No More Learning

(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.
'many more'] is to be taken, not comparatively, as if more were saved
by Christ's grace than lost by Adam's sin: but absolutely, as if he
said that the grace of the one Christ abounded unto many, just as
Adam's sin was contracted by many. But as Adam's sin was contracted by
those only who descended seminally from him according to the flesh, so
Christ's grace reached those only who became His members by spiritual
regeneration: which does not apply to children dying in original sin.

Reply to Objection 3: Baptism is applied to men in this life, in which
man's state can be changed from sin into grace: but Christ's descent
into hell was vouchsafed to the souls after this life when they are no
longer capable of the said change. And consequently by baptism children
are delivered from original sin and from hell, but not by Christ's
descent into hell.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ by His descent into hell delivered souls from purgatory?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ by His descent into hell
delivered souls from Purgatory---for Augustine says (Ep. ad Evod.
clxiv): "Because evident testimonies speak of hell and its pains, there
is no reason for believing that the Saviour came thither except to
rescue men from those same pains: but I still wish to know whether it
was all whom He found there, or some whom He deemed worthy of such a
benefit. Yet I do not doubt that Christ went into hell, and granted
this favor to them who were suffering from its pains. " But, as stated
above [4288](A[6]), He did not confer the benefit of deliverance upon
the lost: and there are no others in a state of penal suffering except
those in Purgatory. Consequently Christ delivered souls from Purgatory.

Objection 2: Further, the very presence of Christ's soul had no less
effect than His sacraments have. But souls are delivered from Purgatory
by the sacraments, especially by the sacrament of the Eucharist, as
shall be shown later ([4289]XP, Q[71], A[9]). Therefore much more were
souls delivered from Purgatory by the presence of Christ descending
into hell.

Objection 3: Further, as Augustine says (De Poenit. ix), those whom
Christ healed in this life He healed completely. Also, our Lord says
(Jn. 7:23): "I have healed the whole man on the sabbath-day. " But
Christ delivered them who were in Purgatory from the punishment of the
pain of loss, whereby they were excluded from glory. Therefore, He also
delivered them from the punishment of Purgatory.

On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xiii): "Since our Creator and
Redeemer, penetrating the bars of hell, brought out from thence the
souls of the elect, He does not permit us to go thither, from whence He
has already by descending set others free. " But He permits us to go to
Purgatory. Therefore, by descending into hell, He did not deliver souls
from Purgatory.

I answer that, As we have stated more than once (A[4], ad 2,
AA[5],6,7), Christ's descent into hell was one of deliverance in virtue
of His Passion. Now Christ's Passion had a virtue which was neither
temporal nor transitory, but everlasting, according to Heb. 10:14: "For
by one oblation He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. "
And so it is evident that Christ's Passion had no greater efficacy then
than it has now. Consequently, they who were such as those who are now
in Purgatory, were not set free from Purgatory by Christ's descent into
hell. But if any were found such as are now set free from Purgatory by
virtue of Christ's Passion, then there was nothing to hinder them from
being delivered from Purgatory by Christ's descent into hell.

Reply to Objection 1: From this passage of Augustine it cannot be
concluded that all who were in Purgatory were delivered from it, but
that such a benefit was bestowed upon some persons, that is to say,
upon such as were already cleansed sufficiently, or who in life, by
their faith and devotion towards Christ's death, so merited, that when
He descended, they were delivered from the temporal punishment of
Purgatory.

Reply to Objection 2: Christ's power operates in the sacraments by way
of healing and expiation. Consequently, the sacrament of the Eucharist
delivers men from Purgatory inasmuch as it is a satisfactory sacrifice
for sin. But Christ's descent into hell was not satisfactory; yet it
operated in virtue of the Passion, which was satisfactory, as stated
above ([4290]Q[48], A[2]), but satisfactory in general, since its
virtue had to be applied to each individual by something specially
personal ([4291]Q[49], A[1], ad 4,5). Consequently, it does not follow
of necessity that all were delivered from Purgatory by Christ's descent
into hell.

Reply to Objection 3: Those defects from which Christ altogether
delivered men in this world were purely personal, and concerned the
individual; whereas exclusion from God's glory was a general defect and
common to all human nature. Consequently, there was nothing to prevent
those detained in Purgatory being delivered by Christ from their
privation of glory, but not from the debt of punishment in Purgatory
which pertains to personal defect. Just as on the other hand, the holy
Fathers before Christ's coming were delivered from their personal
defects, but not from the common defect, as was stated above (A[7], ad
1;[4292] Q[49], A[5], ad 1).
__________________________________________________________________

OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION (FOUR ARTICLES)

We have now to consider those things that concern Christ's Exaltation;
and we shall deal with (1) His Resurrection; (2) His Ascension; (3) His
sitting at the right hand of God the Father; (4) His Judiciary Power.
Under the first heading there is a fourfold consideration: (1) Christ's
Resurrection in itself; (2) the quality of the Person rising; (3) the
manifestation of the Resurrection; (4) its causality. Concerning the
first there are four points of inquiry:

(1) The necessity of His Resurrection;

(2) The time of the Resurrection;

(3) Its order;

(4) Its cause.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether it was necessary for Christ to rise again?

Objection 1: It would seem that it was not necessary for Christ to rise
again. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): "Resurrection is the
rising again of an animate being, which was disintegrated and fallen. "
But Christ did not fall by sinning, nor was His body dissolved, as is
manifest from what was stated above ([4293]Q[51], A[3]). Therefore, it
does not properly belong to Him to rise again.

Objection 2: Further, whoever rises again is promoted to a higher
state, since to rise is to be uplifted. But after death Christ's body
continued to be united with the Godhead, hence it could not be uplifted
to any higher condition. Therefore, it was not due to it to rise again.

Objection 3: Further, all that befell Christ's humanity was ordained
for our salvation. But Christ's Passion sufficed for our salvation,
since by it we were loosed from guilt and punishment, as is clear from
what was said above ([4294]Q[49], A[1],3). Consequently, it was not
necessary for Christ to rise again from the dead.

On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 24:46): "It behooved Christ to
suffer and to rise again from the dead. "

I answer that, It behooved Christ to rise again, for five reasons.
First of all; for the commendation of Divine Justice, to which it
belongs to exalt them who humble themselves for God's sake, according
to Lk. 1:52: "He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath
exalted the humble. " Consequently, because Christ humbled Himself even
to the death of the Cross, from love and obedience to God, it behooved
Him to be uplifted by God to a glorious resurrection; hence it is said
in His Person (Ps. 138:2): "Thou hast known," i. e. approved, "my
sitting down," i. e. My humiliation and Passion, "and my rising up,"
i. e. My glorification in the resurrection; as the gloss expounds.

Secondly, for our instruction in the faith, since our belief in
Christ's Godhead is confirmed by His rising again, because, according
to 2 Cor. 13:4, "although He was crucified through weakness, yet He
liveth by the power of God. " And therefore it is written (1 Cor.
15:14): "If Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and
our [Vulg. : 'your'] faith is also vain": and (Ps. 29:10): "What profit
is there in my blood? " that is, in the shedding of My blood, "while I
go down," as by various degrees of evils, "into corruption? " As though
He were to answer: "None. 'For if I do not at once rise again but My
body be corrupted, I shall preach to no one, I shall gain no one,'" as
the gloss expounds.

Thirdly, for the raising of our hope, since through seeing Christ, who
is our head, rise again, we hope that we likewise shall rise again.
Hence it is written (1 Cor. 15:12): "Now if Christ be preached that He
rose from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no
resurrection of the dead? " And (Job 19:25, 27): "I know," that is with
certainty of faith, "that my Redeemer," i. e. Christ, "liveth," having
risen from the dead; "and" therefore "in the last day I shall rise out
of the earth . . . this my hope is laid up in my bosom. "

Fourthly, to set in order the lives of the faithful: according to Rom.
6:4: "As Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so
we also may walk in newness of life": and further on; "Christ rising
from the dead dieth now no more; so do you also reckon that you are
dead to sin, but alive to God. "

Fifthly, in order to complete the work of our salvation: because, just
as for this reason did He endure evil things in dying that He might
deliver us from evil, so was He glorified in rising again in order to
advance us towards good things; according to Rom. 4:25: "He was
delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification. "

Reply to Objection 1: Although Christ did not fall by sin, yet He fell
by death, because as sin is a fall from righteousness, so death is a
fall from life: hence the words of Mic. 7:8 can be taken as though
spoken by Christ: "Rejoice not thou, my enemy, over me, because I am
fallen: I shall rise again. " Likewise, although Christ's body was not
disintegrated by returning to dust, yet the separation of His soul and
body was a kind of disintegration.

Reply to Objection 2: The Godhead was united with Christ's flesh after
death by personal union, but not by natural union; thus the soul is
united with the body as its form, so as to constitute human nature.
Consequently, by the union of the body and soul, the body was uplifted
to a higher condition of nature, but not to a higher personal state.

Reply to Objection 3: Christ's Passion wrought our salvation, properly
speaking, by removing evils; but the Resurrection did so as the
beginning and exemplar of all good things.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether it was fitting for Christ to rise again on the third day?

Objection 1: It would seem unfitting that Christ should have risen
again on the third day. For the members ought to be in conformity with
their head. But we who are His members do not rise from death on the
third day, since our rising is put off until the end of the world.
Therefore, it seems that Christ, who is our head, should not have risen
on the third day, but that His Resurrection ought to have been deferred
until the end of the world.

Objection 2: Further, Peter said (Acts 2:24) that "it was impossible
for Christ to be held fast by hell" and death. Therefore it seems that
Christ's rising ought not to have been deferred until the third day,
but that He ought to have risen at once on the same day; especially
since the gloss quoted above [4295](A[1]) says that "there is no profit
in the shedding of Christ's blood, if He did not rise at once. "

Objection 3: The day seems to start with the rising of the sun, the
presence of which causes the day. But Christ rose before sunrise: for
it is related (Jn. 20:1) that "Mary Magdalen cometh early, when it was
yet dark, unto the sepulchre": but Christ was already risen, for it
goes on to say: "And she saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre. "
Therefore Christ did not rise on the third day.

On the contrary, It is written (Mat. 20:19): "They shall deliver Him to
the Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified, and the third
day He shall rise again. "

I answer that, As stated above [4296](A[1]) Christ's Resurrection was
necessary for the instruction of our faith. But our faith regards
Christ's Godhead and humanity, for it is not enough to believe the one
without the other, as is evident from what has been said (Q[36], A[4];
cf. [4297]SS, Q[2], AA[7],8). Consequently, in order that our faith in
the truth of His Godhead might be confirmed it was necessary that He
should rise speedily, and that His Resurrection should not be deferred
until the end of the world. But to confirm our faith regarding the
truth of His humanity and death, it was needful that there should be
some interval between His death and rising. For if He had risen
directly after death, it might seem that His death was not genuine and
consequently neither would His Resurrection be true. But to establish
the truth of Christ's death, it was enough for His rising to be
deferred until the third day, for within that time some signs of life
always appear in one who appears to be dead whereas he is alive.

Furthermore, by His rising on the third day, the perfection of the
number "three" is commended, which is "the number of everything," as
having "beginning, middle, and end," as is said in De Coelo i. Again in
the mystical sense we are taught that Christ by "His one death" (i. e.
of the body) which was light, by reason of His righteousness,
"destroyed our two deaths" (i. e. of soul and body), which are as
darkness on account of sin; consequently, He remained in death for one
day and two nights, as Augustine observes (De Trin. iv).

And thereby is also signified that a third epoch began with the
Resurrection: for the first was before the Law; the second under the
Law; and the third under grace. Moreover the third state of the saints
began with the Resurrection of Christ: for, the first was under figures
of the Law; the second under the truth of faith; while the third will
be in the eternity of glory, which Christ inaugurated by rising again.

Reply to Objection 1: The head and members are likened in nature, but
not in power; because the power of the head is more excellent than that
of the members. Accordingly, to show forth the excellence of Christ's
power, it was fitting that He should rise on the third day, while the
resurrection of the rest is put off until the end of the world.

Reply to Objection 2: Detention implies a certain compulsion. But
Christ was not held fast by any necessity of death, but was "free among
the dead": and therefore He abode a while in death, not as one held
fast, but of His own will, just so long as He deemed necessary for the
instruction of our faith. And a task is said to be done "at once" which
is performed within a short space of time.

Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([4298]Q[51], A[4], ad 1,2),
Christ rose early when the day was beginning to dawn, to denote that by
His Resurrection He brought us to the light of glory; just as He died
when the day was drawing to its close, and nearing to darkness, in
order to signify that by His death He would destroy the darkness of sin
and its punishment. Nevertheless He is said to have risen on the third
day, taking day as a natural day which contains twenty-four hours. And
as Augustine says (De Trin. iv): "The night until the dawn, when the
Lord's Resurrection was proclaimed, belongs to the third day. Because
God, who made the light to shine forth from darkness, in order that by
the grace of the New Testament and partaking of Christ's rising we
might hear this---'once ye were darkness, but now light in the
Lord'---insinuates in a measure to us that day draws its origin from
night: for, as the first days are computed from light to darkness on
account of man's coming fall, so these days are reckoned from darkness
to light owing to man's restoration. " And so it is evident that even if
He had risen at midnight, He could be said to have risen on the third
day, taking it as a natural day. But now that He rose early, it can be
affirmed that He rose on the third day, even taking the artificial day
which is caused by the sun's presence, because the sun had already
begun to brighten the sky. Hence it is written (Mk. 16:2) that "the
women come to the sepulchre, the sun being now risen"; which is not
contrary to John's statement "when it was yet dark," as Augustine says
(De Cons. Evang. iii), "because, as the day advances the more the light
rises, the more are the remaining shadows dispelled. " But when Mark
says "'the sun being now risen,' it is not to be taken as if the sun
were already apparent over the horizon, but as coming presently into
those parts. "
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ was the first to rise from the dead?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was not the first to rise from
the dead, because we read in the Old Testament of some persons raised
to life by Elias and Eliseus, according to Heb. 11:35: "Women received
their dead raised to life again": also Christ before His Passion raised
three dead persons to life. Therefore Christ was not the first to rise
from the dead.

Objection 2: Further, among the other miracles which happened during
the Passion, it is narrated (Mat. 27:52) that "the monuments were
opened, and many bodies of the saints who had slept rose again. "
Therefore Christ was not the first to rise from the dead.

Objection 3: Further, as Christ by His own rising is the cause of our
resurrection, so by His grace He is the cause of our grace, according
to Jn. 1:16: "Of His fulness we all have received. " But in point of
time some others had grace previous to Christ---for instance all the
fathers of the Old Testament. Therefore some others came to the
resurrection of the body before Christ.

On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor. 15:20): "Christ is risen from
the dead, the first fruits of them that sleep---because," says the
gloss, "He rose first in point of time and dignity. "

I answer that, Resurrection is a restoring from death to life. Now a
man is snatched from death in two ways: first of all, from actual
death, so that he begins in any way to live anew after being actually
dead: in another way, so that he is not only rescued from death, but
from the necessity, nay more, from the possibility of dying again.