Respondeo dicendum quod animae hominum post mortem ad quietem pervenire non possunt nisi merito fidei: quia accedentem ad Deum oportet credere, Heb. 11, [6]. Primum autem exemplum credendi hominibus in Abraham datur, qui primo se a coetu infidelium segregavit, et speciale signum fidei accepit. Et ideo requies illa quae hominibus post mortem datur, sinus Abrahae dicitur: ut patet per Augustinum, XII super Genesis ad litteram. I answer that, After death men’s souls cannot find rest save by the merit of faith, because he that comes to God must believe (Heb 11:6). Now the first example of faith was given to men in the person of Abraham, who was the first to sever himself from the body of unbelievers, and to receive a special sign of faith: for which reason the place of rest given to men after death is called Abraham’s bosom, as Augustine declares (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis 12). Sed animae sanctorum post mortem non omni tempore eandem quietem habuerunt. Quia post Christi adventum habent plenam quietem, divina visione perfruentes. Sed ante Christi adventum habebant quietem per immunitatem poenae, sed non habebant quietem desiderii per consecutionem finis. Et ideo status sanctorum ante Christi adventum potest considerari, et secundum id quod habebat de requie, et sic dicitur sinus Abrahae: potest etiam considerari quantum ad id quod eis deerat de requie, et sic dicitur limbus inferni. But the souls of the saints have not at all times had the same rest after death; because since Christ’s coming they have had complete rest through enjoying the vision of God, whereas before Christ’s coming they had rest through being exempt from punishment, but their desire was not set at rest by their attaining their end. Consequently, the state of the saints before Christ’s coming may be considered both as regards the rest it afforded, and thus it is called Abraham’s bosom, and as regards its lack of rest, and thus it is called the limbo of hell. Limbus ergo inferni et sinus Abrahae fuerunt ante Christi adventum unum per accidens, et non per se. Et ideo nihil prohibet post Christi adventum esse sinum Abrahae omnino diversum a limbo: quia ea quae sunt per accidens, separari contingit. Accordingly, before Christ’s coming the limbo of hell and Abraham’s bosom were one place accidentally and not essentially: and consequently, nothing prevents Abraham’s bosom from remaining after Christ’s coming and from being altogether distinct from limbo, since things that are one accidentally may be parted from one another. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quantum ad id quod habebat de bono, status sanctorum patrum sinus Abrahae dicebatur. Sed quantum ad id quod habebat de defectu, dicebatur infernus. Et sic nec sinus Abrahae in malum accipitur, nec infernus in bonum, quamvis quodammodo sint unum. Reply Obj. 1: The state of the holy fathers as regards what was good in it was called Abraham’s bosom, but as regards its deficiencies it was called hell. Accordingly, neither is Abraham’s bosom taken in an unfavorable sense nor hell in a favorable sense, although in a way they are one. Ad secundum dicandum quod, sicut requies sanctorum patrum ante Christi adventum dicebatur sinus Abrahae, ita et post Christi adventum: sed diversimode. Quia enim ante Christi adventum sanctorum requies habebat defectum requiei adiunctum, dicebatur idem infernus et sinus Abrahae, inquantum ibi non videbatur Deus. Sed quia post Christi adventum sanctorum requies est completa, cum Deum videant, talis requies dicitur sinus Abrahae, et nullo modo infernus. Et ad hunc sinum Abrahae Ecclesia orat fideles perduci. Reply Obj. 2: The place of rest of the holy fathers was called Abraham’s bosom before as well as after Christ’s coming, but in different ways. For since before Christ’s coming the saints’ rest had a lack of rest attached to it, it was called both hell and Abraham’s bosom, wherefore God was not seen there. But since after the coming of Christ the saints’ rest is complete through their seeing God, this rest is called Abraham’s bosom, but not hell by any means. It is to this bosom of Abraham that the Church prays for the faithful to be brought. Unde patet responsio ad tertium. Et sic etiam intelligenda est quaedam glossa quae habetur Luc. 16, super illud [v. 22], factum est ut moreretur mendicus etc., quae sic dicit: sinus Abrahae est requies beatorum pauperum, quorum est regnum caelorum. Hence the reply to the third objection is evident: and the same meaning applies to a Gloss on Luke 16:22: it came to pass that the beggar died, which says, Abraham’s bosom is the rest of the blessed poor, whose is the kingdom of heaven. Articulus 5 Article 5 Utrum limbus sit idem quod infernus damnatorum Whether limbo is the same as the hell of the damned? Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod limbus sit idem quod infernus damnatorum. Christus enim dicitur infernum momordisse, non absorbuisse, quia aliquos inde extraxit, non autem omnes. Non autem diceretur momordisse infernum si illi quos liberavit non fuissent pars multitudinis in inferno contentae. Ergo, cum illi quos liberavit in limbo inferni continerentur, iidem continebantur in limbo et inferno. Ergo limbus vel est idem quod infernus, vel pars inferni. Objection 1: It would seem that the limbo of hell is the same as the hell of the damned. For Christ is said to have bitten hell, but not to have swallowed it, because he took some from it but not all. Now he would not be said to have bitten hell if those whom he set free were not part of the multitude shut up in hell. Therefore, since those whom he set free were shut up in hell, the same were shut up in limbo and in hell. Therefore, limbo is either the same as hell, or is a part of hell. Praeterea, Christus dicitur in Symbolo descendisse ad infernum. Sed non descendit nisi ad limbum patrum. Ergo limbus patrum est idem quod infernus. Obj. 2: Further, in the Creed, Christ is said to have descended into hell. But he did not descend save to the limbo of the fathers. Therefore, the limbo of the fathers is the same as hell. Praeterea, Iob 17, [16] dicitur: in profundissimum inferni descendent omnia mea. Sed Iob, cum esset vir sanctus et iustus, ad limbum descendit. Ergo limbus est idem quod profundissimum inferni. Obj. 3: Further, it is written: all that I have shall go down into the deepest hell (Job 17:16). Now since Job was a holy and just man, he went down to limbo. Therefore, limbo is the same as the deepest hell. Sed contra: in inferno nulla est redemptio. Sed a limbo sancti fuerunt redempti. Ergo limbus non est idem quod infernus. On the contrary, In hell there is no redemption (Office of the Dead, Resp. vii). But the saints were redeemed from limbo. Therefore, limbo is not the same as hell. Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, XII super Genesis ad litteram: quomodo illam requiem, quam Lazarus accepit, apud inferos esse credamus, non video. Sed anima Lazari ad limbum descendit. Ergo limbus non est idem quod infernus. Further, Augustine says (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis 12): I do not see how we can believe that the rest which Lazarus received was in hell. Now the soul of Lazarus went down into limbo. Therefore, limbo is not the same as hell. Respondeo dicendum quod receptacula animarum post mortem dupliciter distingui possunt: aut secundum situm; aut secundum locorum qualitatem, prout scilicet in aliquibus locis poenas vel praemia recipiunt animae. Si ergo consideretur limbus patrum et infernus secundum locorum qualitatem praedictam, sic non est dubium quod distinguuntur. Tum quia in inferno est poena sensibilis, quae non erat in limbo patrum. Tum etiam quia in inferno est poena aeterna: sed in limbo patrum detinebantur sancti temporaliter tantum. I answer that, The abodes of souls after death may be distinguished in two ways: either as to their situation, or as to the quality of the places, inasmuch as souls are punished or rewarded in certain places. Accordingly, if we consider the limbo of the fathers and hell in respect of the aforesaid quality of the places, there is no doubt that they are distinct, both because in hell there is sensible punishment, which was not in the limbo of the fathers, and because in hell there is eternal punishment, whereas the saints were detained but temporally in the limbo of the fathers. Sed si considerentur quantum ad situm loci, sic probabile est quod idem locus, vel quasi continuus, sit infernus et limbus: ita tamen quod quaedam superior: pars inferni limbus patrum dicatur. Existentes enim in inferno secundum diversitatem culpae diversam sortiuntur et poenam. Et ideo secundum quod gravioribus peccatis etiam irretiuntur damnati, secundum hoc obscuriorem locum et profundiorem obtinent in inferno. Unde et sancti patres, in quibus minimum erat de ratione culpae, supremum et minus tenebrosum locum habuerunt omnibus puniendis. On the other hand, if we consider them as to the situation of the place, it is probable that hell and limbo are the same place, or that they are continuous, as it were, yet so that some higher part of hell be called the limbo of the fathers. For those who are in hell receive diverse punishments according to the diversity of their guilt, so that those who are condemned are consigned to darker and deeper parts of hell according as they have been guilty of graver sins. And consequently, the holy fathers in whom there was the least amount of sin were consigned to a higher and less dark part than all those who were condemned to punishment. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod secundum hoc quod infernus et limbus sunt idem quantum ad situm, dicitur Christus infernum momordisse, et in infernum descendisse, quando patres a limbo eripuit suo descensu. Reply Obj. 1: When Christ, by his descent, delivered the fathers from limbo, he is said to have bitten hell and to have descended into hell insofar as hell and limbo are the same as to situation. Et per hoc patet solutio ad secundum. This suffices for the reply to the second objection. Ad tertium dicendum quod Iob non descendit in infernum damnatorum, sed in limbum patrum. Qui quidem dicitur profundissimus locus, non quidem respectu locorum poenalium, sed in comparatione ad alia loca, secundum quod sub eodem includitur omnis locus poenarum. Reply Obj. 3: Job descended not to the hell of the damned, but to the limbo of the fathers. The latter is called the deepest place not in reference to the places of punishment, but in comparison with other places, as including all penal places under one head. Vel dicendum, sicut Augustinus solvit, XII super Genesis ad litteram, de Iacob, sic dicens: illud quod dicit Iacob ad filios suos, Deducetis senectutem meam cum tristitia ad inferos: videtur hoc magis timuisse, ne nimia tristitia sic perturbaretur ut ad requiem beatorum non iret, sed ad inferos peccatorum. Et similiter potest exponi verbum Iob, eadem ratione, ut sit verbum magis timentis quam asserentis. Or we may reply with Augustine (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis 12), who says of Jacob: when Jacob said to his sons, “You will bring down my grey hairs with sorrow to hell,” he seems to have feared most lest he should be troubled with so great a sorrow as to obtain, not the rest of good men, but the hell of sinners. The saying of Job may be expounded in the same way, as being the utterance of one in fear, rather than an assertion. Articulus 6 Article 6 Utrum limbus puerorum sit idem quod limbus Patrum Whether the limbo of children is the same as the limbo of the fathers? Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod limbus puerorum sit idem quod limbus patrum. Poena enim debet respondere culpae. Sed pro eadem culpa detinebantur in limbo patres et pueri, scilicet pro culpa originali. Ergo idem debet esse utrorumque locus poenae. Objection 1: It would seem that the limbo of children is the same as the limbo of the fathers. For punishment should correspond to sin. Now the fathers were detained in limbo for the same sin as children, namely, for original sin. Therefore, the place of punishment should be the same for both. Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in Enchirid. mitissima est poena puerorum, qui cum solo originali decedunt. Sed nulla est poena mitior ea quam sancti patres habebant. Ergo idem est locus poenae utrorumque. Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 93): the punishment of children who die in none but original sin is most lenient. But no punishment is more lenient than that of the holy fathers. Therefore, the place of punishment is the same for both. Sed contra, sicut actuali peccato debetur poena temporalis in purgatorio et aeterna in inferno, ita et originali peccato debebatur poena temporalis in limbo patrum, et aeterna in limbo puerorum. Si ergo infernus et purgatorium non sunt idem, videtur quod nec limbus puerorum et limbus patrum sint idem. On the contrary, Even as temporal punishment in purgatory and eternal punishment in hell are due to actual sin, so temporal punishment in the limbo of the fathers and eternal punishment in the limbo of the children were due to original sin. If, therefore, hell and purgatory be not the same, it would seem that neither are the limbo of children and the limbo of the fathers the same. Utrum autem infernus et purgatorii locus sint idem, quaesitum est supra dist. 21. Whether the place of hell and purgatory are the same is answered above (A. 5). Respondeo dicendum quod limbus patrum et limbus puerorum absque dubio differunt secundum qualitatem praemii vel poenae: pueris enim non adest spes beatae vitae, quae patribus in limbo aderat, in quibus etiam lumen fidei et gratiae refulgebat. Sed quantum ad situm probabiliter creditur utrorumque locus idem fuisse: nisi quod requies beatorum adhuc erat in superiori loco quam limbus puerorum, sicut de limbo et inferno dictum est. I answer that, The limbo of the fathers and the limbo of children, without any doubt, differ as to the quality of punishment or reward. For children have no hope of the blessed life, as the fathers in limbo had, in whom, moreover, shone forth the light of faith and grace. But as regards their situation, there is reason to believe that the place of both is the same; except that the limbo of the fathers is placed higher than the limbo of children, just as we have stated in reference to limbo and hell (A. 5). Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ad culpam originalem non eodem modo se habebant patres et pueri. In patribus enim originalis culpa expiata est secundum quod erat infectiva personae, remanebat tamen impedimentum ex parte naturae, pro qua nondum erat satisfactum plenarie. Sed in pueris est impedimentum et ex parte personae et ex parte naturae. Et ideo pueris et patribus: diversa receptacula assignantur. Reply Obj. 1: The fathers did not stand in the same relation to original sin as children. For in the fathers original sin was expiated insofar as it infected the person, while there remained an obstacle on the part of nature, on account of which their satisfaction was not yet complete. On the other hand, in children there is an obstacle both on the part of the person and on the part of nature: and for this reason different abodes are appointed to the fathers and to children. Ad secundum dicendum quod Augustinus loquitur de poenis quae debentur alicui ratione personae suae, inter quos mitissimam poenam habent qui solo originali peccato gravantur. Sed adhuc est mitior poena eorum quos non impedit a perceptione gloriae defectus personae, sed solum defectus naturae: ut ipsa dilatio gloriae quaedam poena dicatur. Reply Obj. 2: Augustine is speaking of punishments due to some one by reason of his person. Of these the most lenient are due to those who are burdened with none but original sin. But lighter still is the punishment due to those who are debarred from the reception of glory by no personal defect but only by a defect of nature, so that this very delay of glory is called a kind of punishment. Articulus 7 Article 7 Utrum debeant tot receptacula distingui Whether so many abodes should be distinguished? Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non debeant tot receptacula distingui. Sicut enim receptacula debentur animabus pro peccato post mortem, ita et pro merito. Sed ratione meriti non debetur nisi unum tantum receptaculum, scilicet paradisus. Ergo nec ratione peccatorum debetur nisi unum receptaculum. Objection 1: It would seem that we should not distinguish so many abodes. For after death, just as abodes are due to souls on account of sin, so are they due on account of merit. Now there is only one abode due on account of merit, namely paradise. Therefore, neither should there be more than one abode due on account of sin. Praeterea, receptacula assignantur animabus post mortem ratione meritorum vel demeritorum. Sed unus est locus in quo merentur vel demerentur. Ergo unum tantum receptaculum deberet eis assignari post mortem. Obj. 2: Further, abodes are appointed to souls after death on account of merits or demerits. Now there is one place where they merit or demerit. Therefore, only one abode should be assigned to them after death. Praeterea, loca poenalia debent respondere ipsis culpis. Sed non sunt nisi tria genera culparum: scilicet originalis, venialis et mortalis. Ergo non debent esse nisi tria receptacula poenalia. Obj. 3: Further, the places of punishment should correspond to the sins. Now there are only three kinds of sin: original, venial, and mortal. Therefore, there should only be three penal abodes. Sed contra: Videtur quod debeant esse multo plura quam assignentur. Aer enim iste caliginosus est daemonum carcer, ut patet II Petri 2, [4]. Nec tamen computatur inter quinque receptacula quae a quibusdam assignantur. Ergo sunt plura receptacula quam quinque. Obj. 4: On the other hand, it would seem that there should be many more than those assigned. For this darkened air is the prison house of the demons (2 Pet 2:17), and yet it is not reckoned among the five abodes which are mentioned by certain authors. Therefore, there are more than five abodes. Praeterea, alius est paradisus terrestris, et alius paradisus caelestis. Sed quidam post statum huius vitae ad paradisum terrestrem sunt translati: sicut de Henoch et de Elia dicitur. Cum ergo paradisus terrestris inter quinque receptacula non computetur, videtur quod sint plura quam quinque. Obj. 5: Further, the earthly paradise is distinct from the heavenly paradise. Now some were borne away to the earthly paradise after this state of life, as is related of Enoch and Elijah. Since, then, the earthly paradise is not counted among the five abodes, it would seem that there are more than five. Praeterea, cuilibet statui peccantium debet aliquis locus poenalis respondere. Sed si ponatur aliquis in originali decedere cum solo veniali peccato, nullum receptaculorum assignatorum ei competeret. Constat enim quod in paradiso non esset: cum gratia careret. Et eadem ratione nec in limbo patrum. Similiter etiam nec in limbo puerorum: cum in ipso non sit poena sensibilis, quae tali debetur ratione venialis peccati. Similiter nec in purgatorio: quia ibi non est nisi poena temporalis, huic autem debetur poena perpetua. Similiter autem nec in inferno damnatorum: quia mortali peccato caret. Ergo Oportet sextum receptaculum assignare. Obj. 6: Further, some penal place should correspond to each state of sinners. Now if we suppose a person to die in original sin who has committed only venial sins, none of the assigned abodes will be befitting to him. For it is clear that he would not be in heaven, since he would be without grace, and for the same reason neither would he be in the limbo of the fathers; nor again would he be in the limbo of children, since there is no sensible punishment there, which is due to such a person by reason of venial sin; nor would he be in purgatory, where there is none but temporal punishment, whereas everlasting punishment is due to him; nor would he be in the hell of the damned, since he is not guilty of actual mortal sin. Therefore, a sixth abode should be assigned.