the reason
stated above.
Reply to Objection 3: Our Lord's expression is not to be understood of
the earthly corporeal paradise, but of a spiritual one, in which all
are said to be who enjoy the Divine glory. Accordingly, the thief
descended locally into hell with Christ, because it was said to him:
"This day thou shalt be with Me in paradise"; still as to reward he was
in paradise, because he enjoyed Christ's Godhead just as the other
saints did.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ descending into hell delivered the holy Fathers from thence?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ descending into hell did not
deliver the holy Fathers from thence. For Augustine (Epist. ad Evod.
clxiv) says: "I have not yet discovered what Christ descending into
hell bestowed upon those righteous ones who were in Abraham's bosom,
from whom I fail to see that He ever departed according to the beatific
presence of His Godhead. " But had He delivered them, He would have
bestowed much upon them. Therefore it does not appear that Christ
delivered the holy Fathers from hell.
Objection 2: Further, no one is detained in hell except on account of
sin. But during life the holy Fathers were justified from sin through
faith in Christ. Consequently they did not need to be delivered from
hell on Christ's descent thither.
Objection 3: Further, if you remove the cause, you remove the effect.
But that Christ went down into hell was due to sin which was taken away
by the Passion, as stated above ([4283]Q[49], A[1]). Consequently, the
holy Fathers were not delivered on Christ's descent into hell.
On the contrary, Augustine says in the sermon on the Passion already
quoted that when Christ descended into hell "He broke down the gate and
'iron bars' of hell, setting at liberty all the righteous who were held
fast through original sin. "
I answer that, As stated above (A[4], ad 2), when Christ descended into
hell He worked through the power of His Passion. But through Christ's
Passion the human race was delivered not only from sin, but also from
the debt of its penalty, as stated above (Q[49], AA[1],3). Now men were
held fast by the debt of punishment in two ways: first of all for
actual sin which each had committed personally: secondly, for the sin
of the whole human race, which each one in his origin contracts from
our first parent, as stated in Rom. 5 of which sin the penalty is the
death of the body as well as exclusion from glory, as is evident from
Gn. 2 and 3: because God cast out man from paradise after sin, having
beforehand threatened him with death should he sin. Consequently, when
Christ descended into hell, by the power of His Passion He delivered
the saints from the penalty whereby they were excluded from the life of
glory, so as to be unable to see God in His Essence, wherein man's
beatitude lies, as stated in the [4284]FS, Q[3], A[8]. But the holy
Fathers were detained in hell for the reason, that, owing to our first
parent's sin, the approach to the life of glory was not opened. And so
when Christ descended into hell He delivered the holy Fathers from
thence. And this is what is written Zech. 9:11: "Thou also by the blood
of Thy testament hast sent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein
is no water. " And (Col. 2:15) it is written that "despoiling the
principalities and powers," i. e. "of hell, by taking out Isaac and
Jacob, and the other just souls," "He led them," i. e. "He brought them
far from this kingdom of darkness into heaven," as the gloss explains.
Reply to Objection 1: Augustine is speaking there against such as
maintained that the righteous of old were subject to penal sufferings
before Christ's descent into hell. Hence shortly before the passage
quoted he says: "Some add that this benefit was also bestowed upon the
saints of old, that on the Lord's coming into hell they were freed from
their sufferings. But I fail to see how Abraham, into whose bosom the
poor man was received, was ever in such sufferings. " Consequently, when
he afterwards adds that "he had not yet discovered what Christ's
descent into hell had brought to the righteous of old," this must be
understood as to their being freed from penal sufferings. Yet Christ
bestowed something upon them as to their attaining glory: and in
consequence He dispelled the suffering which they endured through their
glory being delayed: still they had great joy from the very hope
thereof, according to Jn. 8:56: "Abraham your father rejoiced that he
might see my day. " And therefore he adds: "I fail to see that He ever
departed, according to the beatific presence of His Godhead," that is,
inasmuch as even before Christ's coming they were happy in hope,
although not yet fully happy in fact.
Reply to Objection 2: The holy Fathers while yet living were delivered
from original as well as actual sin through faith in Christ; also from
the penalty of actual sins, but not from the penalty of original sin,
whereby they were excluded from glory, since the price of man's
redemption was not yet paid: just as the faithful are now delivered by
baptism from the penalty of actual sins, and from the penalty of
original sin as to exclusion from glory, yet still remain bound by the
penalty of original sin as to the necessity of dying in the body
because they are renewed in the spirit, but not yet in the flesh,
according to Rom. 8:10: "The body indeed is dead, because of sin; but
the spirit liveth, because of justification. "
Reply to Objection 3: Directly Christ died His soul went down into
hell, and bestowed the fruits of His Passion on the saints detained
there; although they did not go out as long as Christ remained in hell,
because His presence was part of the fulness of their glory.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ delivered any of the lost from hell?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did deliver some of the lost
from hell, because it is written (Is. 24:22): "And they shall be
gathered together as in the gathering of one bundle into the pit, end
they shall be shut up there in prison: and after many days they shall
be visited. " But there he is speaking of the lost, who "had adored the
host of heaven," according to Jerome's commentary. Consequently it
seems that even the lost were visited at Christ's descent into hell;
and this seems to imply their deliverance.
Objection 2: Further, on Zech. 9:11: "Thou also by the blood of Thy
testament hast sent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no
water," the gloss observes: "Thou hast delivered them who were held
bound in prisons, where no mercy refreshed them, which that rich man
prayed for. " But only the lost are shut up in merciless prisons.
Therefore Christ did deliver some from the hell of the lost.
Objection 3: Further, Christ's power was not less in hell than in this
world, because He worked in every place by the power of His Godhead.
But in this world He delivered some persons of every state. Therefore,
in hell also, He delivered some from the state of the lost.
On the contrary, It is written (Osee 13:14): "O death, I will be thy
death; O hell, I will be thy bite": upon which the gloss says: "By
leading forth the elect, and leaving there the reprobate. " But only the
reprobate are in the hell of the lost. Therefore, by Christ's descent
into hell none were delivered from the hell of the lost.
I answer that, As stated above [4285](A[5]), when Christ descended into
hell He worked by the power of His Passion. Consequently, His descent
into hell brought the fruits of deliverance to them only who were
united to His Passion through faith quickened by charity, whereby sins
are taken away. Now those detained in the hell of the lost either had
no faith in Christ's Passion, as infidels; or if they had faith, they
had no conformity with the charity of the suffering Christ: hence they
could not be cleansed from their sins. And on this account Christ's
descent into hell brought them no deliverance from the debt of
punishment in hell.
Reply to Objection 1: When Christ descended into hell, all who were in
any part of hell were visited in some respect: some to their
consolation and deliverance, others, namely, the lost, to their shame
and confusion. Accordingly the passage continues: "And the moon shall
blush, and the sun be put to shame," etc.
This can also be referred to the visitation which will come upon them
in the Day of Judgment, not for their deliverance, but for their yet
greater confusion, according to Sophon. i, 12: "I will visit upon the
men that are settled on their lees. "
Reply to Objection 2: When the gloss says "where no mercy refreshed
them," this is to be understood of the refreshing of full deliverance,
because the holy Fathers could not be delivered from this prison of
hell before Christ's coming.
Reply to Objection 3: It was not due to any lack of power on Christ's
part that some were not delivered from every state in hell, as out of
every state among men in this world; but it was owing to the very
different condition of each state. For, so long as men live here below,
they can be converted to faith and charity, because in this life men
are not confirmed either in good or in evil, as they are after quitting
this life.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the children who died in original sin were delivered by Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that the children who died in original sin
were delivered from hell by Christ's descending thither. For, like the
holy Fathers, the children were kept in hell simply because of original
sin. But the holy Fathers were delivered from hell, as stated above
[4286](A[5]). Therefore the children were similarly delivered from hell
by Christ.
Objection 2: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 5:15): "If by the offense
of one, many died; much more the grace of God and the gift, by the
grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. " But the
children who die with none but original sin are detained in hell owing
to their first parent's sin. Therefore, much more were they delivered
from hell through the grace of Christ.
Objection 3: Further, as Baptism works in virtue of Christ's Passion,
so also does Christ's descent into hell, as is clear from what has been
said (A[4], ad 2, AA[5],6). But through Baptism children are delivered
from original sin and hell. Therefore, they were similarly delivered by
Christ's descent into hell.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rom. 3:25): "God hath proposed
Christ to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood. " But the
children who had died with only original sin were in no wise sharers of
faith in Christ. Therefore, they did not receive the fruits of Christ's
propitiation, so as to be delivered by Him from hell.
I answer that, As stated above [4287](A[6]), Christ's descent into hell
had its effect of deliverance on them only who through faith and
charity were united to Christ's Passion, in virtue whereof Christ's
descent into hell was one of deliverance. But the children who had died
in original sin were in no way united to Christ's Passion by faith and
love: for, not having the use of free will, they could have no faith of
their own; nor were they cleansed from original sin either by their
parents' faith or by any sacrament of faith. Consequently, Christ's
descent into hell did not deliver the children from thence. And
furthermore, the holy Fathers were delivered from hell by being
admitted to the glory of the vision of God, to which no one can come
except through grace; according to Rom. 6:23: "The grace of God is life
everlasting. " Therefore, since children dying in original sin had no
grace, they were not delivered from hell.
Reply to Objection 1: The holy Fathers, although still held bound by
the debt of original sin, in so far as it touches human nature, were
nevertheless delivered from all stain of sin by faith in Christ:
consequently, they were capable of that deliverance which Christ
brought by descending into hell. But the same cannot be said of the
children, as is evident from what was said above.
Reply to Objection 2: When the Apostle says that the grace of God "hath
abounded unto many," the word "many" [*The Vulgate reads 'plures,' i. e.
into death. "
Reply to Objection 1: Though buried, Christ proved Himself "free among
the dead": since, although imprisoned in the tomb, He could not be
hindered from going forth by rising again.
Reply to Objection 2: As Christ's death wrought our salvation, so
likewise did His burial. Hence Jerome says (Super Marc. xiv): "By
Christ's burial we rise again"; and on Is. 53:9: "He shall give the
ungodly for His burial," a gloss says: "He shall give to God and the
Father the Gentiles who were without godliness, because He purchased
them by His death and burial. "
Reply to Objection 3: As is said in a discourse made at the Council of
Ephesus [*P. iii, cap. 9], "Nothing that saves man is derogatory to
God; showing Him to be not passible, but merciful": and in another
discourse of the same Council [*P. iii, cap. 10]: "God does not repute
anything as an injury which is an occasion of men's salvation. Thus
thou shalt not deem God's Nature to be so vile, as though It may
sometimes be subjected to injuries. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ was buried in a becoming manner?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was buried in an unbecoming
manner. For His burial should be in keeping with His death. But Christ
underwent a most shameful death, according to Wis. 2:20: "Let us
condemn Him to a most shameful death. " It seems therefore unbecoming
for honorable burial to be accorded to Christ, inasmuch as He was
buried by men of position---namely, by Joseph of Arimathea, who was "a
noble counselor," to use Mark's expression (Mk. 15:43), and by
Nicodemus, who was "a ruler of the Jews," as John states (Jn. 3:1).
Objection 2: Further, nothing should be done to Christ which might set
an example of wastefulness. But it seems to savor of waste that in
order to bury Christ Nicodemus came "bringing a mixture of myrrh and
aloes about a hundred pounds weight," as recorded by John (19:39),
especially since a woman came beforehand to anoint His body for the
burial, as Mark relates (Mk. 14:28). Consequently, this was not done
becomingly with regard to Christ.
Objection 3: Further, it is not becoming for anything done to be
inconsistent with itself. But Christ's burial on the one hand was
simple, because "Joseph wrapped His body in a clean linen cloth," as is
related by Matthew (27:59), "but not with gold or gems, or silk," as
Jerome observes: yet on the other hand there appears to have been some
display, inasmuch as they buried Him with fragrant spices (Jn. 19:40).
Consequently, the manner of Christ's burial does not seem to have been
seemly.
Objection 4: Further, "What things soever were written," especially of
Christ, "were written for our learning," according to Rom. 15:4. But
some of the things written in the Gospels touching Christ's burial in
no wise seem to pertain to our instruction---as that He was buried "in
a garden . . . "in a tomb which was not His own, which was "new," and
"hewed out in a rock. " Therefore the manner of Christ's burial was not
becoming.
On the contrary, It is written (Is. 11:10): "And His sepulchre shall be
glorious. "
I answer that, The manner of Christ's burial is shown to be seemly in
three respects. First, to confirm faith in His death and resurrection.
Secondly, to commend the devotion of those who gave Him burial. Hence
Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i): "The Gospel mentions as praiseworthy
the deed of those who received His body from the cross, and with due
care and reverence wrapped it up and buried it. " Thirdly, as to the
mystery whereby those are molded who "are buried together with Christ
into death" (Rom. 6:4).
Reply to Objection 1: With regard to Christ's death, His patience and
constancy in enduring death are commended, and all the more that His
death was the more despicable: but in His honorable burial we can see
the power of the dying Man, who, even in death, frustrated the intent
of His murderers, and was buried with honor: and thereby is
foreshadowed the devotion of the faithful who in the time to come were
to serve the dead Christ.
Reply to Objection 2: On that expression of the Evangelist (Jn. 19:40)
that they buried Him "as the manner of the Jews is to bury," Augustine
says (Tract. in Joan. cxx): "He admonishes us that in offices of this
kind which are rendered to the dead, the custom of each nation should
be observed. " Now it was the custom of this people to anoint bodies
with various spices in order the longer to preserve them from
corruption [*Cf. Catena Aurea in Joan. xix]. Accordingly it is said in
De Doctr. Christ. iii that "in all such things, it is not the use
thereof, but the luxury of the user that is at fault"; and, farther on:
"what in other persons is frequently criminal, in a divine or prophetic
person is a sign of something great. " For myrrh and aloes by their
bitterness denote penance, by which man keeps Christ within himself
without the corruption of sin; while the odor of the ointments
expresses good report.
Reply to Objection 3: Myrrh and aloes were used on Christ's body in
order that it might be preserved from corruption, and this seemed to
imply a certain need (in the body): hence the example is set us that we
may lawfully use precious things medicinally, from the need of
preserving our body. But the wrapping up of the body was merely a
question of becoming propriety. And we ought to content ourselves with
simplicity in such things. Yet, as Jerome observes, by this act was
denoted that "he swathes Jesus in clean linen, who receives Him with a
pure soul. " Hence, as Bede says on Mark 15:46: "The Church's custom has
prevailed for the sacrifice of the altar to be offered not upon silk,
nor upon dyed cloth, but on linen of the earth; as the Lord's body was
buried in a clean winding-sheet. "
Reply to Objection 4: Christ was buried "in a garden" to express that
by His death and burial we are delivered from the death which we incur
through Adam's sin committed in the garden of paradise. But for this
"was our Lord buried in the grave of a stranger," as Augustine says in
a sermon (ccxlviii), "because He died for the salvation of others; and
a sepulchre is the abode of death. " Also the extent of the poverty
endured for us can be thereby estimated: since He who while living had
no home, after death was laid to rest in another's tomb, and being
naked was clothed by Joseph. But He is laid in a "new" sepulchre, as
Jerome observes on Mat. 27:60, "lest after the resurrection it might be
pretended that someone else had risen, while the other corpses
remained. The new sepulchre can also denote Mary's virginal womb. " And
furthermore it may be understood that all of us are renewed by Christ's
burial; death and corruption being destroyed. Moreover, He was buried
in a monument "hewn out of a rock," as Jerome says on Mat. 27:64,
"lest, if it had been constructed of many stones, they might say that
He was stolen away by digging away the foundations of the tomb. " Hence
the "great stone" which was set shows that "the tomb could not be
opened except by the help of many hands. Again, if He had been buried
in the earth, they might have said: They dug up the soil and stole Him
away," as Augustine observes [*Cf. Catena Aurea]. Hilary (Comment. in
Matth. cap. xxxiii) gives the mystical interpretation, saying that "by
the teaching of the apostles, Christ is borne into the stony heart of
the gentile; for it is hewn out by the process of teaching, unpolished
and new, untenanted and open to the entrance of the fear of God. And
since naught besides Him must enter into our hearts, a great stone is
rolled against the door. " Furthermore, as Origen says (Tract. xxxv in
Matth. ): "It was not written by hazard: 'Joseph wrapped Christ's body
in a clean winding-sheet, and placed it in a new monument,'" and that
"'he rolled a great stone,' because all things around the body of Jesus
are clean, and new, and exceeding great. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's body was reduced to dust in the tomb?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's body was reduced to dust in
the tomb. For just as man dies in punishment of his first parent's sin,
so also does he return to dust, since it was said to the first man
after his sin: "Dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return" (Gn.
3:19). But Christ endured death in order to deliver us from death.
Therefore His body ought to be made to return to dust, so as to free us
from the same penalty.
Objection 2: Further, Christ's body was of the same nature as ours. But
directly after death our bodies begin to dissolve into dust, and are
disposed towards putrefaction, because when the natural heat departs,
there supervenes heat from without which causes corruption. Therefore
it seems that the same thing happened to Christ's body.
Objection 3: Further, as stated above [4274](A[1]), Christ willed to be
buried in order to furnish men with the hope of rising likewise from
the grave. Consequently, He sought likewise to return to dust so as to
give to them who have returned to dust the hope of rising from the
dust.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 15:10): "Nor wilt Thou suffer Thy
holy one to see corruption": and Damascene (De Fide Orth. iii) expounds
this of the corruption which comes of dissolving into elements.
I answer that, It was not fitting for Christ's body to putrefy, or in
any way be reduced to dust, since the putrefaction of any body comes of
that body's infirmity of nature, which can no longer hold the body
together. But as was said above ([4275]Q[50], A[1], ad 2), Christ's
death ought not to come from weakness of nature, lest it might not be
believed to be voluntary: and therefore He willed to die, not from
sickness, but from suffering inflicted on Him, to which He gave Himself
up willingly. And therefore, lest His death might be ascribed to
infirmity of nature, Christ did not wish His body to putrefy in any way
or dissolve no matter how; but for the manifestation of His Divine
power He willed that His body should continue incorrupt. Hence
Chrysostom says (Cont. Jud. et Gent. quod 'Christus sit Deus') that
"with other men, especially with such as have wrought strenuously,
their deeds shine forth in their lifetime; but as soon as they die,
their deeds go with them. But it is quite the contrary with Christ:
because previous to the cross all is sadness and weakness, but as soon
as He is crucified, everything comes to light, in order that you may
learn it was not an ordinary man that was crucified. "
Reply to Objection 1: Since Christ was not subject to sin, neither was
He prone to die or to return to dust. Yet of His own will He endured
death for our salvation, for the reasons alleged above ([4276]Q[51],
A[1]). But had His body putrefied or dissolved, this fact would have
been detrimental to man's salvation, for it would not have seemed
credible that the Divine power was in Him. Hence it is on His behalf
that it is written (Ps. 19:10): "What profit is there in my blood,
whilst I go down to corruption? " as if He were to say: "If My body
corrupt, the profit of the blood shed will be lost. "
Reply to Objection 2: Christ's body was a subject of corruption
according to the condition of its passible nature, but not as to the
deserving cause of putrefaction, which is sin: but the Divine power
preserved Christ's body from putrefying, just as it raised it up from
death.
Reply to Objection 3: Christ rose from the tomb by Divine power, which
is not narrowed within bounds. Consequently, His rising from the grave
was a sufficient argument to prove that men are to be raised up by
Divine power, not only from their graves, but also from any dust
whatever.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ was in the tomb only one day and two nights?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was not in the tomb during only
one day and two nights; because He said (Mat. 12:40): "As Jonas was in
the whale's belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man
be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. " But He was
in the heart of the earth while He was in the grave. Therefore He was
not in the tomb for only one day and two nights.
Objection 2: Gregory says in a Paschal Homily (Hom. xxi): "As Samson
carried off the gates of Gaza during the night, even so Christ rose in
the night, taking away the gates of hell. " But after rising He was not
in the tomb. Therefore He was not two whole nights in the grave.
Objection 3: Further, light prevailed over darkness by Christ's death.
But night belongs to darkness, and day to light. Therefore it was more
fitting for Christ's body to be in the tomb for two days and a night,
rather than conversely.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. iv): "There were thirty-six
hours from the evening of His burial to the dawn of the resurrection,
that is, a whole night with a whole day, and a whole night. "
I answer that, The very time during which Christ remained in the tomb
shows forth the effect of His death. For it was said above
([4277]Q[50], A[6]) that by Christ's death we were delivered from a
twofold death, namely, from the death of the soul and of the body: and
this is signified by the two nights during which He remained in the
tomb. But since His death did not come of sin, but was endured from
charity, it has not the semblance of night, but of day: consequently it
is denoted by the whole day during which Christ was in the sepulchre.
And so it was fitting for Christ to be in the sepulchre during one day
and two nights.
Reply to Objection 1: Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii): "Some
men, ignorant of Scriptural language, wished to compute as night those
three hours, from the sixth to the ninth hour, during which the sun was
darkened, and as day those other three hours during which it was
restored to the earth, that is, from the ninth hour until its setting:
for the coming night of the Sabbath follows, and if this be reckoned
with its day, there will be already two nights and two days. Now after
the Sabbath there follows the night of the first day of the Sabbath,
that is, of the dawning Sunday, on which the Lord rose. Even so, the
reckoning of the three days and three nights will not stand. It remains
then to find the solution in the customary usage of speech of the
Scriptures, whereby the whole is understood from the part": so that we
are able to take a day and a night as one natural day. And so the first
day is computed from its ending, during which Christ died and was
buried on the Friday; while the second. day is an entire day with
twenty-four hours of night and day; while the night following belongs
to the third day. "For as the primitive days were computed from light
to night on account of man's future fall, so these days are computed
from the darkness to the daylight on account of man's restoration" (De
Trin. iv).
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (De Trin. iv; cf. De Consens.
Evang. iii), Christ rose with the dawn, when light appears in part, and
still some part of the darkness of the night remains. Hence it is said
of the women that "when it was yet dark" they came "to the sepulchre"
(Jn. 20:1). Therefore, in consequence of this darkness, Gregory says
(Hom. xxi) that Christ rose in the middle of the night, not that night
is divided into two equal parts, but during the night itself: for the
expression "early" can be taken as partly night and partly day, from
its fittingness with both.
Reply to Objection 3: The light prevailed so far in Christ's death
(which is denoted by the one day) that it dispelled the darkness of the
two nights, that is, of our twofold death, as stated above.
__________________________________________________________________
OF CHRIST'S DESCENT INTO HELL (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We have now to consider Christ's descent into hell; concerning which
there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it was fitting for Christ to descend into hell?
(2) Into which hell did He descend?
(3) Whether He was entirely in hell?
(4) Whether He made any stay there?
(5) Whether He delivered the Holy Fathers from hell?
(6) Whether He delivered the lost from hell?
(7) Whether He delivered the children who died in original sin?
(8) Whether He delivered men from Purgatory?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it was fitting for Christ to descend into hell?
Objection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting for Christ to
descend into hell, because Augustine says (Ep. ad Evod. cliv. ): "Nor
could I find anywhere in the Scriptures hell mentioned as something
good. " But Christ's soul did not descend into any evil place, for
neither do the souls of the just. Therefore it does not seem fitting
for Christ's soul to descend into hell.
Objection 2: Further, it cannot belong to Christ to descend into hell
according to His Divine Nature, which is altogether immovable; but only
according to His assumed nature. But that which Christ did or suffered
in His assumed nature is ordained for man's salvation: and to secure
this it does not seem necessary for Christ to descend into hell, since
He delivered us from both guilt and penalty by His Passion which He
endured in this world, as stated above ([4278]Q[49], AA[1],3).
Consequently, it was not fitting that Christ should descend into hell.
Objection 3: Further, by Christ's death His soul was separated from His
body, and this was laid in the sepulchre, as stated above
([4279]Q[51]). But it seems that He descended into hell, not according
to His soul only, because seemingly the soul, being incorporeal, cannot
be a subject of local motion; for this belongs to bodies, as is proved
in Phys. vi, text. 32; while descent implies corporeal motion.
Therefore it was not fitting for Christ to descend into hell.
On the contrary, It is said in the Creed: "He descended into hell": and
the Apostle says (Eph. 4:9): "Now that He ascended, what is it, but
because He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? " And
a gloss adds: "that is---into hell. "
I answer that It was fitting for Christ to descend into hell. First of
all, because He came to bear our penalty in order to free us from
penalty, according to Is. 53:4: "Surely He hath borne our infirmities
and carried our sorrows. " But through sin man had incurred not only the
death of the body, but also descent into hell. Consequently since it
was fitting for Christ to die in order to deliver us from death, so it
was fitting for Him to descend into hell in order to deliver us also
from going down into hell. Hence it is written (Osee 13:14): "O death,
I will be thy death; O hell, I will be thy bite. " Secondly, because it
was fitting when the devil was overthrown by the Passion that Christ
should deliver the captives detained in hell, according to Zech. 9:11:
"Thou also by the blood of Thy Testament hast sent forth Thy prisoners
out of the pit. " And it is written (Col. 2:15): "Despoiling the
principalities and powers, He hath exposed them confidently. " Thirdly,
that as He showed forth His power on earth by living and dying, so also
He might manifest it in hell, by visiting it and enlightening it.
Accordingly it is written (Ps. 23:7): "Lift up your gates, O ye
princes," which the gloss thus interprets: "that is---Ye princes of
hell, take away your power, whereby hitherto you held men fast in
hell"; and so "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow," not only
"of them that are in heaven," but likewise "of them that are in hell,"
as is said in Phil. 2:10.
Reply to Objection 1: The name of hell stands for an evil of penalty,
and not for an evil of guilt. Hence it was becoming that Christ should
descend into hell, not as liable to punishment Himself, but to deliver
them who were.
Reply to Objection 2: Christ's Passion was a kind of universal cause of
men's salvation, both of the living and of the dead. But a general
cause is applied to particular effects by means of something special.
Hence, as the power of the Passion is applied to the living through the
sacraments which make us like unto Christ's Passion, so likewise it is
applied to the dead through His descent into hell. On which account it
is written (Zech. 9:11) that "He sent forth prisoners out of the pit,
in the blood of His testament," that is, by the power of His Passion.
Reply to Objection 3: Christ's soul descended into hell not by the same
kind of motion as that whereby bodies are moved, but by that kind
whereby the angels are moved, as was said in the [4280]FP, Q[53], A[1].
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ went down into the hell of the lost?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ went down into the hell of the
lost, because it is said by the mouth of Divine Wisdom (Ecclus.
24:45):
"I will penetrate to all the lower parts of the earth. " But the hell of
the lost is computed among the lower parts of the earth according to
Ps. 62:10: "They shall go into the lower parts of the earth. " Therefore
Christ who is the Wisdom of God, went down even into the hell of the
lost.
Objection 2: Further, Peter says (Acts 2:24) that "God hath raised up
Christ, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that He
should be holden by it. " But there are no sorrows in the hell of the
Fathers, nor in the hell of the children, since they are not punished
with sensible pain on account of any actual sin, but only with the pain
of loss on account of original sin. Therefore Christ went down into the
hell of the lost, or else into Purgatory, where men are tormented with
sensible pain on account of actual sins.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (1 Pet. 3:19) that "Christ coming
in spirit preached to those spirits that were in prison, which had some
time been incredulous": and this is understood of Christ's descent into
hell, as Athanasius says (Ep. ad Epict. ). For he says that "Christ's
body was laid in the sepulchre when He went to preach to those spirits
who were in bondage, as Peter said. " But it is clear the unbelievers
were in the hell of the lost. Therefore Christ went down into the hell
of the lost.
Objection 4: Further, Augustine says (Ep. ad Evod. clxiv): "If the
sacred Scriptures had said that Christ came into Abraham's bosom,
without naming hell or its woes, I wonder whether any person would dare
to assert that He descended into hell. But since evident testimonies
mention hell and its sorrows, there is no reason for believing that
Christ went there except to deliver men from the same woes. " But the
place of woes is the hell of the lost. Therefore Christ descended into
the hell of the lost.
Objection 5: Further, as Augustine says in a sermon upon the
Resurrection: Christ descending into hell "set free all the just who
were held in the bonds of original sin. " But among them was Job, who
says of himself (Job 17:16): "All that I have shall go down into the
deepest pit. " Therefore Christ descended into the deepest pit.
On the contrary, Regarding the hell of the lost it is written (Job
10:21): "Before I go, and return no more, to a land that is dark and
covered with the mist of death. " Now there is no "fellowship of light
with darkness," according to 2 Cor. 6:14. Therefore Christ, who is "the
light," did not descend into the hell of the lost.
I answer that, A thing is said to be in a place in two ways. First of
all, through its effect, and in this way Christ descended into each of
the hells, but in different manner. For going down into the hell of the
lost He wrought this effect, that by descending thither He put them to
shame for their unbelief and wickedness: but to them who were detained
in Purgatory He gave hope of attaining to glory: while upon the holy
Fathers detained in hell solely on account of original sin, He shed the
light of glory everlasting.
In another way a thing is said to be in a place through its essence:
and in this way Christ's soul descended only into that part of hell
wherein the just were detained. so that He visited them "in place,"
according to His soul, whom He visited "interiorly by grace," according
to His Godhead. Accordingly, while remaining in one part of hell, He
wrought this effect in a measure in every part of hell, just as while
suffering in one part of the earth He delivered the whole world by His
Passion.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ, who is the Wisdom of God, penetrated to
all the lower parts of the earth, not passing through them locally with
His soul, but by spreading the effects of His power in a measure to
them all: yet so that He enlightened only the just: because the text
quoted continues: "And I will enlighten all that hope in the Lord. "
Reply to Objection 2: Sorrow is twofold: one is the suffering of pain
which men endure for actual sin, according to Ps. 17:6: "The sorrows of
hell encompassed me. " Another sorrow comes of hoped-for glory being
deferred, according to Prov. 13:12: "Hope that is deferred afflicteth
the soul": and such was the sorrow which the holy Fathers suffered in
hell, and Augustine refers to it in a sermon on the Passion, saying
that "they besought Christ with tearful entreaty. " Now by descending
into hell Christ took away both sorrows, yet in different ways: for He
did away with the sorrows of pains by preserving souls from them, just
as a physician is said to free a man from sickness by warding it off by
means of physic. Likewise He removed the sorrows caused by glory
deferred, by bestowing glory.
Reply to Objection 3: These words of Peter are referred by some to
Christ's descent into hell: and they explain it in this sense: "Christ
preached to them who formerly were unbelievers, and who were shut up in
prison"---that is, in hell---"in spirit"---that is, by His soul. Hence
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "As He evangelized them who are
upon the earth, so did He those who were in hell"; not in order to
convert unbelievers unto belief, but to put them to shame for their
unbelief, since preaching cannot be understood otherwise than as the
open manifesting of His Godhead. which was laid bare before them in the
lower regions by His descending in power into hell.
Augustine, however, furnishes a better exposition of the text in his
Epistle to Evodius quoted above, namely, that the preaching is not to
be referred to Christ's descent into hell, but to the operation of His
Godhead, to which He gave effect from the beginning of the world.
Consequently, the sense is, that "to those (spirits) that were in
prison"---that is, living in the mortal body, which is, as it were, the
soul's prison-house---"by the spirit" of His Godhead "He came and
preached" by internal inspirations, and from without by the admonitions
spoken by the righteous: to those, I say, He preached "which had been
some time incredulous," i. e. not believing in the preaching of Noe,
"when they waited for the patience of God," whereby the chastisement of
the Deluge was put off: accordingly (Peter) adds: "In the days of Noe,
when the Ark was being built. "
Reply to Objection 4: The expression "Abraham's bosom" may be taken in
two senses. First of all, as implying that restfulness, existing there,
from sensible pain; so that in this sense it cannot be called hell, nor
are there any sorrows there. In another way it can be taken as implying
the privation of longed-for glory: in this sense it has the character
of hell and sorrow. Consequently, that rest of the blessed is now
called Abraham's bosom, yet it is not styled hell, nor are sorrows said
to be now in Abraham's bosom.
Reply to Objection 5: As Gregory says (Moral. xiii): "Even the higher
regions of hell he calls the deepest hell . . . For if relatively to
the height of heaven this darksome air is infernal, then relatively to
the height of this same air the earth lying beneath can be considered
as infernal and deep. And again in comparison with the height of the
same earth, those parts of hell which are higher than the other
infernal mansions, may in this way be designated as the deepest hell. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the whole Christ was in hell?
Objection 1: It would seem that the whole Christ was not in hell. For
Christ's body is one of His parts. But His body was not in hell.
Therefore, the whole Christ was not in hell.
Objection 2: Further, nothing can be termed whole when its parts are
severed. But the soul and body, which are the parts of human nature,
were separated at His death, as stated above ([4281]Q[50], AA[3],4),
and it was after death that He descended into hell. Therefore the whole
(Christ) could not be in hell.
Objection 3: Further, the whole of a thing is said to be in a place
when no part of it is outside such place. But there were parts of
Christ outside hell; for instance, His body was in the grave, and His
Godhead everywhere. Therefore the whole Christ was not in hell.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Symbolo iii): "The whole Son is
with the Father, the whole Son in heaven, on earth, in the Virgin's
womb, on the Cross, in hell, in paradise, into which He brought the
robber. "
I answer that, It is evident from what was said in the [4282]FP, Q[31],
A[2], ad 4, the masculine gender is referred to the hypostasis or
person, while the neuter belongs to the nature. Now in the death of
Christ, although the soul was separated from the body, yet neither was
separated from the Person of the Son of God, as stated above (Q[50],
A[2]). Consequently, it must be affirmed that during the three days of
Christ's death the whole Christ was in the tomb, because the whole
Person was there through the body united with Him, and likewise He was
entirely in hell, because the whole Person of Christ was there by
reason of the soul united with Him, and the whole Christ was then
everywhere by reason of the Divine Nature.
Reply to Objection 1: The body which was then in the grave is not a
part of the uncreated Person, but of the assumed nature. Consequently,
the fact of Christ's body not being in hell does not prevent the whole
Christ from being there: but proves that not everything appertaining to
human nature was there.
Reply to Objection 2: The whole human nature is made up of the united
soul and body; not so the Divine Person. Consequently when death
severed the union of the soul with the body, the whole Christ remained,
but His whole human nature did not remain.
Reply to Objection 3: Christ's Person is whole in each single place,
but not wholly, because it is not circumscribed by any place: indeed,
all places put together could not comprise His immensity; rather is it
His immensity that embraces all things. But it happens in those things
which are in a place corporeally and circumscriptively, that if a whole
be in some place, then no part of it is outside that place. But this is
not the case with God. Hence Augustine says (De Symbolo iii): "It is
not according to times or places that we say that the whole Christ is
everywhere, as if He were at one time whole in one place, at another
time whole in another: but as being whole always and everywhere. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ made any stay in hell?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not make any stay in hell.
For Christ went down into hell to deliver men from thence. But He
accomplished this deliverance at once by His descent, for, according to
Ecclus. 11:23: "It is easy in the eyes of God on a sudden to make the
poor man rich. " Consequently He does not seem to have tarried in hell.
Objection 2: Further, Augustine says in a sermon on the Passion (clx)
that "of a sudden at our Lord and Saviour's bidding all 'the bars of
iron were burst'" (Cf. Is. 45:2). Hence on behalf of the angels
accompanying Christ it is written (Ps. 23:7, 9): "Lift up your gates, O
ye princes. " Now Christ descended thither in order to break the bolts
of hell. Therefore He did not make any stay in hell.
Objection 3: Further, it is related (Lk. 23:43) that our Lord while
hanging on the cross said to the thief: "This day thou shalt be with Me
in paradise": from which it is evident that Christ was in paradise on
that very day. But He was not there with His body. for that was in the
grave. Therefore He was there with the soul which had gone down into
hell: and consequently it appears that He made no stay in hell.
On the contrary, Peter says (Acts 2:24): "Whom God hath raised up,
having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that He should
be held by it. " Therefore it seems that He remained in hell until the
hour of the Resurrection.
I answer that, As Christ, in order to take our penalties upon Himself,
willed His body to be laid in the tomb, so likewise He willed His soul
to descend into hell. But the body lay in the tomb for a day and two
nights, so as to demonstrate the truth of His death. Consequently, it
is to be believed that His soul was in hell, in order that it might be
brought back out of hell simultaneously with His body from the tomb.
Reply to Objection 1: When Christ descended into hell He delivered the
saints who were there, not by leading them out at once from the
confines of hell, but by enlightening them with the light of glory in
hell itself. Nevertheless it was fitting that His soul should abide in
hell as long as His body remained in the tomb.
Reply to Objection 2: By the expression "bars of hell" are understood
the obstacles which kept the holy Fathers from quitting hell, through
the guilt of our first parent's sin; and these bars Christ burst
asunder by the power of His Passion on descending into hell:
nevertheless He chose to remain in hell for some time, for the reason
stated above.
Reply to Objection 3: Our Lord's expression is not to be understood of
the earthly corporeal paradise, but of a spiritual one, in which all
are said to be who enjoy the Divine glory. Accordingly, the thief
descended locally into hell with Christ, because it was said to him:
"This day thou shalt be with Me in paradise"; still as to reward he was
in paradise, because he enjoyed Christ's Godhead just as the other
saints did.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ descending into hell delivered the holy Fathers from thence?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ descending into hell did not
deliver the holy Fathers from thence. For Augustine (Epist. ad Evod.
clxiv) says: "I have not yet discovered what Christ descending into
hell bestowed upon those righteous ones who were in Abraham's bosom,
from whom I fail to see that He ever departed according to the beatific
presence of His Godhead. " But had He delivered them, He would have
bestowed much upon them. Therefore it does not appear that Christ
delivered the holy Fathers from hell.
Objection 2: Further, no one is detained in hell except on account of
sin. But during life the holy Fathers were justified from sin through
faith in Christ. Consequently they did not need to be delivered from
hell on Christ's descent thither.
Objection 3: Further, if you remove the cause, you remove the effect.
But that Christ went down into hell was due to sin which was taken away
by the Passion, as stated above ([4283]Q[49], A[1]). Consequently, the
holy Fathers were not delivered on Christ's descent into hell.
On the contrary, Augustine says in the sermon on the Passion already
quoted that when Christ descended into hell "He broke down the gate and
'iron bars' of hell, setting at liberty all the righteous who were held
fast through original sin. "
I answer that, As stated above (A[4], ad 2), when Christ descended into
hell He worked through the power of His Passion. But through Christ's
Passion the human race was delivered not only from sin, but also from
the debt of its penalty, as stated above (Q[49], AA[1],3). Now men were
held fast by the debt of punishment in two ways: first of all for
actual sin which each had committed personally: secondly, for the sin
of the whole human race, which each one in his origin contracts from
our first parent, as stated in Rom. 5 of which sin the penalty is the
death of the body as well as exclusion from glory, as is evident from
Gn. 2 and 3: because God cast out man from paradise after sin, having
beforehand threatened him with death should he sin. Consequently, when
Christ descended into hell, by the power of His Passion He delivered
the saints from the penalty whereby they were excluded from the life of
glory, so as to be unable to see God in His Essence, wherein man's
beatitude lies, as stated in the [4284]FS, Q[3], A[8]. But the holy
Fathers were detained in hell for the reason, that, owing to our first
parent's sin, the approach to the life of glory was not opened. And so
when Christ descended into hell He delivered the holy Fathers from
thence. And this is what is written Zech. 9:11: "Thou also by the blood
of Thy testament hast sent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein
is no water. " And (Col. 2:15) it is written that "despoiling the
principalities and powers," i. e. "of hell, by taking out Isaac and
Jacob, and the other just souls," "He led them," i. e. "He brought them
far from this kingdom of darkness into heaven," as the gloss explains.
Reply to Objection 1: Augustine is speaking there against such as
maintained that the righteous of old were subject to penal sufferings
before Christ's descent into hell. Hence shortly before the passage
quoted he says: "Some add that this benefit was also bestowed upon the
saints of old, that on the Lord's coming into hell they were freed from
their sufferings. But I fail to see how Abraham, into whose bosom the
poor man was received, was ever in such sufferings. " Consequently, when
he afterwards adds that "he had not yet discovered what Christ's
descent into hell had brought to the righteous of old," this must be
understood as to their being freed from penal sufferings. Yet Christ
bestowed something upon them as to their attaining glory: and in
consequence He dispelled the suffering which they endured through their
glory being delayed: still they had great joy from the very hope
thereof, according to Jn. 8:56: "Abraham your father rejoiced that he
might see my day. " And therefore he adds: "I fail to see that He ever
departed, according to the beatific presence of His Godhead," that is,
inasmuch as even before Christ's coming they were happy in hope,
although not yet fully happy in fact.
Reply to Objection 2: The holy Fathers while yet living were delivered
from original as well as actual sin through faith in Christ; also from
the penalty of actual sins, but not from the penalty of original sin,
whereby they were excluded from glory, since the price of man's
redemption was not yet paid: just as the faithful are now delivered by
baptism from the penalty of actual sins, and from the penalty of
original sin as to exclusion from glory, yet still remain bound by the
penalty of original sin as to the necessity of dying in the body
because they are renewed in the spirit, but not yet in the flesh,
according to Rom. 8:10: "The body indeed is dead, because of sin; but
the spirit liveth, because of justification. "
Reply to Objection 3: Directly Christ died His soul went down into
hell, and bestowed the fruits of His Passion on the saints detained
there; although they did not go out as long as Christ remained in hell,
because His presence was part of the fulness of their glory.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ delivered any of the lost from hell?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did deliver some of the lost
from hell, because it is written (Is. 24:22): "And they shall be
gathered together as in the gathering of one bundle into the pit, end
they shall be shut up there in prison: and after many days they shall
be visited. " But there he is speaking of the lost, who "had adored the
host of heaven," according to Jerome's commentary. Consequently it
seems that even the lost were visited at Christ's descent into hell;
and this seems to imply their deliverance.
Objection 2: Further, on Zech. 9:11: "Thou also by the blood of Thy
testament hast sent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no
water," the gloss observes: "Thou hast delivered them who were held
bound in prisons, where no mercy refreshed them, which that rich man
prayed for. " But only the lost are shut up in merciless prisons.
Therefore Christ did deliver some from the hell of the lost.
Objection 3: Further, Christ's power was not less in hell than in this
world, because He worked in every place by the power of His Godhead.
But in this world He delivered some persons of every state. Therefore,
in hell also, He delivered some from the state of the lost.
On the contrary, It is written (Osee 13:14): "O death, I will be thy
death; O hell, I will be thy bite": upon which the gloss says: "By
leading forth the elect, and leaving there the reprobate. " But only the
reprobate are in the hell of the lost. Therefore, by Christ's descent
into hell none were delivered from the hell of the lost.
I answer that, As stated above [4285](A[5]), when Christ descended into
hell He worked by the power of His Passion. Consequently, His descent
into hell brought the fruits of deliverance to them only who were
united to His Passion through faith quickened by charity, whereby sins
are taken away. Now those detained in the hell of the lost either had
no faith in Christ's Passion, as infidels; or if they had faith, they
had no conformity with the charity of the suffering Christ: hence they
could not be cleansed from their sins. And on this account Christ's
descent into hell brought them no deliverance from the debt of
punishment in hell.
Reply to Objection 1: When Christ descended into hell, all who were in
any part of hell were visited in some respect: some to their
consolation and deliverance, others, namely, the lost, to their shame
and confusion. Accordingly the passage continues: "And the moon shall
blush, and the sun be put to shame," etc.
This can also be referred to the visitation which will come upon them
in the Day of Judgment, not for their deliverance, but for their yet
greater confusion, according to Sophon. i, 12: "I will visit upon the
men that are settled on their lees. "
Reply to Objection 2: When the gloss says "where no mercy refreshed
them," this is to be understood of the refreshing of full deliverance,
because the holy Fathers could not be delivered from this prison of
hell before Christ's coming.
Reply to Objection 3: It was not due to any lack of power on Christ's
part that some were not delivered from every state in hell, as out of
every state among men in this world; but it was owing to the very
different condition of each state. For, so long as men live here below,
they can be converted to faith and charity, because in this life men
are not confirmed either in good or in evil, as they are after quitting
this life.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the children who died in original sin were delivered by Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that the children who died in original sin
were delivered from hell by Christ's descending thither. For, like the
holy Fathers, the children were kept in hell simply because of original
sin. But the holy Fathers were delivered from hell, as stated above
[4286](A[5]). Therefore the children were similarly delivered from hell
by Christ.
Objection 2: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 5:15): "If by the offense
of one, many died; much more the grace of God and the gift, by the
grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. " But the
children who die with none but original sin are detained in hell owing
to their first parent's sin. Therefore, much more were they delivered
from hell through the grace of Christ.
Objection 3: Further, as Baptism works in virtue of Christ's Passion,
so also does Christ's descent into hell, as is clear from what has been
said (A[4], ad 2, AA[5],6). But through Baptism children are delivered
from original sin and hell. Therefore, they were similarly delivered by
Christ's descent into hell.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rom. 3:25): "God hath proposed
Christ to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood. " But the
children who had died with only original sin were in no wise sharers of
faith in Christ. Therefore, they did not receive the fruits of Christ's
propitiation, so as to be delivered by Him from hell.
I answer that, As stated above [4287](A[6]), Christ's descent into hell
had its effect of deliverance on them only who through faith and
charity were united to Christ's Passion, in virtue whereof Christ's
descent into hell was one of deliverance. But the children who had died
in original sin were in no way united to Christ's Passion by faith and
love: for, not having the use of free will, they could have no faith of
their own; nor were they cleansed from original sin either by their
parents' faith or by any sacrament of faith. Consequently, Christ's
descent into hell did not deliver the children from thence. And
furthermore, the holy Fathers were delivered from hell by being
admitted to the glory of the vision of God, to which no one can come
except through grace; according to Rom. 6:23: "The grace of God is life
everlasting. " Therefore, since children dying in original sin had no
grace, they were not delivered from hell.
Reply to Objection 1: The holy Fathers, although still held bound by
the debt of original sin, in so far as it touches human nature, were
nevertheless delivered from all stain of sin by faith in Christ:
consequently, they were capable of that deliverance which Christ
brought by descending into hell. But the same cannot be said of the
children, as is evident from what was said above.
Reply to Objection 2: When the Apostle says that the grace of God "hath
abounded unto many," the word "many" [*The Vulgate reads 'plures,' i. e.
